I'm all about symbols! How about this one: Repeal the Second Amendment! That would be a powerful symbol to show the world we are striving to be a civilized nation.

Mariott..I think that is pretty much what the right was saying. The first step..Obama did was take money out of the Economy by Taxing. That goes against every Economics model published when you have a weak Economy. You dont take money out of the Economy ...you put it back in...FREE MARKET....Government spending has never spurred an Economy. If the Jobs are stimulated (other than Government jobs...that is just Redistribution)...then the tax money will come back. Govermnment Spending can be corrupt and in a lot of cases paying back favors. For Example...if you put another stimulus in...you are targeting only certain Unions and Industries...Only if you are the chosen Industry do you benefit from a stimulus. Right now a lot of the same Industries will be chosen again for the Stimulus. Ex Car Industry, Roads ..infrastructure etc...In addition much of that Stimulus money never gets to where it is suppose to be...It is stolen or as in Obamas Case ... it was sent over Seas to set up a Car Manufacturing Plant for Foreign Production...That is a Fact as reported by GMA Robin Roberts...She was dissappointed also.

Mike your are dead wrong. Obama has not increased taxes since he took office except this past week when higher income rates went up about 4.5%. He has cut taxes for years including the payroll tax holiday for 2 years.The idea all along has been to give middle class consumers more money to create demand. The very wealthy, above $400,000.00 will continue to spend as always.

markinbecker

Obama has not increased taxes since he took office except this past week when higher income rates went up about 4.5%.

What about all the taxes in Obamacare?

Markinbecker...your right ...he has not cut ...They were the Bush Tax Cuts(he didnt cut ...dont give credit where it is not due) ..where everybody got a cut.

He now just raised taxes when the Economy is still very weak. Not so sure about your theory...people making $400,000 a year continue to spend regardless. They are the job Creators...they will cut their spending back ...For Example ...they may buy equipment for their business every 4 years not every 2-3 years.Therefore directly effecting Manufacturing...... They may cut their enertainment budget...directly effecting descrescenary Income Industry...Food and Beverage..Gym memberships etc. I disagree whole heartedly that spending stays the same. They also will not hire if their Taxes(their cost) are higher.

It is also a fact the Middle Class will save its "Cuts"...because they are smart and fruegal with their money ...as they should be .

Markinbecker, Obama and the left bashed the Bush tax cuts, just like many liberal posters. They claim it led to our massive yearly deficits. Last week, Obama made them permanent for 99.3% of Americans.

Obama has offered no tax relief other than the temporary holiday payroll tax cut for the past 2 years which he let expire. The payroll tax affects the people that earn under 113K more than people that earn over 113K. Obamacare employs all kind of great new taxes that will hurt the economy as well as raise the cost of health insurance.

And median household incomes are DOWN.

U.S. incomes ticked up in November after moving sideways for much of 2012. Real median household income was up 1.6% from the 2012 low of $50,516 in April. That's according to a new study of census data. At $51,310, median income is slightly above its year-ago level of $51,276, but well below the prerecession level of $54,286, five years earlier in November 2007.

So income in November 2012 was $34 higher than November 2011 and Obama ended the payroll tax reduction??? Great job.

Obama has hurt the free market by continually trying to invest in green energy and bailout companies instead of allowing the free market to work FREELY. When you invest in A123 to make batteries for the Chevy Volt only because you bailed out GM and want them to succeed... it isn't free market. When A123 goes bankrupt because GM can't produce or sell a viable electric car... that makes matters worse. When Obama dumps money into Solyndra forcing other companies with better technology to go under because they now can't compete... that's not free market. When you bailout GM and watch them loose more market share because of poor leadership, poor workmanship, and union leeching, that isn't free market. Allowing Volkswagen to buy them out and build new plants would have been much more beneficial. Volkswagen posted a 35% sales increase... GM did not. It lost market share.

Obama doesn't care about the middle class. He cares about spending... and not so much about do it responsibly. He doesn't care if it is paid for or not, he will spend. Obama also cares about wealth redistribution, even if it means dividing the nation further. He has created more race and class warfare than any president in over 30 years.

In the 2009 stimulus bill about 1/3 of that bill, written by Senator Collins, was a tax cut for the middle class. The payroll tax holiday was a 2% cut in fica taxes for the 2011 and 2012 tax years. That too was directed at the middle class. As far as the Affordable Health Care Act, it is designed to cut health care costs over the long haul by insuring 30 million more people. It will not be fully implemented until 2014. Just how much more in taxes has it cost you? Not a penny.

Markinbecker ..there is a figure out there stating exactly how much more tax it will be on the Middle Class...Please dont quote me ...but its about $2500 dollars more a year when it is fully imposed. The reason why it was not struck down by the Supreme Court was because it is viewed as a Tax...

Addressing cuts in our spending with raising revenue is definitely the balanced way to tackle our debt and would have the greatest positive impact. Agricultural-Big Oil Gov't subsidies totaling $520 billion and $2 trillion of Military spending is no longer sustainable.....period. Mitch Mcconnel and the GOP believes the elderly/middle class/ poor should be direct recepients of austerity measures in Medicare/Social Security programs they help fund without addressing Gov't subsidies to Farmers in Red States and our huge military spending. For example, we can no longer guard Western Europe. Let them guard themselves.

The unemployed help fund unemployemnt insurance (SDI) in state taxation by payroll deductions when working along with the Federal Gov't. Social Security/Medicare is funded by citizens from payroll deduction by FICA and Social Security income along with the Federal Gov't. Cutting these programs is not a sincere effort to cut Gov't spending. A sincere effort to cut Gov't spending cuts programs wherein the recepients do not assist funding....likie the Military, Big Oil, Agriculture, etc.

Only one of nine judges ruled it was a tax. It is an insurance premium. Regardless of what you call it it has not hit anybody yet. But if it costs you $2500.00 per year for a years worth of health insurance that is a deal ($208.00 per month). Where can anybody get health insurance for that price? No where.

Come on Markinbecker... my first stock transaction will cost me an additional 8.8%. I sold all of my dividend stocks... what is the point of paying 43%???

Medicare payroll tax will go up 1% for me. My health insurance is going up 10+% this month.

I'm not eligible for Obamacare. I can't take advantage of this fantastic health insurance. No, I have to purchase insurance from the so-called corrupt insurance companies that are holding Americans hostage. Thanks Obama.

Thank god I don't have a special needs child now that Obama has capped FSAs to $2500.

It isn't just the taxes... it is the effect on the rest of the market.

And the stimulus bill offered no tax credits or cuts for me. Even though I may pay 10 times more in taxes than many middle class people, refunds and credits are reciprocated in reverse order. In other words, even though the top 20% of taxpayers pay 94% of all tax revenue, when it's time to hand out refunds or credits, they don't take 94% of the pool and divide it proportionally among the 20% in which the money originated. That would be FAIR and EQUAL.

The tax cuts mostly helped people who don't pay taxes with lots of children to get tax credits. So if you weren't smart enough to say, I can't afford a child but will have 4, you got tax credits. Accountability and responsibility??? What's that?

Car credits to boost the auto industry now that Obama made the taxpayers have a vested interest.

First-time homebuyer credits so people would snatch up foreclosed homes to rescue the home, but not the family that was displaced.

The people that got breaks had no effect on the economy because they had little to no spending power with or without the breaks.

Small businesses couldn't get loans. Upper middle class people couldn't get loans to buy a second investment house. Obama is a small thinker. He is a great politician. He may be a great community organizer. But he can't govern. And has no mind for economics.

it is a cost of $2500 more than what you pay now...That is a considerable tax....Again my figures may be off .. I will have to look it up. I know it has not hit anybody yet....Just like a storm ...You better prepare for it. I am concerned that companies who offer the Health Insurance may decide to make their employees go on Obamacare...To cut cost.

Need to clean up the code and get rid of credits and deductions. Nobody is pushing for higher rates.

The tax code shold have been priority number one in 2009. More revenue with lower taxes might have been achieved; helping both the economy and the deficit.

Romney wanted to reform the tax code. Ryan still wants to reform the tax code. Republicans offered to reform the tax code and lower rates which would have generated more revenue than raising rates on the top .7% of taxpayers. Obama refused.

Why? Because Obama wanted to win a political battle at the expense of the American people. It isn't about doing what is right for the middle class or America. He wanted to divide the Republican party and force higher rates to then come back and ask for tax code reform. If Republicans refuse, he says it was their idea. Of course what he won't say is it will mean EVEN higher taxes on the middle class and higher income families.

All of this will be detrimental to the economy.

Republicans aren't against revenue increases... they are against TAX increases. Because revenue can be increase at 10x via economic growth via tax cuts than from raising taxes and rates.

Funny how the GOP is claiming they want to reform the tax code but never so much as raised a finger to do so during Bush's 8 years. HYPOCRITS!

I won't argue with you there Markinbecker.

People loose sight of things that aren't priority. When the economy was booming, people don't bother fighting battles that aren't a major concern or priority.

And it wasn't until later in Bush's second term when the crap hit the fan.

I'm not claiming Obama wasn't dealt a crappy hand. But he has no idea how to improve it.

My point is simply that the rate hike will generate 30-50B in 2013. That will cover the federal government's expenditure to keep illegal aliens in this country with all of their free benefits. So essentially, the rate hike was to pay for illegal aliens. Doesn't help the states which pay 85B a year on illegal aliens.

Reforming the tax code should take 10 seconds. Eliminate 90% of deductions and ensure no loopholes and institute a flat tax rate of 25%. Do the same for corporate rates and code.

Eliminating deductions and loopholes with existing rates would be catastrophic to the economy and would guarantee recession by Q3.

Dropping the rates on everyone over 25% to 25% and closing loopholes and drastically limiting deductions would result in significantly more revenue from higher earner while lowering the tax burden on most middle class families. Maybe a 0, 15, 25% rate structure would work, but it still wouldn't be fair. 25% across the board and then applying assistance where needed is the most fair system.

Well we just had an election where Obama and Romney laid out their case and Obama was selected as President. It is his way. Nobody is claiming all deductions and credits need to be eliminated. Those are the details that need to be negotiated. Hopefully nobody will demonize the parties. For example I don't think we should eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest, it is the real estate industry that must come back to get the economy buzzing. I don't know where you get the illegal aliens argument from.

But you do understand, regardless of admitting it or not, that tax revenue generated from the recent hike on the top .7% will do nothing.

Reforming the tax code in any significant way would be catastrophic to the economy. Making useless changes would generate no revenue and be more smoke and mirrors.

And all of it is simply a distraction from the real problem. Spending. We spend too much. Drastic cuts in the military would be detrimental to the economy as well, although I agree that small cuts over several years is warranty and could be done to cut the deficit without hurting the economy.

But without massive cuts, the deficit will no longer be our problem in 4 years... the interest on our debt will cost more than welfare and possibly even the military budget.

the demarats want more money to give away so you need to pay more taxs

@ Kamo,

Correction: There is no tax raised for Obamacare....unless the citizen refuses Health Insurance tax credits by refusal of contributing for their own policy thereby making all other citizens Insurance rates go even higher. Why the hell should we all pay higher health insurance premiums because you refuse covereage when you end up in an emergency room? If you truly feel this way, visit a medicine man in the desert next time instead of visiting an emergency room.

Tonytellsthetruth

There is no tax raised for Obamacare....unless the citizen refuses Health Insurance tax credits by refusal of contributing for their own policy thereby making all other citizens Insurance rates go even higher.

Are you not counting the .9% increase in the Medicare rate and the 3.8% increase in capitals gains on the $250K folks? Are you not counting the billions being taxed from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies? The medical device supply companies?

Obamacare will ultimately add over 18 new taxes.

Payroll tax holiday expired. All wage earners saw a 2% tax increase.

There was bipartisan support not to renew the payroll tax holiday and that was clear last summer. Both parties realized the mistake they made by reducing payroll taxes, even on a temporary basis.

Frank-3090720,

Citizens fund Social Security/Medicare with the Government. There are many Government subsidies allocated to agencies who do not help fund it. These are where the cuts will be implemented. Which would have a greater impact on bringing down our deficit? Cutting spending in Gov't subsidies where the recepients do not assist in funding and keeping programs where the citizens assist funding with the Gov't? Or cutting spending in the programs where citizens assist the Gov't with their own funds and keeping those Gov't subsidies to Big Oil, Military, and Agriculture who provide no funding to the Gov't? It's a no brainer, Dude.

By the way, I want to remind you and Mitch Mcconnnel, Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare adavantage shown as a surplus in Paul Ryan's rejected budget. The GOP called it a "cut" before the election and claimed it was not a "cut" after the election. What's up with that? It's BS. In addition, Obama offered an additional $400 billion in soending cuts to Boehner who rejected the offer. This would total $1.16 trillion in cuts Republicans don't like to talk about.........

Tonytellsthetruth

In addition, Obama offered an additional $400 billion in soending cuts to Boehner who rejected the offer. This would total $1.16 trillion in cuts Republicans don't like to talk about.........

Are you saying that President Obama is counting the $716B in savings again? Just like the cut to Medicare would "strenghen" the system, eliminate the donut hole, AND fund Obamacare?

The actuaries for SS disagree. Raising the cap has only limited, temporary benefits. That is because if you pay higher payroll taxes, you also get higher benefits when you retire. The benefit formula is somewhat progressive, but most of that is offset by the fact that those with higher incomes tend to live longer. There will likely be some increase in the salary cap to help with some short term financing issues, but everyone agrees that the primary need is to increase the age for full retirement to account for demographic changes in the country. People are living longer and we have the slowest population growth in the nation's history. I believe they anticipate raising the full retirement age by one year around 2040 and another year around 2075. That seems reasonable since it is because people are living longer that we have the solvency problem in the first place.

It is not enough. Means testing in addition to raising the cap on the payroll tax should make it perfectly solvent for the next century.

J Willard, again you want successful people to pay more but receive less so lazy and less successful people can retire and live more comfortably.

The purpose of me working so hard is to retire comfortably, not so some lazy guy can breeze through life hardly working and then retire as comfortably as me.

Total Returns in 2009 was 140M. Taxable returns in 2009 was 81,890,189.

Total Returns in 1996 was 120M. Taxable returns in 1996 was 90,929,350.

Life Expenctancy of Americans
1940 - Men = 53.9; Women = 60.6
1990 - Men = 72.3; Women = 83.6

Number of Americans 65 and Older
1940 - 9.0 million
2000 - 34.9 million

Also, the average number of years people live AFTER 65 - if they make it is 3-5 years longer now than it was when Social Security started.

I have a better solution, how about everyone save for your retirement on your own.

Nobody would disagree that the pet projects of our politicians need to be eliminated. But it is such a small number compared to the overall debt problem that it would make no difference in the numbers. Those programs still need to be cut, however, since to sell some of the big spending cuts that will have real negative impact on folks, these pet projects need to end.

20% of federal spending is defense, 20% on Social Security and another 20% is on Medicare/Medicaid. That is where the problem lies. If you read the facts above, you see that Social Security is NOT the problem. Defense and Medicare/Medicaid are.

Actually, the problem is our budget is 2.468T but we spend 3.795T.

The 20% of the budget spent on military creates jobs and revenue (both corporate and individual) which offset much of the expenditure.

The 40% spent on SS and Healthcare are pure expenditures.

The biggest problem is in 2016 the projected military budget will be 800B while SS and Healthcare will total 2.25T.

Military to SS/Healthcare is currently 1:2 cost. In 4 years, it will be 1:3 cost.

yeah, like Pentagon and military spending to start. Then we can lower the tax base to $250,000.00 and UP like we Americans voted for!

You mean like you 51% of Americans voted for... of which what percentage do think pay taxes?

Can you discriminate any more?

Not only do you want to contribute less, but you want more say as to how and where revenue is spent.

And of course, as long as you get more, it's a good deal.

Go ahead and cut the military budget. It isn't the same as cutting SS or medicare or welfare. These are pure expenditures. The military budget generates MILLIONS of jobs which create individual and corporate tax revenue which offsets much of its expense which DEFENDING our nation.

But who needs a military, as long as you get free cell phone service?

I believe the latest polling data shows that 75% want spending cuts. They already got their tax cuts made "permanent", so it is on to the spending cuts, just like McConnell said.

"75% want spending cuts"

That is the thing. Everyone wants spending cuts, but not one that effect them.

Taxes affect everyone just like spending cuts affect everyone.

The middle class wanted to raise taxes on the top 2%. Instead rates went up on the top .7% while the middle class had taxes go up on them anyway. And the tax increases will affect the economy which will affect the middle class as well.

The thing about spending cuts is that it will save our children, grandchildren and the nation.

People are going to have to suck it up. They are bitching and moaning now. They'll bitch and moan after the cuts. At least there will be a nation where bitching and moaning is allowed.

Cut spending on WHAT?

How about every non-essential program and agency. 20% off of every other program/agency. Close the post office. Cut government salaries by 20%, especially congress. Stop keeping people on death row for 20 years and kill them already. Deport all illegal aliens. Slow immigration.

That would still not come even close to a balanced budget.

BTW, the post Office does not use ANY taxpayer funds to operate, it uses revenue from postage.

JWM - I agree with your comments on spending cuts. Everybody knows we need them. Everybody wants to do them. The only problem is they don't want any spending cuts that will either impact them personally or would impact any of their favorite government spending programs. Politicians don't win elections by cutting back spending on programs people like. I am reminded of several instances over these last few years when Congress continued to require the purchase of military hardware the Pentagon didn't need or want.

The postal service lost 25M a day or 16B in 2012. Meanwhile, UPS and FEDEX make a killing delivering packages. Close the post office and let private industry pick up the slack. Hundreds of new businesses would popup to fill in the gap and capitalize, hiring many of the useful postal service workers, while the slackers would go on unemployment, which is cheaper for the taxpayer than paying them salary and pension to sit on their fannies all day.

Offer 1K to every person on unemployment after 1 year that helps lead to the deportation of an illegal alien. 1 illegal a week would be a 52K a year occupation. This would cost the government a TOTAL of no more than 20B and save 30B every year as well as 85B in state funding.

There are tons of ways to put people to work and save money and improve the nation.

I would even support Friday Night PPV death row executions. You could execute 5 death row criminals each week on PPV using a variety of methods that the victims' families can determine with a spin of a wheel. $39.95 for the even, plus advertising (companies like ADT home security and taser manufacturers would pay big money for), every week. One million people purchase the event each week for 52 weeks you collect 2B a year plus advertising. Cut costs and increase revenue. Broadcast worldwide and on the web and you could make from 5-10B a year.

The 800 Lb. Gorilla in the room is Medicare. Obamacare was a start at healthcare reform, but if we don't go further, much, much further, healthcare is what will bankrupt this country.

Cuts aren't supposed to balance the budget. Tax cuts and a stimulated economy will do that for you.

Spending more and taxing more will never get you there.

Tax hikes only generate pennies on the dollar compared to cuts.

But until the economy is booming, you need MASSIVE cuts before there is permanent damange.

And 20% off all programs is 3T in spending or a 600B deficit. 16B postal service. 33B in Sandy Pork. 68B in tax credits in Fiscal Cliff bill. 100B in non-essential programs. 30B for illegal aliens (85 at state level of which much is federally funded). Now you have a 300-400B deficit. Cut Obamacare and some taxes, and you will have a surplus within two years.

No one has EVER balanced a budget by cutting taxes. Never happened, never will.

JWM, I'm obviously being ridiculous as none of my suggestion would ever fly with the democratic party.

And I agree about Medicare. Obamacare, though, is not helping. Regulating medical care is not the same as reforming health insurance. That is the problem with Obamacare.

This is not going to be easy, but we have no choice. We are heading toward the event horizon where our debt to GDP ratio is unsustainable and irreversible.

Shame that President Obama gave up on the grand bargain, had to pull Sen. Reid out, and settle for such a crappy deal in order to raise taxes on the .7%.

All that and we get to go through this again in weeks?

We need 1.6T PER YEAR not over 10 years. Who are you going to tax?

The debt ceiling is manufactured??? We can pay for things without BORROWING. We just have to shut down non-essential services.

If the president was a Republican and we were in the same situation, you would see this quote played on every liberal media outlet (or all but 1 media outlet) 100 times a day.

But because Obama is their golden child, you will only see/hear this clip on one media outlet.

George Bush couldn't formulate a sentence, which made for a great calendar of Bushisms. But I don't recall any president being so full of SH!T before. Every promise... broken. Every claim... false. Every decision... bad. He is a failure in every context and every category and every scenario.

Obama just took care of that by signing the tax bill. Higher income earners are already paying for the vast majority of federal income tax revenue. It is the middle class who are getting a pass. By the way, nobody is taxed based on how wealthy they happen to be - not constitutional.

true liberal,

If you have a 1B deficit last year with 100,000 people paying taxes and 2% economic growth.

The following year, you have the same number of people working and paying taxes and have 4% growth, you will have a FAT surplus.

Cutting corporate taxes creates corporate profit which stimulates hiring which increases the tax base and raises wages and salaries.

Cutting individual taxes helps investment and spending which boosts corporate profits which further stimulates hiring and increases corporate tax revenue.

The problem is when you spend all of your tax money and more on entitlements, you have nothing to pay for education or support your military, so you have to borrow that.

You can't just say screw you to the people that paid into SS. However, SS is unsustainable because people are living on average 20 years longer than when the system was created.

If you prioritize expenditure...

1) Military - create jobs and generates corporate and individual tax revenue while defending your nation. This is the most needed and least costly as much of the expense is offset by revenue in return.

2) Education - the #2 priorty is our future.

3) Infrastructure - required for trade and business.

4) Essential government programs/agencies - This should be minimal skeleton workforce.

5) Social Security - it needs to be fixed or cut entirely, but people paid into the system and deserve their money. This should not be the responsibility of the government.

6) Healthcare - this should not be the responsibility of the government, but again people paid into the system and should get something out.

Everything else is fluff and is not required.

5 and 6 should be phased out.

Even with this framework, we would still run a deficit because less people work and pay taxes. If you want more employment, cut taxes. In the meantime you would run a deficit until the economy generates surplus.

But we have to have more revenue to pay for the programs, this is nothing in the budget to cut except for defense. Besides, healthcare is a right. ;)

You have a right to healthcare, just not at the expense of the taxpayers. You have a right to use our free market capitalist economy to purchase healthcare. There is no right guaranteed to you by government.

The retirement age was set to 65 when Social Security first started because the average life expectancy was 55 years. Since the average life expectancy is now almost 77, we should raise the retirement age to 87.

We allow people to come here by the truckload while pregnant, just to have kids. Once they are born they are citizens and can bring their families here. Illegals come and do the same thing. Illegals are FELONS. They come and suck 30B from the federal budget and 85B from states (much of it federally funded). I see people saying thay red states get more federal funding. Because they have 85B worth of illegals.

These are easily remedied problems, just like prohibiting pork into bills. When you add up all of the waste, year after year, you have hundreds of billions. probably close to 20-30% of the deficit. You can't generate that much tax revenue in 4 years.

I have no problem forfeiting my SS and Medicare contributions for the past 25 years. Keep them. By the time I retire, there won't be anything for me. Why pretend? Just shut it down now, pay out the people with the money that is left and close it down. Same with Medicare.

For years, illegal aliens and poor people that couldn't afford health insurance would go to the emergency rooms and use them like a doctor's office. They would get free care at the taxpayer's expense (my expense). Then some pro-Obamacare poster claimed that the penalties and fines in Obamacare were to force people like me to buy health insurance at a steeper premium while they enjoyed free healthcare and prevent people like me from using Obamacare or the emergency room like a doctor's office. Amazing.

And now I see reports of people using EBT cards at liquor stores and strip clubs and using food stamps to try and buy iPads. Enough of the waste and freeloading. People need to earn and contribute when capable. Not retired elderly or disabled. But the lazy bastards that are sucking the system dry.

Obamacare will fail before it starts. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Regulating charges for procedures and services based on actual PRICE would be more powerful than Obamacare. The cost of an MRI is not $3000, $4000 or $8000. It's about $200. I'm all for making a profit, but there has to be a limit when it comes to peoples health. Obamacare is not a solution to the problem, but a patch at the expense of wealthier people. If the health insurance companies are so corrupt like MSNBC claims, why aren't ALL Americans afforded Obamacare? Why are these corrupt companies allow to continue operating?

You got your revenue (thanks for chipping in), now I get my cuts!!!

Joanie, what do you mean by "will pay less taxes"? Less than whom? You? Than what they pay now?

You just got a tax hike... wouldn't they pay MORE than what they were paying the past 12 years?

Take a look at how the higher income people are paying a larger percentage of all tax revenue every year.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

The Republican offered to reform the tax code... Obama didn't want it even though it would have generated more revenue.

Instead Obama raised taxes on YOU and the entire middle class. The payroll tax cut expired and you pay 2% more. This affects people under 113K more than people making 250K or 400K or 1M a year. You were suckered.

What will it take for you to understand that raising taxes is just a distraction so people like you don't see the real problem... spending and waste. Our deficits are 1.2+T each year. You cannot tax enough to make a dent in the deficit. Spending cuts and eliminating wasteful programs and pork-filled bills will make a much larger dent in the deficit. But the economy will make the biggest dent. And you can stimulate the economy with HIGHER TAXES.

But you are welcome to try. You are just prolonging the agony and shortening the life of the nation.

Most of the lefty crowd seem to be "math challenged". They simply cannot come to grips with the reality of the numbers. Our problem is simple; our federal government spends too much.

our federal government spends too much. And does not take in enough. Very simple to understand. We will Never cut our way out of this or tax our way out. It will have to be addressed at BOTH ends.

I'm OK with "raising taxes" if that means a flat tax rate for everyone above poverty level, no loopholes or deductions, accompanied with radical reductions in spending.

The problem is they always find a way to increase revenue without ever being able to actually reduce spending, no matter which party holds the majority.

I've come to the conclusion that you can't make a politican voluntarilly part ways with pork barrel spending. It's impossible. McConnell included.

Time for term limits, and REAL campaign finance reform, not the faux effort hoisted on us the last time - what a joke!