E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
PUBLISHED 2:29 p.m. ET -- President Barack Obama told his House Democratic colleagues that he would continue to challenge Republicans on how to best replace the impending sweeping spending cuts known as the "sequester."
Speaking at the House Democratic Issues Conference in Leesburg, Va., Obama said he wants to create an alternative to the sequester that includes some entitlement reforms but also more revenue through ending loopholes and deductions for the wealthiest earners, a point of disagreement with GOP lawmakers.
“I am prepared, eager and anxious to do a big deal, a big package that ends this governance by crisis,” he told the crowd.
Obama decried Republicans, who, he said, recognize “that the sequester is a bad idea, but what they've suggested is that the only way to replace it now is for us to cut Social Security, cut Medicare and not close a single loophole, not raise any additional revenue from the wealthiest Americans or corporations who have a lot of lawyers and accounts.”
While the president seemed to lament the lack of communication between himself and House Republicans, neither side has indicated that they negotiating in public or private. Earlier Thursday, White House press secretary Jay Carney lambasted House Speaker John Boehner’s reported offer, which includes cuts to Medicare premiums and federal pension programs, as “terrible.”
At the issues conference, Obama said he was steeling himself for another philosophical fight over cuts with the Republicans.
“I have to tell you, if that's an argument that they want to have before the court of public opinion, that is an argument I'm more than willing to engage in,” he said to applause.
But disagreements might not just be limited to the Republican side, the president added, saying he’s prepared to clash with fellow Democrats on key issues like immigration and gun safety.
“There will be times where you guys are mad at me, and I'll occasionally read about it,” he said.
Despite any such intra-party bickering, the president said he still believed Democrats would be in a good position in 2014 to retake the House of Representatives.
“As a by-product of doing that good work and keeping that focus, I would expect that Nancy Pelosi's going to be speaker again pretty soon,” the President concluded his remarks with, as the crowd erupted in cheers for their leader.
Leave a Comment:
The Great Divider keeps saying to take from the wealthy, tax the rich more!!, take, take, take...the wealthy can afford it........what happens when there are no "wealthy" left to take from?
look dumb azz....10 years of Bush tax breaks is enough..look at the damage
@elvis...the damage is coming from the ever increasing rolls of leeches and parasites who feel they don't need to work nor contribute to society.......well, the "democrats".
where in the hell do you people get that sh-it from....democrats don't work don't serve...do not pay taxes....you sh-it for brains
@elvis....get your check this week?? ...I thought so!
you see..oh yeah i live at my moms house..in the basement.of the Alamo
Elvis,
75% of the Bush tax cuts went to the poor and middle class, and President Obama loved them so much he demanded they be extended for 99.3% of the people receiving them.
The top bracket now for those who make over $400,000 including the Obamacare tax is 43% which you think is not enough so how much would you like them to pay?
I would also add that I was starting my taxes and I have a daughter in university but since our household income is above $160,000 I am not entitled to the higher education tax credit, do you think that is fair?
@jerry....Elvis only cares that you continue to pay for him, too....
remember jerry...you tea nuts don't want help from the government...so you bitch about handouts..so yes..you do not get that money from your daughter..on tax payers dime remember
First I am not a "tea nut" and I am not asking for handouts, as I pay for my daughters education.
People keep talking about loopholes for the rich, ($160,000 a year) and I was pointing out a middle class loophole that I am not entitled to. At my effective tax rate of 20% the $800.00 will not make a difference to me but my question was is it fair?
Elvis get back into your OWS pup tent
I have been reading these post for the better part of three years and have decided that it is time for me to way in. Why is it that those on the right are so afraid of the rich leaving. I say let them go. Everyday, more and more people want to go into business but know that they can not compete with the Wal-Marts and such. As I see it, them leaving can only benefit America in the long run. How many thousands of companies will fill the void? Hey, if a company like Wal-Mart refuse to pay a living wage, tax them at the Kennedy era rate, 70% to cover having the government supplementing their workers.
cherry -
Tell me, who will pay the bills when there are no more wealthy in this country? Will they redefine it so that it means anybody with a job?
By the way, how are those higher taxes working out in California? If higher taxes are so great, why are jobs leaving as fast as they can? If higher taxes are so great, why is California and so many cities there on the verge of bankruptcy?
And don't try the BS that blue states get more federal money, because it is a blatant lie. California gets a very large portion of the federal money pie - much more than the 2% that you are 'entitled' to as you are only 2% of the country.
come on tea party grow some..let us see your bills..you are so proud of
come on tea party...you had your fun...of almost causing a depression.and putting money in your pockets...so pay the sh-it back
Elvis..must be touch to look in the mirror and see a mental cripple.....you are what my Dad calls "human garbage"
chris thanks...but your still a dumb azz..that wont help you
Let's go back to the Reagan year rates on the wealthy....50%
Or....how bout back to Ikes times.....85%
Sounds good!....at least until we get control of the economy...then we can lower them based on revenues.
don't always believe your demosheep herders....
.
The Democratic line about “the lowest rate in 50 years” effectively reinforces two important liberal themes: first, that the rich don’t pay their fair share to support the operations of government, and second, that hiking rates on undertaxed wealthy people offers a painless, eminently fair way to increase revenue and reduce the deficit.
The trouble with this rhetorical approach is that it relies on an obvious and embarrassing falsehood: far from paying the “lowest rate in 50 years,” top earners actually paid at the current rate or significantly lower for most of the time in the last quarter century.
Today, the most economically productive American couples pay a top rate of 35 percent on every dollar they earn above $379,150. In 1988-90, following Ronald Reagan’s triumphal second-term tax reform, big incomes paid at the highest rate of 28 percent—a big difference from today’s burden. In 1991-92, following the politically costly tax increases of President George H. W. Bush, taxes on the highest incomes went up to 31 percent—still considerably lower than today. In 1993, Bill Clinton pushed tax hikes through a heavily Democratic Congress (with a margin of just one vote in the House), and for the next nine years the top marginal rate soared to 39.6 percent. The second president Bush, welcomed to office with a significant budget surplus, sought to lower rates across the board, and since 2003 Americans in the most fortunate tax bracket have paid at the 35 percent level—slightly lower than under President Clinton, but notably higher than Reagan’s preferred rate.
On what possible basis, then, do Democrats repeatedly refer to “the lowest rates in 50 years”?
They cite figures showing the federal government taking in less revenue today as a percentage of gross domestic product than the long-standing postwar average. In the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Washington drew total funds amounting to just 14.9 percent of the economy, compared to a remarkably consistent 17 to 18 percent during the preceding 50 years.
But this reduction in revenue stemmed directly from the economic collapse of September 2008, and not from the controversial Bush tax cuts. As a matter of fact, during the Bush years, with the lower top tax rate (35 percent), Uncle Sam collected an average of 17.1 percent from the economy in federal taxes—very much in line with historical figures going all the way back to 1951. The last year of the Bush presidency (2008) produced a healthy 17.48 percent in revenue, before the suffering of the Great Recession pushed much of the middle class into lower tax rates and drove millions of hard-hit Americans off the tax rolls altogether. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s own figures project that revenue for the federal government will be almost back to normal in 2012 (16.62 percent of GDP)—even without the tax-rate increase the president wants to impose the following year.
Even a cursory glance at the historical records make it clear the amount of revenue flowing to the federal government bears little connection to the tax rates applied to the wealthiest Americans. In 1951, for instance, top-earning families (those who earned more than $400,000) paid a confiscatory top marginal rate of 91 percent, but the government collected just 16.2 percent of the GDP in revenue. More than 30 years later, during the brief three-year interlude when taxpayers enjoyed the low Reagan top rate of 28 percent, the feds took in vastly more total revenue—an average of 17.9 percent.
In other words, contrary to the simplistic assumption that raising tax rates always increases revenues, a rate of 91 percent brought in less to the Treasury by every standard than a 28 percent rate. Alan Reynolds, a veteran economist with the Cato Institute (and a frequent guest on my radio show) isolates the figures for individual income-tax collections (excluding corporate levies, capital-gains tax, estate tax, and other sources of revenue) and shows that higher top rates historically bring somewhat lower—not higher—tax collections.
shhhhhhhh hope I will take that socialism obama care now...hahahahah..
Hope,
With the last tax increase the highest marginal rate is now 39.6% plus on top of that you have to add the Obamacare tax of 3.8% making the highest rate 43.4% not the 35% that you wrote.
You also forgot to mention that the top 5% are paying a higher percentage of the overall taxes collected due to the Bush tax cuts giving most of the benefits to the poor and middle class.
I also find it interesting that the President Obama followers keep mentioning the Bush tax cuts as a bad thing but the President liked them enough to keep them for 99.3% of the taxpayers. He thought getting rid of them was bad for the economy after complaining about them for the previous 4 years
@jerry...yeah, sorry about that......you are right. If I take my business taxes into consideration, I'm at an even much higher percentage.....but Dems don't like to look at this, either.
You can't realistically call Obamacare "socialist" when 100% of the insurance coverage comes from privately-owned insurance corporations. While we would certainly be better off replacing the mandate with a government insurance option (medicare for everyone), this Republican idea of pure private insurance is nothing resembling a socialist program.
Oh and P.S. socialism is not a dirty word.
Wal-Mart vs. The Morons (NOT A JOKE)
This is spot-on.
PLEASE, READ THIS TO THE END. IT ISVERY INTERESTING!!!
Wal-Mart vs. The Morons
1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.
8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature
It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt and ineffective:
a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 237 years to get it right and it is broke.
b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 77 years to get it
right and it is broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 74 years to get it right
and it is broke.
d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 48 years to get it right;
$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the
poor" and they only want more.
e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 47 years to get it right and they are broke.
f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 42 years to get it right
and it is broke.
g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 35 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our
throats while overspending our tax dollars.
AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
AND
We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , Japan and Turkey..And Pakistan ........previous home of Bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no extra aid nor do they get any special breaks--nadda beyond shopping discounts...
AND Congress wants to freeze Social Security payments ...
You do know that Congress voted themselves a pay raise for 2013???
yes Rick Perry and beyond wait a minute i will take Obama care...hahahahah the spend tea nuts..the knew word of the tea party...i will take that now..and other states...hahaha
shhhhhhhhhhh..the crazy lady from AZ..I will take that socialism money from Obama care.now...hahahah you dumb azezz
@elvis...I'm sure Obamacare will be a great success. Look how the government runs the postal service....why not give them control of our healthcare?? ....you ever find yourself saying, "bahhh, baahhhh, baaaahh"and not knowing why??
2006 was the problem...thanks republicans for destroying the post office...for your pocket in wall street for the future right right
The government doesn't run the post office.
@Re-elect......are you blinded by the sheep's ass in front of you? The US Postal Service is absolutely a Federal Agency!!
United States Postal Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"United States Post Office" redirects here. For individual post offices, see List of United States Post Offices.
"USPS" redirects here. For the non-profit boating safety and education organization, see United States Power Squadrons.
"USPS" is not to be confused with UPS, the abbreviation of the United Parcel Service.
United States Postal Service
Logo used since 1993
Agency overview
Formed
July 1, 1971
Washington, D.C.[1]
Headquarters
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, DC 20260-2202
Employees
546,000 (2012 Career Employees)[2]
Annual budget
$70.634 billion (2011)[3]
Agency executive
Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General
Key document
Postal Clause of the United States Constitution
Website
USPS.com
The full eagle logo, used in various versions from 1970 to 1993.
The United States Postal Service (USPS), also known as the Post Office and U.S. Mail, is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general. The cabinet-level Post Office Department was created in 1792 from Franklin's operation and transformed into its current form in 1971 under the Postal Reorganization Act.
The USPS employs over 574,000 workers and operates over 260,000 vehicles.[4] The USPS is the operator of the largest vehicle fleet in the world.[5] The USPS is legally obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality. The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx.
The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. Since the 2006 all-time peak mail volume,[6] after which Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act",[7] (which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future—a requirement unique to this agency[citation needed]), revenue dropped sharply due to recession-influenced[8] declining mail volume,[9] prompting the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit.[10]
is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States
@Elvis...thank you for showing re-elect that it is indeed a federal agency!
It's an independent Agency. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation.
hope it is
an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States
@Re-Elect.....it is an independent agency of the US Government.........yes, it is supposed to operate financially autonomous....no, it doesn't operate without government oversight. Postal Workers ARE still considered government employees.
The government doesn't "run" it. It operates independently and does not receive any operational budget from the Federal Government.
The U.S. government is NOT a business!
The only operational concern of a business is making a profit.
Is that how you want our government to run?
What has unrestrained and unregulated capitalism garnered America.....Two complete economic collapses that took the world down with it.
Ducky....that is your solution....let the greed reign!
maybe the government should run a bit more like a business......before we do go bankrupt like one!!
hope business almost cause a ression remember???..Bush turn the other Way...Enron..FIRST THEN ..THE ECONOMY..NO THANKS ..AGAIN
Like the credit agencies?
The same credit agencies that gave Enron a triple A+ rating right before it collapsed?
The same credit agencies that gave Lehman Bros a triple A+ rating before it hit bottom, losing it's investors Billions?
The same business' that through leveraged buyouts managed to bring the economy to its knees?
Yeah....that's what we need for SURE?????!!?!!!!!?!??!?!?!?
Right now the government is ran like a bloated Union.....and it IS going to collapse if necessary cuts aren't made.....
Well Hope....if our government WAS ran like a business, we both know where it would be TODAY....bankrupt.
that's right...a government run by wall street..take all you can from the working class
@elvis...our government DOES take all it can from the the working class.....start working and you will see!!
MY SS is in safe hands right now..and so is millions who get there's in the mail
Yep Elvis I really trust the government to handle my money, that would be like giving your kids all of your money and telling them to spend it wisely. LOL
Just the same ole same ole, out of the party of NO!
Boner says for the last 22years he has watched... Time for you and your useless party to resign, what is
congress famous for under your leadership Boner? Getting nothing done, blocking, obstructing and being faux
noise parrots and being taken over by the radical T-party! You must be so proud Boner!
It is so obvious that the Obama haters are driven by just that....hate. None of these knuckleheads parroting the Rush Limbaugh talking points have added anything to this discussion. Just reading this drivel depresses me and erases any question about the failing educational system in this great nation.
History will remember Obama as a great leader and the Tea Party idiots as, well... idiots.
hahahahahaha
@upset....Please site an example of what makes Obama a "great leader"?? ...Is it the massive unemployment?? the ever increasing numbers on welfare and food stamps?? ....is it the mockery of our 2nd amendment rights, or more recently the murder of US citizens abroad via drone (silly Constitution doesn't matter, right?)? What makes him "great"? ....is it the huge, growing deficit?? ...how about the socialization of our healthcare or the creation of division through class warfare?? .....please, just one example........
@hope,
blah,blah,blah, complain, complain and more complain. The only people that believe in your Doom an Gloom of the economy are low information, uneducated Obama Haters like yourself.
While you were typing your little post, guess what, Obama is still the President.
@hope
So you saying people who had received citizenship in the US, leaves the US and join Al-Queda and other Terrorist group are still considered a US Citizen. Wow you right wingers are so damn stupid.
Un-Freakin Believable..
I cannot think of a more disgusting media figure than Limbaugh.
@Jason....why does it seem 80% of the unemployed and 100% of welfare recipients voted for Obama?? ...yet, this group calls people like me "low information" or "uneducated"? ...odd, odd perspective.
@Jason.....who makes that decision?? Who decides who is supposed to be droned to death?? Imagine if I get appointed to that position??? Don't ever travel abroad....or, at least, always look up!
.
The Constitution gives us all the right to due process.....if someone is a traitor, then drone them, but only AFTER proper due process occurs....agreed?
hope what did you expect...you think i would vote for a small check from you???
@elvis.....what positive contribution are you leaving in this world. Will you even be remembered 5 years after you are gone??
Hope, I don't think the voting habits of welfare recipients and the unemployed have any influence whatsoever on your level of information or education. The commentary you offer confirms the ever obvious deficit in both categories. Some things just naturally occur and blame cannot be transferred.
Jwillard look in the mirror lately
GOP -- Now that were done using you and your old and in need -- collecting SS or on Medicare -- we'll cut these programs off -- but we'll keep spending more on wars & the military!
The Kings Of Spending Are The GOP And Now They Want To Be The Kings Of Spending Cuts -- Cuts To Those Who Build This Country, Served This Country And Paid Their Dues.
Loopholes are ways of avoiding paying your due -- companies have the lowest effective tax rates now due to them as do many of the higher income folks with sheltered offshore accounts -- time to start paying for the privilege yourselves not continue passing it on to others that have already paid their due such as old retired folks on SS and Medicare --
America's military has absorbed $487 billion in defense cuts already, with $500 billion yet to come with sequestration. How much more do you want to cut?
This president and his band of merry thieves and con artists are getting to be just too too funny. Ending governance by crisis? He's the dork that keeps pushing issues to the end without any attempt at compromise or sitting in the reality of the situation. NBC, be honest with people... the wealthy aren't the target, its taxing the middle working class to oblivion so they are completely dependent on government for their day to day survival and lives. Socialism, mixed with a bit of totalitarianism.
did you get your little Hitler mustach in the mail????
For starters, the sequester is Obama's doing. Secondly, he got his tax hike on the wealthy so forget closing the loopholes. It is time to lower spending on numerous programs. It is time to live within our means. Wake up before it is to late!
yes time for the war hogs to pay for there bills
The Sequester was a device created by Congress.
Obama got a 'small' tax hike on the weathiest.
It is time for the corporations to pay up.....close those loopholes baby!
BTW - do you know what GM's tax rate was last year?
-15%....yes....that is a negative.
It is time for Mittens to pay up also....a paltry 9% tax on 20 MILLION....what a freakin joke.
Dionysus,
The sequester was signed by the President so it is 2/3's Democrats.
The tax hike also included many tax loopholes for corporations, and the bill was written by the Senate which is led by the Democrats.
GM received special tax treatment not given to any company before that went into bankruptcy.
Maybe it is time for the Democrats to stop giving corporations more tax loopholes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html
Jerry,
That is EXACTLY what this article is about....closing more loopholes on the wealthiest and corporations....and it WILL be the democrats leading this charge, as you know the GOP ain't going to do nothing but protect their corporate masters.
Dionysus,
But the article was very clear that GM was given special exemptions by the Obama administration. The last tax bill written by the Democratic Senate had loopholes for Hollywood, Nascar and a whole host of industries.
Neither party will close the loopholes because when it takes $1 billion to win the Presidency it is in nobody's interest in Washington to do something about the tax loopholes.
Social Security HAD always paid for it's self. the George W. comes along and TAKE 3 Trillion out of it resources
that had been paid into it by the tax payers. Because George W. didn't want to raise taxes on all his rich buddies...he said...HEY way not take the money from Social Security....the got lots....he said he was going to put it ALL back...HAHAHAHAHA the joke is on the poor....the rich got to get a tax cut and the poor...got screwed! The house doesn't want to pay it's bill....bills THEY incurred....they want to get the moneys from the poor...I am ONLY talking Social Security....nothing else. And why not....when they leave their leave or get voted out of office.....they should have to apply for the same as everybody else....Social Security, and Medicare..this goes to all those in Washington. Let see how quick they will be to CUT such programs then.
Polnika,
You are completely wrong, first many Presidents have taken the extra money from Social Security and promised to pay it back not just Bush. President Clinton took the surplus and bought government bonds with the money thereby reducing the debt and giving the impression that there was a surplus.
The first time Social Security ran at a deficit was two years ago due to the payroll tax cut pushed by the President.
Lemme see if I get this ~ Clinton took the "surplus" and bought bonds with it creating the "illusion" that there was a surplus. If there wasn't a surplus, what did he use to buy those bonds? And if there was not a surplus, what did Bush use to cover all those $300 and $600 checks he mailed out in his first year in office? GW proclaimed "the government shouldn't operate at a surplus. Its the people's money ~ they deserve to have it back." This little scenario needs work to become believable. Get back to us when the contradictions are corrected.
BTW, congress has been ripping off Social Security surplus funds since the mid-1960s and has never paid back a thin dime of it. Total cost to the program through Sept 31, 2012 ~ ~ ~ $2.43-TRILLION ! ! ! That money is represented as part of the national debt.
Jim,
Social Security always ran at a surplus which Presidents have used. He financed the debt of the country with the Social Security surplus.
On the matter of Bush, if I take your money and loan it to your neighbor, I have a surplus (the money owed to me) and you have a lower one (the money I took from you with no intention of paying it back) . There is no contradiction there and if so please point it out to me.
On your $2.43 trillion then you are very low, because if the surplus stayed in Social Security it would be invested and the amount that SS has would actually be much greater. Please also remember that Social Security is not supposed to be part of the general revenues and it should be a separate trust account.
Instead of trying to weasel his way out of what he agreed to Obama should be looking for other ways to cut the pork so a balanced budget can be achieved this year.
Some of you liberals are the dumbest human beings I've ever come across. Blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.
When one lacks facts, ideas or vision....resort to insults.
Sign of a weak mind.
Obama only wants more tax dollars to blow. We have a spending problem and he can't see that. And then you have his famous argument repeated here often "we can't cut our way to prosperity". No business sense and no common sense either, poor combination for a US president.
That just fell on deaf ears!
But we can TAX are way to prosperity.
Obama: We need MORE taxes on the people that work to pay for the welfare, uneployment and the free phones and free internet that my base is expecting for me to give them. These damn republicans just need to get the hell out of the way so I can get these people their free stuff. If I can get the republicans out of the way, I will be able to give enough free stuff away that ALL of the people will demand that we repeal the 22nd Amendment and then I can run for president for EVEA.
The LifeLine program was created by the Reagan Administration. Cell phones were added by the GW Bush Administration.
No Federal/taxpayer dollars are used to fund the program.
then.....where does the money come from?
Re-Elect Maobama, Nice left wing nut talking points. Keep em up drinker.
@son
Truth hurts, huh?
@Re-elect.....I understand you probably get a free phone, but us taxpayers have to pay a certain tax named the "Universal Service Fee" on our phone bills to cover the cost of that free phone.......the truth only hurts when it is indeed the truth!!
That's a fee you pay to your provider, not a direct Federal tax.
@Re-elect....call it whatever you want....a fee I am forced to pay, as dictated by the government, is a TAX!!
Why do all the Low Information Obama Voters that have these phones call them OBAMA PHONES ? That it their name for them , not ours. I have to work & pay for my phones.
Doing a little research, I found there is more to this. These were not called "Obama phones", until he coined the term during the election. Promising free phones to his voters...who were clueless that they were already being provided until he mentioned it. Either way, I am sure that got him a good number of votes.
Ditto for creating a path for illegal alien's children to become citizens. Sure that got him a good number of votes also.
Those who do work - did you look at your paycheck? Look closely...notice that there were MORE taxes taken out since Jan 1st?? What happened to new taxes only being put on the rich?? I thought the poor and middle-class would not be taxed any more than before. What happened??
@No, you need to do some research on why your taxes went up on your pay check. Because if u did the correct research you woulnd't have made that stupid comment.
Oh my, I'm losing $30 dollars out of my check, Go cry me a river!!
DionysusOmega...Taxes went up on everyone by 2.0% or more on 01/01/13. The Social Security tax hike is an income tax...It is based on your income. Secondly, Obama should never have cut the tax two years ago...He was just trying to buy votes as he always does. He has no ideas or leadership ability. Those are facts!
Like he said "When one lacks facts, ideas or vision....resort to insults.
Sign of a weak mind"
Yes, the payrolll tax holiday was not addressed by the cliff deal.....wow...wonder who's fault that was....not the HOUSE for sure......LOL.
It actually should never have been there as it was taking money from Social Security and caused it to be in a deficit for the first time.
Obama’s fundamental changes for America
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
So that is why 93% of all new wealth is concentrated in only 1% of the population?
What a tool....you are a willing participant in the rape of the middle class by those that have everything and wield their power indiscriminately to garner more power and wealth....greed in other words.
It is no wonder we have the lowest tax revenues based on GDP since the 50's....cuz of sheep like you.
@Dionysus....too many leeches sucking blood from the system. It is time to eliminate some of the parasites of society......it would be nice to find them jobs, but the Democrats count on keeping them unemployed and well "government checked" for their votes......sad
What you call 'parasites on society', I call people working two or three jobs to make ends meet....that is sad, as are you.
@Dionysus....anyone working "2-3 jobs" would make enough, even at minimum wage, to be considered "wealthy" by Obama standards! (120 hrs. per week x $8/hr. = $960.00 per week).
.
Democrats only favor the lazy parasites who don't want to work!! Reward failure and punish success....their motto!
120 Hrs per week?
You don't really work for a living do you Hope?
There are only 168 hrs in a week you moron.
You forgot all those TAXES that the middle class doesn't pay also....
So, out of 3 jobs, that you MAY manage to earn 50 Hrs in that week, you get $400.00....take out taxes and you get $315.00...then they take out Health Ins. Coverage....about $54.00 a week...lets see...that is a grand total in one month of....
$1139.00 or so.....after rent, food ( no food stamps cuz you make too much ) , gas for car and electric, you are left with....well....nothing.....
This is why most households that are above water have multiple adults working.
Your ignorance is astounding and insulting.....but from a conservative, I expect nothing else.
@Dinonysus.....You lazy @!$%#! I used to work 80-100 hours per week.......stop expecting others to support you and start supporting yourself!! How will you be remembered 5 years after you are gone? ....will you be??
Dio is in the community soup kitchen crying in his soup feeling sorry for being a failure. Too bad
Ahhh the "evil rich" and "evil corporations" card is being thrown out there again. How many times will Obama go to the well?
Until the only rich people left are politicians.
Until there are no more "evil rich" and "evil corporations".
I find it funny that you never see a poor politician......hell, the Clinton's have never done a damn thing besides politics and their net worth is a staggering $220 million!!!! ...and how much did Gore make off of selling out to an Oil Owned terrorist media outlet? ...was it $400 million!!??? How much will the Clinton's and Gore's give to charity this year??????????????????????????????????
Funny......during Ikes time when the highest tax rate was 85%....we still had rich people and corporations?
During Reagan's time, the tax rate was 50% on the wealthiest.....weird....we still had wealthy people.
Kind of puts a kink in your theory, eh?
don't always believe your demosheep herders (or those posters who can't read just a few posts up)....
.
The Democratic line about “the lowest rate in 50 years” effectively reinforces two important liberal themes: first, that the rich don’t pay their fair share to support the operations of government, and second, that hiking rates on undertaxed wealthy people offers a painless, eminently fair way to increase revenue and reduce the deficit.
The trouble with this rhetorical approach is that it relies on an obvious and embarrassing falsehood: far from paying the “lowest rate in 50 years,” top earners actually paid at the current rate or significantly lower for most of the time in the last quarter century.
Today, the most economically productive American couples pay a top rate of 35 percent on every dollar they earn above $379,150. In 1988-90, following Ronald Reagan’s triumphal second-term tax reform, big incomes paid at the highest rate of 28 percent—a big difference from today’s burden. In 1991-92, following the politically costly tax increases of President George H. W. Bush, taxes on the highest incomes went up to 31 percent—still considerably lower than today. In 1993, Bill Clinton pushed tax hikes through a heavily Democratic Congress (with a margin of just one vote in the House), and for the next nine years the top marginal rate soared to 39.6 percent. The second president Bush, welcomed to office with a significant budget surplus, sought to lower rates across the board, and since 2003 Americans in the most fortunate tax bracket have paid at the 35 percent level—slightly lower than under President Clinton, but notably higher than Reagan’s preferred rate.
On what possible basis, then, do Democrats repeatedly refer to “the lowest rates in 50 years”?
They cite figures showing the federal government taking in less revenue today as a percentage of gross domestic product than the long-standing postwar average. In the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Washington drew total funds amounting to just 14.9 percent of the economy, compared to a remarkably consistent 17 to 18 percent during the preceding 50 years.
But this reduction in revenue stemmed directly from the economic collapse of September 2008, and not from the controversial Bush tax cuts. As a matter of fact, during the Bush years, with the lower top tax rate (35 percent), Uncle Sam collected an average of 17.1 percent from the economy in federal taxes—very much in line with historical figures going all the way back to 1951. The last year of the Bush presidency (2008) produced a healthy 17.48 percent in revenue, before the suffering of the Great Recession pushed much of the middle class into lower tax rates and drove millions of hard-hit Americans off the tax rolls altogether. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s own figures project that revenue for the federal government will be almost back to normal in 2012 (16.62 percent of GDP)—even without the tax-rate increase the president wants to impose the following year.
Even a cursory glance at the historical records make it clear the amount of revenue flowing to the federal government bears little connection to the tax rates applied to the wealthiest Americans. In 1951, for instance, top-earning families (those who earned more than $400,000) paid a confiscatory top marginal rate of 91 percent, but the government collected just 16.2 percent of the GDP in revenue. More than 30 years later, during the brief three-year interlude when taxpayers enjoyed the low Reagan top rate of 28 percent, the feds took in vastly more total revenue—an average of 17.9 percent.
In other words, contrary to the simplistic assumption that raising tax rates always increases revenues, a rate of 91 percent brought in less to the Treasury by every standard than a 28 percent rate. Alan Reynolds, a veteran economist with the Cato Institute (and a frequent guest on my radio show) isolates the figures for individual income-tax collections (excluding corporate levies, capital-gains tax, estate tax, and other sources of revenue) and shows that higher top rates historically bring somewhat lower—not higher—tax collections.
From 12/7/2012 Wall Street Journal article: "The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them (only approx. 200 households per year paid a marginal rate above 80% on any income). In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today,".
The supposed 91% tax rate would only kick in if someone was making over $3 million in 1950 dollars (that
would be more like $30 million today). In the 1950s there was no distinction between different types of income, so "a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership."
The rich & the corporations will survive just fine. It's the middle and the lower class that will take it in the shorts with higher prices & reduced hours.
I just heard from my employer that yes he will still provide and pay for a portion of my health insurance under Obamacare but to expect my portion to be 25 to 30% higher. That comes out to roughly $1500-$1800 more per year for my family plan. Sorry local restaurants, movie theaters, retailers...something has to give. Thanks a lot Obama!
Peter,
Those same 200 households today, the top .02%, own a whopping 35% of all income, and garner over 90% of all the new wealth....and they pay an effective rate of 25% in tax.
Hmmmmmm
Hope,
That repost is pure crap and you know it....I can prove via REAL government revenue rates per GDP that the wealthy paid MUCH more in the 50's.
So what you are saying is that the wealthiest are paying SO much more in tax today than they have historically???????
Really?....that is your story and you are sticking to it......
Bwhaahahahahahahahahahahahah
Bwhaaahahahahahahahahaha
choke gasp
Haaaahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahah
ahah
sputter sputter.
You seem to be a little weak at math. 140 million households now submit federal income tax forms. 200 is far smaller than 0.02%. In addition, according to 2010 IRS data, the 135,000 households that make up the top 0.1% of taxpayers had 9.2% of the income that year.
You might try looking up data instead of simply making it up as you go along.
Peter,
Bloomberg.com....if you don't trust Bloomberg...I don't know what to tell you.
Dion,
This President has been the best thing ever for the wealthy. They have never been richer, the income gap is bigger than it has ever been and yet his supporters believe that cares about the middle class and is fighting for them. As the saying goes "there is none so blind as those who will not see"
Don't forget the 34 million dollar Hawaiian mansion Obama recently acquired, I guess he won't be moving back to Chicago. Wonder how Obama could afford a 34 million dollar mansion. Maybe the Fast and Furious gun sales were very profitable
Fortunately it is Boehner who now holds all the cards. Only the House of Representatives can initiate legislation to increase tax revenue. Reid and the Senate can do nothing. Obama can demand nothing. The sequester cuts are already law. Lots of luck getting Boehner to do anything on revenue without deep spending cuts. The House can always let all the sequester cuts take place and then use the process to complete the FY2013 spending appropriations plus the FY2014 appropriation bills to adjust spending levels in discussions with the Senate.
The Republicans vehemently loath the $500 billion in cuts to the defense department that are part of the sequester. If they want to avoid that or restore the spending after the sequester, they will have to negotiate with the Democrats.
Let the Sequester cuts start.....and watch the GOP start truly falling apart in chaos.
The sequester will not TOUCH SS or Medicare....
But it does cut Defense by a half trillion....and other discretionary spending....like meals for poor kids, head start...etc.
They will look like the douchbags that they are.......completely immoral and willing to destroy the American economy to appease their wealthy masters.....'
Good luck with that Peter.......it will be fun but ugly to watch.....and the 2014 midterms will be a bloodbath.
Obama is kind of like your typical tax and spend liberal......just more to the left.
The fiscal cliff tax bill was written by the Senate and passed by them first. The House with no amendments passed the bill after.
Boehner may eventually throw Obama a bone or two so he can keep the liberals/progressives happy, but there is very little additional tax revenue that will be generated. Special interest groups like charitable organizations will fight any effort to further damage their contribution levels. The Housing Industry will fight to keep lower deductibility of mortgage interest from damaging the housing recovery. There just are not a lot of "loopholes" or "credits" in the tax code favorable to high income folks.
The biggest tax breaks in 2009 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation:
34.6 million taxpayers reduced their federal income taxes by a total of nearly $77 billion by deducting the interest they paid on their home mortgages.
25.7 million low-income families collected a total of $55 billion from the earned income tax credit.
36 million families saved more than $54 billion from the $1,000 per-child tax credit.
40.7 million taxpayers cut their federal income taxes by $40 billion by deducting state and local income, sales and personal property taxes.
36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations.
28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.
33.5 million households cut their taxes by $21 billion by deducting state and local real estate taxes.
Time to step up and tell everyone just which of these would you like to eliminate??
There is still plenty of room to get revenue from the wealthy; Carried interest is still only taxed at 15%, capitol gains taxes can be increased, tax subsides for corporations can be eliminated (there is NO reason why we should continue to hand $6 billion per year in tax payers money to the oil companies, they make plenty of profit and gouge us all at the pump).
@J. Willard....there is also still plenty of room to get revenue from you! I think your taxes should go up!! Fair is fair!
.
PS- Oil companies make an average 4% profit off their total sales.......the government taxes fuel sales at an average of 15%!! ...see a problem??
J. Willard,
The tax breaks that the oil companies get is not specifically for them but for US production and research which applies to many industries including the high tech ones yet they are never mentioned. Could it be because they support the President. Why is Google or Apple never part of the tax argument?
Wow....according to HopeisGone...the wealthy are paying SO much more in tax today than they have historically.
We should feel sorry for them....they are truly hurting.....maybe some more corporate welfare...or a loophole or two...perhaps some offshore accounts....yeah...that's the ticket.
Feel bad for the wealthy, they are really in a bind here........
OMG!
...better than feeling sorry for a lazy @!$%# who won't work.....no offense.
People don't want pity, they want freakin Mittens to pay as high or higher percent of tax than they do.
@Dionysus...I want YOU to pay as high of a percentage in taxes as I do......can we start there? Fair is fair, no???
Hope,
No, but I definitely would take Mittens effective rate.....9%.....
I have not seen the tax bill written by the Democrats getting rid of the Capital Gains tax. Plus if you look at the average tax rate by income you will see his 13% is higher than probably 80% of the people
People don't want pity, they want freakin Mittens to pay as high or higher percent of tax than they do
You guys are the Party of HATE. You can't stand successful people. Your attitude toward others is truly pathetic. Why do you not work & make your own way instead of demonizing other people. Obama has done a great job at dividing this Country. It is as bad as I have ever seen it. It's hard to believe that one man can do this to a whole Country. He is good, really good. He has us divided by class, race & Party. Where will it end?
Who's hatin deer......I am saying that Mittens paid less percentage of tax ( 9% ) than most middle class Americans. If that doesn't burn you up it should.
I don't dislike his money....oh contrair...well done....
I dislike the inherent disproportional tax burden that I am carrying, and you are probably also....you are carrying Mittens so that he can drive on our roads and fly his personal jets in our airports....while paying less percentage of that burden.
If you can't grasp that, plez feel free to spew your hate....cuz it's you that's hatin bud.
@Dionysus
Using your posts for the "Mittens"...9% of $20 M is $1.8 M. Have you paid $1.8 M in taxes over your entire lifetime??
This is not directed to you - but to EVERYONE. Want to be a success and have $20 M? Then be smart and invest. Better yourself and work your tail off for a living, instead of collecting unemployment and welfare!!! No one is going to hand you money for anything - other than our illustrious Dem government, who is willing to hand you money for your continued vote. You make what you earn...
Dionysus,
These tax rates you keep spouting off are very misleading. You say 85% tax rates would be good. Great lets go back to that rate, and all the deductions you could take like ANY interest, gas for your car, basically most everything you bought. I'm sure most of those "evil rich" would love that. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If you took ALL the money from ALL the people in the top income bracket and ALL the money from the Fortune 500 companies you could fund the gov't for about 8 months. We really have a revenue problem don't we?
Hey all you progressives and democrats, why not count all the time your president has broken the constitution. I think over 10. How about call for his impeachment? Oh no he is your god you can't dpo that. It all has to happen before you wake up and it is coming. Look at 2014 when you all get screwed
GENE has a gene in the family???
Awesome.
Rally the Dems and tell them not to compromise. Its our way or the Highway.
I guess Obama forgets that he has alot of other battles coming up like Gun Control Legislation, Illegal Immigration Reform etc. and not just the Sequestration battle.
Way to be non Partisan Obama. What a great way to show you want to end the partisan divides and work together, and your not a Political Ideologue, NOT.
Good luck in the Next four years Obama.
Peter and HopeIsGone,
Check this neat little fact.....
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%
Notice how corporations have lowered their tax burden by about 30% since the 50's....and more of the overall burden falls to individuals.
And let's remember...
The Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened since the recession began.
@Dionysus...being we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world already and you are posting these charts....I guess you are agreeing that Romney was right, and we really just need to close loopholes, not increase taxes??
Dionysus,
Much of that is because of the way corporations can legally offshore their money. Why does Google pay no taxes, or Apple? If the rates were lower with closed loopholes I believe those numbers would change.
Also remember that many small businesses are S corps and are treated as individuals not as corporations.
....maybe we should tax everyone at 100% and just let King Obama provide?
remember your great word..you Will be dead AND GONE YOU WONT MISS A THING
@elvis...fortunately, I'm still relatively young.....
so...2 things in life you cant get by...death and taxes