I'd like to know exactly what the republican offer includes.

Closing loopholes/deductions is a step in the right direction, but unless it would garner a massive amount of new revenue from the top 2% the rest of us need to be worried.

It would be better if both sides eliminated all loopholes, increased the rate on the top earners to about 30% and included a much better form of accountability in receiving the taxes on time from everyone. Another major problem with taxes quite simply is that so many people fail to pay or pay what they owe. It would be better if the IRS had enough people to force the delinquent tax payers to pay on time wether through wage/bank garnishments up to forcing people to sell assets in order to pay what they owe within a few months of their failure to pay.

The amount of back taxes unpaid at the national/state levels is staggering. Receiving what is owed by these deadbeats would be a major step in decreasing the deficit.

Mike, I applaud your rhyming skills, but I pay a lower tax rate and make more money now than I did when Obama took office, so I have to challenge your facts.

Mike, my brother can build a house with his own two hands, rig up a solar panel and butcher his own pig, but he needs Medicaid because he doesn't have a type of job that pays health insurance.

There are different kinds of work. I sit at a desk and have health insurance, while my brother works out in the cold, doing construction and is uninsured. I happen to think our country is stronger because of the work guys like my brother do - masonry, carpentry, etc. I think the smartest people in the top 1% would agree with me - they should pay a little more in taxes, to make sure our country is strong and prosperous.

Mike, I applaud your rhyming skills,

Nothing to applaud there - the plagiarizer got it from one of the hundreds of conservative sites. Spamming anyone?

But wouldn't it be true also that if all Bush/Obama tax cuts expire because neither side can compromise, then tax rates will be raised on the wealthy???

Mike 2598123 -

As a rule around here, when you cut and paste somebody else's work, you're supposed to give them credit, instead of letting people believe you wrote it yourself. I googled one line of "your" song and it popped up on any number of conservative web sites. So which one did you take it from - Gun and Game?

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/148393-54-xmas-trees-white-house.html

Oops....I see RedDev beat me to it. See how easy it is?

Would love to one day, have a cognac with you in front of a fire place and listen to you relate the tales of our history

RedDevPS: I didn't see your and Layton's message until this morning. Sounds like a plan.

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1680&bih=904&tbm=isch&tbnid=3DjRCQfF02TYkM:&imgrefurl=http://societeperrier.com/los-angeles/articles/5-things-we-learned-at-maurice-hennessys-cognac-tasting/&docid=P3xbqhvaMkFMTM&imgurl=http://societeperrier.com/los-angeles/files/2012/09/Hennessy7.jpg&w=600&h=450&ei=CkO-UNSgB6q30AHR-oGIDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=938&vpy=79&dur=97&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=118&ty=110&sig=116844154765877437400&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=164&start=0&ndsp=49&ved=1t:429,r:34,s:0,i:194

Amy- I so agree! I also have a cushy job, or a desk job as you call it (lol), but it is the construction industry that builds America. It must be a rewarding if not satisfying accomplishment to build things that last for decades, something that you can show your children that "Hey, I built that"!

Here is an idea: any shortfall in funds for medicare should be made up out of the defense budget, if a nation can't even care for it's old and sick, then just what the hell is the military protecting.

But wouldn't it be true also that if all Bush/Obama tax cuts expire because neither side can compromise, then tax rates will be raised on the wealthy???

It would, and everyone else in this country who makes enough to be taxed, and there would also be across the board spending cuts as well, the loss of the reduced FICA tax, and the loss of extended unemployment benefits. If it were tax increases alone, it probably wouldn't be too big of a problem, its everything else that comes along with it that poses the problem, especially some of the cuts, and the loss of extended unemployment benefits.

I suspect that the Republicans are willing to close loopholes rather than raising tax rates because they know they can reinstate loopholes by the same method that they obtained the loopholes in the past ..... they will attach legislation to bills that the Democrats want to pass and hold the bill hostage until they get favors for their rich donors.

TO: T-REX-847863 who wrote:

"... Lower taxes, smaller government are ideal. Hard to believe any intelligent person would prefer the largest, most expensive government the planet has ever seen."

Well, but Republicans already made the decision to raise taxes when they lied us into War in Iraq.

That war HAS to be paid for, and it CANNOT be paid for with "lower taxes" or Food Stamps.

If taxing the rich won't help pay down the debt, how the heck is robbing the elderly and poor families of some measley Food Stamps going to help?

The longer it takes for us to pay down the debt, specifically all that money George "Curveball" Bush and his rubberstamping Republican Administration borrowed from China to go into Iraq, the more our debt is going to grow just by the amount of interest that's being added to that debt alone.

Republicans danced to the music, now it's time to pay the piper.

@Forrest -- Going into sequestration will reduce the defense budget. Let's hope the administration uses those funds in that way. Good call.

Also, how is pushing your opponents to a point that they won't budge protecting the middle class?? It's like someone is holding a gun to your head and saying do what I say or I'll kill you and knowing all the time if you do what they say they will kill you anyway. So shoot me.

This isn't about raising revenue, its all about punishing the top 2%. You can raise revenue by closing deduction or by raising marginal rates. Both get to the same place. But Obama won't except raising revenue by closing deduction. He only wants rates raised. Per his own press conference.

Fiesty, stick it to the top 2% all you want if it makes you feel good. (You probable aren't one so I will conclude you have no problem taking from others.) In the end the marginal 3-4% won't mean that much to me (yes I'm in the 1% in income not wealth). Yes its money that will be pissed away but my lifestyle won't change a bit.

But let's not kid ourselves that you can tax us (the 2%ers) enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit or Debt. When the spending cuts come, and they WILL come, then let's see how high you howl.

You and most of this country can't seem to tell the difference between income and wealth. To hit the top 2% your INCOME only has to be above $150k. Live in CA, NY, or any major metro area and tell me if that is "RICH". (It's not) You can confiscate 100% of our annual "INCOME" and still not balance the budget. So go ahead and enjoy your "my way or the highway" approach. In the end every one will eventually pay.

Top 1% by Income: $380k

Top 1% by Wealth: $8.4M

Big difference. You really want to hurt the 1%, crash the Stock market, which is where most of their money is. Oh but that would hurt you too just not as directly.

Forrest, you are fast becoming my fave!

Keep up the good insight! Nice to see one on this board use his/her noggin! Kudos!

TO: T-REX-847863 who wrote:

"Requiring 2%, and only 2% of the country be responsible for more revenue is ridiculous. 98% of the country trying to hold 2% hostage is ridiculous. "you 2%...pay higher rates or else!"

Where are taxes for the rest? Where are spending cuts that would affect all? Why is this solely on the backs of the 2%?"

Probably because the top 2% haven't been paying any taxes, which is why Mitt Robme refused to release HIS tax returns, obviously because we would have been shocked at how little rich folks like him actually pay in taxes.

I don't suppose you understood, over these past several months during the presidential race how a big issue was that average Americans, such as myself, have been paying taxes at a much higher rate than the rich.

Rich folks have had their tax holidays, now it's time for THEM to take over and give US a break!

"Where are taxes for the rest? Where are spending cuts that would affect all? Why is this solely on the backs of the 2%?"

Look harder for your answers.

Its not "soley" on their back its just one of the MAIN things. However its those 2% that don't want to anything to do with it. If they don't pay up who do you think will? Talk about a group of people that think they're entitled.

How about have a tax increase on the top 1% instead of the top 2%, something like Obama wants, and do like the Republicans want and cut out at least some tax loop holes.

One can dream about about non-partisanship and compromise, even if it is just a fairy tale.

The president isnt trying to fight for the middle class. Its all smoke and mirrors and you followers fall for it. I wish the Republicans would call his bluff and agree to increase taxes on the "rich". Then lets see how Obama tries to spin raising taxes on the middle class. Whether you want to believe it or not, taxes are going to raised on the middle class no matter what.

Why don't they talk to each other? Close loopholes, and raise taxes.

This isn't about raising revenue, its all about punishing the top 2%.

Stupidity. There's no other word for this comment.

The president isnt trying to fight for the middle class

Of course not. The Republicans are.

HS,

I agree but that is not how Obama works. Its either his way or the highway.

"I suspect that the Republicans are willing to close loopholes rather than raising tax rates because they know they can reinstate loopholes by the same method that they obtained the loopholes in the past ..... they will attach legislation to bills that the Democrats want to pass and hold the bill hostage until they get favors for their rich donors."

Or they will simply find a different loop hole. If they are willing to pay more by closing loopholes then why not just pay more? Because closing loopholes is just a big shell game, close one hole use another.

Jack,

Why is that stupid? You could tax the top 2% at 100% and it will only run the government for 8 days. Why doesnt our government cut spending on useless social programs?

And to answer your other smart ass comment......Neither side is fighting for the middle class.

"If we're going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we've already made and the further reforms in entitlements that I’m prepared to make, then we’re going to have to see the rates on the top two percent go up," the president told Bloomberg television.

"And we're not going to be able to get a deal without it," he continued. "It's not me being stubborn -- it's not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math."

YES! Stick to your guns, Mr. President!

T-REX-847863

Requiring 2%, and only 2% of the country be responsible for more revenue is ridiculous. 98% of the country trying to hold 2% hostage is ridiculous. "you 2%...pay higher rates or else!"

Where are taxes for the rest? Where are spending cuts that would affect all? Why is this solely on the backs of the 2%?

For decades the middle class has subsidized the rich, who have been allowed to pay far less in taxes as a percentage of their incomes. The rich few have sucked the vast majority of the assets and income out of the American economic system and left a pittance for the middle class.

It is simply not sustainable to take from the many and give to the few, not in a system like ours where consumer spending by the many (the middle class) powers the economy.

Too many of the wealthy hoard their wealth. People like Romney take vast amounts of capital out of the system and park it in foreign accounts instead of putting it back into our economy through spending or investing.

The middle class spends most of what they earn and when they have very little to spend, products and services made here and elsewhere sit on the shelves, unsold. Everybody loses.

Why should the middle class continue to subsidize the rich? Let Romney and his ilk pay their fair share of taxes. Let business owners pay their workers a livable wage so that we taxpayers won't need to subsidize the poor too, with food stamps and welfare.

Let the rich pay their fair share to help provide education, research, and infrastructure renewal. The rich have been taking from the rest of us for far too long, and it's killing our economy. The middle class needs relief from carrying the burden of the rich on our backs.

To borrow a phrase from Ann Romney, "It's our turn."

"I agree but that is not how Obama works. Its either his way or the highway."

Isn't it odd how things look to different people? Like I think its the GOP that keeps saying no it our way or we're taking our ball and going home.

Obama is proposing raising 120 billion in taxes a year, reducing spending 40 billion per year, and promoting another 50 billion in stimulus spending. Nothing about Obama's plan is serious about the debt or the deficit. Obama will leave office with our national debt in excess of 20 trillion. Obama will leave office having added more to our national debt then all previous presidents combined. You have to be a complete idiot to even suggest that Obama cares about the fiscal health of this country, as he certainly isn't putting anything on the table to get us to a balanced budget ever. Did all liberals just fail math or never take it?

When 1% of the country has more wealth than half the country its totally called for they be asked to pay more than everyone else..

Also, for everyone complaining about Republicans and tax loopholes......you seem to be forgetting that the democrats use the same loopholes to make sh-t loads of money. That and insider trading.

Well Thank You Lil Michele, I am supposed to working out of my home office on expense reports for my next project but FR is way more fun than expense reports.

It would seem to me that going over the so called "cliff" is going to work out best for both parties, but not for the country.

1. Increased revenue for us Dems, without Repubs having to vote on it (Norquist pledge)
2. Reduced spending ala cuts in Military without either side having to answer to their lobbyist
3. bot sides being able to blame the other for not getting it done

Maybe it IS the answer for political gains... just not good for us Americans.

BP,

That is odd isnt it? Only difference is that both sides are the problem and I can actually admit that unlike most of the mindless party hacks on here.

funny lasertroll, you CAN"T buy beer or rolling papers with foodstamps...

Mr. Righteous,

What makes you entitled to other peoples money?

Hi Ya Amy, I will tell you something else, unfortunately you don't see to many 67 year old bricklayers.

Higher tax rates on the wealthy will not assure -- nor will it probably -- enough revenues. Especially since people like Buffet; Romney; Kerry; Rockefeller; Hedge fund managers; the Hollywood elite; the Greenitch elite; etc. who can afford and will pay the top tax lawyers and CPAs to see that they do not pay any additional taxes despite the rates -- legally. Doesn't closing loopholes make more sense? Just sayin' unless you actually want them to escape paying taxes.

Michelle,

Actually you CAN buy beer and papers with food stamps. I see it every week at the liquor store by me, but then again I do live in Chicago.

".......the GOP proposal called for $800 billion in new revenue due to closing loopholes and deductions, though it would not increase tax rates on any Americans."

How can that happen? It becomes clear Boner has nothing more than BS. How can you close loopholes and deductions and not cost the majority of Tax Payers a pile of money? I know that's not what is being said here but we are again fighting the Republicans about who's taxes should go up! They are determined to have lower income earners foot the majority of the bills while the rich carry home the majority of the bacon! And they wonder why they got pounded in the last election........they were shocked, amazed and flabbergasted!

We are talking "plum stupid" here.

I dont care if you can get it done without taxing the rich more. I said NO I want the rich to pay MORE.

If you want the rich to be taxed more then you want your own food, gas and anything else you BUY to COST MORE then go ahead tax them MORE.

I know OBLAMER does NOT and will NOT care in the future as he is set for LIFE. He ruins this country for 8 years by the time he is done and we have to pay him for LIFE. Just like the WELFARE BABIES.

cjbak I guess you have NO clue on the plan either. You close the LOOPHOLES and limit deductions on those that make over 250K. The 2 sides have to negotiate the plan before they VOTE on it. But like OBLAMER you do NOT have a tax hike in it for the RICH so I can NOT work with it. Yes it gets the same job done but I want a tax hike on the rich. You DEMORATS need to get over that mentality.

Here's a plan; reduce the federal money going to the 'taker' states (you know, those 'taker' people who have been demonized by the GOP) that receive more fed money than they contribute to no more than what they pay in. 7 out of the top 10 are 'red' states, so this will fit with their 'principles' nicely. Then, when the riots break out, don't send in the army (that's a domestic budget-breaker). After all, they have their own National Guard units, assuming they haven't joined the rioters. After some of these RWNJs have been hung from lampposts, the rest may start to see reason....

Class warfare has already been declared by the GOP, let the fighting begin. Reason has failed, so a 'political cleansing' appears to be needed. As per the first civil war, fighting will be in the south.

Extremist? You bet, but until the GOP 'base' fully understands the consequences of their beliefs, nothing will change.

Note to the GOP base: Not all gun owners are RWNJs, p!ss the liberals off enough and you'll find out how well they shoot...

Well Ben it all depends on what loopholes are closed, they are not specific about that, closing corporate loopholes would help a great deal, but I fear that the loopholes they want to close will still put the major burden on those who can least afford it, and who's little bit of disposable income is what really drives the economy.

Alaska girl,

Maybe they follow the guidelines for food stamps where you live but here in Chicago I see the takers buying beer, cigarettes, lotto tickets, etc with their food stamps (link cards). It happens whether you want to believe it or not.

Those in the top earning bracket, even if they are hit with a 4% increase, will still NOT BE PAYING TAXES on more than half of their income due to myriad loopholes that allow them to shelter much of their income. The Republicans always talk about closing the loopholes but, at the end of the day, they refuse to do so because it would force the Koch brothers, Murdoch, Romney, Trump and the like to pony up their fair share.

Since the very wealthy have legal ways to avoid paying taxes on much of their income, and the other 98% of us do not, I do not feel there is anything wrong with bumping their tax rate up a few percentage points.

Grover Norquist was not elected ... and for the Republicans to remain bound to a pledge made to HIM rather than doing what is best for nearly ALL American citizens is treason. You were elected to uphold the Constitution, not some damned pledge you signed to get votes. Do what is right ... and do it now. Stop holding the American people hostage so you can protect your campaign contributors.

President Obama ran and was elected on the promise that he would raise the percentage on the wealthy and maintain the tax break for the majority, which keeps money in circulation and helps the economy. The rich do not create jobs from their pockets. People BUYING STUFF keeps companies in business and, if you take away a couple of thousand dollars from the average households, there will be less purchased.

What the GOP is doing is simply wrong. Stop playing politics. Stop acting like a bunch of spoiled rich kids. You were elected to do a job ... NOW DO IT!

Ben-636050

But wouldn't it be true also that if all Bush/Obama tax cuts expire because neither side can compromise, then tax rates will be raised on the wealthy???

Now you're catching on!

Also, how is pushing your opponents to a point that they won't budge protecting the middle class?? It's like someone is holding a gun to your head and saying do what I say or I'll kill you and knowing all the time if you do what they say they will kill you anyway. So shoot me.

That analogy works, but only if you realize that the Republicans are the ones holding the gun to their own heads.

Irish - Laser

I did a search on illinois link card, and found:

source, Ill legal aid

The SNAP allowance can be used to:

Buy most food that you find at a grocery store
Buy food at a farmer's market
Pay for meals provided by the Meals-on-Wheels program

You cannot use SNAP benefits to buy:

Prepared foods from a grocery store
Alcohol
Tobacco
Soap
Paper products
Pet food
Other nonfood items

jack in portsmouth...

You don't get it do you...

It is not that the top 2% will find a modest tax rate increase economically injurious to them, but rather that any real increases in revenue will only be obtained by letting the obama tax cuts expire. Why not do an internet search on what the bush2 2001 - 2003 tax cuts amounted to over ten years. $800 billion for the top 2%, $2.5 - $3.5 trillion from everyone else.

Obama's narrative should be what will grow America, not that the top 2% aren't doing their fair share. Of course you can always look up on the US treasury web site on what %'s the various AGI tax payers contribution to federal income taxes are. But that would probably interfere with your political opinion rather than the actual math facts.

Regarding your analysis that raising just taxes on the wealthy will not solve our problems (which is correct), why is it that that is what obama's message has been these past 3 years? I never did hear him say that the middle class can do more, just that the top 2% needs to do more. At least we know that obama isn't channeling JFK. You can reveiw my posts back to 2010 for letting the tax cuts expire across the board as well as reducing spending. I do stop at requiring a federal balanced amendment though. There are three exogenous events that can't be predicted, natural disasters, war and recessions.

WRT - Nice try in askingthe question about only the congressional republicans, perhaps you can tell us how many congressional democrats voluntarily give their extra income to the IRS? Shall we start with pelosi? Surely you don't think that only congressional democrats are righteous, that would really be droll. I at least understand that regardless of party a politician can only look to the next election cycle and how to be fiscally irresponsible.

Here is something to ponder, I think the right wants to do something with SS COLA's to help control costs. In my opinion, whatever the SS COLA formula is is that the same formula be applied to all federal employees and elected officials as well.

Jack,

Its fools like you that don't get it. If Obama was serious about raising revenue, he wouldn't care if it was from closing deductions or raising rates. Since he clearly stated that raising rates is mandatory for any deal, a reasonable person can only conclude that he isn't serious about raising revenue but punishing the 2%. Afterall, its the PC thing to do.

Redistribute all you want. In 5-10 yrs or a generation at most the money will be back in the 2%er's hands. You know why? Because you will never save a dime of your money. So instead you use the Government to take what I earned and give your people like yourself.

Dear Irish21, Actually I am not entitled to anyone's assets. I am doing fine at the 4% level. Just between you and me I was curious how many "poor" liberals would respond to such a ridiculous idea. Or anyone for that matter. Taxing the top 2% amounts to nothing except making the liberals feel good about their prez fighting for them against the rich.

I've also suggested making this a one political party country and eliminating the 50 state set-up but no one bit on those ideas.

those - who benefit more from the system - should pay more back to support the system and ...believe it or not...these same people (the 1%) will again get more back from their contribution. In refusing paying mroe, these 1% show their ignorance and total disregard for their countrymen and...total disregard for their own self-interest.

.

When the fiscal health is better, the economy takes off, the rich will make more than the poor.

Forrest -- From everything I have read, it does not target individual loopholes but just limits the total deductions that can be taken. If one is not rich then probably their charitable donations and mortgage interest will be available to them as deductions. Makes sense to me since I'm not rich.

@Kaybee -- Obama and left has the gun so he obviously doesn't care either way.

I find all of this Very very funny.

Republicans flat out have said, no increase taxes at all for everyone. Yet it is somehow twisted to, they do not care about the middle class. Seems to me they are protecting everyone.

Republicans say We are going to get this money from closing loopholes. One can assume from that kind of savings that the loopholes will hit everyone. GOOD everyone has skin in the game.

Republicans say, that increasing everyone over 250k will hurt small business. Which is factually true. Many small business owners do their business taxes on their personal income tax. The majority of the workforce in this county is in small business. ( do the research yourself its not hard )

Democrats preach the Rich need to pay their fair share.. Yet when push comes to shove, will never tell you what " fair share " means.

Democrats have been saying for the last what 8+ years that the Bush Tax cuts were only for the rich, yet want to extend them for everyone BUT the rich. SO what were they, for the poor or for the rich, or did they go across the board like Republicans have said all along.

Do the research, America has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Fact is, the Rich already pay the lions share of the overall tax burden in this country. Fact is, we do have close to 50 percent of this country that pay NOTHING in Federal Taxes. This is fact supported by the Fed, you cannot deny it unless you are being a partisan hack.

Fact: Raising Taxes on the Top 2 percent gains what 80 million or so a year in additional funds ( I do not remember this number exactly but its around here ) We are and have ran a 1+ Trillion dollar deficit every year for the last 4 years. Do you really think 80 million is going to do a damn thing?

Its not the tax level, its the spending level fools. Dems want to hit the rich.. Well I want to hit the politicians in Washington.

From now on: No more life long retirement checks from being in the Gvmnt service. You draw your salary for 1 year after you are voted out till you find a new job. No more paying ex presidents, vice presidents a 6 figure salary for being an ex president. Same with Congress, and every other elected official.

Congress.. You no longer get your 6 figure salary. You get the medium salary of the District/State you represent. EFF paying you to do nothing. Start there, and move to every damn department in the Gvmnt.

Make damn sure you keep cutting till our spending levels = what we bring in.

You cannot tax our way back to prosperity, no matter what people say.

But let's not kid ourselves that you can tax us (the 2%ers) enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit or Debt. When the spending cuts come, and they WILL come, then let's see how high you howl.

Steve... if you don't understand how the American economy works-- that middle class consumer spending is the engine that powers it-- then you might as well prepare to kiss your loot goodbye.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Have a nice day.

Michelle,

Great you did some research. Doesnt mean that the store doesnt sell the booze and smokes to them. Like I said, I see it every week. I also see the 300 lb. pigs buying all sorts of junk food with their fat kids in tow, pull out the link card to pay for it then walk to their Escalade. I will start recording and post on youtube for the people that are blind to this sort of thing.

Mr. Righteous,

Thats pretty good. I am no fan of either side and havent been for years but I am just amazed at how blind some people are thinking the government is the answer to all of their problems.

Jeremey - I'm with you... I don't understand why, when republicans are saying keep rates at the low rates for everyone (with higher incomes paying higher taxes and lower income paying lower/no taxes) that is somehow "against" the poor.

I've said it a million times, but I bet most of the people arguing on here in favor of Obama's tax plan would also say they're against the bush tax cuts, even though that doesn't make sense.

I bet they hang more LIBERALS, than they do the republicans that are trying to get this country back on track.

Got to cut ALL government spending. Just a simple 10% cut to ALL paychecks, if they can NOT afford there UNION dues then do away witht he UNION or take the hit yourself if you feel you need the union to keep your job.

The government spends 13,200,000,000,000.00 each year, if they cut it by 10% that is a 1.32 trillion dollar saving right there. Cut out the loop holes and limit deductions and presto you have a balanced budget and can even pay some extra on the DEBT.

I agree, John. And if the Republican "leadership" in Congress goes to the mat on this to prevent a very modest increase in the tax burden of ONLY the 2% MOST WEALTHY Americans and TOP 3% of small businesses ...resulting in a significantly increased tax burden for 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses, Americans will revolt and demand that heads roll.

The Republicans in Congress had best not get this wrong or they will be dismissed from consideration as a viable and trustworthy political party for at least a generation.

No amount of legislative shenanigans, corporate "Tea Party" financing, Congressional District gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement (suppression) and secret mega-donor vote buying will be able to offset the loss of confidence of 98% of the American electorate which will be financially damaged by their naked protection of the MOST WEALTHY at the expense of ALL OTHER Americans.

Steve-1962,

Where did you get that from the Republican proposal? There are no specifics! The over 250K is and never was proposed by the Republicans. That's wishful thinking on your part. Basically what they are proposing is the Ryan plan which puts the burden on us, the majority of the tax paying population. Undoubtedly you have not been convinced the Republicans can not be trusted to look out for the middle class. I don't know what can convince you otherwise but if you haven't gotten the message by now you will never get it. Go on.....be the sucker. Hell, we are all suckers thinking that these guys have our interests at heart. The Republican serve only the wealthy and throw the rest of us the bones.

Irish

Yeah, I guess everywhere in Illinois is corruption... I'm sending the governer a xmas card, in care of Joliet prison!

Ben eliminating the mortgage interest deduction on a primary residence would be a very bad deal for the economy, however I am not so worried about that one because I am sure the real estate lobbby is all over that. I make a decent living but I am not rich either Ben. I am at a stage of life where I don't have many deductions available to me, it is young people trying to start a family who can potentially be hurt the worst by eliminating certain deductions, it all depends on the details.

Steve 1962, my union dues where the best investment I ever made - bar none.

@lil michelle no they cant buy those things with food stamps but if the food stamps pay for their food that frees up money for them to buy those things. also tax revenues generally dont increase when you increase rates. increasing rates discourages people from entering that higher bracket or going elsewhere. see france. also see how in our own history how when rates are lowered revenues increase as you are promoting more people to enter that bracket. you increase the pool by lowering the rates. you increase revenues by increasing the pool. during the first year or two after an rate increase you may have a small increase in revenues as people are adjusting but long term they always reduce revenues. its why kennedy, reagan, clinton, and bush all had increased and record revenues generated by lowering tax rates. its why the economy stagnated in the 70s under nixon and carter and partially why our current economy cant get on track. we have the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world. companies are going to other countries because of this. countries dropping their corporate taxes are seeing business come to them from countries with higher tax rates. after the recent tax hike in france many businesses are moving to the UK who lowered their rates (and by attracting those businesses from france increased their pool and revenues.)

little math problem for you. at 35% tax rate we have 2000 people making 1,000,000+. at 40% we have 1500 people making 1,000,000+. at 25% we have 3500 people making 1,000,000+. which group will have the largest ammount of revenues paid? 40%= 600,000,000 min revenues collected. 35%= 700,000,000 25%= 875,000,000. notice a trend?

the tax increases obama wants are a red herring. they would generate, assuming that somehow the number of people in that category stays the same and ignores that when you raise rates you end up with fewer people in those brackets, approx 85 billion a year or enough to run the government for 8.5 days. Considering we have annual defecits of over 1.5 trillion that 83 billion is a drop in the bucket. barely over 5% of just the defecit. if you confiscated all the wealth of everyone in that tax bracket along with the wealth of every business in america you could not run the government for a year and would be screwed for next year. We dont have a tax rate problem we have a tax pool problem. everyone wants to bash the rich who make the majority of their money from capital gains but dont mind getting a few grand back over what they paid in thanks to generous deductions like eitc, child and mortgage credits, and a huge standard donation. yet those people who pay nothing or profit from the tax system cry about the rich not paying their fair share while they have an effective rate of 0% or less. if you bring up a fair or flat tax people cry about how it raises taxes on the poor. duh. if you taxed the poor $1 instead of giving them a few thousand back that is considered a tax increase of a few thousand dollars. economic ignorance is staggering in this country. we keep listening to people that say if you continually spend more than you make it will be fine and work out in the end. its complete bs. try doing that in your personal life. eventually your credit poops and people quit lending you money. the interest stacks up so if you actually do pay off everything you pay 4x the original value or you stay continually indebt until you die and they take what they are owed or you default and they take your stuff.

Oblamer want to raise the rate yet will do NOTHING to close those loophole for his RICH Buddies

why should the majority of taxes NOT be on the majority of the population? why are people that seem so worried about people paying their fair share that they focus on 2% instead of the 48% that dont pay or profit from the income tax system. I wonder how much we would save if the larges refund you could get would be equal to how much you had sent in. for example. if you had say 2000 deducted for federal income tax and after the credits etc when you file the most you can get back would be the 2000 you had sent in? it would still leave many at an effective rate of 0% but would not allow for profiting (vote buying) from the tax system

askaboutet

Jeremey - I'm with you... I don't understand why, when republicans are saying keep rates at the low rates for everyone (with higher incomes paying higher taxes and lower income paying lower/no taxes) that is somehow "against" the poor.

The math doesn't work. The only way we can continue to let the rich slide by, not paying their fair share in taxes is if we cut services that benefit everyone, particularly the middle class and the poor.

Are you willing to let Republicans cut education, social security, research, infrastructure renewal and health care so that the one-percenters can continue to pay a tiny pittance in taxes?

I'm not. The MAJORITY of Americans agree with me.

I've said it a million times, but I bet most of the people arguing on here in favor of Obama's tax plan would also say they're against the bush tax cuts, even though that doesn't make sense.

The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. At least that's what Republicans told us. You don't suppose they might have lied to us, do you?

Yes forrest those in the UNION think it great if you need to use them. As for me I am a great worker I do NOT need a union to keep my job for me, to get me a raise, more time off of work. what ever I want, I go directly to the owner and discuss it. we usally end up somewhere in the middle of what we both would like.

But to pay a union for NOTHING, I have NO clue what union you belong to as for the teamsters in the trucking industry they were and still are worthless. Just a money grab from hte employees, I quit that company when I had the chance to get in a good company that pays better and has better people owning the operation.

Not all UNIONS are bad, but there are some out there that are to powerful, that will and have destroyed American companies. You can add Hostess to that list now.

At what point is Obama going to stop playing politics and start trying to be a leader?

If the goal is to increase the amount of taxes the upper 2% pay, then there are 2 legitimate options to achieve this goal - increase the tax rates or remove deductions (or a combination of both). By stating the must have a tax increase it makes me think this is all just politics, or he really doesn't understand the tax code.

Warren Buffet effectively said the way to go was removing deductions via a "minimum tax rate" that is lower than the current top rate. I wish Obama would listen to Buffet on this one...

Thanks for reminding me KayBeeToys "A fool and his money are soon parted." I must be the fool because I see a major portion of my paycheck parted. Then I see the fools in Washington claim they don't have enough of my money while they spend like drunken fools. Then I see other fools saying we should take more money from the richer fools because it's easier to tax the other fool because paying yourself is too foolish.

Kaybeetoys - as much as I love that store, how can you say the rich don't pay their fair share? Have you figured out what their fair share is? Why do you think they don't already pay it? The wealthy pay about 70% of income taxes. Are you telling me that if you were inventing a tax system, and the people making it were like 'okay, we're going to have about 1/2 NOT pay taxes, about 40% pay 30% of the taxes, and about 10% pay 70% of the taxes, your reaction would be 'whoa, that is totally not enough. why would 10% of the people only pay 70% of the taxes? 10% needs to pay MORE than 70% in order to pay their fair share. 70% is "pittance." - obviously not, right? *I'm not "wealthy" or >$250,000, but I can't POSSIBLY agree with you. What possibly (in all seriousness, I'd like your answer) would lead you to believe that the wealthy don't pay their share, and that what the wealthy pays is "pittance"

Also, Nope I don't htin kthey're lying.- if they're not supposed to be permanent, why are democrats trying to make them permanent? Are THEY lying? I don't get what your point is?

Obama is the one who refuses to avoid the fiscal cliff unless taxes on the rich are raised. How is that any less "taking this country hostage?"

Until this last election I had never voted by party. I was a member of a union for 27 years and never voted the way they wanted me to. I have always voted for who ever I thought was the best candidate regardless of what party they represented. But since the republican party became the stupid party I feel I have no choice. I can't vote for a party that seriously endorses the idea that the earth is only 5000 years old, thinks only the rich 2% deserve protecting, thinks tax breaks for that same 2% create jobs despite all the evidence disproving this stupid idea and wants to outlaw abortion. I am old enought to remember the days when abortion was illegal and young women were dying from backstreet procedures, do we really want to go back to this?

Separation of church and state is supposed to be the rule right. How long are the republicans going to let the tail wag the dog, catering to the extreme right is a bad idea that is hurting the party. Just look how this type of government is working else where in the world and this is the template they want to use here. This where the very idea that rape is an acceptable form of conception or that certain types of rape are acceptable period comes from and these are the people you want to put in charge.

So congradulations republicans you accomplished what the unions never were able to. I didn't vote democratic so much as I voted against the current republican agenda. This same party that voted not to raise the debt limit which really did serious damage to our economy. Pretending not know that the debt limit allows us to pay for bills already incurred and kept our credit rating solid was insulting and turned me anti republican. So if we are allowed to go over the fiscal cliff I am placing the the responsiblity on the party of no, the stupid party, the party that would rather let the economy fail instead of working to make things better just to score political points. Isn't that the job we the people hired you to do? I going to say it with my vote, and you know what republicans I am not alone.

Kaybee,

All I ever see you talking about is the rich paying their fair share. You do realize they pay about 70% of the taxes in this country, right? So you think they should pay 100% of the taxes in this country? How about this for an idea, how about the government tw-ts stop spending our money like it grows on trees? eventually they are going to run out of other peoples money.

and the argument of "the majority voted that way" is ridiculous too.

1. Just because Obama was voted into office doesn't mean that everyone that voted for him agreed with every single one of his stances (same for Romney voters), and

2. do you think that if we voted to have ONLY 2% OF THE POPULATION'S INCOME TAXES RAISED, and NOT anyone elses, whether the raise were to 39%, 50%, 60%, 70%, etc, you couldn't get a majority of the people to vote in favor of that? of course a lot of people would vote in favor of that, regardless of how bad of a policy it would be. That's why we have congress make the tax laws.

American Girl-724855:

Probably because the top 2% haven't been paying any taxes, which is why Mitt Robme refused to release HIS tax returns, obviously because we would have been shocked at how little rich folks like him actually pay in taxes.

According the USA IRS, the top 1% of all federal income tax earners pay 40% of ALL federal income taxes collected by the IRS.

W M Romney did in fact release and publish his Y2010 and Y2011 Federal Tax Returns. Plus, he release his federal returns before he was governor and during his term (Y2002-2006).

I don't suppose you understood, over these past several months during the presidential race how a big issue was that average Americans, such as myself, have been paying taxes at a much higher rate than the rich.

B H Obama just kept on lying - which what he does well. He reads from written script best.

Rich folks have had their tax holidays, now it's time for THEM to take over and give US a break!

Their is not any tax on "rich" - do you mean the "death tax"?

The current USA Tax Code was mostly written and passed by the Democrat Party. Please quit acting as if it was the created by the another group. Yes, the Republicans have added to it.

So in other words what Obama is saying is:

"Even though it doesn't even help the massive deficit I am going to punish success EVEN if it means I punish all citizens in this country too"

That doesn't sound like a leader - that sounds like a gang member. That sounds like a bully. That sounds like someone that doesn't care about the country OR the people.

Incompetence voted in incompetence - so I guess you get what you voted for..............

So in other words what Obama is saying is:

"Even though it doesn't even help the massive deficit I am going to punish success EVEN if it means I punish all citizens in this country too"

That doesn't sound like a leader - that sounds like a gang member. That sounds like a bully. That sounds like someone that doesn't care about the country OR the people.

Incompetence voted in incompetence - so I guess you get what you voted for..............

AlaskaGirl-759554

Yes I did make a mistake I am human you are correct. But I am not lying about the food stamps sorry to tell you. You can even use them in casinos. Now if the store does something for it to work I have no clue all I know is she used her card to pay for it. She had no cash and she was laughing about it.

And if you work in my mind I don't see it because you would be pissed at the freebies the lazy get and you are not. So this tells me you are a freebie gal.

Have you seen how many are getting handouts? This is what needs to stop and this is what the REPs are saying put people to work don't give them handouts.

Now if you tax the rich all they will do is add it to the cost of a TV a car even a pizza. The next thing they will do is fire enough workers to offset the tax...

This is why you are not right in the head you don't think everything through just like the prez...

As for my grammer and spelling well you can bully me but let me tell you this.

When I was 18 I had a car wreck that put me into coma and life support for two weeks 10 minutes before I was to be taken of life support I opened my eyes and I lost all my memory including school. This is why I am still learning it all over again. Till this day I still don't know my parents are my parents because I don't remember I was just told they are.

So I am sorry if my grammer is bad.

So, Irish and laser, if what you say is true(I still doubt what you say), then have either of you taken note as to the establishments that are committing fraud and turned them in to the government? If that is no, then you are essentially part of the problem. If the same people are screaming "Welfare reform!" but not doing anything about it when they see the system being abused then how is it that you expect any reform to happen? It is not just up to our elected officials to do something. It is also up to each and every one of us to take care of this country in any way we are able to. Instead of ranting and raving about it, get involved! Nobody would know that you turned in a store, and at the least, that store will be investigated for government fraud. You can bet your ass that if I were to witness something like that I would be on the phone in a heartbeat.

American Girl - I can't tell if you are serious or not, but if you ARE, that is EXACTLY what is wrong with the media, politicians, etc. I truly believe that MANY people believe what you just said. It is so far from the truth it is ridiculous, however people will make decisions, vote, spread the falsities all around the internet, etc., and then you end up with a bunch of people who don't really nkow what is going on.

I don't mean to be on the "attack" as it is certainly nothing against you, but if you are serious that that is what you believe, the liberal media has done a great job in accomplishing their agenda...

I also like how Obama supporters keep saying that this is what the people voted for. Trust me the libs in Hollywood did not vote to have more of their money taken away, and the reason they try and make the claim that they dont mind paying more is because they have great accountants that will make sure they wont pay anymore than they already are. Trust me that all Obama supporters did not vote for tax increases, my cousin is an Obama suppoter and talking to him he just buys everything that is fed to him from the left. That is why most of his supporters think this is a good deal, because they dont really see it for what it is.

alaskagirl- that gets tried and then democrats say things like "republicans are trying to take food away from the poor" or some other nonsense like that to keep the programs from being touched. democrats here are trying to get it passed so that food stamps can be used in restaurants and not just on unprepared foods.

Alaska Girl,

Again, I live in Chicago. Do you think the elected officials dont know what is going on? I live in the most corrupt city in the country, they dont give a @!$%# as long as it gets them votes. And please dont say I am part of the problem that is only shifting the blame from the dead beats that abuse the system. I have called reps in my area and they say "we will look into the matter", nothing has ever been done. So no it is not my fault, it is the takers fault, the store and the government clowns that turn a blind eye to it.

ITS FUNNY HOW ALL these 98%-D are crying about rich people from their Iphone. lol what a joke

Isn't removing tax loopholes essentially raising the rich's taxes.? What is the magical method of tax increases. Isn't a tax increase a tax increase regardless of how you do it?

Why would liberals not love that.? All I heard was the 1% had all these accountants to get out of paying taxes...Boehner wants to close those. Nope...It has to be the income tax rate per Obama. Well then, wouldn't the rich use those tax loopholes to keep avoiding taxes since they will not be closed by Obama's plan?

Crazy Steve-1996926

After some of these RWNJs have been hung from lampposts, the rest may start to see reason....

this comment has been reported to authorities. Good luck

Excuse me, but I did not "bully" you as you put it. I guess you and I could round and round all day but we would not come even close to agreeing with each other. As far as me not "right in the head" as you so eloquently put it, all I can say is right back at ya for obvious reasons.

If you want more money from the "wealthy" (however you define that), then why not make more of the people that pay no taxes at all accountable as well? I'm not talking about the poor that have no income, I'm talking about people that work and pay taxes, and through loopholes in the tax system, wind up getting all that tax money back in a refund. These people that use the loopholes in the tax system are the same ones that are bitching that the wealthy are using them too.

AlaskaGirl-759554

Um I did call and was told there is nothing they can do unless I get the girls name I did give the stores name.

But do you really think the government is going to get off their butts to do anything about it? You are really crazy if you think they will...

Well Steve my union was a great thing for me and for most workers in general, not everybody works for such a generous employer as you do. My union negotiated contracts provided me with health care coverage for my family at no cost to taxpayers and a retirement portfolio that I would never have assembled by way of a 401K alone, whether it was matched or not. I took a management job recently and now I get paid more to do less, and if the people under me work real hard guess what I get a bonus on top, not the people that do the hard work, I get the bonus. The same people who might complain about what I earned as a union member seldom complain that I now make more for doing much less. I never begrude what those workers make, they earn and deserve every dime.

The union most certainly did not destroy Hostess everyone of the unions involved had already taken huge concessions before this happened, this was the second time management declared bankruptcy and the company changed hands, the bakers had not had contractual payments made to their pensions in over a year, what choice did they have they were not being paid anyway. You see where management still petitioned the bankruptcy judge for their bonus checks, gross mismanagement killed hostess not the workers or their unions who produced the products that brought the money in the door for damn near a hundred years, you are way off on that one.

Paws93,

Shut up! You are making too much sense for this comment section. We need more class warfare!

@lasertroll

They cannot use "food stamps" for the items you mentioned. However, another part of the program is "cash assistance", which is similar to a pre-paid debit card. They can use the cash for whatever they please, although the intent was for necessary non-food purchases such as soap, toilet tissue, toothpaste, deodorant, etc.; items necessary, but not available for purchase with food stamps.

Years ago, before the use of the card system, recipients received a booklet of vouchers called Food Stamps. They used them at the grocery for .. food. They also received a check each month which was cash assistance. Now both programs are combined onto a card, although they are separated as to what can be purchased through each program.

When you observe someone buying a non-allowed or non-food item with their card, they are not paying with food stamps, but with their cash assistance money. I wish it were different, but they can buy cigarettes, etc. with those funds.

Kaybeetoys,

I have a very good understanding of how the ecomony works. It is you who is falling for the BS coming out of Washinton. An economy based 70%+ on consumption is not sustainable long term. You need to go back and retake macro econ 101.

So long as the middle class spends 100% of their income they will never improve their ecomonic position. And so long as this country is driven primarily by consumption it will not solve the employment problem or our debt problem.

Without a balance between mfr/exports and consumption/imports we will continue down our economic decline.

"Where are taxes for the rest? Where are spending cuts that would affect all? Why is this solely on the backs of the 2%?"

Let's start with the system, i.e. the tax code and, more recently, the Bush-era tax cuts, being rigged in favor of the wealthy for the last 30 years or so. The gravy train has reached the end of the line for the rich; time for them to start paying their fair share. I suppose that that also might be where closing loopholes in the tax code comes in, but I digress. Either way, it's no wonder that the Mittster was so dead-set against releasing his tax returns for the years prior to 2009 or 2010. Meanwhile, let's not hear any more tired cliches, slogans, and platitudes about the modern wealthy being job creators. If that's the case, then where are all of the good, living-wage jobs that the GOP has been talking about and promising for the better part of a decade? Further proof that in, of, and all by themselves, tax cuts do not create jobs.

Requiring 2%, and only 2% of the country be responsible for more revenue is ridiculous. 98% of the country trying to hold 2% hostage is ridiculous. "you 2%...pay higher rates or else!"

Where are taxes for the rest? Where are spending cuts that would affect all? Why is this solely on the backs of the 2%?

Two different issues. One is the math... enough revenue to pay for government. Two... Fairness... The Bush era tax policy resulted in a massive shift in wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. You can look upon this like the Republicans with their trickle down mentality toward building a healthy economy or you can see it as a restoration of balance in our approach to fiscal medicine. From my perspective, the middle class must become well to enable the rest of the economy to heal. Going over the cliff would put in place the balanced revenue stream used by the Clinton administration. It's not exactly what we need but it would get rid of the Bush Albatross we have been saddled with for the past decade. As far as I'm concerned Grover can go to his corner and suck his thumb.

Well put !

D. Appel,

They are still using tax payer money to fund their habits. I think there needs to be some welfare reform. Anyone agree?

heres a proposal, stop allowing lobbyist to control business with a foot on its head so that more people are in the 2%...gee maybe if more of us would aspire to be a 2% their wouldn't be such an issue. But who the hell would want to suddenly join the 2% now...why when if you are 3% or less you can get by for free on social programs and food stamps.

@D. Appel

I hear you but I know what I seen and what I heard. Beer and rolling papers is all she bought with the card. And laughing. There was a few people in the store and we all talked about it after she walked out.

Like I said if the store did something to make it work I don't know all I know is she used it.....

This is why you don't give them anything put some food bank in all areas and just give them the product not the money or card.

I also seen one guy give cash to one in a grocery store. They paid for his food with card and he in return gave them half back in cash. They also have asked me to do it but I refused....

WJE,

You mentioned Clinton. I would take him in a heartbeat right now and I was not a big fan of Billy Boy. But he was able to do something Obama has not been able to do and that is work with both sides to get things done.

Steve-686481 - Good point(s) about the massive degree to which the consumer culture drives the American economy. As the late Stevie Ray Vaughan (RIP) sang in one of his numbers ("Crossfire"), "Sell your soul just to buy, buy, buy...."

Obama wants to tax the "rich"....just who defines "the rich"..the emperor and commander-in-chief, our anointed one who also wants to raise the debt ceiling on his own without congresses approval. Wake up people this guys out of hand!!!!!

roadless,

You nailed it. Funny how that shifted from people wanting to work hard to get into the top bracket of earners to now wanting to do the least amount of work possible and still thinking they should make boat loads of money. What the hell happened?

Alaska Girl and Michelle - food stamp recipients cannot use their food stamps for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Irish and lasertroll are just that - trolls. They will post whatever they believe makes their point and the truth doesn't matter much to them.

I live in Chicago and what they are posting is just plain lies.

I continue to struggle with the president's insistence on raising taxes on the wealthy. Sure, on the surface it's appealing, but I have to wonder how much revenue we're talking about, and is it worth playing this extended game of chicken while watching the value of stocks sink in the process.

According to the Tax Policy Center, removing tax breaks for the wealthy would generate roughly $56B in 2013. While that sounds significant, it pales in comparison to the federal budget. $56B is roughly 1/4 of what was paid in unemployment benefits in 2011; put another way, it is roughly 1% of what the feds spent last year.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cutting federal spending and raising revenue. But I also recognize that the federal debt is so high that the best annyone can hope for is to retard its upward trajectory. Any significant remedial measures will be painful, such as significantly reducing Social Security & Medicare, taking away tax breaks such as deductions on mortgage interest and charity donations, etc.

Both sides are not being honest with us. If we are serious about tackling the federal debt we're all going to have to feel some pain. But talking like that doesn't get you re-elected, so don't expect any honesty from your representatives.

Seeking Sanity,

So I am just seeing things then? Glad I have you hear to clear that up for me.

Come up to Albany Park some time and see for yourself the abuse of the system.

Mike, I applaud your rhyming skills, but I pay a lower tax rate and make more money now than I did when Obama took office, so I have to challenge your facts.

And since tax rates haven't changed under Obama, I have to challenge your facts. The only way your rate changed is if you dropped to a lower tax bracket.... Which is very likely.

Steve,

If there is no difference financially between raising rates and closing loopholes, why do you care if one is selected over the other?

70% of the economy is consumer spending. It's always been more or less that number.

I don't know what the heart attack is all about. The people complaining about the 3% or 4.6% the "rich" are going to pay don't no shinola about rich people's income. I'm technically "rich" and I tell you what, my income fluctuates by 50% every year. Do you really think somebody is going to even notice the rate change?

SeekingSanity

Sorry dude not lying I bet you are one of them. If I could give you proof I would. Heck I bet today I will see it again.

Tell you what do this and then tell me I am lying.

Find someone one food stamps tell them you will give them cash if they buy your food on the card. 99% of them will jump to do it...

You're just mad because we called you out...

Oh I am not from Chicago I am in Florida....

Further, I keep seeing the theme here that taxing the "rich" is barely going to make a dent in the fiscal problem. Well, if it's "not that much" money after all, then by golly, it should be EASY for them to afford it, right?

Laser,

Surprise, you've found an example of crime.

No one who pays taxes ever commits those, right?

STAND YOUR GROUND MR. PRESIDENT!

We the people...will stand beside you.

Folks, today's topic is EVOLUTION. No, not Darwinian evolution of species, but the evolution of the United States.

When this country was created only White MALE Land Owners could vote. If you didn't own the land you lived on, if you were a tenant farmer or an apprentice or common laborer YOU COULD NOT VOTE. If you were female or Black or Native American you could not vote. In other words you did not count and your only worth was what you could do to make life better for the wealthy.

The wealthy ran the country and for over 230 years they have tried to retain their control over the country. When the Tea Party talks about going back to the principles of the founding fathers that's what they are referring to and that's what Mr. Boehner and his cronies in Washington are trying to do.

They want to give this country over to the 2% and the 98% be damned.

But for the last 230 years we've been chipping away at the American aristocracy. Oh we've been called all kinds of names. We're socialists or anarchists or commies or, worst of all LIBERALS (gasp).

But the bottom line is, we're fighting for freedom and justice for ALL, not just the wealthy, not just the powerful, not just the white male landowners. We want ALL Americans to have a shot at the American dream and a piece of the pie. Not just the crumbs that fall off the table onto the floor.

Sometimes we like to suggest that the Tea Party and the GOP wants to take us back to the 1950's. Heck no. As they have told us repeatedly, they want to go back to the basic principles of the founding fathers based on the Constitution. Those basic principles included slavery and did not include female or minority suffrage. THAT'S where the Tea Party and Mr. Boehner want to take us.

So I guess the question is, are we going to let them? Or, are we going to evolve, continue to make the tent bigger and more inclusive. Are we going back to the good old days when wealthy white male land owners dictated to the rest of us how we're going to live? Or, are we going to make those who can afford to pay a little more, do so, to make the dream of America and that gleaming city on the hill a reality for ALL our citizens.

HOLD YOUR GROUND Mr. PRESIDENT. We can't back up now. This is our Yorktown, our Gettysburg, our D-Day. If we win this fight, we make this country BETTER for ALL Americans and not just the greedy 2%.

HOLD THE LINE MR. PRESIDENT, We the people...are with you.

@SmBusOwnerinNY

It is not if they can afford it it is what they will do to keep it. If you tax them they will raise prices on what they sell costing the middle class more no mater what plus they will fire or lay off people to make up the offset.

So tell me how will this help?

american-Lotsanumbers:

Why not do an internet search on what the bush2 2001 - 2003 tax cuts amounted to over ten years. $800 billion for the top 2%, $2.5 - $3.5 trillion from everyone else.

According to your own math....... you do realize that $800 billion is 8/10ths of 1 trillion dollars? That's a lot of money in tax cuts for only 2% of the population in comparison to 3-4 times that much in savings divided among a whopping 98% of tax-paying Americans.

Laser,
I am from Chicago so I think he is trying to say that I am lying because there is no corruption or abuse in Chicago. Sanity must see things different through the rose colored glasses.

lasertroll - never had the necessity of being on food stamps but I don't begrude the people who need them. And, again, you and Irish are liars. Period.

Does it EVER happen that someone buys food for someone else not on food stamps - undoubtedly. That's fraud and more fraud is committed every day by those who receive a paycheck. Get a clue!

No one buys liquor or cigarettes on food stamps. And, there is a reason that isn't done. There is a mechanism to check how the food stamps are used. Bet ya didn't know that!

The other theme I'm seeing in the Left-Vs-Right argument in this thread is about "fairness" in taxation. High earners have been getting a huge break for a long time. ONLY raising taxes on them would just return the rates a tiny bit closer to equitable numbers.

From 1945 to 1980 the economic pie grew in tandem among poor, rich, middle class. Since 1980, the rich have increased their incomes 300%, while the middle class has increased 10%.

What's different? Taxation.

If you think increasing rates a few percent is class warfare, how does that 300% vs 10% strike you?

Steve?, Irish, ProBusiness? I'm talking to YOU.

One of the major hurtles in front of the politicians right now is this discussion regarding entitlement programs. If they were talking about changing the welfare system, then I am in complete agreement that changes are necessary. When a person receiving public assistance can be given vouchers for free camping in state and national parks, that cost the average person $30 - $40 a night, something is wrong. If you are able to go camping, you damned sure are able to work.

The discussions, however, are not about that corrupt system which was meant to be a hand-up to those struggling financially, and has now become a hand-out for many who refuse to even try to work and be productive.

Social Security has been painted with the same brush as welfare, and it could not be further from the truth. Social Security is NOT A HAND-OUT. The working people of this nation have been forced to participate in the program with the promise that we would, eventually, get paid back. What the Republicans mean to do is hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Their rationalization is that Wall Street can invest that money and 'grow it faster', making the program solvent. The problem is, however, that playing the stock market is nothing more than legalized gambling. And, as with any form of gambling, there is a damned good chance that you will lose your money. The investment bankers on Wall Street are short on funds right now because the American people have wised up and stopped allowing a bunch of greedy @!$%#s play with their money, so they need another source of funding. And along comes the Republicans ... ready and willing to turn our Social Security money over to their investment banker cronies. After all, the politicians don't have a horse in the race. They have not been mandated to participate in Social Security, so if it goes belly-up due to mismanagement, it's no skin off of their noses.

The other program that has been labeled as an Entitlement program and targeted is Medicare. I have been forced to pay into what was touted as a pre-paid health insurance program for nearly half a century with the understanding that, when I reach retirement age, I will not have to worry about having access to health care. Now the Republicans want to turn that system over to private insurance companies ... and make no mistake about it ... BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES DONATE LOTS of money to the campaigns of our politicians. So the Republicans want to change Medicare and give us a voucher every month for a hundred or a hundred and fifty dollars that we can use TOWARDS purchasing health care insurance from the private insurance companies. By the time people reach their mid-sixties the cost of private health care insurance is, for most of them, far greater than their income will allow.

For Boehner and his buddies to insist that they will not maintain the tax cuts for 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses unless the president agrees to put "entitlements" on the table and not to increase the percentage of tax paid by 2% of the people is bull@!$%# plain and simple.

How about we put the "special" retirement and health care plans enjoyed by the politicians and government employees on the table? How about not forcing working Americans to pay, not only for our own retirement and health care plans, but for the "government workers" plans as well. It should be all or nothing. Everyone working, whether for private companies or on the public sector, should be required to participate in the same programs. Since we have been forced to participate in these programs, these greedy politicians had damned well better not change the rules of the game at this point.

There are plenty of places that spending can be cut. Make spending cuts in places where it will make a real difference ... corporate welfare (supplements to big oil & gas, for example), foreign aid, military (get us out of these conflicts), welfare, go after those committing Medicare & Medicaid fraud ... but, for Christ's sake ... don't take from our senior citizens who have worked their lives away with the promise of a meager retirement pay and access to medical care at the end of their days.

All it takes is the balls to stand up against the military-industrial complex, the Koch brothers and their ilk and SAY NO TO BRIBES. Our politicians should be beholden to NO ONE EXCEPT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OF THIS NATION.

@SmBusOwnerinNY

Oh there are those also but a lot less.

I don't see Romney breaking into houses to steal a TV.

I don't have much but I earned it. I have slept in a tent for 6 months and cleaned a bar after hours so I could eat.

Crime can happen from rich and poor. This I do understand.

But those that get a handout should not be buying beer or rolling papers they should be happy that they are getting help and try to make better with their life but that's not what they do. they bleed the system and teach their kids to do the same.

SM NY,

Fact: Some people who pay taxes commit crimes

Fact: Some people on welfare and food stamps commit crimes.

Question: What is your point?

Laser, how is it that higher taxes will cause them to raise prices?

Prices are dictated by the market. You can't just raise prices because you want to make up for your own personal higher taxes. Doesn't work that way. I know, I promise, otherwise I'd raise prices until I was really rich ;- ).

Fact: Some people who pay taxes commit crimes

Fact: Some people on welfare and food stamps commit crimes.

Question: What is your point?

What is your point?

Having an anecdote of some food stamp person scamming to by beer doesn't say anything about the Federal tax system. I'm sure there is just as much (if not more) ripped off from Uncle Sam (you and me) via tax shelters in the Cayman Islands than by people buying beer with food stamps.

Seeking Sanity,
Since you live in Chicago you should know that not all liquor stores opperate as they should. The one by my house claims to be a liquor store but when you look at your receipt is says its a Pharmacy. So if they just key in a total on a register and swipe a card it does not itemize what was purchased. So, no I am not lying. Also, this place has slot machine and poker machines in there that pay out money, those are also illegal. So that means that they could be doing other shady things, no?

John in Battle Creek wrote, "It would seem to me the president has the right approach to balance the budget and reduce the debt and deficit spending."

John, actually his plan and proposal (along with all of his other proposals) does NOT balance the budget or reduce the debt. His proposals INCREASE the debt and he is asking for an unlimited debt ceiling. It was explained to me by my liberal friends that his proposals are only meant to "reduce the deficit" by slightly reducing the projected amount of the deficit due to higher taxes on the 2%. Seeking Sanity said it best on another thread...we ALL need to pay a little more to help the country out of this mess.

Is it really true that only 2% of married couples make over $250k? Why is it fair to penalize people for being married when the proposed rates are supposed to only go up for singles who make over $200k? Why isn't it $400k for married couples? Is this a "war on marriage"?

One last question...how exactly does this create jobs and put people back to work?

@SeekingSanity

Wow you are blind there are thing put in place to guard against a lot of thing put yet you hear on the news all the time how they made fake papers to keep the crime going. You need to get a clue that all things are not 100% and anyone that wants to can work around any mechanism.

Look at the forclosures how many times have you heard on the news people making fake papers to rent a house they don't own they get the deposit and run. Yeah your system fails all the time funny man.

And yes I never went on food stamps I went one time to get them when I lived in the woods for 6 months but I was turned down.

Ok Obama, Democrats and Republicans - all of you. Think about this:

If you make $100. a week you have to walk to work and still live with momma and daddy - you live at the top limit of your income;

If you make $1000. a week you still live at the top limit of your income - but just a little better that the $500. a week worker;

If you make $100,000. a week you still live at the top limit of your income - but you live better than the $10,000. a week worker;

It doesn't matter how much you make you have alread spent all of it before you get the check. That is the problem with higher taxes on those that make $250,000. a year - they are still obligated for all of that money before they get the pay checks.

Maybe those that make over $500,000. a year have extra money for investments - maybe? If they haven't committed all of it to cars, a house, a boat or two, a vacation home, a savings and retirement account, medical insurance - and more. Usually they have it all spent ahead of time so they are living at the limit of their income too.

Perhaps an adjustment by everyone to say raising the figure from $250,000.00 to those making over $1,000.000. would make everyone happy. Plus, most likely if you are making a million you are putting more money away for retirement so you could afford some additional taxes. Just Sayin................

Let's settle this crap and move on.

askaboutet

Kaybeetoys - as much as I love that store, how can you say the rich don't pay their fair share? Have you figured out what their fair share is? Why do you think they don't already pay it? The wealthy pay about 70% of income taxes.

And well they should, since:

the top 20% of income-earners receive 59.1% of all income and pay 64.3% of all the taxes, so they aren't carrying a huge extra burden. At the other end, the bottom 20%,
which receives 3.5% of all income, pays 1.9% of all taxes.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In addition:

the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to
come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax
havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with
Switzerland. And there are many loopholes and gimmicks they can use, as
summarized with striking examples in Free Lunch and Perfectly
Legal, the books by Johnston that were mentioned earlier. For example,
Johnston explains the ways in which high earners can hide their money and delay
on paying taxes, and then invest for a profit what normally would be paid in
taxes. (same source)

Are you telling me that if you were inventing a tax system, and the people making it were like 'okay, we're going to have about 1/2 NOT pay taxes, about 40% pay 30% of the taxes, and about 10% pay 70% of the taxes, your reaction would be 'whoa, that is totally not enough. why would 10% of the people only pay 70% of the taxes? 10% needs to pay MORE than 70% in order to pay their fair share. 70% is "pittance." - obviously not, right? *I'm not "wealthy" or >$250,000, but I can't POSSIBLY agree with you. What possibly (in all seriousness, I'd like your answer) would lead you to believe that the wealthy don't pay their share, and that what the wealthy pays is "pittance".

The issue at hand is whether or not to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. The government needs the extra revenue it would get through higher taxes, thanks to the wars Bush started and never paid for, thanks to the greedy shenanigans of Wall Street. The wealthy can afford to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. They will never miss it. Whereas the middle class, barely scraping by, is now being asked to subsidize continued tax cuts for the rich by cutting the services they depend on, or by raising their taxes instead.

Also, Nope I don't htin kthey're lying.- if they're not supposed to be permanent, why are democrats trying to make them permanent? Are THEY lying? I don't get what your point is?

My point is that Bush sold us tax cuts for the rich by calling them the 'job creators' and by making the cuts temporary. We know now that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. The rich have done very well for themselves over the past couple decades, while real income for the middle class has dwindled.

Democrats are not trying to make tax cuts permanent, only to extend them long enough for the struggling middle class to get back on its feet and get the economy growing again.

Hey you know that young liberal guy from Google...that young liberal CEO???.... you know the one who denounced the USA and moved to some Asian pacific rim country to avoid taxes???

Come on you know the guy...he is extremely liberal... and HE LEFT THIS COUNTRY WITH HIS MONEY JUST TO AVOID TAXES. Yeah that LIBERAL GOOGLE GUY, YOU KNOW HIM AND LOVE HIM RIGHT? Come on he is a liberal! You must love him.

That is what happens when you raise taxes... people with money leave...

THE GOVERNMENT IS BLOATED AND CORRUPT and so is our President and every president before him. Guess what... the people with THE MONEY are not about to GIVE IT TO THE POOR with very poor government control and regulation.

What planet are you people from?

SM,

Yeah, what is your point? I responded to an earlier post when someone said that it never happens and that I am a liar for saying that people abuse the welfare system. Doesnt have anything to do with a tax code but it has something to do with where our tax money goes. Point being there needs to be some changes as to where our tax money goes. Do some people need welfare and assistance, sure. Should it be abused, no. The other thing I was saying is that I see people using food stamps to load up on groceries then get into a $50k car and drive off while I bust my ass to provide food and pay my own bills. I was talking about the abuse of the system and that there needs to be some cuts to balance a budget and better ways to track abuse. Throwing more money at problems isnt the answer. And I am not arguing that some people abuse the tax codes by putting money in offshore accounts, but then again there are no laws against that. It is both sides that take part in offshore accounts.

For all those that don't know. All small businesses make over 250K per year. So much for helping the small businesses and the middle class. Just cutting their legs from under them. Also closing loopholes IS raising taxes. I pretty sure that anyone that can do basic addition and subtraction can see that top income earners will pay more.

I am an Obama supporter, but I'm not in 100% agreement on the 2% vs 98% thing. Taxes need to go up on a lot more people than just the 2%. Spending cuts too, but let's set that aside for now and just talk taxes. I know the concern is about raising taxes quickly in a way that would crash the economy. Fine, roll out the tax increases over time. Or probably better to put it another way: let the Fiscal Cliff tax cuts happen, then introduce smaller, short term tax cuts that last for a range of time. Say, FICA reduction for one more year, or maybe 2% reduction in 2013, 1% in 2014, then back to the regular rates in 2015. Some for most of the other Bush tax cuts can be reintroduced. Extend the child tax credit for 4 years, then ramp it back from $1000 to $400 as it was under Clinton. After the Cliff has already been fallen-off-of, all of those would be "new" tax cuts, so Grover should have to complaint.

The top 2% must have their wealth reigned in by either the process of higher taxes or for them to pay higher wages and hire more Americans. The income inequality gap is nothing short of obscene and is dangerous to the entire system if left unchecked, as it creates great economic instability.

The process of systematically destroying the middle class in order to further enrich the already wealthy will have much more harsh repercussions than just an imaginary fiscal cliff. Wait until people get really sick of being played for the last 30 years for fools and demand economic justice then see how quick the Conservatives disavow their affiliation with such a treacherous group.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Laser, how is it that higher taxes will cause them to raise prices?

Really what is to stop them or you?

If all TV manufactures say hey let's raise prices to offset taxes you are telling me no LOL look at the gas prices buddy demand went down but not the price it is all over the news here in florida. News came out said we produce more oil than anyone but yet gas prices are still up there.

The rich will just offset it to the middle class so again how is that going to help.

Oh Papa Johns even came out and said it not because of tax but because of Obamacare.

So now what you have to say?

Your funny....

Just remember:

1) Raising of taxes on wealthy: Obama says this will not make a dent in the deficit but it is only "fair" the wealthy pay more.

2) Capital Gain tax increases: Obama admits that tax revenue will mostly decline but it is not "fair" that the wealthy don't pay more.

3) Dividend increases: Obama admits it will take money out of new business investment but is only "fair" the wealthy pay more.

4) Success: Obama says he supports success but "at some point you have made enough money".

So ask yourself, why is Obama trying to raise all these taxes and take more from the "wealthy". To fix the deficit? No. Even Obama admits it is not enough to make a difference.

Obama is doing this because he hates Capitalism and believes the "wealthy" earned their money by taking advantage of the "less fortunate". And the majority of the people reelected this U.S. hating, Capitalist hating, and racist president? God have mercy on this country (at least for the last few remaining years of this country).

For pete sake, the Republicans with their two wars etc ran up most of this massive debt and don't want to help pay for it. You pea brains, you work for us, and if you don't raise the taxes on the wealthy you Republicans are out!

Irish,

No argument. The people and businesses you refer to should not be doing what you describe, but neither should Mitt Romney and people like him who send money to the Caymans to avoid US taxes--or offshore jobs. I buy all of my components and supplies here in the USA. Sometimes it costs more. I'm OK with that.

No one is proposing to increase food stamps. More money is going to food stamps because the economy isn't growing to keep up with people who need jobs. Higher taxes on rich people has been demonstrated NOT to hurt the economy (remember that CRS report that said so with 50+ years of data?). But more revenues will improve the government's fiscal situation, which will allow it to build things and spend money on projects that WILL help the present economy and future infrastructure.

So, some spending IS GOOD. CUT CUT CUT is not going to solve our problems. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for the bad economy the last few years--nobody is spending the money they have--both corporate and consumers. Everyone is being very thrifty, to the detriment of us all.

In the end, crime aside, what is the difference if they guy buys beer or food with the last $5 on his food card? that money was spent in the economy, and was better utilized than not spending that money at all. Coors got the sale after all.

Irish and Lasertroll along with anyone else if you see abuse with food stamps report it and the establishment where it happened I hear about all wanting to do away with it but not reporting it so you are just as guilty to fraud as the perpetrator.

ProBusiness (re: #1.44)

I figured it out! That long nose in your screen icon is something you earned through your lies. You misstated and twisted every one of your statements.

Just remember, my ass. Something has to have already happened in order that I can remember it.

Obama hates capitalism but saved General Motors and Chrysler. Boneheads that call President Obama a socialist obviously do not understand socialism. Ditto for communism. (Interestingly, some of your lunatic fringe buddies call Obama BOTH a communist and a socialist. I wonder how that works.)

Try to find a source other than Glenn Beck before you subject rational adults to your rants.

SM,

I see your point on the tax issue. However, I dont think raising taxes right now is the best thing. I agree if they are goign to raise them, which they will, it should be small increases over time. The only problem with that is the amount of spending our government does. They need a balanced budget and some wasteful spending needs to be cut, then they should look at how to raise taxes. But to just raise taxes without a balanced budget is insane. They want to keep hammering this top 2% bs into peoples heads without realizing that everyone will be effected. Like I said earlier, neither side is fighting for the middle class. I have had it with our "elected officials" as a group, regardless of the letter that follows their name.

Say Pro Business it very much is a matter of fairness, you can't ask the old, poor, and sick to constantly take the cuts and pick up the tab, who paid for the bank bailout, who paid for the real estate collapse, the middle class did, they always have and always will pay the bulk of the bills. You can not in good conscious continue to ask them to pony up more when the wealthiest of the wealthy pay half the percentage in tax as they do. If republicans don't allow taxes to go up on the ubber rich why should anybody take any cuts. Taxes on the rich are not going to balance the budget on their own but if you don't start there then everything else is a non-starter, it is a matter of being a fair and equitable nation, the president understands this as does the majority of the country by huge margins. You tell me why should a guy like Mitt Romney who makes $57,000 a day, who has not worked in years, what jobs has he created, what has he contributed, why should he pay half the tax rate some poor bastard laying bricks for a $1,000 bucks a week does. You tell me why you think that is fair, you tell me how him and his money in offshore accounts is more valuable to this nation than the guy laying bricks so that Romney gets to pay half the tax rate of the wage earner. The president said it is about shared sacrifice and he is dead nuts right about that. The middle class is used to picking up the tab, but they are sick of being played for chumps they would like to see a good faith deposit on some fairness by those who can damn well afford it whether it solves all our economic problems or not. It is the right thing to do, it's that simple.

ProBusiness,

Higher revenue from high earners is going to make a dent, a $1 Trillion dent. That's a much bigger dent than $0 Trillion.

@Michael-4273928

No if you ask me those we fought should pay for it send them a bill. Take their gold.

And I think the war was needed but I think we waited to long gave them time to hind or move the weapons.

We waited a year before we moved in and we told them we was coming. That would be like the cops calling a drug dealer and telling him we are going to raid you tonight. So what does the drug dealer do calls his friend up and says hey I need to hind my drugs at your place for a few days.

Give me a break on this war crap.

Just like always you want to blame others and not fix the issue at hand...

@2833 clark

I guess you don't read I did call them and said there was nothing they can do because I did not get her name but I did give them the store's name.

Just so you know. next time read...

SM,
Some spending is good but not at the rate that our government is spending. That is like you or I getting a credit card with a $50k limit and maxing it out knowing that we cant afford it and then taking out another one and maxing it out. Our government keeps maxing out the credit card and taking out new ones. Seeing that you are a small business owner I dont need to tell you that. So they do need to make some cuts in the budget but they need to make a budget first. People arent spending because of the crap economy and there is no confidence in our government to do the right thing for the country. At least that is my opinion.

irish and troll,

take out your smart phones next time, film the whole proceeding. If the authorities are not interested post on you tube and provide link

otherwise

stop...

Steve-1962:

Yes forrest those in the UNION think it great if you need to use them. As for me I am a great worker I do NOT need a union to keep my job for me, to get me a raise, more time off of work. what ever I want, I go directly to the owner and discuss it. we usally end up somewhere in the middle of what we both would like.

Consider yourself lucky Steve, to have an employer who is willing to talk to you about your needs. Not everyone is as lucky. Unions protect the rights of workers with regard to getting paid fair wages, benefits and job protections. Contrary to what some people think, unions are not out to destroy companies. They are there to protect the rights of workers, that's always been the reason for them. Not all companies are as understanding as yours, Steve, and some occupations need those unions to protect their rights.

@Trillian

Oh don't worry because of all you doughters I will. At the time this one happen I did not have a video phone or trust me it would have been on you tube...

But I guess you two stay on your side of the world and don't see many on cards because it happens all the time.

Go on a Casino web site on the site it says you can use the card...

Look it up it was in the news and web 2 months ago I can't remember the title EBT card at casino or something in that effect.. can't remember the name of the card for the life of me.

Irish,

The problem is how you define "wasteful." Plenty of people would say there is a LOT of wasteful defense spending, but when it comes down to deleting an aircraft carrier or reduce an order of jets, the district where they are built has a heart attack (deservedly).

I'm under the age where the Romney Ryan Medicare voucher would have kicked in. I didn't like that idea at all. Likewise, raising retirement age is a pretty crappy thing if you're the one near retirement or find yourself working at 66 years old.

nomoresameo

I'd like to know exactly what the republican offer includes...

Well nomore.....over 1000 days ago this was the offer, but Dems simply DON'T want to pass a budget. It's how they get their votes. They won't cut....just spend.....

GOP BUDGET CUT LIST FROM OVER 1000 DAYS AGO
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M • Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy -$899M • Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M • Nuclear
Energy -$169M • Fossil Energy Research -$31M • Clean Coal Technology -$18M •
Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M • Energy Information Administration -$34M •
Office of Science -$1.1B • Power Marketing Administrations -$52M • Department
of Treasury -$268M • Internal Revenue Service -$593M • Treasury Forfeiture Fund
-$338M • GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B • ONDCP -$69M • International Trade
Administration -$93M • Economic Development Assistance -$16M • Minority
Business Development Agency -$2M • National Institute of Standards and
Technology -$186M • NOAA -$336M • National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M • Law
Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M • US Marshals Service -$10M • FBI
-$74M • State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M • Juvenile Justice
-$2.3M • COPS -$600M • NASA -$379M • NSF -$139M • Legal Services Corporation
-$75M • EPA -$1.6B • Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M • Farm Service
Agency -$201M • Agriculture Research -$246M • Natural Resource Conservation
Service -$46M • Rural Development Programs -$237M • WIC -$758M • International
Food Aid grants -$544M • FDA -$220M • Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M •
National Archives and Record Service -$20M • DOE Loan Guarantee Authority
-$1.4B • EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M • EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M • USGS -$27M
• EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M • EPA State and Local Air Quality
Management -$25M • Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M • Smithsonian -$7.3M •
National Park Service -$51M • Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M •
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M • EPA Brownfields -$48M • Forest
Service -$38M • National Endowment for the Arts -$6M • National Endowment for
the Humanities -$6M • Job Training Programs -$2B • Community Health Centers
-$1.3B • Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M • Family Planning -$327M
• Poison Control Centers -$27M • CDC -$755M • NIH -$1B • Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services -$96M • LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M • Community
Services Block Grant -$405M • High Speed Rail -$1B • FAA Next Gen -$234M •
Amtrak -$224M • HUD Community Development Fund -$530M

Well, well, the Emperor insists on increasing taxes on those who already pay most of the taxes, just so the deadbeats (who reelected him) can continue to pay nothing.....you know, the leeches who are sucking the federal teats dry....yeah, those deadbeats. And, they don't care that President Santa's tax will kill any potential new jobs, because they'd rather accept freebies than work anyway.

The reality is that the democratts know their only chance to raise taxes is NOW, regardless of the damage it will do to the economy.

Why waste an opportunity to blame the republicans for taxes going up?

What they really want is to increase the taxes, so their out of control spending doesn't look so bad AND still cap tax deductions.

How uncompromising and greedy can the democrats get?

They want to assimilate the 401k's into social security so they can hide even more spending.

Ben-636050

Also, how is pushing your opponents to a point that they won't budge protecting the middle class?

The Republicans weren't pushed to that point. They haven't budged for four years on anything. Extending tax cuts for 98% but not for the top 2% is a reasonable compromise -- unless you're working FOR the top 2%, which the Republicans of course are.

just none

lots of good ones in there...a whopping $7mil to kill Energy Star. That's genius, and a huge moneymaker!

for the ones with a little bit of money....Drinking water fund $250mil. sounds good! that doesn't help ANYbody! FDA, $220mil. same thing doesn't help ANYbody!

Geez, they're almost ALL like that!

spider,

You guys always harp that "they" want to tax the ones that "already pay most of the taxes"

So what? They make most of the money!

Should the government's money come from the people who make the least money? It's idiotic.

Santa? HA! As if the $40,000 tax cut that a millionaires got with the first Bush tax cut wasn't a F'n gift.

Kaybee - do you know that the bush tax cuts cut taxes for EVERYONE? Obama is actually EXTENDING the bush tax cuts for 98% of the people. If the bush tax cuts did not exist, everyone (including lower and middle income people) would be paying higher taxes. The Bush tax cuts were not a cut for the rich, they were an across the board cut for everyone.

I don't know what the quote about % of income and % of taxes paid was for, but I think it PROVES the point that rich people DO pay their fair share of taxes considering they make less of a percentage of total income than they pay in total taxes. You think looking at a chart of people making 60% of income and paying 70% of taxes means they don't pay enough?

Also, what is the quote about offshore bank accounts from? Do you actually know anything about offshore bank accounts? A long time ago, people used to hide their money in offshore bank accounts. The United States now forces all banks to report their holdings of U.S. citizens, requires U.S. citizens to report all of their foreign bank accounts (or face steep penalties), they require people to report foreign investment income now (as opposed to when you "bring it back into the country" - which is how it USED to be) or face steep fines, etc.

I know most people obviously are not accustomed to tax returns the size of Romney's, but THE REASON IT WAS SO BIG is literally BECAUSE he was reporting all of his foreign investments/income. People have the wrong idea of (current) foreign investments/holdings.

Only hard core republican voters with very short memories don't remember that it was the riches 2% that was given everything they asked for from the republicans in charge under Bush, they made billions, and in the case of the oil companies, made trillions, which caused this great recession.

Demanding they pay their fair share is asking too much??

SM,

I can see what you are saying. One example, and I know I am going to get hammered on this one, but PBS. That is some wasteful spending when the CEO of that company makes about 1.5 million a year. The only reason I bring that up is because it is fresh in the minds after the election and debates. The reason I think spending on that should be cut is because there are enough outside contributions that can keep that station going. Just one example.

Just thought of another few. How about the wasteful money that went into all of those green and solar companies that went bankrupt? I think there were about 30-40 of them. I will have to dig that up.

DB,

Raising taxes now

Exactly, just like Bush could only cut taxes massively in 2001 when there was a huge surplus, and in 2003 when we needed stimulus.

These things happen in time for a reason.

I don't know why you're arguing it. Now is the time. We have a huge deficit. When else would you do it? We should have done it in 2005, when we could have afforded it better, but no.

Topane,

Fair enough. I want to tax you $1 billion on your $1 billion. After all that is fair since you have $1 billion.

Irish,

PBS doesn't count for anything. It's a pittance. What kind of country are we if we can't afford to fund a public broadcasting service?

SM,

The same could be said when the Bush tax cuts were going to expire. Why didnt Obama let them? He was thinking about reelection, no way to spin that one. It was purely political.

I am out for the day. Good luck on your small business. Honestly mean that. Even though we disagree on alot of issues I always wish business owners well.

$1 Billion tax on $1 Billion income.

No one is saying that, ever has, or ever will.

We're talking about the difference between 35% and 39.6% on earned income. Not even capital gains or dividends, which would still be taxed much less than that (20%, I think).

lol let them raise it to whatever they want...I know so many people who only pay what they think is fair anyway...making money under the table helps you control paying what you think is a fair rate. I still think the fair tax is one of the best things I have seen but until then...a lot of people will just pay what they want to.

Did you know that 50% of Americans, 158 million or so, only own 2.5% of the wealth in America? Should we not be paying 2.5% of the total tax obligation? Would that not be fair? Instead we are paying about 20% of the total taxes. Think about that.

I know lots of people that have full time jobs and are paying 30% and more in taxes because they do not get all of those deductions and shelters that other do.

This is an old article but it is still relevant because things are worse now than they were then.

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

It wasn't purely political.

Unless you're talking about the republicans.

In 2010, the last time the Bush tax cuts were about to expire, Obama proposed the same thing as he's proposing now: Extending the tax cuts below $250K, letting the rest expire. To get the payroll tax cut he wanted to further stimulate the economy, he had to give up (cave) on the tax cuts above $250K too.

Republicans forced him to expend the high income tax cuts or they wouldn't give him the low income tax cut he wanted. It was the Republicans that were being political.

Isa'dna!

For all those that don't know. All small businesses make over 250K per year. So much for helping the small businesses and the middle class. Just cutting their legs from under them. Also closing loopholes IS raising taxes. I pretty sure that anyone that can do basic addition and subtraction can see that top income earners will pay more.

Really? ALL small businesses make over $250k per year? Wow, we are truly a prosperous nation. My hairdresser, used book store owner, lawnmower repair guy and auto mechanic are doing FAR better than I thought them to be doing!. See, it's people like you who have no freaking idea of how business operates yet are quick to spew your ignorance at the top of your lungs.

This is an over-simplification, but from your post I am not certain you could understand it if I get too detailed. A small business may well GROSS (take in money from sales) of over $250k a year, but after paying costs related to operating the business (mortgage, utilities, payroll, taxes, insurance, advertising, paying for operating supplies, licenses, maintenance, stock, etc.) most; slightly under 97% to be exact, do not NET or MAKE over $250k a year. See, the gross is the amount rung up on the register and the net is how much of that remains after paying all the expenses.

In an S corporation, which most small business are, the income filters through the owner's personal tax returns. Again, the MAJORITY of small businesses are set up as S corps. The amount paid out in expenses are deducted from the GROSS and that gives you the NET or, as you put it: it's how much they MAKE. Income taxes are paid on the NET income.

People like you, who obviously have never been in business, look at the amount rung up on a cash register and say, "WOW! Lookie there! That guy's getting RICH!!!". They don't take into account the expenses required to operate a business. Add to it that many of the companies claiming to be "small businesses" are nothing of the sort. The definition should be rewritten.

The TAXABLE INCOME of the small business owner is the amount that is left over after paying expenses. That is what they are taxed on and, for nearly 97% of small businesses, the amount is NOT OVER $250k a year. Therefore President Obama's demand that the tax rate be lowered on the under $250k earners would MOST DEFINITELY HELP the majority of small business owners.

Closing the loopholes would be a lovely idea, but it is an onerous task that certainly cannot be done by the end of the year and, historically, Republicans have always promised to do that, then reneged and have fought against those changes tooth and nail once they get their wish list items met.

So you stand corrected. The Republicans need to stand corrected as well. They need to stop trying to protect their contributors at the expense of the economic health of our nation!

milk,

What you own and what you earn are different. That's an age-old problem.

I'm for a progressive tax system with nice big incentives for doing things that are good for the country. High taxes (no deductions) on things we don't like--such as offshoring jobs--but nice deductions (or credits) for doing things we like, like creating jobs! How hard is that? People with high incomes can invest none of their income in deductible activities, and pay thought nose for it. OR, they can do things that have deductions and credits to pay lower taxes. That's what we do now, and I think it works. This whole idea that "closing loopholes" is the way to go I think it wrong.

High rates, lot's of deductions for favored activities, I think that's the right path. There was a reason in the 1950's the middle class grew. Tax rates were as high at 90%! Every incentive to reinvest in EXPENSES to avoid tax. Those EXPENSES were reinvestments in America and Americans.

here we are, still playing the game without actually getting anything done.

way to go there Mr. Pres, push this off to the Republicans, make it their responsibility and problem instead of getting the job done.

so is this extortion or blackmail ?

"I'm not going to do anything until they do", "not going to meet with anybody, not going to have a sit down, nothing"

seems right on queue, nothing new

I can see the future:

we will reach the fiscal cliff and fall, fail horribly. but of course that would never be Mr. Pres' fault, obviously the Republicans right ?

like kids playing the blame game, "it wasn't me it was them"

just do the job, get it done. we all know he is the best game player there has ever been, that has been proven.

SPENDING.....SPENDING....SPENDING....please, stop it!!

so after this fails, then what ?

we are still waiting for some magical socialist health care while my current health care plan continues to skyrocket (more than tripled in the past two years) since I work and pay for my own. You're welcome, by the way, for those who will be getting free health care. What if I quit, then who will pay for it ? you ? I doubt it.

this track record is fantastic !

wtf

TO: Irish 21 who wrote:

"... They are still using tax payer money to fund their habits. I think there needs to be some welfare reform. Anyone agree?..."

How much more can you take from those poor folks? They don't even get money for rent, just some food stamps and about $200 to last a month.

It's rich folks like Michelle "Welfare Queen" Bachman that has 23 foster kids just so she can get 23 welfare checks every month and food stamps if you want to cut back on someone. Sure it's nice to have kids on her ranch, but if she was doing it for the kids and not for herself she'd adopt, but she doesn't want to adopt because that cuts off the welfare and the food stamps.

Let's see, $200 each for 23 kids, Bachman is taking in an additional $4,600 a month income in welfare payments, and that doesn't count the Food Stamps.

Fire,

I don't believe triple in two years. Your payment may have tripled, because your employer made you pay for all of the increase, but triple doesn't happen. I've had two years of 20% increase, and I was pretty mad about it.

I had an employer once who made us pay $100 of the $600 that went into healthcare, then the next year it went up $100, and we had to pay it all--doubled for us from $100 to $200, but the cost really went up form $600 to $700. Big difference there. How much do you actually pay out of pocket for healthcare in a month? If it's less than $700, stop bellyaching.

My bet is you or your company does qualify for subsidized healthcare under Obamacare. Have you looked it up?

The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax. ~ Albert Einstein

Let US get it over with already! If the Demo-Republo-RATS can't agree on their latest round of Tax & Spend let US jump off of the Fiscal Cliff and let the Automatic Tax Increases and Budget Cuts kick in!

Do any of you actually believe that any of these Corrupt Wall Street Political Minions in Washington DC work for US or are looking out for OUR best interests?

Well maybe there are a few Intentionally Delusional Demo-Republo-RAT Supporters out there who still cling to their Hopey Changey Nonsense, but I cannot believe any Normal American could or would be that Naive in 2012!

So let US hurry them "RATS" over the cliff....The sooner the better!

Impeach Obama in 2012 and Imprison Clinton for Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up the Murder of an American Ambassador, Intentionally Lying to the American People Secret CIA Prisons and Supporting Al Qaeda in Benghazi-Gate and now in Syria!

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.~ Thomas Jefferson

^Couching your BS with quotes by intelligent men doesn't make your own opinion more valid.

DB - Your whining, pissing and moaning just brings a tear to my eye. You must talk daily with our President because you seem to be so sure of his plans and his motivation.

In other news Fed Ex is offering a buy out to employees who take a package to reduce by thousands the number of employees as they predict continued slow or no economic growth. Darden Resturants is loosing share value as Credit Suisse predicts the fall in available income to many consumers next year. All we have to do is wait until Lockheed announces the real layoff of their employees due to the coming financial crisis.

At the top of the list is a dysfunction bunch in Congress and a President who would rather travel on our dime instead of sitting down for real discussions on real problems. This just about sums up the situation in regards to tax policy and the fiscal cliff. To all you who voted for no change you have been rewarded and you will be rewarded by about $3000.00 more in federal taxes on January 1st along with an increase in your health care premium which last year was about $2,700.00 in the same tax bracket. So tell me again how the President and Congress will solve this problem? Since the same clueless individuals are still in charge I think you will see a deepening recession no matter what the last minute deal turns out to be. We lost our chance to make a difference. Congratulations to the winning party...who was that again?

My what a booming economy we are experiencing thanks to the Democrats and their counter parts in the Republican party.

Over the weekend Pravda (you know one of the leading Russian News papers) called President Obama a Communist...you can't make this stuff up.

"Boy, does it cause a stir when a major Russian news site calls your president a
Communist. (Particularly when that news site is Pravda, once the official
newspaper of the Soviet Union.) But the old Commie rag doesn’t seem to be
afraid of controversy this week as its opinion piece "Obama’s Soviet
Mistake" makes its way around the Internet. The biting critique, which
refers to the U.S. prez as a "Communist without question" has
everyone pointing fingers, many of them decidedly mocking ones. Liberals joke
that conservatives finally agree with Russia, while conservatives retort that
they do agree with this claim — it was “illiterates” who re-elected Obama."

www.now.msn.com/pravda-calls-obama-a-communist

Next

What sweet irony. The middle class tax cuts signed into law by George W. Bush may expire. The same tax cuts that liberals have derided for years as a give away to the rich look like they overwhelmingly help the middle class. Who knew? I guess President Obama doesn't really care about us folks in the middle class. Shocking. Obviously he believes it more important to punish the rich "millionaires and billionaires" making $200,000 a year with higher tax rates than actually agreeing to a deal that merely raises the same amount of revenue.

Oh well, I guess all good things do have to end. As a middle class guy in a high tax state I want to thank you president Bush for not allowing the sows in Washington to extort more of my money for the past 11 years than they otherwise would have. Actually I wouldn't feel so bad if I thought president Obama could spend my money more wisely than me, unfortunately nothing that he has done in the last four years makes me believe he can. I hope when the middle class citizens who voted for you get their first pay check of 2013 they appreciate that you and Republicans in the House and Senate lowered their taxes and Mr. Obama and Democrats in the Senate allowed them to expire. Maybe they can even bring themselves to utter a silent thank you.

Once again you all take sides but neither side has offered anything new or different and neither side has attempted any real negotiation. Just where in that do any of you think anything good will come out of that? I doubt many of you have any idea what is about to happen when we go over that cliff. It does not matter whether it is for a day, month or a week. This country at best will go nowhere fast or at worst we will fall into a much deeper recession than before. Until we do raise revenues and do massively decrease our spending we are in trouble. There is absolutely no reason to do another stimulas program at this point. Get taxes and spedning in check and this economy will take off. If we had any decent leadership on either side of the aisle we would already be enjoying a better economy and outlook. Instead we have a whitehouse that talks a line of BS a mile long and the rest of wshington that walks around in a stupor. All of them thinking it is OK because people like you allow it. If you all think that your side of the aisle is right you are idiots and will deserve everything that is about to happen.

Massachusettz..... I just use quotes to annoy the ignorant one line TROLLS....Like You!

See how well it works....

I'm dealing with fools and trolls and soft targets. It's just strafing runs in my underwear before my first cup of coffee. I don't have time for these clowns. Charlie Sheen

To the republickkkkans: You may be stupid, but you are dedicated. Your devotion to increasing the income/asset gap till the US becomes Mexico is truly awesome.

Now, to educate yourselves, instead of quoting your boy Jefferson in support of states (i.e. slaveholders') rights, start quoting him about the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of a few.

steve says its about punishing the rich.im interested in how you came to that conclusion.now ill grant you the rich pay more in tax then say a mcdonalds employee.but then after all the loop holes and deductions the mcdonalds employee pays a higher percentage of his income in tax.i dont think thats fair at all.im counting on you mr president to stand firm.dont let the rich buy our government again

@T-REX "Requiring 2%, and only 2% of the country be responsible for more revenue is ridiculous. 98% of the country trying to hold 2% hostage is ridiculous. "you 2%...pay higher rates or else!"

What is ridiculous is the morons that caused the very problems they are crying about now. If only the top 2% had not lobbied to get their taxes lowered over the past 30 years or so then you could cry about something, but you only have yourselves to blame. Let me guess the middle class and poor people wanted rich people to have lower taxes all these years? Let me guess the middle class and poor people wanted to make less and less while rich people were allowed to keep more and more for themselves. From 1940 to 1981 our country had a 90% to 70% top tax rate and we did just fine. We also had more tax brackets then too, just like we should have now instead of 250k and over. There should be a 1 mil bracket, a 10 mil, a 100 mil, 1 bil, 10 bil, etc. instead of 250k and over.

Once we raise taxes on the rich, they will be forced to make a choice between paying the government more or their workers more, instead of being given the option to keep as much as they want for themselves. They are FORCED to act like leaders and to take care of the people under them to pay them a fair ratio. That is a leader's job. Things will get worse before they get better since morons have the money atm.

Once people start to make 10 to 1 instead of 100 or 1000 to 1 then the 98% will be able to pay more in taxes. The first step however is to tax those that have the money, have not been paying their fair share for over 30 years, and then we can get around to taxing the other 98%. If the 98% are making 10 to 1 instead of 1000 to 1 how many handouts or government programs do you think they would need? NONE, you morons. It is only when we allow 1000 to 1 ratios to exist that we have problems.

@Hydorthunder "also tax revenues generally dont increase when you increase rates. increasing rates discourages people from entering that higher bracket or going elsewhere. see france. also see how in our own history how when rates are lowered revenues increase as you are promoting more people to enter that bracket. you increase the pool by lowering the rates. you increase revenues by increasing the pool. during the first year or two after an rate increase you may have a small increase in revenues as people are adjusting but long term they always reduce revenues. its why kennedy, reagan, clinton, and bush all had increased and record revenues generated by lowering tax rates. its why the economy stagnated in the 70s under nixon and carter and partially why our current economy cant get on track. we have the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world. companies are going to other countries because of this. countries dropping their corporate taxes are seeing business come to them from countries with higher tax rates."

NO IT DOES NOT, and how many lies can you put in one post? Why does your system FAIL unless the amount of people is increased? How long can we increase our population, how many years? How do we increase the pool moron when this planet is already overpopulated and becoming more and more polluted every day? Why does your FAILED system need more money to be printed until the end of time if no extra humans are added? If it "worked" we would not need to print MORE money or make MORE humans. If you need MORE then your system is a FAILURE.

If the pool stays the same size lowering rates reduces revenue/income, simple math. Go back to your example and lower all the tax rates by 5% across the board. What did it do to the revenue? Why it lowers them all. 30% = 600 mil instead of 700 mil at 35%, 35% = 525 mil instead of 600 mil at 40%, 700 mil at 20% instead of 875 mil at 25% Notice a trend moron?

How about the GDP, or gross earnings of those systems moron? How can you have the "same" system when in one group there is 2k people making over 1 mil, then we have another system/group that has 1500 people making over 1 mil, and finally we have another system with 3500 all making over 1 mil. THEY CANNOT BE IN THE SAME SYSTEM. The first system has 2 billion in gross, then second has 1.5 billion in gross, the third has 3.5 billion, OVER TWICE of what the one system has moron.

When ever one person makes X amount that will have an effect on the amount that others can make in that same system. The more you make, the less others can make in that SAME system. It is how "SYSTEMS" work. Increasing taxes has the effect of cutting out the middle man (government) since rich people know they will have to pay someone, they might as well pay their workers more or reinvest back into their company without needing to be REWARDED AGAIN. They already got rewarded when they got paid more then everyone else did by a LARGE ratio/margin. When you have over 10 to 20 times what others have, that is more then enough. How much more do you want? To be a king or noble? WTF will make you happy? 1 mil, 10 mil, 100, mil, 1 bil, 10 bil, 100 bil...WHAT? HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED?

High taxes is to encourage rich people to not pay the government any more, but to pay the people that made them rich more since they cannot keep it. High taxes are like friction and every "working" system has some kind of "friction" or force that limits/reduces potentials. Without friction things could continue to accelerate faster and faster until they broke the speed of light for example. I wonder what that would do for the health of that system. Every system needs some kind of friction or else (Let me guess you guys are the same ones that were trying to argue about global warming the other day, about how the rising sea levels have slowed down since you assumed that the oceans of the world are in containers that have perfect straight sides, and that the volume does not continue to increase as the levels rise?).

Kennedy (91% top tax rate from 1960 -1963) and Clinton (raised taxes from 28% to 39.6%) did not lower taxes moron. From 1965 to 1981 the top tax rate stayed the same at 70%...gee how did the economy stagnate again IF THE TOP TAX RATE NEVER CHANGED MORON? Do not let history or the truth get in your way. SHORT TERM gains everytime we have lowered taxes that do not last very long. Why did Reagan try to raise taxes how many times after he lowered them then? Why did our economy tank under both Bushes? Do not tell me how great things were under the Bushes when all you had to do was to look at the financing offers being made at the time. 0% APR for 5 or 6 years on most purchases...gee the economy is really doing good when you have to offer no interest for that many years JUST TO SELL SOMETHING.

To bad the top corporations in this country only pay an effective tax rate of 8% or so instead of the 35% that they should be. To bad people like Mitt Romney get away with only paying less then 14% when they should be paying 39% at least. To bad ALL countries in the world do not raise their taxes ALL at the same time. Where would a company go then? Same things happens with our states. One state lowers its taxes or waives them to get a company to move there. The problem is the old state gets no taxes and neither does the new state either. The company get away without paying ANY taxes so that "tax burden" is now passed to the others in that same system. I wonder why all those red states need so much government assistance when they are all the "right to work states" that lower their taxes to bring in business. Much like your larger "pool" theory, it does not add up and only hurts everyone in the end including the business owner since they will also be out of a job eventually. England has a 50% top tax rate moron and a 28% corporate income tax btw.

Talk about a group of people that think they're entitled.

What? You mean those that never lift a finger but live lives that are just as good as many hard working people? Yeah, I agree. They're greedy SOBs and should be cut off the dole.

Oh, that's right. By some twisted logic you think people wanting to keep what they've made is greedy but picking my pocket to feed, house and pay the medical bills for criminals, ne'er-do-wells and the lazy is the American way. Get a life.

askaboutet

Kaybee - do you know that the bush tax cuts cut taxes for EVERYONE? Obama is actually EXTENDING the bush tax cuts for 98% of the people. If the bush tax cuts did not exist, everyone (including lower and middle income people) would be paying higher taxes. The Bush tax cuts were not a cut for the rich, they were an across the board cut for everyone.

I'm well aware of that.

I don't know what the quote about % of income and % of taxes paid was for, but I think it PROVES the point that rich people DO pay their fair share of taxes considering they make less of a percentage of total income than they pay in total taxes. You think looking at a chart of people making 60% of income and paying 70% of taxes means they don't pay enough?

The point is that there is a difference in the two measures. The rich pay the majority of the total in tax revenues, yes. But they pay a relatively smaller proportion of their individual incomes in taxes than do the middle class.

Read this article I cited...it's an excellent way to school yourself on the tax issues:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Also, what is the quote about offshore bank accounts from? Do you actually know anything about offshore bank accounts? A long time ago, people used to hide their money in offshore bank accounts. The United States now forces all banks to report their holdings of U.S. citizens, requires U.S. citizens to report all of their foreign bank accounts (or face steep penalties), they require people to report foreign investment income now (as opposed to when you "bring it back into the country" - which is how it USED to be) or face steep fines, etc.

The article I cited does an excellent job of explaining it, better than I can do at 11:45 PM...

I know most people obviously are not accustomed to tax returns the size of Romney's, but THE REASON IT WAS SO BIG is literally BECAUSE he was reporting all of his foreign investments/income. People have the wrong idea of (current) foreign investments/holdings.

You've seen Romney's tax returns? You're a tax attorney?

Romney's "Just trust me" doesn't work for me.

*Yawn*

Typical nonsense. Tax the rich at 100%. We would still have a deficit. Spending has to be cut. Revenue has to be increased. Sorry, but we are all going to have to pay (and the rich pay a far higher percentage than we do).

I realize that we all want to believe in the 1950's fantasy of owning a home with only one family member working but thats not going to happen. Blame the 'rich' all you want but that doesnt even remotely address the issue of Germany, Japan, and China becoming economic power houses. Face it people, we had no competition for a good 20 years after WWII. What did we do? We blew it. We overpaid people, made the assumption that the profits would always be there. WE bankrupted US Steel, the Auto companies (more than once) and say manufacturing flee to lower wage countries.

You want that to change? Stop shopping at Walmart for starters.

Good luck.

"….Obama himself went out his way in an interview Tuesday on Bloomberg TV to stress that he was proposing only a temporary tax increase on the wealthy, to be followed in 2013 with a tax “reform” that would slash tax rates to below their current levels. “And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013,” he said, “where we work on tax reform…and it’s possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point.”

He declared several times that he was anxious to cut entitlement programs, saying he was “prepared to work with the speaker and Democrats and Republicans to go after excessive health care costs in our federal health care system.” Asked about calls from Republican leaders to raise the Medicare eligibility age and cut cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, Obama said, “You know, I am willing to look at anything that strengthens our system.”…"

Public tussle over US deficit plans masks bipartisan agenda

By Barry Grey

5 December 2012

Republican leaders of the House of Representatives on Monday responded to a White House proposal with a counter-plan to slash the deficit and avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”—some $600 billion in tax increases and automatic spending cuts slated to start on January 1 if no deficit-cutting deal is reached before then.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are using the artificial fiscal emergency to call for cuts in the basic federal health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security, the government pension program for the elderly, along with reductions in outlays for education, transportation, food stamps and other social needs. At the same time, they are pushing for a revamping of the tax system to slash rates for corporations and the rich and eliminate or reduce tax deductions that benefit working people…

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/dec2012/clif-d05.shtml

Why is Obama espousing a paltry tax increase on the top earners and not a balanced approach. Well for one Obama loves to spend, and expanding and maintaining spending on everything including Cowboy Poetry festivals is what he believes government should be doing. Second because increasing taxes has been agreed upon by Obama's rich friends. But closing loopholes is not in Obama's plan because that is where rich liberals draw the line.

So Obama plans on business as usual. A small tax increase, basically no cuts in spending, and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. History will write that Obama will leave office having added more to the national debt then every previous president combined. Obama will leave office with our national debt well over 20 trillion. Obama will go down in history as the fiscally most irresponsible person to ever sit in the Oval Office, but he uses Twitter and twits can't do math.

Irish 21

Jack,

Why is that stupid? You could tax the top 2% at 100% and it will only run the government for 8 days. Why doesnt our government cut spending on useless social programs?

The gov't is cutting spending on some projects. But what some see as useless social programs others see as essential whether you see it as mooching or not. We're not going to leave people without any lifelines at all, sorry.

The fact is, ( and trust me, it *is* a fact) we cannot reduce the deficit without increasing tax revenue. You simply cannot do it. And this is to raise money beyond what it takes to run the government not to simply keep it running. Please try to avoid using straw men and ad homimen attacks to support your point of view because some of us can see right through it.

Rick, about the poetry festival. Sure. Got no problem with them not funding that. Okay, that takes care of- if my math is correct- 1/21,000,000th of the shortfall. What else ya got?

Sorry Rick. I just went and read more about the whole poetry thing. It seems I was only accounting for the grant for the festival itself when it is the entirety of NEA that is targeted. I am actually for keeping it ( I know, big surprise...) but even if we did do away with it, that is a mere 1/10,000th of the short fall. Insignificant at best. Why not do something that would actually make a difference like increasing tax revenue. Instead of doing what Mao would have done by cutting funding to the arts.

Both the GOP and Obama should stand their ground and let the Bush tax cuts expire. We will then revert back to the Clinton tax increases which should make Obama very happy because he'll finally have his tax increases on those 2%, and everyone else as well. He will, of course, need to deal with a new recession of his own making but that shouldn't bother him one bit since his solution is as always, spend.. spend.. spend.

Economic and societal collapse is all but insured.

For all of you who "hate the rich" let me educate you. Here is data directly from the IRS (2009 - the last year of detailed summaries):

Top 1%: 16.9% of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) but paid 36.7% of ALL income taxes

Top 5%: 31.7% of AGI but paid 58.7% of ALL income taxes

Top 10%: 43.2% of AGI but paid 70.5% of ALL income taxes

Top 25%: 65.8% of AGI but paid 87.3% of ALL income taxes

Top 50%: 86.5% of AGI but paid 97.7% of ALL income taxes

So tell me again about this "fair share" argument? Tell me again how, say, a group that makes 65.8% of all Adjusted Gross Income pays nearly 90% of ALL income taxes isn't "fair"? You are right - it ISN'T fair. They shouldn't be paying that much. So don't talk to me about "fair". Don't talk to me about how "the middle class and elderly are burned at the benefit of the wealthy". Don't tell me that the wealthy don't pay their "fair share".

Only someone who doesn't understand the current tax code and doesn't understand economics would fall for this president's desire to "punish the wealthy". The wealthy pay MORE than their share of taxes so if you are going to allow an unrestrained government to spend money wastefully then taxes for EVERYBODY should go up. Because when YOU start to pay more than YOUR fair share then you will understand it doesn't benefit anybody.

He will, Feisty ...

"Unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance," Obama said

And he'll do it with a helluva lot more class then La-La-Land Boehner!

And he'll do it with a helluva lot more class then La-La-Land Boehner!

Throw a Tra- in front of that line, and Boehner will have a full-fledged raging Christmas Carol.

Please explain the "free ride" you're describing?? If this is about the capital gains tax, you have access to the same tax rate should you choose to plan for your future and invest your money (which has already been taxed prior to investment, btw). But why would anyone invest in their future when they can just take more from the wealthy?

Fiesty...free ride? Why don't you look up how much of the total tax revenues collected are paid by the top 2%. You can think that number is unfair all day long, but thinking it's free is, well...let's not go there.

Fairness???? who said he, or you want fairness? The "rich" already pay more in taxes then anyone else in this country, and they use fewer handouts. If you really want to be honest, say you want the "rich" to pay more to punish them because they are successful! You and he think they deserve to pay more because they got"rich" on the backs of the poor. Well guess what, you can tax the hell out of them and they will still be rich and you will still be poor and bitter.

Your president is a wimp. He should seize 50% of the 2%'s assets and give it to the 98%.

Better yet, it should be illegal for anyone to have more than $250,000 in wealth. This gutless president is just nickel and diming money to the government.

Fiesty has no clue what she is talking about. She says the same @!$%# all the time.....talking about how they should pay their fair share and have had free rides all along as if the rich dont pay taxes. She is a typical liberal nut case who can not think for herself. Pay no attention to that foul mouthed loon.

I can't figure out why so many right wing people who make under $50,000.00 a year are opposed to the wealthy 2% paying more taxes. I would like to know how many of the top 2% would put that same in energy in fighting for the lower tear to have a living wage and health care.

It just doesn't make sense.

Job1,

Maybe because they can see what is down the road once taxes are raised on that group. If you remember it was the top 1%, now it is the top 2%. At first it was people making over 1 million, then 250K, now 200K. Maybe people see our government for what they are, a bunch of greedy power hungry a-holes that will eventually tax the living hell out of all of us. I know it may seem that the dems are fighting for the middle class if you are a dem, and vice versa for the republican supporters. But i think it is time that we all realize that neither side gives a sh-t about any of us. We have the most corrupt bunch of people running our country, and I mean both sides.

Fiesty, please explain how I as a 3% had a "free ride"? I wrote the IRS a check last year for $72,460. - how much did you pay ? Listen I did not mind paying taxes, (all that much) what I hate is Govt waste- explain to me how Obama is addressing the three biggest drivers of debt, Medicaid, Medicare and SS .

This President has strong rock-solid backbones.

.

Yes, He Can.

you know, I agree that taxes need to be raised on the wealthiest Americans but, I really resent this remark,

"The 2% has had a free ride long enough..." My income is a little over the 150K mark - I don't think anyone who knows me thinks I'm rich. I live in California so, cost of living is kind of high. But a 'Free Ride?' I have worked my ass off to get to this point - I get hammered at tax time - we always end up paying. Income and wealth are two very different things - I am no fan of the RWNJ crowds but, sometimes, I think I see folks with similar qualities on the other side of the aisle. Every American needs to drop the blame game - the only way forward is to go after EVERY policitician that screws us over, lies, and works toward an agenda that doesn't help the majority of us. Arguing, name calling, and some of the inane comments that show up here are a waste of time and energy - Maybe there can be a third party at some point - we can call ourselves 'Those who actually give a @!$%#'

That does not really answer my question pigotry, not sure when a backbone is like "rocks"

Tax the 2%, and when it does nothing to help our situation maybe then they will get serious, and actually do something that is fair and balanced.

What a waste of time.

Job1...

Wrong analysis, I could care less if they pay more, The presidents narrative is all wrong by singling out just the 2% as not being fair contributors to the economy via income taxes. It's as if he never heard of JFK's inaugeral address.

So you think the lower tier needs a living wage and healthcare? How about if they don't try living beyond their current incomes and go after training that will give them (or their kids) a better life?

My dad came from germany just in time for the great depression, considering what the economy was like in germany at the time our depression may have seemed like paradise. Regardless, he couldn't speak english, he was young and had no skills per say, but he was willing to learn and he was willing to not sit on his ass and he taught my siblings and myself to do the same.

How droll that you think everyone today just be given everything so that they can keep up with the jone's. Go to greece and see how that is working out for them.

Here is the deal people. If you want to fix the problem you have to approach from ALL angles. You MUST raise the tax rate on EVERYONE. It is not fair for the 2% to shoulder the burden. Everyone across the board needs an increase. You must also CUT SPENDING. We as a country borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Imagine going to your bank and asking for a loan when you are already deep in debt and already borrowing 40% of your spend. They would tell you to go pound sand. This country has a spending problem and it needs to be curtailed now. My attitude? If you aren't going to fix the problem and raise taxes while cutting programs then let us go off the cliff. I would much prefer the short term pain now than the long term pain that we are setting ourselves up for by continuing to put off the real issue, an unbalanced budget.

And BTW - Pigotry. You are possibly the MOST annoying person here.

Hey fiesty if the GOVERNMENT would cut there spending by just 10% that would save 1.32 trillion dollars and that was from the 2008 spending, we all know they are spending more than that now.

Then you close loophole and limit deductions for those making over 250K then yuo have a Balanced budget and we can even pay down on the DEBT some. Pretty simple it is just MATH. you have to be able to add and subtract pretty good though. 3rd grade name calling will not get it done.

How about we see a budget then they can start making cuts like the rest of us have to do when times are tough? Oh, the government cant do that because they spend like drunken college kids? Easy, time to vote them out and put people in that actually represent what your interests are instead of someone you think represents you because of the letter following their name.

A solid work for benefits program could be very helpful in eliminating so many on the government rolls probably.

We would get a lot accomplished if all who recieve are required to work on clean ups, and uncomplicated tasks that we either pay others to do or go undone.

It would make the country a cleaner, safer nation and help the economy

Make work or sacrifice of time a requirement for government assistance dollars

CELTIC They have NO clue, you will not get an answer from them that will be of any good.

Irish21 and Mr. Righteous,

Thank you both for your excellent and accurate posts in a sea of ignorance.

In this first term, the President moved too far right for a Democrat, supporting bush tax cut for the rich.

.

It's time the President stands up for liberal causes in his 2nd term..

BTW, John-274043, thanks for the honor. But you are wrong - I am the most annoying pig.

If Jesus is the anointed one, I am the annoying one. Yes, I am who I am...agreeing with Christ.

thetotas,

I totally agree...Obama is like a dog with a bone with this 2% nonsense. When will he ever get serious about spending what we take in instead of spending MORE than you take in? If I were a Republican in Congress, I'd give him the 2% to shut him up and then watch his house of cards still fall... Finally then people will realize that EVERYBODY has to pay more. I don't ever recall anyone from the middle class saying back when these tax cuts were put in place that "gee...I don't think I deserve a tax cut.." Instead now they are whining about the small percentage of that evil rich that "SUPPOSEDLY" pay no taxes, which of course they can't prove.

is the small business owner who puts everything on the line to enjoy working 7 days a week rich?

merrymarie,

Exactly! My father in law and my father are both small business owners both in their 60's. Both have been in debt up to their eyes their entire lives because they dumped all of their money into their businesses and took out several loans to help pay for school for their kids. And now for the first time in their mid 60's they have their debts paid off and can actually save a little money for retirement. I remember growing up my dad not even collecting a check some years so they could pay their employees and still give them bonuses around Christmas time. But according to some on this board they are evil rich people. Funny, when I was growing up that is what people strived for, to be independent.

Irish - when you were posting your rant about Feisty my guess is you were looking in the mirror since it so totally describes you and everything you post!

Your idiotic comments about "evil rich people" has only come out of your mouth. I don't know anyone who thinks rich people are evil - well maybe Donald Trump but that's a whole different subject.

Some of us make very good money but we realize that the more you make the more tax loopholes you use. Those loopholes should be closed and taxes on the wealthy raised. I'm NOT opposed to paying more to help the country and in order to no hurt the middle class and poor who can ill afford any increase.

Grow up! Your posts are just nonsense!

Thetotas "Tax the 2%, and when it does nothing to help our situation maybe then they will get serious, and actually do something that is fair and balanced.

What a waste of time."

No it is not a waste of time, fairness is never a waste of time, and it very much is a matter of fairness, you can't ask the old, poor, and sick to constantly take the cuts and pick up the tab, who paid for the bank bailout, who paid for the real estate collapse, the middle class did, they always have and always will pay the bulk of the bills. You can not in good conscious continue to ask them to pony up more when the wealthiest of the wealthy pay half the percentage in tax as they do. If republicans don't allow taxes to go up on the ubber rich why should anybody take any cuts. Taxes on the rich are not going to balance the budget on their own but if you don't start there then everything else is a non-starter, it is a matter of being a fair and equitable nation, the president understands this as does the majority of the country by huge margins. You tell me why should a guy like Mitt Romney who makes $57,000 a day, who has not worked in years, what jobs has he created, what has he contributed, why should he pay half the tax rate some poor bastard laying bricks for a $1,000 bucks a week does. You tell me why you think that is fair, you tell me how him and his money in offshore accounts is more valuable to this nation than the guy laying bricks so that Romney gets to pay half the tax rate of the wage earner. The president said it is about shared sacrifice and he is dead nuts right about that. The middle class is used to picking up the tab but they are sick of being played for chumps they would like to see a good faith deposit on some fairness by those who can damn well afford it whether it solves all our economic problems or not. It is the right thing to do Thetotas my friend, it's that simple.

Dear Feisty,

I certainly hope your hero does stick to his guns. Also, while I'm on the subject of hope. I hope your not as unattractive as you are ignorant. Bring on the cliff!!! You liberals are so quick to put your hands into some one else's pockets I can wait to watch when Uncle Sam starts putting his hand into your pocket. This is going to be fun. As you like to say "LMAO"

Seeking Sanity,

I always find it cute how you defend Fiesty who just throws out insults on every subject. She gets the same respect as she gives out. If you have read, and I know you have, other posts on here people say exactly that. Anyone who has made money in their lives is evil and rich and did it off the backs of the poor. I make half way decent money, nothing super but enough to put food on the table, pay my mortgage and enough to take my wife and daughter to a nice dinner once in a while. What I have a problem with is my taxes going up because of out of control spending by idiots in Washington on both sides of the fence.

But you are right, I should grow up and just let our government run wild with spending because you are so mature and told me so. You need to get over yourself.

your 4 years to late obama...the rich have raped the country and will soon leave it...take the name brands over sea's...etc...take it like a divided nation...go to wall-mart spend that government voucher...and get funky tonight...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Zimpr_8zs

Individual income taxes and payroll taxes accounted for 82 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal year 2010. Corporate income taxes contributed another 9 percent. Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts (earnings of the Federal Reserve System and various fees and charges) made up the balance. The composition of tax revenue has changed markedly over the past half century. The share coming from individual income taxes has remained roughly constant, while payroll taxes have accounted for a larger share and corporate income and excise taxes smaller shares.

What does this mean? So what if the aristocracy pays 70% of the income tax. The income tax is 42% of the total taxes collected. So the rich are actually paying about 30% of the total taxes collected.

On the other hand, payroll taxes are 40% of the total and the rich pay none of it. Us working Americans do. And the bottom 50% of Americans only own 2.5% of the wealth in America.

Who is really being overtaxed?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

TO: G_Rock who wrote:

"Please explain the "free ride" you're describing??..."

Why do Republicans have to be reminded of things all the time. What the heck are Republicans smoking?

TO: JK1963 who wrote:

"...I totally agree...Obama is like a dog with a bone with this 2% nonsense. When will he ever get serious..."

I don't think that the President, or 98% of the American People can be any more serious.

It's time for upper income folks to pay their fair share in taxes. They're not hiring, they're not giving raises to those who work for them, and they're making record profits.

TO: Irish 21 who wrote:

"merrymarie, Exactly! My father in law and my father are both small business owners both in their 60's. Both have been in debt up to their eyes their entire lives because they dumped all of their money into their businesses and took out several loans to help pay for school for their kids. And now for the first time in their mid 60's they have their debts paid off and can actually save a little money for retirement. I remember growing up my dad not even collecting a check some years so they could pay their employees and still give them bonuses around Christmas time. But according to some on this board they are evil rich people..."

Rich means "rich", rich doesn't necessarily mean if you're "self-employed" then you must be rich. No.

Not everyone who is "self-employed" is making over $250,000 a year in profits alone, and if they are, they need to pony up.

You can't pay down the debt by taking Food Stamps from the poor.

TO: merrymarie1209 who wrote:

"is the small business owner who puts everything on the line to enjoy working 7 days a week rich?"

He ain't the only one working 7 days a week, and I don't recall the President saying that folks who make over $250,000 are "rich", and some "rich" folks don't work at all.

The additional 4 cents on the dollar doesn't apply to everyone who works "7 days a week", it applies to those who earn more than $250,000 a year and that would probably apply to "net income after taxes" rather than "gross income", if you know the difference.

Geez, folks who pretend to be "rich" are begging for more and more handouts than anybody else!

Yo! You purported "rich" folks out there:

"Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your country!!!"

Yes stand firm Obama, that 86 billion in new tax revenue and 40 billion in spending cuts won't even get us below the trillion dollar annual deficits, but don't let that bother you because liberals can't do math. You actually have liberals that believe this will balance the budget. Supporting this bogus plan from Obama is an amazing display of absolute stupidity, and people wonder why the US ranks so low in math.

Its time that the government stop telling us what to do and do what we tell it to do.

"STOP SPENDING!"

The U.S. does not need 11 aircraft carriers! The U.S. should get out of Afghanistan tomorrow. All senators and members of the house of representatives, the president and all people working for these people should take a 50% pay cut.

They have demonstrated very well that don't give a damn about the country and the people in the country except for the people who vote them into office. And that is not good enough.

It is ridiculous to tell the people who are paying the lions share of the taxes to pay more so that the people who don't want to work will continue to not work.

Obummer has to get rid of the illegal aliens and put those jobs up for legal residents and American Citizens and stop running around the world setting up free trade with countries that will siphon off more jobs. I hate to say it but the U.S. has to set up protectionist tariffs to get jobs back to the U.S. NAFTA has proven to be a big mistake. Over the last ten years Mexico has gone from a net importer to a net exporter to the U.S. to the tune of $600,000,000,000. That is a hell of lot of jobs exported to Mexico.

The same thing is true of Canada.

Obummer just signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Australia and New Zealand? Is he that stupid he can not learn from history?

American,

Nice with the deflection again...why don't you ever talk about Obama and his spending? I can't believe that you and the left still stand there and whine about those evil 2%, and yet doesn't care about spending more than you take in. THAT is the real problem facing America. Obama is betting the farm that majority of America is all over those rich folks and hope that they aren't bright enough to look at the bigger picture. Go ahead and get your hallow victory with the 2% crew. For all the good it will do, it pales in comparison to the real problems.

G_Rock,

Capital gains tax doesn't tax the money you invest, only the money that was "earned" on your investment is taxed. So no, capital gains doesn't tax something that was already taxed. You only pay a capital gains tax if you sell an investment and make a profit on it, and only the profit (or gain) is taxed.

Let's face it.We are all going to have our taxes raised sooner or later.Money is an addictive drug to ANY politician.It is funny that the GOP is wasting it's time with any kind of proposal.The only thing the Democrats will accept is a complete unconditional surrender of anyone who disagrees with them.I guess that's what they mean by moving forward.