Honestly, who do McCain/Graham think they're kidding on the subject of our U.N. Ambassador Rice?
Didn't we respectfully avoid dwelling on the mistakes made by General Petraeus?
Do we agree that everyone here is human?
But what about McCain and Graham?

1) "CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes."

2) "...the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence."'

3) "The talking points were reviewed by the head of DNI, before they were given to Susan Rice. An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure.""

4) ""The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.""(Daily Beast)

5) "Several militant groups have been eyed as likely culprits...the lines have blurred between those groups and their members. Ansar al Sharias are popping up in places like Benghazi, but also in Yemen, also in Tunisia, in all these countries -- and they're not al Qaeda, but they are reading from the al Qaeda narrative and they are being influenced by people who are formerly influential extremists in al Qaeda."

CONCLUSION: "The actual truth is, the picture isn't that clear".

But what IS clear is how insultingly transparent are the GOP's motives, with their trumped-up attacks on Ms. Rice. = Get a phony impeachment going if possible. Failing that, undermine Ambassador Rice's career. And hope that Senator Kerry will be nominated for Secretary of State - so giving GOP another Rove/Adelson shot at the Senate.

CBS News report: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-office-of-the-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-and-cia-fbi-signed-off/

Welcome back!

Trust everyone had a wonderful turkey day and no fights over politics broke out at the table!

O, come on now, that was just a practice session for Christmas.

On Talking Points: What about McCain's, on behalf of this nefarious GOP chess game?

1. Politicizing an American tragedy.
2. Dirty points, on what evidence?
3. Failing to attend a closed-door high security hearing. Too busy wailing about lack of information.
4. Slandering our U.N. Ambassador - until private discussions of national security are made public - for McCain's benefit.
5. McCain self-important much?

Our Thanksgiving table was full of Democrats and we still had heated discussions.:-)

Not all Democrats are the same on every issue.

It seems, according to TweedleDee Lindsay Graham, that republicans are focused on entitlement cuts, nothing else, just those evil entitlements. Never mind that the quickest fix to those programs that every worker pays into and has earned is raise the income cap. No, that would be too easy for republicans, and worse, it would VIOLATE THEIR PLEDGE to their King Grover Norquist. Why be concerned about their Oath to the Constitution and to the people in their districts--it's Grover that counts. Can't cut defense spending, oh, no, that would be a disaster so we can look like North Korea with all our money going to build an ever bigger, stronger, faster military while we slash social security, medicare, education, infrastructure and all other things vital to having a strong and powerful United States. Mitt Romney talked about the 47% as being moochers and freeloaders on the wealthy; that is not just Romney's view, that is the view of the GOP. Entitlements, in their selfish and greedy world, are for moochers and freeloaders.

Backhouse, good points.

Members of both parties do agree on one LARGE point -- taxes for the wealthy should go up.

Yes! That is what we voted for, fairness and equity in our economic system. Studies have shown that economic fairness and opportunity is the prescription for economic growth, which benefits everyone.

Contact your representaives in Congress and hold their feet to the fire. It's high time they got off their duffs and started doing what they were elected to do.

The holiday is over.

Entitlements, in their selfish and greedy world, are for moochers and freeloaders.

In the GOPTP world, entitlement is a nasty bad, word. Tell you what GOPTP, how about we take your Cayman Island savings accounts, you know, the one you have been putting into for 40 years, rename it a US deficit reduction entitlement account, call you a moocher and freeloader, then tell you that you will never see it again. Perhaps in a less sinister way, we could simply say you can't withdraw it until you turn 90 years of age.

Folks, that is what the GOPTP want to do with your Social Security and Medicare. Entitlements need reform, but not on the backs of lifetime contributors. Raise the cap on Social Security, increase the monthly deduction on Medicare, and find a way to curb medical costs that have risen 100% over the last 2 decades.

RedDevPS

Entitlements, in their selfish and greedy world, are for moochers and freeloaders.

Minimum wage forces people to be on food stamp programs. This entitlement benefits the employer.

Only in the bizarro world of conservatives, does something YOU have paid into your entire working life become an entitlement...

...and only in the bizarro world of a progressive is paying out from a fund more than you paid in sustainable.

The right wing strategy of "starve the beast" has failed. They did not foresee that entitlements would be funded out of borrowing. We are getting government at a 40% discount where the bill will fall on our decedents (I don't say kids and grand kids because more generations than that will be paying off this mess).

I am all for going over the fiscal cliff and tax rates returning to the Clinton years. I think the DOD should be subject to billions of cuts. Only at that point when people realize that we will STILL be running a $500 Billion deficit will they realize they cannot afford the government they've been promised.

BTW If want a good laugh on how to spend more money we don't have go read some articles in American Prospect.

It's way past time for the Bobsey twins McCain and Graham to give it a rest with Benghazi. Absolutely no one in this country is outraged about it. What this is really about is a way for McCain to vent his undying rage at losing the presidency to Barack Obama. And Lindsey Graham is a senator from a Confederate state, so the bogus Benghazi nontroversy provides him a way to vent the outrage of the white majority in South Carolina over the way the election turned out. The bogus and irrational attacks on Susan Rice over Benghazi provides McCain and Graham a way to avoid admitting what they're REALLY angry about.

Fiscal Curb

From the article above:

The other “fiscal cliff”-related development over the long holiday weekend was that more Republicans said they were willing to break Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes, National Journal writes. “I think Grover is wrong when it comes to ‘We can't cap deductions and buy down debt,’” Lindsey Graham said on ABC.

Is the term “fiscal cliff” one out of Frank Luntz’s Book?

Haven’t we seen these “catchy” phases like this before from the Right-wing media?

The obvious intent is to; once again, invoke fear into the masses brains, to control the masses.

Those who LOVE the Bush tax cuts are the ones who came up with the term

Why not call it Fiscal No Problemo???

Because that is all it is, and the President will do the great job he’s been doing for 3-plus years to resolve the non-issue.

Salud

Joe HAHAHA

As Margaret Thacher said "The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend."

The only problem with unrestrained capitalism is that you run out of people who can afford to buy your products once you've driven them all into poverty.

I am all for going over the fiscal cliff and tax rates returning to the Clinton years. I think the DOD should be subject to billions of cuts.

Glad to know it, Alan...glad to know it.

Can we hold you to that?

Weren't the weekend news/talk shows a comedy routine this weekend. Lindsey Graham has redefined and shown us a new role that is modeled after Jim Carrey's aids activist on In Living Color. Graham, the new hysterical queen over the issue of Benghazi-gate simply wont' stand for it. The poor thing's tongue was so twisted up in a knot, spittle spewed from his mouth every time he tried to say the words 'Rice, Obama, Administration'. The coup d'gras was simply saying the word Benghazi - why the poor souls eyes rolled back in his head, his toes curled, and he would shudder uncontrollably. He showed the world what a full onslaught orgasm on TV looked like.

I would suggest Graham get a hooker-soundproof room with McCain, where they both can play the orgasmic game of uttering and screaming "BENGHAZI", while looking at each other with that fierce, forceful, but tender, Benghazi-gaze. Ya see, while Graham rants and raves about Rice and the Sunday show Benghazi information road show, I'll take that any day over watching the hysterical queen role that Graham played on the Sunday show circuit.

Albany, didn't say there was now did I? I used the term "entitlements" as losely as does the GOP.

RedDev, exactly.

BCWC, Walmart is a classic example of your point. Many Walmart workers receive food stamps, they also qualify for medicaid. Yet Walmart cuts their workers hours which means they earn less money which means they need food stamps; and Walmart cuts their workers hours to avoid full-time benefits which would eliminate their need for medicaid because they would qualify for Walmart health insurance.....while Walmart makes billions in profits every year. It's outrageous.

As Margaret Thacher said "The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend."

Leave it to good old HA-HA-HA Joe, to use a 30 year old lie line used 300,000 times over the last 3 years to make a thrice*Pi proven falsehood. Talk about TIRED to the 3rd degree!!

Good Morning everyone, I'M BAAAAAACK!

Ah, 9 glorious days off. Sort my retirement rehearsal. It went well. I think I'm ready for the real thing. Just 13 months and I'm pulling the pin.

BRING ON THE ENTITLEMENTS! 50 years of work and I'm ready to cash in! Woooohooooo! Pension, Social Security, Medicare. MINE, MINE, it's ALL MINE. I paid for it and I want it!

Ok, enough of that.

I watched MEET THE PRESS on Sunday and they were bemoaning the fact that there is no COMPROMISE in Washington any more. There was no spirit of COLLEGIALITY and oh woe is me, what are we going to do?

Well DUH!

1. Get rid of hate radio and FOX NEWS. Restore the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

2. Get BIG MONEY out of politics. Legislate the CITIZENS UNITED decisions out of existence.

3. DUMP GROVER NORQUIST AND HIS PLEDGE. So long Grover, it's been bad to know ya.

You do those three little things and our government will begin to work again.

THEN....we need to do the following.

Raise Taxes of the 2%

Close the tax loopholes

Encourage business to bring American jobs back to the US

Cut military spending by a paltry 10% and......here's the biggee.......

TAX THE CHURCHES!

Remember the freedom of speech in the pulpit day? WELL, I"m all for it. Politic all you want Padre and PAY TAXES like the rest of us.

If you did that one thing. TAX CHURCH PROPERTY with appropriate exclusions for small town/poverty level congregations, we'd retire the deficit in five years.

Heck the Mormons and the Catholics alone could retire the deficit in a decade.

Now, talk amongst yourselves. The topic is "HAS SKIP LOST HIS MIND?"

Houston, don't you realize that Benghazi is the "new" birther movement? The RWNJ's couldn't make that stick as it has been thrown out of every court its been in front of, so lets try to get the black guy by claiming a cover up. These azzholes are even talking impeachment. What a load of barnyard excrement these people are.

Can we hold you to that?

I never said anything different. I cannot wait to see how Obama voters will react as the tax base is broadened and the EITC is cut back. You do realize the current tax code is far more progressive than the in the Clinton years?

One of Romney's dirty little secrets was that the tax base would have been broadened under his plan, before he tried to pander (more) and claim it wouldn't. Where Obama was never held to the same standard was that simply taxing the rich more would do nothing significant to the deficit. Neither was he he ever confronted by the difference in his stump speech that referred to "Millionaires and Billionaires", and his actually policy of raising taxes on those earning $200K or $250K.

As to the DOD being cut back, that is inevitable no matter what happens on taxes.

Why won't the media report the truth about Social Security and Medicare, the only reason their going broke is because your republican government is robbing all the money your paying in to fund the DOD. Reagan started robbing SS and Medicare so his budget deficit wouldn't look so bad. And now the republican government is robbing the postal service for the same reason. Not until we start electing honest people to serve in congress will things get better.

Edit to my 1.17, that "entirements" as loosely as does the GOP. The easiest fix to medicare is Medicare for All; add younger, healthier people into the system.

In my view, let's go off the fiscal curb on taxes. It's not a cliff, it's a tax curb. Let them all expire then when the new Congress is sworn in, they can (even republicans will be eager to do it) reinstate those for people earning $250K or less and it can be done retroactively.

Joe HAHAHA, and other conservatives: two FDR quotes to give thought to.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough to those who have too little."

"Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

Too often reading conservative posts and listening to the likes of Romney, Ryan, Graham, McCain, Norquist, I see a group of people, a political party "frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

Minimum wage forces people to be on food stamp programs. This entitlement benefits the employer.

BlackCatWhiteCat, you got that right. Wal-Mart owners are the largest entitlement whores in the country. I do not shop there, yet, because they pay their employees next to nothing, I end up piling into those muther-effer coffers against my will. While they pocket those massive earnings, based largely on their fabulous low wages, we end up supporting their staff with food stamps and welfare. It is time to end the Wal-Mart entitlement of the free employee program. Wal-Mart should be forced to pay living wages or a 90% tax on all sales. All Americans should support the Wal-Mart strike - it is time for America to call an end to subsidizing Wal-Mart employment practices.

Alan NJ:

Where Obama was never held to the same standard was that simply taxing the rich more would do nothing significant to the deficit.

The proposed tax increases would be $950 billion over 10 years. If that's insignificant to you, then you have a very impressive income.

Neither was he he ever confronted by the difference in his stump speech that referred to "Millionaires and Billionaires", and his actually policy of raising taxes on those earning $200K or $250K.

Most people with incomes over $250K ARE millionaires. You'd have to spend like a drunken sailor to not accumulate a million dollars in wealth over a few years with an income that large.

Skip,

Great post.

Here in MN, churches and tax exempt organizations who own property are taxed by fees. Sewer, street cleaning, snow plowing and other services are considered fees. All property owners pay this fee every fall. this is separate from our property tax statement.

Most people with incomes over $250K ARE millionaires. You'd have to spend like a drunken sailor to not accumulate a million dollars in wealth over a few years with an income that large.

Come live in NJ and claim that. 8% sales tax, 10% income tax and the highest real estate taxes in the country. BTW that is for a family. If you have two earners in their 40's with kids earning 130K a year you will not be a millionaire any time soon.

Nice to pay Texas taxes isn't it?

The proposed tax increases would be $950 billion over 10 years. If that's insignificant to you, then you have a very impressive income.

Not when you are going to spend $10T more than you bring in.

Albany, didn't say there was now did I? I used the term "entitlements" as losely as does the GOP.

__________________________________

Jody: I'm interpreting your statement above to mean you are claiming you didn't say there was a wage cap on the Medicare payroll tax.

Ummm... Yeah, Jody, you did. Please re-read the last four words of your original sentence I quoted verbatim:

"Never mind that the quickest fix to those programs that every worker pays into and has earned is raise the income cap."

Now, talk amongst yourselves. The topic is "HAS SKIP LOST HIS MIND?"

I don't think you've lost your mind, skip...not at all! In fact, that was brilliant! One of your best ever!

Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough sane people in America right now to make it all happen as you have suggested.

Pity.

Ever thought about running for Congress yourself? We could use a few good men.

Congrats on getting closer to that 47% group. (And isn't it ironic that Romney got 47% of the popular vote?!)

I am glad to hear rumor that al least something is going on in Washington.One thing is certain,Taxes will go up for all.Taxing the rich alone will probably not pay all the bills.Also someone needs to take a good hard look at welfare and medicaide reform,If nothing else but to cut back on fraud.Be advised i am not talking about social security and medicare.There is a big difference between social security and medicare(which are payed into)and welfare and medicaide.(which are not paid into)However i do believe that medicare needs to be looked into so it may become more comprehensive and affordable at the same time.

Jody:

BCWC, Walmart is a classic example of your point. Many Walmart workers receive food stamps, they also qualify for medicaid. Yet Walmart cuts their workers hours which means they earn less money which means they need food stamps

An article I read recently pointed out that the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps for the working poor are not free gifts to moochers. They're government subsidies to businesses like Walmart that allows them to pay their employees starvation wages. Of course, Walmart would have to close down if its underpaid workers died off from malnutrition and the greeters were begging people coming in the door for any food scraps they might have.

To ANYONE who makes a pledge to anyone other than their constituents, We The People will make your life a living hell. I can find 25k in my state to sign a petition and have your pay cut down to minimum wage. We do have that power. Also, the same can be said for recalls. Yes, they are nasty, but when you back some dick in DC over me in your district that voted you in. I have no qualms about claiming I made a mistake and recall you for a "Do-Over". Raise taxes on the rich, cut loopholes in the tax code, cut DEFENSE SPENDING, and goddammit, quit starting wars while we are in debt, namely false flag ones like WMD in Iraq. I'm not stupid and do not like it when my government tells me lies. That goes for Dems AND Repubs.

Skip I always been an advocate for taxing churches on their business deals, getting big money out of government, but their is nothing fair in the fairness doctrine. If you don't like what's on those media outlets, turn it off don't listen to it. I never want to turn off people's opinions, even if I don't agree. That's what made our Country different.

But why stop there. If you going to raise taxes (the system is already progressive) then raise it on all. You aren't going to get anywhere the revenue needed to run this out of control spending habit they have by taxing only the top 2 %. It might make you feel good, but that's it.

How about getting government out of the retirement business all together. Look what they did to social security ran it into bankruptcy. If you think Twinkies and Walmart are ran bad, look no further than your own government for over paying our leaders. Look at gross benefits that congress gets for the lousy job they do.

How about getting government out of education? How about getting them out of medical decisions(that includes abortion)? How about getting them out of the war on drugs? How about getting them out of thinking they have to control the world? How about getting them out of ruling over what people believe in general (from atheist to fundamentalist)? How about getting them out of carbon credits? How about getting them out of housing? How about getting them out of the media? How about revamping the entire tax structure? How about perhaps a flat tax or consumption tax? How about getting them out small business? How about fixing the immigration issue?

Kaybee--can you tell me which studies you are talking about in terms of economic fairness and opportunities? What unfairness is currently in the system that is preventing economic salvation? What barriers besides government is keeping anyone from creating their own small business or entering in the profession of their choosing? Is it the education gap? Is that economic unfairness or an unwillingness to adopt education reform? I am interested in what you mean by this economic unfairness? I really havent seen this economic unfairness prevent immigrants from coming over and starting businesses.

Jody--raising the cap on payroll taxes also means you have to increase the benefits to those who paid the increase in taxes. On the one hand you guys are suggesting that social security isnt an entitlement because you pay into it(ignoring the fact that current recipients get a lot more than they paid in) but are you also suggesting its a welfare transfer because you are going to tax the wealthy workers more but not increase the benefits in return? In addition, how do you reconcile the progressive need to punish the successful with the fact that seniors control over 80% of the nation's wealth in the aggregate? So you dont want entitlement reform for our wealthy seniors because you want our working poor and middle class to be funding their retirement benefits?

Minimum wage laws have always had the adverse impact or reducing employment not increasing it so not sure how the Walmart comments make sense. But ignoring that, raising wages for walmart employees a laudable goal is also just a wealth transfer from either customers who absorb the cost and if Walmart cant pass it on, someone is complaining that Walmart is making billions and can afford to make less. Well who do you think that impacts? That means Walmart's stock price will go down and of course that just means that everyone's 401(k) account will go down or union pension funds. So in order to pay Walmart employees more, the cost of this pay increase is borne by union employees and middle class workers in their 401(k) accounts the largest shareholders of Walmart. I am always lost as to why progressives think their is a money tree and taking money from one source doesnt impact another.

I think alot of people are outraged by Libya including alot of Obama supporters probably most that I have dealt with. The problem is that the Obama supporters on this blog refuse to acknowledge for some reason that it was and continues to be not one of Obama's better moments. It defines him again as a very poor leader (leading from behind again of course). That said, none of my Obama supporting friends would stop supporting Obama over it. Thats why its curious as to why people like Backhouse, Reddev and Houston continue to try and support the unsupportable. At the end of the day, its not going to hurt Obama's presidency and it just wasnt one of his better leadership moments. I suspect you guys know it in the back of your head, you just refuse to want to give any GOP supporter any benefit or leeway. I kind of get that too.

I want to know how the F joe in albany actually thinks there is no cap on income for social security contributions... i mean seriously. are you a complete waste of airspace? or are you one of those 'freeloaders' that you whine about incessantly? If you've ever, AND I MEAN EVER, earned a paycheck for... yes... A WHOLE YEAR, you might notice the removal of the SS deduction after you reached something like $120K (I can't remember the exact level BECAUSE IT'S INSIGNIFICANT ON MY PAY STUB!!)

and as for the rejected republican'ts in washington, quote:

while Republicans insist that rates can’t increase

WTF?! two-faced as always. they will continue to lie like little bltches, telling us all they 'see the light' about raising taxes on people with more money than they can spend, and my main problem is that nearly half of the people will believe their horseyshlt.

Yes some people agree the world was perfect before Obama. My opinion is why are we trying to control the world and blaming Obama because it isn't perfect.

Houston, very few people who make 250k would ever make it to millionaire. Not sure you have read the tax code lately but Alan has spelled out local taxes but someone at that level is probably paying $75k in federal income taxes at an effective rate in the high 20s along with payroll and state income taxes. So this persons after tax net cash flow is likely to be at best $125k. Not sure how after paying for all the living expenses and saving for college, this person is ever going to accumulate a million let alone spending like a drunken sailor. The current tax code benefits the super wealthy and wealthy seniors but is very progressive and unfair to the working successful.

Alan, NJ

Come live in NJ and claim that. 8% sales tax, 10% income tax and the highest real estate taxes in the country. BTW that is for a family. If you have two earners in their 40's with kids earning 130K a year you will not be a millionaire any time soon.

Money paid for state taxes aren't counted as part of the federal taxable income.

Nice to pay Texas taxes isn't it?

Not really, but it's nice to have the infrastructure, food and drug inspections, and all that other "free stuff" that taxes pay for.

The proposed tax increases would be $950 billion over 10 years. If that's insignificant to you, then you have a very impressive income.

Not when you are going to spend $10T more than you bring in.

The deficit is $1.3 trillion, not 10.

The GOP can't do anything without raising taxes on the middle class to subsidize tax breaks for the wealthy, going all the way back to their worst offender, Regan.

The illusion of no tax rate hike but take away deductions is a tax hike. The only real tax break the middle class have is the interest on a mortgage, take that away like they did all other interest deductions and, well you have another huge middle class tax hike. Remember the wealthy don't finance much so they don't need the interest deduction.

kirk you are wrong.

without wasting my time finding things you are writing about, i'll just write a response to your drivvel.

there are plenty of 'unfairs' in this world. as far as business opportunities go, how about the fact that if you come from money, you simply do as robme said- you borrow the money from your parents to start that business. what a friggin joke for the majority of us. we have to borrow from someone else. and the risk increases dramatically- if richy rich fails, oh well, no homes lost. still eating 5 star meals. still wearing designer clothes. etc etc etc. if a normal person fails, it's likely homelessness and free food lines. salvation army for clothes, etc etc etc. get it yet?

raising the cap on payrol taxes for SS contributions DOES NOT MEAN ANYBODY GETS MORE! jackhole- it means we close the gap between what people put in and what the get out.

minimum wages going up by 12 cents isn't going to bankrupt anybody. have you ever tried living on that level of income? last time i did, i was 19 years old and i earned ALMOST $1k per month. ??!! not much.

lybia? really?! what is your malfunction bud? stop deflecting on the fact that, under your party's rule, we were attacked right here at home! that's such a disgustingly grand failure, i can't even begin. then to NOT EVEN GO AFTER THE GUILTY IS AN EGREGIOUS FAILURE! well... couple years of democratic governance, and we've brought almost every single top terrorist to... um... DEATH!

Go polish your turds somewhere else please.

wowicantbelieveit--you owe Joe a huge apology. There is no cap on medicare payroll taxes and your rant makes you look kind of uninformed now. Dont forget that you progressives just said that social security isnt an entitlement because you pay into it so if you raise the cap, I assume you are going to increase the benefits to those who paid in right? You are not suggesting that social security become another welfare or entitlement plan I wouldnt think right? I think you owe Joe a large hug for your mistake.

kirk again you are wrong on the income and taxes discussion. very wrong. i make over $300k. you are wrong.

Entitlement will have to be on the table. Social Security, and Medicare are social pacts, though and therefore are in a separate category so we should make changes to extend them while preserving them as close to what we now have as possible. Seniors both depend and are very satisfied with the current system. This category will have to be more of tweaks than cuts.

The one are a of entitlements we can definitely look to eliminate is corporate welfare. Unless the tax credits and other incentives have a greater return than their costs to the voters, they should be eliminated. Incentives for real substantial and lasting job creation is worth tax credits. So are investments in education and green energy. The rest are loopholes created by lobbies to benefit specific interests. Business loopholes that don't pass the test of helping everybody and not just a very small group need to go.

I know food stamps and welfare are very big targets, but no one who is truly needy should go hungry or homeless in a country like ours. There does need to be more stringent needs testing to ensure that those in true need get it and those that don't are denied and those that abuse the system are prosecuted. Regardless, the total expenditure on food stamps and welfare is a tiny fraction compared to almost anything else in the budget. It just makes a good political target, but it really doesn't have a huge impact on the budget in itself.

Cuts to the military are both the only single item that will have a significant and immediate effect on cutting our deficit and the budget item is so large that every percent cut is bigger than most of any other proposed cuts to social and other programs. We need serious cuts to all non-essential weapons systems and to move more active duty people to reserve status. We just don't need the big hardware and battalions of nation war anymore. We do need more drones, and small strike forces to deal with the current warfare of small and often isolated outbursts that can happen anywhere at any time by smaller factions that act on their own and not under any specific flag.

social security. SS. social. security. read first please.

you assume ... lol ... you assume the benefits will be raised because you've been brainwashed into thinking the rich should get richer.

i'm out- i have to go back to WORK.

We had a few gutless republicans at our Thanksgiving table and they were still blaming the media, Obama buying votes and every lame excuse, but for the fact that they ran a man who said he didn't care about 47% of Americans. I wanted to puck listening to their arguments right from FOX News. "So fair and so balanced!" LOL!!!!!!

61% say the better way to raise revenue is through closing loopholes and reforming the tax code; only 28% said the better way is through raising tax rates on those making $250,000

The two questions aren' t mutually exclusive. Raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 IS reforming the tax code. So the Republicans' poll agrees with the conclusions of the Democrats' poll.

Kirk-2957282

I think alot of people are outraged by Libya including alot of Obama supporters probably most that I have dealt with.

Do you really think anyone is dumb enough to believe your lie that Obama supporters are "outraged" over whatever McCain pretends he's outraged about over Libya? He can't even make up his alleged mind what exactly he's outraged about. Now that his attacks on Susan Rice have been debunked, he's claiming Director of National Intelligence was part of the conspiracy. The reason for McCain's rage keeps changing, but the rage remains the same for sore the loser presidential candidate.

The father and sister of the Ambassador Stevens have both pleaded with Republicans to stop politicizing his death. If the Republicans had any real concern about the welfare of American diplomats, they would heed those pleas and shut up and let the security experts determine how best to improve security at American diplomatic missions. Instead, they're making a circus out of it because they hate Obama for various reasons, like being president while black.

I want to know how the F joe in albany actually thinks there is no cap on income for social security contributions...

_______________________________________

Hey MORON: Show me where I ever said there is no cap on wages subject to SS??

It was $110,100 in 2012 and will be $113,700 in 2013.

Neither was he he ever confronted by the difference in his stump speech that referred to "Millionaires and Billionaires", and his actually policy of raising taxes on those earning $200K or $250K.

If you are making more than $200K per year, you are either an idiot, or you become a millionaire at most 10-15 years into your career.

wow--sorry but I am not wrong. I realize that you have a chip on your shoulder that colors your commentary but I am not wrong. You clearly dont understand basic economics and behaviorial economics. I am not advocating whether we shouldnt do some of these things although I do have my own opinions but I am pointing out the financial consequences. Instead of responding with such partisan emotional rhetoric why not explain how and why you think I am wrong. I will respond to your drivel too

1) Of course there individual cases of spoiled wealthy kids just like there are examples of worthless poor kids. My dad wasnt rich but started his own small business--a small Hallmark store. I wasnt born rich nor was I given any leg up on life. Nothing is stopping you from opening up a small business is there Wow?

2) yes it does. Benefits are based on what you pay in. Are you saying you want social security to become more of a welfare assistance program rather than a pay in contributory pension plan?

3) Never said that raising wages is a bad thing--but to act like it doesnt have financial consequences to someone else is beyond stupid

4) what does the past have to do with Libya--lets just focus on that and stop deflecting blame

Nice to pay Texas taxes isn't it?

Have you looked at your mortgage statement lately? Texas has the third highest real estate taxes in the country, beaten only by New Jersey and New York. I have lived in California and I have lived in Texas, and owned houses in both states. I paid pretty much the same amount of actual taxes to each state.

Fix It All !!!

We can look at the issue of the fiscal cliff as an opportunity to GO BIG.

If we have to get messy in the details and with compromise, then fix it all. Fix Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Tax Loopholes, Tax code, and anything else you might think of.

Americans will understand if the compromise is painful to both sides that it is fair and will fix the problem.

Americans are tired of: posturing, playing politics just to play politics, kicking the can down the road, and the ongoing "to compromise or not to compromise".

Fix It All !!!

Most people with incomes over $250K ARE millionaires. You'd have to spend like a drunken sailor to not accumulate a million dollars in wealth over a few years with an income that large.

If you can't save up a million on that kind of salary, you might as well let the government take more of it away from you. It's obvious you have no control over your finances, so you probably wouldn't even notice.

FICA has a cap of $110,000 this year. Medicare which is 1.4% has no cap. Since FICA is the biggest chunk, anyone reaching that limit sees a nice bump in their pay stub, so many assume that the cap affects everything.

I think the choice we face will either be to raise the payroll cap on FICA or to implement some kind of means testing on payout of Social Security benefits based on needs rather than just on who paid in. One simple tweak to the means testing would be to tax 100% instead of 85% of Social Security above a certain income ($250,000?).

Thanks KB, that was awfully nice of you. My wife suggests I run for public office at least once a year, sometimes more often.

NO WAY!

I've worked in politics and I hate it HATE IT HATE IT! I couldn't do it. Now my wife would be great at it.

She's a negotiator and a conciliator. Me, I'm more of a scorched earth kind of politician, hahahahaha.

Thank you for the kind words, they are deeply appreciated.

But I'm as serious as a heart attack. Restore the Fairness Doctrine, get rid of Citizens United and Dump Grover and we're on our way. Cut military spending, tax church property AND INCOME and tax the 2% at the same 34% that I pay and we'll be on easy street inside a decade.

Happy Holidays everybody.

Houston - watching Republicans on the Sunday talk shows was indeed telling. Lindsey Graham looked like he was going to explode as he talked. His anger over Republicans losing the Presidency is so obvious and his total disregard for the facts about Benghazi so telling that he just looked more foolish with every moment he spoke.

The only sane comments he made were about disregarding the Norquist pledge. He may actually be realizing that if he doesn't do something he won't be returning next election.

McCain has lost all ability to be reasonable and is just showing more and more what a sore loser he is. My guess is, if he runs again, he will be soundly defeated. I think even his constituents are seeing that the guy looks like he has lost his mind!

Kirk-

I think alot of people are outraged by Libya including alot of Obama supporters probably most that I have dealt with.

Wrong. Obama supporters are not outraged because it's fake, Faux propaganda.

The problem is that the Obama supporters on this blog refuse to acknowledge for some reason that it was and continues to be not one of Obama's better moments.

Wrong. There is nothing to refuse to acknowledge. You continue to believe the lies perpetuated on this President. The problem is YOU.

It defines him again as a very poor leader (leading from behind again of course).

Wrong. The President is quickly becoming one of the greatest Presidents in modern history. Your skewed opinion of this President is false.

That said, none of my Obama supporting friends would stop supporting Obama over it. Thats why its curious as to why people like Backhouse, Reddev and Houston continue to try and support the unsupportable.

Backhouse, Reddev and Houston support this President because he is an outstanding President, and the MAJORITY of Americans know this to be correct.

You need to quite spreading lies.

The election is over.

President Obama is one of the best, brightest, and strongest leaders this great country has ever had.

The problem, is people like youself don't see it.

Salud

But why stop there. If you going to raise taxes (the system is already progressive) then raise it on all. You aren't going to get anywhere the revenue needed to run this out of control spending habit they have by taxing only the top 2 %.

I don't follow your logic. There's good economic reasons for raising taxes on the top 2% and also good economic reasons for not raising it on people making less. Just because you are not able to understand these reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The rest of your rant is the classical blabbering about government-bad-this and government-bad-that. Yes, when Republicans are in office, the economy goes downhill so yes, one party does a really poor job of running the economy. But that is counter-balanced by when Democrats are in office, the economy improves. We have a generation of data now to back this up.

Beyond that, the current improvements we are seeing in the economy are a direct result and easily traceable to Obama's policies.

It might make you feel good, but that's it.

No. That's not "it."

How many times must Lucy (the Democrats) pull the football away from Charlie Brown (the Republicans) before Charlie Brown simply says "I am not doing this anymore".

Democrats historically have promised on MANY occasions to cut spending in the future if Republicans agree to tax increases now. Sorry Lucy we are not playing that game anymore. When Democrats cut spending now THEN we can talk about tax increases. Not a day sooner.

And, by the way, a spending cut is when you spend LESS than you did before. A "spending cut" is not only a 5% increase when you originally planned a 7% increase. How Democrats have gotten away with that game for years I don't know. When families "cut spending" we spend less than we did before.

For example: If a drunk drinks 6 beers a day and cuts it to 4 beers a day THAT is a cut. But when a drunk drinks 6 beers a day but then tells you he PLANNED to drink 12 beers a day but has decided to only drink 9 beers a day THAT is NOT a cut of 3 beers a day. But that is what our incompetent and irresponsible government does.

No, sorry it won't work anymore. Government must cut CURRENT spending levels and when they do that THEN we can talk about tax increases to help. But Lucy (aka "the Democrats") are not going to pull the football away AGAIN!! Actual spending cuts first THEN we can talk about tax increases. But no tax increases before the actual spending cuts occur.

@Houston!

So you quote how much the increase on the top 2% is supposed to bring in over 10 years, $950B, and then you quote the deficit for one year $1.3T

The deficit is $1.3 trillion, not 10.

The proposed tax increases would be $950 billion over 10 years. If that's insignificant to you, then you have a very impressive income.

Why don't you stick to a consistent time period?

BTW, Why are state taxes any different? You claimed you would have to spend like a drunken sailor not be a millionaire with a family income of $250K. Also remember that these are the people who get caught by the AMT so they cannot write off deductions against federal income tax using state taxes and mortgage interest. These are also the people who are "too rich" for help sending their kids to college. You have three kids and saving $1200 a month for college is not excessive. These are also the people who do not have pensions but 401(k)s and I know many in their position who are making the choice between college funds and retirement. But I'm sure they will support removing the cap on SS because they have excess wealth just lying around.

I am not trying to say they do not have a "nice" lifestyle but when you earn above the level that government helps then everything is pretty expensive, but on the other hand they are not millionaires, nor are they earning their income through dividends and capital gains and I can bet you that they are living on slightly better than paycheck to paycheck.

Houston,

It's way past time for the Bobsey twins McCain and Graham to give it a rest with Benghazi. Absolutely no one in this country is outraged about it.

Really? No one in this country is outraged about Benghazi? What about the parents that are begging for answers and are being ignored? I know if it was my child I would never rest until I got answers. FYI, it has nothing to do with sore losers or the race of our President. I find your remark not only insensitive but also insulting.

What really gripes me right now is that the country is being held hostage, in a way, by some stupid pledge that some stupid members of congress have made. The GOP is willing to "raise taxes" on the wealthy, finally, but they just can't stand the WORDS "rate increase". The effect is exactly the same in the end, so if we can achieve some sort of compromise I'm all for it, but it's really just that stupid phrase that scares Republicans so bad...all because of that damn STUPID pledge.

They may have made that pledge in earnest, but it was only as a private individual and not in any "official" capacity. They didn't agree to some binding legal contract, it was only a pledge that was entirely voluntary, made to that bozo Nordquist. So why are we still letting that hold things up???? It's just utter nonsense on the part of the GOP members involved.

Bryan:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1) Tax increases on the "wealthy" would only bring in about $50 Billion a year - our deficit is $1. 2 TRILLION a year. Tax increases on the wealthy is only a "feel good" tax and won't make a difference.

2) Taxing the "wealthy" is taking money from the "producers" and redistributing to the "non-producers". Moving money out of private sector investment and redistributing to those who will NOT invest it does irreparable damage to the economy.

3) And the irreparable damage to the economy is why we are stagnant at 2% GDP and unemployment near 8% with all indicators showing that GDP will get worse and unemployment rate will rise. I don't know what "improvements" you are talking about with our economy. Our economy sucks and is a DIRECT relationship to the failed Obama policies.

What you need to understand is the economy is a complex system. You make the assumption that a 2% GDP is at least "moving in the right direction". The fallacy is the assumption it would be at zero GDP if Obama did "nothing" so obviously 2% is better than 0% so Obama must be doing something "right". That is incorrect. The economy should be growing at between 6% and 8% by now and if Obama policies did not get in the way we would be there. So the Obama policies have DECREASED our economic growth by a minimum of 4% and probably closer to 6%. The economy would be growing IF Obama got out of the way.

This president has been a failure by every economic measurement.

Nice to pay Texas taxes isn't it?

Have you looked at your mortgage statement lately? Texas has the third highest real estate taxes in the country, beaten only by New Jersey and New York. I have lived in California and I have lived in Texas, and owned houses in both states. I paid pretty much the same amount of actual taxes to each state.

..and what's the sales tax and income tax in Texas again? What's the sales and income tax in California and NJ? Nothing like cherry picking is there?

Seems to me you have to earn 15% - 20% more in CA and NJ to match a comparable salary in TX.

Kirk, you get it! So many want to be something for nothing, it just doesn't work that way.

Aquatone: You are correct the country is indeed being held hostage - by the Obama administration. The GOP simply says leave the taxes alone and is ready to agree to that. But Obama said he will let taxes on EVERYBODY rise if he is not allowed to punish a particular group. So Obama is holding the entire country hostage if he is not allowed to raise taxes on a select few that will make no difference in the deficit anyway.

So your choice is clear: Either tax increases for nobody as proposed by the GOP or tax increases on everybody as proposed by Obama. Your choice. Do you want to pay higher taxes? Then support Obama. Do you NOT want to pay higher taxes? Then support the GOP.

Entirely your choice and I don't give a tiny rat's behind which one you choose. If you think we need more tax revenues then EVERYBODY pays more. Entirely up to you.

"It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We're below historic averages," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) said on ABC yesterday, adding: "But to do this, I just don't want to promise the spending cuts. I want entitlement reforms."

Fair enough, let's go after the Corporate Welfare Queens such as the petroleum industry and the many other corporate entities whose profits are partially financed by the American taxpayer.

Come on Conservatives, I know your little song, word for word, about getting government off the backs of the people along with the refrain of free markets rule; here's your chance to put your ideology into action.

Sorry, economic growth of between 6-8% is a) totally unsustainable and b) totally inflationary. Just ask China. Even if we could get there somehow, we shouldn't. Period. We need to continue down the path we're on right now: sustainable, mild growth, more revenue, and less spending too. It's the only answer.

Pro, you lost the argument on Obama earlier this month. Your words ring hallow to the majority of the voters in this country. It's self-evident.

Wrong. Obama supporters are not outraged because it's fake, Faux propaganda.

And is fake that the consulate had no security? Is it fake that the ambassador asked for more security but received none? Is it fake that the British and Red Cross closed their facilities because of security concerns? I have no problem with the DNI removing the terrorist references if they were unsure who did it and they did not want reveal sources, but why was a deliberate lie told instead? They knew that this attack was not related to the video but they peddled that story for two weeks. Why was that if not an attempt to mislead? If you are happy with your government deliberately lying to you then good for you.

You claim you were outraged when the Bush Administration lied to you (Iraq WMD's) so why are you not outraged when the Obama Administration does the same? Or were not outraged by the Bush Administration lies?

NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't compromise Dems. The GOP can't stop tax rates from going up in January. Why would you negotiate away something you already have. Further, the American public says that 67% will blame the GOP if a deal is not made. And, if the GOP doesn't agree to a middle class tax cut after the new year - they will be blamed even more for making not making that deal. The trick is to tell the American Public all you want to do for them, do it in a balanced way that pays down the deficit, and then when the GOP doesn't cave in - throw your hands up and yell, "We did all we could."

There's a reason the GOP is talking compromise - they have ZERO leverage. (And there's a reason some dems are talking compromise - they want to please their big money contributors.) Don't sell out the American people! Those big money contributors will have to back you next time - for the same reason the middle class has to vote for you - your the only game in town.

aquatone-

but it's really just that stupid phrase that scares Republicans so bad...all because of that damn STUPID pledge.

How true!

Another little trick Republican's like to do is paint in broad strokes.

They always say "tax increase" to scare the poor and middle class.

They NEVER say "tax increase on those making $250,000 or more."

See the difference. They always leave those words out.

They purposely scare and manipulate Americans.

Salud

kirk

1) when banks will not provide loans for small business start-ups, that quite fittingly turns into a barrier to entry. the sba steps in and helps. it's called "help" and not "hand out" for a reason. BUT the biggest barrier is demand, without which, we cannot operate. I do own a business- it's a consultancy and provides guidance to large corporations (multi-billion dollar international projects and programs). my company has done business in 28 countries. MY PROBLEM IS A WEAK MIDDLE CLASS AND RESULTING LOW DEMAND. you want to fix the economy? PUT MONEY IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO WILL SPEND IT! the teatards think the answer is to give me a tax break. lmfao!!! you think i'll hire someone if you give a few grand extra this year? WAKE UP!

2) benefits might be "based" on what you pay in but they are far from equal to what you pay in. this is why the program has been in trouble for so many years (well... besides the fact that shrub, aka bush jr. raided the fund to pay for an illegal war). removing the "i'm rich so i don't have to keep paying in" part is a start to closing that gap.

3) raising minimum wages has an INSIGNIFICANT impact on businesses (your 'financial consequences'). but it does have a SIGNIFICANT impact on overall spending and, in turn, business income. know this. if you put $100 in the hands of a millionaire, what's the impact? they will not even notice that $100 (hell i don't even notice it) and zero change in spending takes place. if you put that $100 in the hands of someone on a shoe-string budget, they WILL spend it, likely on food or clothes. that means someone up the chain gains a tiny bit of demand and employment from that one person. multiply it and you've got yourself a budding economy. also know this please. it's incredibly important.

4) asking what the past has to do with the present is a little dissingenious, don't you think? and don't you think your attempt to bury the past is also dissengenious? and a little bit problematic? have you ever run a lessons-learned workshop? it aint done cause it's bad for business dude. anyway, my point here is you are lambasting Obama for what? anything you can possibly come up with. that is wrong in my book. you need to support your country! be a friggin patriot and stop trying to force us into a second civil war please.

i really do have to go.

thetotas

It's way past time for the Bobsey twins McCain and Graham to give it a rest with Benghazi. Absolutely no one in this country is outraged about it.

Really? No one in this country is outraged about Benghazi? What about the parents that are begging for answers and are being ignored?

What about the pleas from Ambassador Stevens' father and sister that his death stop being politicized? Those are the pleas that are being ignored because neither you, McCain, Graham, nor any of these wingnuts gives a damn about the ambassador's death. You've just deluded yourself into thinking there is some fake issue you can exploit to get at Obama. Mitt Romney proved you wrong when his attempt to exploit the tragedy in Libya blew up in his face.

Aquatone: Not only is 6% to 8% growth "sustainable" after a recession it is actually the AVERAGE growth after a recession. The CBO even confirms in their latest report (see http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-14-12-SlowRecovery.pdf).

This recovery is the WORST recovery in U.S. history since they started tracking so I hate to say it especially since you were so adamant that I "lost" the argument but it is clear - you are wrong.

So next time before you just "make something up" and pass along as "facts" be careful - because some of us in these threads actually teach Economics and now a whole lot more about how an economy works than you do.

ProBusiness-

This president has been a failure by every economic measurement.

Wrong.

Your opinion is duly noted, but it's just an opinion.

There are many FACTS available to show this President has done an outstanding job on improving our nation's economy since the previous president tanked it.

This recovery is the WORST recovery in U.S. history since they started tracking

Once again, you can pin the blame solely on the Republicans for obstructing, Fillabustering, and preventing this nation from recovering faster.

Please, get your FACTS correct.

Salud

Houston - the fact that the parents and family of Ambassador Stevens have pleaded with everyone to stop politicizing the Benghazi attacks and let the investigation take it's course, yet the GOP continues to focus on this, shows how the Republican party truly lacks civility and integrity. They know what most of us know, Susan Rice spoke with the information she had been given - and terms were left out of her talking points since the investigation was just beginning.

This is how low the GOP has sunk and some of them have no intention of stopping the hate-filled rhetoric - not because they want real answers - but because they think they can damage the President. They learned NOTHING from the last election but my guess is, if they continue, they will learn a great deal from the one in 2014!

Thomas Grande - you're correct. The President has been anything BUT a failure on the economic front. He kept the country from going into a Depression and - had the Repubicans worked with him instead of obstructing everything he attempted to do - we would be recovering at a faster speed.

Alan, NJ

Why don't you stick to a consistent time period?

Why don't you say what time period you're blathering about? The tax increases would amount to roughly 10% of the deficit. That is NOT insignificant as you claimed by any reasonable standard.

You have three kids and saving $1200 a month for college is not excessive. These are also the people who do not have pensions but 401(k)s and I know many in their position who are making the choice between college funds and retirement.

I've got a 401K. The contributions are NOT taxable income. I make considerably less than 250K, but I expect I'll have saved about a million dollars by the time I retire. People that make 250K should reach that limit well before they retire unless they've got a gambling problem or something. Your attack on Obama for equating a 250K income to being a millionaire is just plain ridiculous.

I am not trying to say they do not have a "nice" lifestyle but when you earn above the level that government helps then everything is pretty expensive, but on the other hand they are not millionaires, nor are they earning their income through dividends and capital gains and I can bet you that they are living on slightly better than paycheck to paycheck.

This recovery is the WORST recovery in U.S. history since they started tracking

Once again, you can pin the blame solely on the Republicans for obstructing, Fillabustering, and preventing this nation from recovering.

Your opinion is duly noted, but it's just an opinion.

One important thing that Alan NJ doesn't seem to consider is that when the Bush tax cuts expire and the marginal rate for those making 250K go from 35% to 39%, someone making $250,001 will pay a whopping FOUR CENTS in additional taxes -- because only that 1 dollar over the 250K limit is subject to the increase. Oh, the horror!

Wow:

Let me clarify a few things for you:

1) Banks are not lending due to the increased regulations Obama has added so therefore even for businesses who might be interested in investing in their companies do not have the ability.

2) Demand does not come only from the consumers. There is a cash flow from both the resource markets AND the product markets simultaneously. In other words your assumption is demand is low because consumers don't have the money (that is partially true) but WHERE do the consumers GET the money? From working. But the companies are not hiring - they are laying people off thus demand FURTHER weakens.

How do we fix? Take money from the businesses and GIVE to the consumers? Sorry, that doesn't work. We must incentivize businesses to hire. What is Obama doing to incentivize businesses to hire? Let's see..... Adding thousands of new regulation, increasing their costs to hire employees also due to regulations and ObamaCare, AND threatening increased taxes. So if you PUNISH businesses then they won't expand and hire more. So the consumer demand decrease is due to the Obama policies. What we need to do is incentivize businesses to hire MORE people and not less.

3) Your "benefits" argument is illogical and not sure how to reply.

4) Raising minimum wage is the surest way to create more unemployment and states so in EVERY economics textbook in the country. Do you know about Marginal Revenue Product and Marginal Resource Cost? Do you understand the relationship between the two? When you do then it is clear why increased wages DO have a direct negative relationship to increases in unemployment rates. I suggest you take an Economics course at your local college and then you will better understand.

5) Asking what the past has to do with the present is not disingenuous. It is directly understandable. A business owner doesn't give a tiny rat's behind what happened five years ago - they care about what is happening five years from now. History has NO direct correlation to how a business approaches the NEXT five years. If the policies of the government are pro-business they expand - when it is anti-business they don't. So just look around. Businesses see an administration that wants to punish success so the clear anti-business sentiment is directly related to the stagnant economy due to the failed economic policies of this administration.

McCain's position on

Syria, "we need to arm the rebels."

Iran, "we need to arm the rebels."

Iraq, "we need to arm the rebels."

Afghanistan, "we need to arm the rebels."

Yeah Ok John we know what you would do.

Kirk-2957282

Kaybee--can you tell me which studies you are talking about in terms of economic fairness and opportunities? What unfairness is currently in the system that is preventing economic salvation? What barriers besides government is keeping anyone from creating their own small business or entering in the profession of their choosing? Is it the education gap? Is that economic unfairness or an unwillingness to adopt education reform? I am interested in what you mean by this economic unfairness? I really havent seen this economic unfairness prevent immigrants from coming over and starting businesses.

Studies around the globe have demonstrated that the states and countries with the highest inequality are the least effective in terms of growth, quality of life and social opportunity. Just to cite a couple:

Sustained inequality inhibits growth and social cohesion. It is a real “live” economic issue as we could observe at the beginning of the crisis when the housing bubble burst, and the most vulnerable couldn’t afford to pay for their mortgages anymore. The framework and the incentives which made this happen had its roots in deep-rooted social imbalances.

http://www.oecd.org/social/dividedwestandwhyinequalitykeepsrisingspeech.htm

We live in a world of deep inequality, and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. We in the rich world generally agree that this is a problem we ought to help fix—but that the real beneficiaries will be the billions of people living in poverty. After all, inequality has little impact on the lives of those who find themselves on top of the pile. Right?

Not exactly, says British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson.

For decades, Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. He found that what the healthiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.

In fact, it turns out that not only disease, but a whole host of social problems ranging from mental illness to drug use are worse in unequal societies. In his latest book, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, co-written with Kate Pickett, Wilkinson details the pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, encouraging excessive consumption.

The good news is that increased equality has the opposite effect: statistics show that communities without large gaps between rich and poor are more resilient and their members live longer, happier lives.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/want-the-good-life-your-neighbors-need-it-too

What unfairness is currently in the system? That's a huge subject to tackle in a few lines, but some examples are: poor children receive an inferior education which hampers their opportunities; the poor have far less access to the political process and therefore have less political influence; tax laws favor the wealthy, who pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings in taxes, on average, than do the poor and middle class.

It's hard to get ahead with your hands tied behind your back. What supposedly makes this country different is that it is the land of equal opportunity in the world, and that, in theory, all citizens have equal political power vested in one man/one vote.

Take that away and what is left? A materialistic, hedonistic culture in a downward spiral. We need opportunity and equality to endure, for they are the fresh blood of democracy.

Republicans won't do it. They don't consider "corporate welfare", welfare. They'll never go with raising the present tax rate on their rich friends. They will consider lowering deductions and credits presently available to the wealthy, if, there are correspondingly, cuts in middle class deductions, such as mortgage interest, and property taxes.

I agree with "Eric" above. "Fix it all". Let the Bush tax cuts expire. All of 'em! We'll all do the best we can until the republicans decide to actually govern, or be sent home never to return. We are all quite tired of living hand to mouth due to republican whimsey. We must have viable balance governed into our capitalistic system, balance of equality, that serves everyone, from the least wealthy to the obscenely rich. It must also encompass good health care, viable income for the disabled and seniors, along with proper and rightful access to education, from pre K through college. Without these basics, we are not worth a damn as a nation, and will shortly fail, regardless of the size of our military, and regardless of republican illusions, and bullsh^t slinging to the contrary.

As Margaret Thacher said "The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend."

If we were in Britain, this might be true. We are not, and it isn't. If the United States was practicing socialism, this MIGHT be true. We aren't and it isn't.

Republicans will continue to hold the middle-class in limbo, realistically, due to our taxation being their only bargaining tool available to avoid raising taxes on $250k+, reducing loopholes and outsourcing tax credits. Point blank. They will identify the limbo with a false title, like entitlement as the argument. Medicaid, medicare, welfare, etc.. none of these programs have anything to do with tax reform before 2013, nor does any of the tax reform legislation in the house/senate that Obama has spoken of, cover these programs. Before Thanksgiving President Obama spoke of:

S 3412 - Middle Class Tax Cut Act - Key Vote

National Key Votes

Stages

• July 25, 2012 Senate Bill Passed
• July 19, 2012 Senate Introduced

Family

• S 3412 - Middle Class Tax Cut Act
• S Amdt 2573 - Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2012

Issues

• Budget, Spending and Taxes

Stage Details

Legislation - Bill Passed (Senate) - July 25, 2012 (Key vote)

Title: Middle Class Tax Cut Act

Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that extends tax cuts established in 2001, 2003, and 2010 until the end of 2013, and increases income taxes for certain high-income individuals, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.

Highlights:

• Increases the income tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (Sec. 101).

• Extends the tax cuts established by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013 (Sec. 101).

• Extends the tax cuts established by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013 (Sec. 102).

• Extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit through 2013 (Sec. 103).

• Increases the alternative minimum tax exemption amount as follows (Sec. 201):
  • From $74,450 to $78,750 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses; and
  • From $48,450 to $50,600 for single taxpayers and taxpayers who are married but filing separately.

  Now if congress wants to go into another taxation war about those making over $250k, well have at it. Either way there is no reason to continue holding Americans making under that threshold in limbo. I guarantee the only reason Republicans have, is due to us middle class being their only bargaining tool. Once a reform is passed for the middle class, without that bargaining tool, Obama could allow the previous taxation to expire, which would raise taxes for the $250k+ anyways.

Tomas: Sorry, Democrats are not allowed to take "credit" when things are good and blame on Republicans when things are bad.

This recovery is the worst recovery in U.S. history since they started tracking GDP and unemployment. That is not my opinion - that is fact.

And THEN since it IS the worst recovery you try to blame on Republicans. Sorry, are you going to give CREDIT for the economic growth of the economy from 1996 to 2000 on the Republicans too since it was the Republicans that compromised with Clinton to push pro-business policies? Seems to me the Clinton economy you Democrats take credit for even though it was directly related to the pressures and policies the Republican Congress pushed.

But when Republicans have no control from 2008 to 2010 the economy got worse even getting to nearly 10% unemployment. Republicans win the House and STOP further economy damaging policies by the Obama administration to at least stop the downward spiral.

But don't take my word for it - just ask businesses around this country. Ask them if Republicans stopping their taxes from going up is the reason they are not hiring? Or is the THOUSANDS of additional Obama regulations, ObamaCare, and threats of INCREASED taxes that are scaring the businesses from expanding and hiring?

Your logic is illogical. You cannot blame a stagnant economy on Republicans who want businesses to expand. The Democrat base is NOT businesses. It is moochers, leeches, and parasites. So the moochers, leeches, and parasites elected Obama again because of the "goodies" promised.

But how come the week AFTER the election company after company after company released layoff information. Why? Because they realized ObamaCare was now the "law of the land" and that hurts their ability to run their businesses. I assure you if Romney had of won these companies would NOT be laying off these workers. The businesses held of laying off workers waiting to see what the election results were. This is clear otherwise they would have already laid these workers off. But they waited because they didn't WANT to layoff these workers but then how come within DAYS of Obama winning they release major layoffs?

Time to understand how an economy REALLY works rather than your utopian illogical beliefs. Businesses are in business for one reason - to make a return on investment. Reduce that return and you disincentivize business - which this president has done. And now you are surprised that continuing the failed Obama policies are going to get the same results?

President Obama has acknowledged that raising tax rates on those making $200/250K would raise approximately $68 Billion per yr for 10 years ($680 Billion). President Obama admits the rate increase will do little, if anything, in reducing the deficit. President Obama admits that the only reason he is pushing his plan is his so called "Fairness doctrine" make the rich pay more.

Why not agree to cut deductions, tax credits to businesses, the EIC, and subsidies to all businesses and farmers?

Why don't you say what time period you're blathering about? The tax increases would amount to roughly 10% of the deficit. That is NOT insignificant as you claimed by any reasonable standard.

You are the one who brought up the fact that an increase on the top 2% would bring in $950B over 10 years. Have you forgotten already? need more meds?

As to the tax increases bringing in 10% of the deficit that's great. Our debt is already greater than our GDP. So, if we are only going to add $900B a year over a ten year period to our debt, then I guess our problems are over.

It's The Same Ole Thing

Here's hoping everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend and drank lot's of wild turkey or whatever your beverage of choice is.

In a new report that coincides with Congress' return after the Thanksgiving holiday, the White House says that if lawmakers don't halt the automatic increase in taxes for households earning less than $250,000, consumers might even curtail their shopping during the current holiday season.

"As we approach the holiday season, which accounts for close to one-fifth of industry sales, retailers can't afford the threat of tax increases on middle-class families," the report says.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-tax-hike-threat-could-hurt-retailers-110143340--politics.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GOP/Tea Party are starting to Rebel against Grover Norquist's No-Tax-Hikes Pledge. But look out; it's a "scam". The GOP/Tea Party wants to put entitlements on the table.

The GOP/Tea Party somehow still don't get it. President Obama won with 60% wanting tax hikes for the rich. That's Romney' s Plan!!! He lost forget it Repubs

BTW, it not entitlements. It's earned benefits which is another con word the GOP/Tea Party uses to rob the middle and poor classes blind. They want to keep their huge profits and bonuses. How can the corporate raiders like Twinkee and Pappa John, the so-called J-0-B creators, say they are J-0-B creators when they act worse than carnivorous scavengens by stripping away the J-O-B-S of the REAL J-0-B creaters ; their employees
It's like the GOP/Tea Party are starved to death.

How about that Black Friday? Nearly 3/4 of the country spent $59.1 billion collectively.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/16617831-420/black-friday-weekend-sales-give-retailers-holiday-momentum.html

All that thanks to President Obama bringing the economy back from the doldrums. y

Alan-

Hope you had a great T-day, and hope your part of NJ is recovering as best it can.

First, I believe quotes from Senator McConnell, Frank Luntz, Rush, etc. and so forth set the Republican's agenda before Obama was sworn in.

Second, you are very aware of the record fillibuster's Republicans in congress has had since 2007 to present day.

Third, this continuation of pre-election BS rants; i.e. Bengazi, Fiscal Cliff, etc. is all just that, BS.

It's time to move on.

Salud

Joe in Albany......you said:

Quote.......Jody: There has been no income cap on wages subject to the Medicare payroll tax since January 1, 1994 and it's still going broke.......EndQuote

UNTIL 2013, folks with UNEARNED income (i.e. capital gains) pay NOTHING into Medicare. That's one of the travesties corrected by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

So Joe.....you are technically correct in that you used the PRECISE term "wages". However, with respect to INCOME, your implication is FALSE.

Folks, such parsings of words is how the wealthy have created a separate (and unfair) set of (tax and other) rules for themselves. This is only one of the reasons THEY have been so rabid in their opposition to the ACA in particular and President Obama in general.

One of the single most valuable contributions of the candidacy of Mitt Romney was to shine a spotlight on the unfairness of tax policy for privileged folks such as he. Thanks Mitt!

pro i find myself really wanting to reply to your incomprehensible rambling but your avatar says it all. lmao!! thank you for that.

maybe just one or two points-

1) banks not lending didn't happen AFTER Obama put regulations in place to keep our economy from collapsing again. it happened before that. remember the giant corps that couldn't even get a friggin short term loan?

2) all you did here was reinforce my point; we need to do what we can to help demand regain traction.

3) not illogical at all

4) yes, i know what marginal gains / costs / losses / ops are. my point was raising the minimum wage by 12 cents isn't going to "break the bank" on any business, anywhere, except when robme's are trying to make it easier to ship jobs to china and india. THAT is the problem. try hiring your neighbor- they might hire you back!

5) ridiculous, regardless of your inability to follow the topic. we were talking about lybia. but if you want to talk business, fine. if you think BP doesn't run it's operations KNOWING DAMN WELL that they better be more careful (e.g. new policies, new management, new contractors, new equipment, ... NEW COSTS).

more on 5) - you need to stop putting things in terms of "for or against us." i'm not against business at all- i own one. regulation is not a dirty word. for example-

-I WILL NOT LET YOU DUMP YOUR CHEMICALS IN THE RIVER THAT SUSTAINS MY FAMILY OR FELLOW HUMANS. PERIOD. = a regulation.

-I WILL NOT LET YOU GAMBLE WITH MY MONEY!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! = a regulation

-I WILL NOT LET YOU LIE TO ME AND TELL ME THAT TOY IS SAFE FOR MY KIDS!!!!!! = a regulation.

these are not dirty and you will NEVER convince me of that.

Oh... one more bit of fact for you: you claim dems are anti business... WHY THE F DOES OUR ECONOMY GROW, AND DO SO IN A SIGNIFICANTLY HEALTHIER AND MORE SUSTAINABLE WAY, UNDER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT??!! (ok folks, buckle up! here comes the onslaught of crap flying under the guise of "freedom" hahaha)

freedom starts with you getting out of my bedroom you narcissistic jackholes.

ProBusiness-

The Democrat base is NOT businesses. It is moochers, leeches, and parasites. So the moochers, leeches, and parasites elected Obama again because of the "goodies" promised...

Seriously?

If you actually believe your above statement, you are not even worth conversing with.

You don't have a clue what Democrats stand for.

But I'm sure you like what Rush TELLS you what Democrats stand for.

I mean, the election is over. Are you STILL trying to sway 'swing voters'?

LOL.

So, do you really think people on this site believe what you post?

You should probably blog on Drudge or RedState or some other RW site that believes propaganda like you do.

Salud

Alan-

Hope you had a great T-day, and hope your part of NJ is recovering as best it can.

First, I believe quotes from Senator McConnell, Frank Luntz, Rush, etc. and so forth set the Republican's agenda before Obama was sworn in.

Second, you are very aware of the record fillibuster's Republicans in congress has had since 2007 to present day.

Third, this continuation of pre-election BS rants; i.e. Bengazi, Fiscal Cliff, etc. is all just that, BS.

Thanks Tomas, hope you had a great Thanksgiving too.

As to the Republicans strategy they have to justify that. IMO the stimulus was badly structured and did not achieve the goals it set out. The Democrats had two years of absolute power, true on financial matters where they only needed 51 senate votes, and I think they squandered them.

As to Benghazi I am offended that I was lied to, and the fact that Obama apologized for the movie. I don't like a lot of media and some I find offensive. But freedom of speech is my right and the right of others even if it offends me. I love the quote from The American President regarding free speech.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. "

I don't have an opinion on Susan Rice (except that she's pretty hot), but it does look like she's being promoted for pushing a lie.

Like Disneyland is not a business?

The woman who owns Disney, daughter of Walt, voted Obama and wants to pay more.

Oh... one more bit of fact for you: you claim dems are anti business... WHY THE F DOES OUR ECONOMY GROW, AND DO SO IN A SIGNIFICANTLY HEALTHIER AND MORE SUSTAINABLE WAY, UNDER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT??!! (ok folks, buckle up! here comes the onslaught of crap flying under the guise of "freedom" hahaha) 

How is our economy growing in said fashion? Fact is, it isnt. Unemployment has been sustainably higher for the last 3-4 years than it has in a long time. The economy is still in shambles and is still very fragile. Everyone needs to feel the hurt to get our country out of this mess, to believe otherwise is just naivety at best and stupidity at worse.

freedom starts with you getting out of my bedroom you narcissistic jackholes. 

Please stick with the topic at hand, as you are only spouting talking points now.

McCain lost and Obama won twice - get over it Johnny Boy! The entitlements are "earned benefits" for the most part. Social Security was constantly robbed during the Regan administration until Congress dumped it into the general fund by law. Because Congress mismanaged our earned benefit, Congress too should have their pay and retirement benefits cut as well should they decide to bring down the deficit by having the most vunerable citizens in America pay for most of it. Raise the capital gains tax back to 25% again. That's what should happen if so-called entitlements are cut. Everyone must participate, the free-ride of the rich and elite is OVER!

Good responses, wow. I hate that so many on the right have their own set of facts. Probusiness makes these blanket statements like this is the worst recovery in history. Huh? Are you aware of the 1930s? For that matter, the Bush recovery was slower by many measures, like job creation. The trick that the right uses is to include the continued decline for the first year or so of Obama's term as part of the "recovery." If instead, you count only the period from trough to now, you get incredible measures of success. The DJIA, for example, went up 100% in 2 years. Unemployment declined from 10.2 to 7.8% in three years. The deficit declined by $400 billion in three years. If those trends continue for another 4 years, Obama will leave office in a period of great prosperity.

We don't really need to wait 4 years. Just look at the history of the Clinton presidency. People forget, the right said that the Clinton tax increases would crush us. Obviously, they helped give us a timje of remarkable prosperity (remarkable pro-business prosperity). Meanwhile, look at the Bush tax cuts and deregulation. The right said those would give us prosperity and jobs. They did neither, and eventually brought us to the brink of a second great depression.

Fasts, logic, and history tell us that the Democratic approach of reasonable, fiscally responsible taxes, and careful thoughtful regulation, and yes, government programs like SS and medicare, work far far far far far far far better than the failures of the neoconservatives. I don't see how any student of history or economics can disagree. We've tried this over and over again, and the results are always the same.

Aside to Raff: Unemployment trends are moving in the correct direction. Yes unemployment did not bottom out until a year after Obama came into office - unemployment is a lagging indicator. But an improvement from 10.2% to 7.8% is impressive. If it continues, we'll get back to the ideal Clinton era values around 4.5% by the end of Obama's second term.

Beverly in Chicago-

How can the corporate raiders like Twinkee and Pappa John, the so-called J-0-B creators, say they are J-0-B creators when they act worse than carnivorous scavengens by stripping away the J-O-B-S of the REAL J-0-B creaters ; their employees..

Amen.

Hope you had a GREAT Thanksgiving!!!

BTW, is there a list on the web of Tea Party CEO's like Papa John-Boy, Mr. Chick-fil-a-hole and others that are screwing Americans?

Sure would like to know where I want my Christmas cash to go to and NOT to.

The list of NOT to keeps getting longer.

I'll just take my money where some nice liberals own the stores.

Economic Justice!!!

Salud

noncoms -

Dont forget that Clinton also had the .com boom to help his economy which did not carry over to the Bush years. I agree that unemployment is a lagging indicator and it is trending in the right direction...however, job growth numbers do not support the rate going down. 150,000 jobs per month is barely enough to cover the incoming college and high school grads into the work force. We will see how it looks after the holiday season. I am not optimistic for improvement, as there have been no real signs of a healthy recovery in the last 3 years.

ProBusiness - even the Republican leadership says that the claim that those who voted for President Obama are just people on the take are false. Last week two of the leaders of the Republican party - Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and many others - said that statement was just plain false and also degrading. They admitted Romney lost because the party didn't promote an inclusive agenda. Your post shows you lack the understanding of what is actually going on in the country and of how totally out of touch with reality the Republican party has become.

If you check out the rate of unemployment decline, it is actually very close to the rate in Clinton's first term. Clinton say a peak of 7.8% in June of 1992, but got down to 5.7% three years later, an improvement of 2.1%. Obama saw 10.2% in December of 2009, and now, three years later, it is 7.8%, a decline of 2.4%. So on a percentage basis, Obama has seen faster improvement than Clinton (although that is not fair, it is always easier to improve faster from a worse starting point).

But what is really unfair is that rightwingers just throw out this stuff like "Obama is a failure by any measure" or "unemployment is unacceptably high for too long" without any regard to facts. If Obama had been a Republican, these same Fox News viewers would be bragging about the greatest recovery in history. It is frustrating how little actual facts and data matter to them. It is all about regurgitating the viewpoint that they are told to regurgitate.

"no real signs of a healthy recovery in the last 3 years"??? How about DJIA from 6600 to 13,000. How about unemployment from 10.2% to 7.8%. How about consumer confidence from 40% to 80%? How about GDP from -6% to +2%? How about record corporate profits? How about record consumer spending?

I mean, really, what economic indicator are you looking at?

now the gop and dems are listening to the polls about raising taxes what was the polls saying about the obama care wasn't most americans against it but it passed anyway i guess the gop decided if you can't beat them join them and why do we care about the u.n. all we are to them is the biggest donor all you raise taxes on the wealthy sheeple need to relize the money from that will not be enough to really help so the 250 will soon be lowered to 150 and so on then what is the draw to become all you can be if it all goes to the gov. socialism does not work look at europe its working so well they riot in the streets but there is no money to be given by the way i'm not dem or repub but i know to think ahead and what this gov is leading to will not work

If you go to you will see unemployment trends for the last 60 years. The decline over the last three years is running about 0.8% per year, just like it did in most other recoveries. There is no evidence to say that the unemployment recovery is particularly bad this time. Just look at the facts.

okie: They said the same thing about the Clinton tax increase (which was 80% of revenues from the wealthy). The way Clinton balanced the budget was with a balanced approach of more taxes, a lid on spending, and give the great American economy a chance to grow. You need all three parts. Obama is pursuing all three parts. As I noted, the deficit went down $100b this year, $100b the year before, and $200b the year before that. With the tax increase and spending limited, and with improving GDP, we can expect another $200b or so deficit decrease this year, and so on. You cannot balance the budget any faster without shockinig the system. Slow but steady improvement moves us in the right direction; do that year after year and you eventually arrive at a really good place.

okie - punctuation - have you ever heard of punctuation????

SeekingSanity-

Your post shows you lack the understanding of what is actually going on in the country and of how totally out of touch with reality the Republican party has become.

noncoms-

But what is really unfair is that rightwingers just throw out this stuff like "Obama is a failure by any measure" or "unemployment is unacceptably high for too long" without any regard to facts.

As you both observed from ProBusiness's blogging, to some extent, Right-wing bloggers have convinced themselves that from the day after the election, they were going to continue to blog as if nothing happened.

They are continuing to blog like they are going to control the dialog.

They are wrong.

Their time ended on election day.

Now, the dialog is one of cooperation and comprimise.

Bloggers that don't recognize this are now extinct and serve America no purpose.

Salud

But what is really unfair is that rightwingers just throw out this stuff like "Obama is a failure by any measure" or "unemployment is unacceptably high for too long" without any regard to facts. If Obama had been a Republican, these same Fox News viewers would be bragging about the greatest recovery in history. It is frustrating how little actual facts and data matter to them. It is all about regurgitating the viewpoint that they are told to regurgitate.

So by your logic, if Bush was a liberal, he would have had nothing to do with the downfall of our economy and so forth or you would have demonized him, allowing McCain to be elected? Its easy to say such things, but lets stick with reality, shall we?

Kaybee--inequality of income today is totally different than inequality of access or economic unfairness. I agree with many of the conclusions about the problems that inequality of incomes can create. I differ on the causes and some of the factors. First, the CBO report can give you some of the causes and none of them are tax policy. Nor do I think tax policy should be the big hammer to create wealth redistribution to "fix" the problem. As you state, the largest factor is the education gap but that is not a function of money being thrown at the problem as that has already been shown not to make a difference. We need education reform and quite frankly we need to address the social problems that create the lack of parental guidance and input into education. Which party stands in the way of both of those problems? Immigration is also a large contributor to income inequality because in general its low skilled low education workers who drive down labor costs. entitlement programs also contribute because we are taking payroll taxes from the poor and middle class to provide social security and medicare to our wealthy seniors in the aggregate. We are a country of choice. No one is preventing access to higher education, small business creation except our own life choices. No one is preventing the teacher, government worker, day laborer etc from opening up their own Dunkin Donuts or any other franchise and work to become independently successful except yourself. This concept that Obama needs to level the playing field is ridiculous he just wants to take from the successful and give to those who arent. He has been doing it for 4 years and has no intention of stopping the weatlh redistribution.

Wow--you need to do some economic research becauase you are so biased by your chip on your shoulder. I voted for Clinton and hated Bush so you arent going to "get me" with your references to the past. Economic behavior doesnt work the way you imagine so you need to research and read a little more. You cant use single examples of a rich person you may know or the hourly worker who needs 12cents an hour more. You have to use aggregates of demographic groups. Its not true that raising minimum wages increases employment or consumer demand, all studies show the exact opposite. Second, the largest spenders of consumer demand isnt the low skilled hourly worker but the upper middle class consumer. Your rants against the "man" are wasted on me as you arent really listening or providing any economic basis for your opinions.

Ian Emdee--sorry but ACA does tax investment income but you convienently seem to ignore that income was already taxed. Thats why the tax rate on divident income and capital gains is lower. You realize that if you raise the taxes, then companies will just reduce the dividends and people will stop investing short term in order to keep the cost of corporate earnings the same? Again, its not a zero sum game.

Noncoms--I am a fan of the Clinton presidency but Clinton lowered the capital gains tax during the internet boom helping create an incentive for technology investment. The remarkable prosperity and pro business prospertity was brought about because of the reduction in capital gains taxes, reduced regulatory burdens with Glass-Steagall, welfare reform. It wasnt the increase in individual income tax rates.

Tomas--the idea that Obama is a great president is a nice opinion that you have but far from reality. History could very well decide that you are correct but as of this moment, he is a long time from being a great president. Look at the election demographics and the polarization of the country as the biggest factor preventing him from ever being considered great.

Also noncoms -

Dont forget Cliton had a Republican congress, with the likes of Newt Gingrich. What say you about that?

Talking Point of the Day

Have you seen this one?

Re: Taxes and the Fiscal 'cliff'.

"...the system is already progressive..."

Yep. A new Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh BS talking point.

And the lap dogs check their email, say the solemn Rovian oath, then come on the blogs and repeat it.

Sad. Really Sad.

Salud

Raff:

The recovery is slow because the jobs that would have fueled that recovery are not here - they are in China and India. And even when businesses know the country is in trouble and needs their support by keeping jobs here, businesses continue to move jobs out of the country. Have we ever had to recover economically while business prefers to deal with communist countries? Why do the 'job creators' hate us so much? Where is their patriotism? Why do republicans do everything they can to block legislation that brings jobs back from communist countries?

Republicans obviously did not listen to the election results. Obama won in an electoral landslide and 3.2 million and counting in the popular vote. He ran on raising taxes on the richest in the country and won, TWICE!! There is no excuse for holding the country hostage AGAIN!! If they think they lost badly in this election, just wait until the mid terms!! If they haven't listened by then, they will be gone! Corporate profits have been through the roof for the past 5 years while still getting tax cuts they don't deserve BECAUSE THE DID NOT CREATE JOBS!! It's time for the workers of the world to be paid decently and the top 2% to pay their fair share! The people spoke. They need to listen.

seekingsanity yeah but if thats what you are going to focus on you really need to seek harder for sanity

okie - trying to make sense of a post that just runs on is not easy. A few periods would have made it easier. How nice you deflect to me instead of recognizing the problem is yours. Typical Republican!

blearyeyed -

I understand your sentiment. However, this governments policy of taxing businesses more does not lend to businesses wanting to keep the jobs here. In your opinion, it isnt patriotic for them to move the jobs, but I believe that it is patriotic for them to do as they feel is necessary to keep their bottom line. Keep in mind that most companies are publicly traded on the stock market and if the bottom line falls, so do stock prices (which liberals have begun to hang their hats on as an Obama accomplishment) and the cycle goes on until that business goes under.

Lower tax rates on business is how you keep/bring jobs back.

"...the system is already progressive..."

Yep. A new Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh BS talking point.

I simply say it is more progressive than it was in the Clinton Administration. That is one thing progressives seem to forget about going over the fiscal cliff. If we do more low end workers will be paying tax, in addition to the 2% increase in payroll tax, and the EITC will be cut in half.

Not talking points, reality.

Claim 2: The Fiscal Cliff Spares the Poor

Yglesias also claims that going over the fiscal cliff would not hurt lower-income earners very much - rather it is only the high earners that take the hit. This myth may stem from the initial design of the sequester, which exempted many mandatory programs that provide benefits for lower-income households, including Medicaid and food stamps. However, the sequester hits discretionary spending very hard, a significant amount of which goes to programs designed to help low income people, such as low-income rental housing assistance, heating assistance, and Title 1 education funding to name a few.

On the tax side, while the expiration of the upper-income tax brackets has received much of the attention, it's also important to remember that the 10 percent bracket, payroll tax holiday, and expansions of the EITC and the CTC will all expire. In total, taxes will rise on the lowest income quintile by 3.7 percent, with an average tax increase of $412.

Finally, extended unemployment benefits would go away as part of the cliff - a big hit to lower income households given how high unemployment is today. The resulting recession from the cliff would hurt lower income people more than the greater population, further compounded by the expiration of extended unemployment benefits. Clearly the fiscal cliff has serious implications for the most vulnerable in society.

http://crfb.org/blogs/tackling-fiscal-cliff-myths

High Taxes for Some, Negative Taxes for Others

The charts below show the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on income and federal taxes paid by households from 1979 to 2009.[2] In Figure 1, we can see that average effective income tax rates have declined considerably for almost everyone, except the top 1 percent of earners.

The decline is most pronounced for the bottom quintile (bottom 20 percent) of households, whose average tax rate went from zero in 1979 to a new record low of -9.3 percent in 2009. That means low-income households now receive more from the IRS in terms of refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, than they pay in taxes.[3] This trend has accelerated since 2007, when their tax rate was -5.8 percent, mainly because of higher unemployment and underemployment.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/cbo-report-shows-increasing-redistribution-tax-code-despite-no-long-term-trend-income-inequality

Who knew Bush was really a progressive? You still claim Republicans have no leverage?

2) Taxing the "wealthy" is taking money from the "producers" and redistributing to the "non-producers". Moving money out of private sector investment and redistributing to those who will NOT invest it does irreparable damage to the economy.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that the wealthy are the producers and the lower 98% are the non-producers. Are you seriously trying to claim that the top 2% are the producers and the lower 98% are the moochers?

The American economy depends on the consumer, which is by and far the middle class - the middle of the 98%.

Beyond that, you have a very poor understanding of how the economy works. First, the wealthy are already raking in money hand over fist. They have not suffered at all during this economic downturn. Yet, they haven't "invested" this money. If your idea was going to work, it would already have happened, it wouldn't be "the worst recovery on record", as you yourself admit later on.

Reducing taxes on the wealthy does not aid the economy, or the GDP. This was proven long ago.

Tomas: Sorry, Democrats are not allowed to take "credit" when things are good and blame on Republicans when things are bad.

This recovery is the worst recovery in U.S. history since they started tracking GDP and unemployment. That is not my opinion - that is fact.

Of course it is. That's because in prior recoveries, government has also grown. This is the only time we have had government reductions - all due to idealogues who don't pay attention to economics and try to go by faith.

Nobody who is a thinking conservative should really be worried that Norquist, a fake radical, should be ignored. Fiscal responsibility is something Reagan preached, and he believed everyone should pay their fair share. The only people who don't believe that are the super radicals, and they can't govern.

What needs to happen is spending cuts go hand in hand with the revenue increase i.e. higher taxes. And that the revenue increases and spending cuts are done in a non-stupid way. I.E. Don't launch an unnecessary war and don't make our military second class nonsense. Or, you know, don't abolish collective bargaining rights while making the necessary education spending cuts across the board.

See, normal people understand that. Only radicals pick one side, and decide it is worth dying for, THEN sort out only the information that supports their narrow point of view and argue it to death.

I suggest to many go take an Economics course at your local college and then see if your illogical "raise taxes on the rich" still seems to make sense. EVERY college Economics textbook states that raising taxes in an economic downturn will only make things worse. You REALLY can't believe that raising taxes is going to stimulate the economy do you? When EVERY Economics textbook says otherwise?

But let's go with your illogical and unsubstantiated nonsense for just a moment. Let's enter your "Bizarro World" just for the fun of it. If you believe raising taxes 4% on the "rich" will help the economy then why stop there? Won't raising their taxes another 10% be better? And while we are at it let's just raise their taxes another 20% - that will be so much better in your Bizarro World. As a matter of fact let's get this economy rolling significantly and just go for the "mother load". Let's just make EVERYTHING you make the property of the Federal Government. JUST IMAGINE HOW LARGE THIS ECONOMY WILL GET THEN!!

You see your logic is failed from the very beginning because Economic theory and history shows raising taxes slows down the economy - period. However, at low levels of taxation even though the economy slows society as a whole benefits. But EVERY increase in taxes slows down an economy. The only question is whether raising taxes, and slowing down the economy, is in society's best interest.

So your argument is flawed from the very beginning. To say that raising taxes on the "rich" will HELP the economy goes against every economist's opinion past and present. Now, if your argument was to tax the rich and EVEN THOUGH it slows down the economy society will still benefit by improving health care, supporting those in need, etc. then THAT would be a valid argument - flawed argument for sure but at least a valid argument. But for all those who don't have a clue let me make clear - raising ANYBODY'S taxes right now guarantees we go into another recession whether that is taxing only the rich or all of us.

So it is up to you: Do you want your messiah Obama responsible for going BACK into a recession? If so keep pushing your "taxes on the wealthy" pledge. But if you want a growing economy raising taxes on ANYBODY guarantees that will not happen.

UNTIL 2013, folks with UNEARNED income (i.e. capital gains) pay NOTHING into Medicare. That's one of the travesties corrected by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

So Joe.....you are technically correct in that you used the PRECISE term "wages". However, with respect to INCOME, your implication is FALSE.

_______________________________________

If you want to bitch and moan about how SS and Medicare were set up, go find FDR's grave and bitch and moan to him about it.

ProBusiness

Cutting spending in an economic downturn makes this worse also. That's why we haven't done it yet.

ProBusiness: "Let's just make EVERYTHING you make the property of the Federal Government"

Nobody has suggested any such thing so you are being purposely dishonest. The point is we need a proper BALANCE for sharing the tax burden.

Does anyone know why Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" ?

Because the working people who pay into them for 50 years fully expect that the contract government made with them to take their taxes during their working lives would be paid off by having solvent Social Security and fully covered medical care when they reached age 65.

Working people have been paying for nearly 50 years and are just retiring. They are fully "entitled" to get everything that politicians have been promising them since Medicare started in 1964.

Of course the Republicans are trying to link "entitlement reform" to giving up on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The GOP has been trying to kill Social Security and Medicare since they were enacted. This is just one more attempt to kill them off.

Its "...the same old song, with a few new lines." Peter Townsend.

Somehow, someway, somebody has forever raided Social Security and that is the TRUTH. Those funds were taken by Congress and put into the "General and Special Cookie Pots" and not set aside for ANY ACTUAL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. Now, we the Public, are being asked to take any Cuts in stride. WRONG Mr. Congressman. You take the cuts in your pocketbook from now on.

Dirp--most fiscal conservatives like myself would love to create a system to ensure that those who paid in get what they are entitled to. Isnt that called personal accounts? If they created personal accounts invested in Treasury bills, you would mirror what you have today but the difference would be that you wouldnt get more than you paid in with a TBill return. Also you convienently ignore that the so called entitlement benefit is just a wealth transfer (because you dont like personal accounts) from the working poor and middle class to our wealthy seniors. So not sure how protecting entitlements is any better than "protecting" tax increases for the wealthy and is probably far worse than protecting tax increases for the working professsionals making over 250k who already pay 40% in tax and clearly fund their fair share in comparison to any other demographic group.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

“But to do this, I just don't want to promise the spending cuts. I want entitlement reforms.”

I wonder if Cutting Congress Pay And Benefits in Half would be a good start..... After all they have this idea that the little they do entitles them to these free-bees.....

@ SKIP

2 & 3 I'm fine with. There is just as much hate that comes from the liberal media as there is on FOX, Rush, Hannity, whoever. The liberal media just spins it so you have this really NIIIIICELY hate speach to conservatives. If you believe that FOX is only hate, you're living in a dream.

I'LL FIX this conversation about the fiscal cliff. Let it happen. Then of utmost importance - BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!!!!!!

pro -

Economic growth "after a recession" has nothing at all to do with "sustainability". The average rate of growth "after a recession"...based on what definitions? How long does "after" last? It's technically ALWAYS after a recession, ever since we had the first one. So you need to better define your terms, just for starters.

In any event, such growth is definitely NOT sustainable - I'm talking about medium/long-term stability here - and is ALWAYS inflationary, no matter the circumstances. Further, who even cares what the average growth rate was after average recessions??? The recession we just experienced WASN'T average...it was far, far worse. It stands to reason that the deeper the recession, the longer the recovery will take. But you seem to be implying that since the recession was bad, the recovery should be better than a normal recovery. Based on what evidence, my friend? We just experienced the worst recession in the history of the country...there is no road map to follow.

Obama doesn't seem to meet your expectations, but who really cares about you? It was the people with YOUR MIND SET that drove this country into the ditch. The last person I care to listen to regarding economic recovery is the one who made a recovery necessary in the first place. I'm not talking about YOU, personally, but I am talking about "your type". IMO, it is impossible for Obama to satisfy people of your persuasion, no matter what he might do. He could become a Republican but you'd still find a reason to hate him...wouldn't you.

Alan, NJ

As to Benghazi I am offended that I was lied to, and the fact that Obama apologized for the movie. I don't like a lot of media and some I find offensive.

I am offended that you're lying about what Obama has said regarding the attack in Benghazi. He NEVER "apologized" for any movie. Mitt Romney lost, and tiresome repetition of the lies he told during the campaign won't magically make him president. Get over it.

If they are going to do away with their so called entitlement programs- then I want every penny that I was forced to pay in to it back plus 12% interest. I want a return on MY investment Republiclowns.

The only problem with unrestrained capitalism is that you run out of people who can afford to buy your products once you've driven them all into poverty.

@Houston ... thank you! That's the most succinct explanation yet of why we need a vibrant middle class. Contrary to the claims of the GOP, it is not the wealthy who are "job creators", it is the middle class. Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the country (in terms of stock price) by selling only to the "1%" ... it did it by selling to vast numbers of the middle class. The 1% (3.5 million or less) can only buy so many TVs, so many cars, so much clothing, etc.... The real jobs come from supplying 250 million people with TVs, cars, clothing, vacations, toys, etc....