2012 Tuesday: Obama gives ‘tax the rich’ one more heave
We learned a few things yesterday with President Obama’s announcement that he wants to extend the current individual income tax rates for one more year, but only for those making less than $250,000 a year:
- The current rates — commonly described as the “Bush tax cuts” even though they have been in full force for nine years, two years of which required Obama’s signature — apply to more than just “the rich.” Otherwise, how could they be extended for everyone who isn’t rich?
- Even Obama understands that the economy is still too weak to withstand a major tax hike during the next presidential administration (his second, or Mitt Romney’s first). That is a pretty strong, if tacit, admission that his entire first term has failed to see a middle-class recovery of any consequence, just a stop to the bleeding — at most. Once upon a time, he theorized that such a result would lead to a “one-term proposition” for himself.
- This move has nothing to do with being serious about the deficit, because the vast majority of the budgetary effects relate to the rates for sub-$250,000 earners, and always have.
- If Obama were serious about the deficit, he would join other notable Democrats — and Republicans — in embracing the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson report he commissioned. Among other things, this would mean lowering rates across the board, while broadening the tax code to eliminate loopholes, carve-outs and subsidies/spending disguised as tax breaks.
- If it doesn’t have anything to do with the deficit, it’s plainly about politics. But it’s the same “eat the rich” politics that Obama and the Democrats tried in 2010 — and which cost them spectacularly in the midterm elections. Maybe he thinks it will play better this time because his opponent is (like him) a rich guy, but I suspect most Americans still care more about what each candidate’s policies mean for their own wallets than those of other people.
- Even other top Democrats think $250,000 is too low of a threshold: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer previously argued for keeping rates steady for anyone earning up to $1 million. Obama is out of step with his own party’s leadership and trying to lead Democrats even further to the left on this issue.
- This president still doesn’t have any new ideas. Tax the rich, borrow and spend more money, make government bigger with proposals that in some cases have been around for decades — these are the same things he’s been trotting out for four years, with the result of mediocre approval ratings and an electorate sour on the direction the nation is taking.
- There is an enormous opportunity for Romney to talk about the need to avoid the path on which Obama would take us — to explain the benefits of free enterprise and the fairness of rewarding people for the work they do and the risks they take. But he must make that case, and not count on a strategy of criticizing Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric.
The basic campaign messages of each side so far amount to:
Romney: Obama has failed!
Obama: Never mind that; Romney is an evil, rich capitalist!
Of the two, Romney’s message has the better chance of resonating with American voters. But he must pair it with a vision of what success would look like and how he would lead us there. Obama is giving him yet another opportunity to do that. He has to start acting on those opportunities.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
335 comments Add your comment
ByteMe
July 10th, 2012
11:07 am
Still whistling past the graveyard, Kyle. Romney’s message is NOT resonating at all. Polls are showing that in the swing states when people are changing their minds, they are changing them 5:1 in favor of Obama. Romney’s base is not excited at all by his lack of a message other than “I’ll do it better, but I won’t tell you how!” Into that vacuum, hammering on Romney hiding his money in overseas tax havens and protecting the privileged class is going to have an effect where it counts most: swing states.
Even Obama understands that the economy is still too weak to withstand a major tax hike during the next presidential administration (his second, or Mitt Romney’s first).
The economy is not “too weak”. We’re in year 3 of a business expansion. That’s late in the typical business cycle. A recession is going to happen and likely within a year. For politicians, it’s better for it to happen at the beginning of a new political cycle than at the end.
Let all the tax breaks expire at the end of the year. 5-6 quarters later, we’ll be back in a new recovery. Just in time for the next election.
ByteMe
July 10th, 2012
11:08 am
Ooohhh, comments not in moderation again?
This probably won’t turn out well.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:17 am
“If it doesn’t have anything to do with the deficit, it’s plainly about politics.”
It’s ALWAYS about politics with Obama. They have shown no capacity to provide leadership in over 3 years; only “How do we make ourselves look good in the eyes of the electorate” talking points.
jconservative
July 10th, 2012
11:20 am
Most of said months ago that if the election was about Obama he would lose. To date Obama has made the election about Romney and he is staying in the race as a result.
Romney needs to come clean on his finances and return the campaign to being about Obama.
Mr_B
July 10th, 2012
11:22 am
Given the rate at which the economy was hemorrhaging jobs and value in 2007-2009, “stopping the bleeding” as you call it looks pretty good. Romney’s prescription would have been to “take two tax cuts and call me in the morning.”
Dusty
July 10th, 2012
11:23 am
Kyle, I hope Romney is listening to what you say. He’s got to say it loud and clear. Obama is raising taxes and it hurts every citizen but especially even modestly rich people in his latest ruling..
Unfortunately, Obama is appealing to the majority of his supporters who seem to believe that all people who make a good living (over $250,000) are evil rich who must be punished. He wants to keep their vote.
What next? We get the Bastille and the guillotine for those “evil” rich people?
JV
July 10th, 2012
11:24 am
Excellent commentary Kyle. Keep up the good work.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:25 am
“Romney needs to come clean on his finances”
Why? They are in a trust. He has nothing to do with them.
More Obama deflecting from his dismal record.
Mr_B
July 10th, 2012
11:26 am
“It’s ALWAYS about politics with Obama”
Of course its about politics. That’s the way we make decisions in our society; determine which of a number of different options is the best one to follow in a given situation. Want a place with no politics, try the Peoples Republic of Korea.
Mr. Holmes
July 10th, 2012
11:27 am
2012 Tuesday: Obama gives ‘tax policy change that enjoys >60% approval’ one more heave”
There, Kyle. Fixed the headline for you.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 10th, 2012
11:27 am
This is clearly an attack on small business, forcing layoffs and creating more government dependent democrat voters.
And for the middle class who think they are getting something from obozo – wait until you see how obozocare makes this look completely insignificant.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
11:28 am
The “revenue” raised by not extending the cuts for taxpayers over $250,000 will fund the fed government for 8,5 days, that is it! Once again, he has proposed no spending cuts.
This brings to mind something I heard him say the other day and the light that went off in my thick head. He said something to the effect, that Romney’s plan to address the economy will not fix the economy for all the people. He emphasized “ALL” the people. Whammo it hit me.
What I think he was implying there is that, Romney’s policies might return the economy to what we had before, think the 80’s, but we are not going back there, if he has anything to do with it.
I think, MO only, that he knows how to fix the economy for the people that have always benefited from a booming economy, but he knows his people will be left behind once again. He is choosing to let most of America suffer, while he tries things that will help what he thinks are his supporters, the unprepared and unmotivated.
To me he was telegraphing his intentions to fundamentally change our economy into one where wealth is redistributed, and outcomes are equal, and in his mind, all benefit.
Ray
July 10th, 2012
11:28 am
And, how many more times will the GOP try to take away the mortgage interest deduction just to lower and flatten the tax rates? The Democrats are trying to save the middle class, while the GOP works tax laws to benefit the top 1%.
Most business owners, or “job creators” are not in the top 1%, and are far from it. We need to strengthen the middle class.
DannyX
July 10th, 2012
11:29 am
“Most of said months ago that if the election was about Obama he would lose.”
Well Kyle is doing his part. Another blog about Obama, which I understand to an extent.
However, Kyle rarely, if ever, writes about Romney and his ideas. Romney never talks about anything of substance. Maybe Kyle hasn’t “fallen in love” with Romney yet. Seems like that is a problem with a lot of Republicans.
What is the plan Mitt?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:30 am
“Of course its about politics. That’s the way we make decisions in our society; determine which of a number of different options is the best one to follow in a given situation.”
Mr. B, SOME people actually vote on POLICIES and PERFORMANCE, not on politics.
We call them responsible, intelligent voters.
Don't Forget
July 10th, 2012
11:31 am
You can’t fix anything if you don’t make the correct diagnosis. This applies to your car, your health, your computer and yes to our economy. When Reagan took office the problem was, largely, on the supply side. Most taxes were double what they are today. Raising taxes on the wealthy is not punishment it is based on the fact that don’t provide the demand like the middle class does. Governing by ideology, whether it is from the right or the left is doomed to failure once the conditions change. It is not 1980 and supply side is no longer working.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
11:34 am
I think he is wrong. He should let the misguided tax cuts expire. Fact is they have done no good whatsoever and tons of harm.
Interesting to see Kyle tout Bowles-Simpson which is the right path. It moves us to where I think we ultimately end up with spending and revenues in equilibrium at around 21% of GDP. Kyle is this a shift? You usually like to shoot for 18% of GDP.
Of course as always the problem is that we have a choice between Obama who wants to move too slowly in the correct direction and Romney who wants to go backwards.
Mr_B
July 10th, 2012
11:34 am
“The “revenue” raised by not extending the cuts for taxpayers over $250,000 will fund the fed government for 8,5 days, that is it”
Or, approximately 2.33%. If someone offered me a 2 1/3 percent raise, I sure wouldn’t turn it down.
Don't Forget
July 10th, 2012
11:37 am
A little off topic Kyle but I applaud your attempt to restore civility. The fact is that on almost any topic, there are intelligent points to be made by either side. I’ll make one suggestion though. You can increase the civiity of the blog by increasing the civility of the bloggers names. Partisanship is one thing but there are those who taunt every time they post by using taunts in their names.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:37 am
How many times must you be told to Google Romney’s 59-point economic plan before it sinks in, DannyX?
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor have more substance than Obama’s “Tax the rich and run up the deficit with more stimulus that doesn’t work” plan.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
11:37 am
There is nothing wrong with being a capitalist. What’s wrong is using your money to rig the system in your favor. For example there is the case of Bane Capital being one of the primary sponsors of the Supreme Court case that eventually classified corporations as individuals. What is Willard’s “plan” then? Up to today, we’ve heard nothing but hot air and positions that change with the wind from the Romney camp. The “weak economy” statement is weak when you consider that the Grand Poo-bah of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes multiple times during his tenure also during “weak economies.” All of the loopholes and shelters that top earners have implicated through their bought politicians should be removed, then there would be no need for a tax increase because they will actually be paying taxes then. I would also like to see a penalty put on folks who hide their money overseas to avoid taxation. Also, this may sound a bit myopic, but, it’s only a matter of time until Romney has to deal with his cult affiliation and how that cult defines themselves as the “one true church” (which means that all others are false) They believe they have the power to grant priesthood to just about every male among their membership, including Willard “Mitt” Romney. (That’s right, they also call him a priest.) He doesn’t want to talk about it because he doesn’t want the true practices of his cult to be revealed. He doesn’t want to have to testify about Joseph Smith publicly.
Mr_B
July 10th, 2012
11:38 am
Tiberius: I believe that you were formerly an elected official, were you not? How did you get into office to implement any ideas you had?
There is nothing inherently evil about politics, just as there is nothing inherently evil about great wealth. Politics is just our way of sorting out ideas.
Dusty
July 10th, 2012
11:39 am
jconservative, 11:20
You want Romney to “come clean” about his finances. He already has. Background:Family enrichment, governship, business acumen, advanced degrees in business, profitable business enterprises.
How about Obama coming clean about his finances and tell us how to get rich in a hurry like he did?
Background: Community organizer, short term assistant professor, wife on advisory board, advanced degrees in law, writes a book.
Who has the most to explain about finances?
stands for decibels
July 10th, 2012
11:40 am
Obama is out of step with his own party’s leadership and trying to lead Democrats even further to the left on this issue.
Can someone provide me with evidence that Obama is out of step with the voting public on this issue?
Aquagirl
July 10th, 2012
11:40 am
What next? We get the Bastille and the guillotine for those “evil” rich people?
Like it or not, that’s what ultimately happens in a society with a few rich people at the top and everyone else way down the ladder.
stands for decibels
July 10th, 2012
11:41 am
You can increase the civiity of the blog by increasing the civility of the bloggers names
Like he said. I’ve been complaining about deliberately trollish screen handles for years, myself.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:42 am
“Or, approximately 2.33%. If someone offered me a 2 1/3 percent raise, I sure wouldn’t turn it down.”
As if you’re going to see that 2.3% in any paycheck . . .
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
July 10th, 2012
11:42 am
Romney needs to articulate what he can do to improve things. If he can’t, he won’t win the swing vote. People want ideas and solutions, not another O’blamer.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
11:43 am
@Tiberius…”How many times must you be told to Google Romney’s 59-point economic plan before it sinks in”
Bullet points AREN’T a plan…they are bullet points.
From the WaPost
“It’s true that Mitt Romney has a jobs plan, and that it includes 59 bullet points. But it’s not true that Obama hasn’t released anything similarly detailed. He’s released the American Jobs Act, which has 41 bullet points on its fact sheet. So Romney has a slight advantage in bullet points. But Obama’s plan has actually been written up as a 423-page piece of legislation, making it considerably more specific than anything Romney has put forward.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/06/comparing-romneys-and-obamas-jobs-plans/
stands for decibels
July 10th, 2012
11:44 am
What next? We get the Bastille and the guillotine for those “evil” rich people?
Well, it *is* the logical next step, after raising tax rates on income above $250K by 4.6%. Says so here in the DFH handbook.
DannyX
July 10th, 2012
11:44 am
“How many times must you be told to Google Romney’s 59-point economic plan before it sinks in, DannyX?”
Maybe Kyle can will write about Romney’s mysterious 59-point plan one of these days. It sounds important.
Obama’s tax plan is actually pretty popular. Romney on the other hand wants more tax cuts, that’s not going to sell well.
Common Sense
July 10th, 2012
11:45 am
The beauty of the Obama scheme is that he parades out folks claiming to give them tax cuts while he had done no such thing.
Extending the Bush tax cuts is not creating something new. And how have those tax cuts been working for those families he puts on display?
Poorly.
We need a new direction. Keynesian economics is a failure. See Krugman taken to task over his economic strategies(more government spending is the answer).
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down
The ONLY reason we can have so much debt and interest rates have not skyrocketed is because the Fed is buying up all that paper the government has issued. Without that buyer, rates would skyrocket.
Obama likes to speak about how he is one of America’s wealthy. How did he get there? Off the backs of working class Americans. Not by anything he has produced.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
11:45 am
It appears that the new GOP talking point is, “broadening the tax code to eliminate loopholes, carve-outs and subsidies/spending disguised as tax breaks.”
But who is kidding who, here?
ANY attempts to reign in the gargantuan corporate welfare and welfare for the super-wealthy will be met with the same furious resistance by the Republican machinery.
Tell me that I am wrong about this Kyle.
Because I’m not sure that you can propose any specific, substantive examples that the cons would agree to…
Logical Dude
July 10th, 2012
11:47 am
Kyle says Obama will: Tax the rich, borrow and spend more money, make government bigger
Amazingly, Obama does it, as well as Republicans! Wow! BOTH sides to the SAME thing!
At this time, I’d rather have a realistic tax code (”tax and spend”) that Obama touts, than the unrealistic tax code (”borrow and spend”) that Republicans would rather have, and what Obama is doing now anyway.
I do agree, though that following Bowles- Simpson would be a good start, but of course, it will result in some unpopularity. Tough decisions are unpopular, but MUST be done. Unfortunately BOTH sides have not had the guts to go through these tough decisions.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:47 am
“How did you get into office to implement any ideas you had? ”
The tried and true way – bribes and kickbacks.
Actually, I told voters what I believed and what I’d try to do – NOT what I thought they wanted to hear.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:48 am
And I see it only took Gravy Train about 30 minutes to throw down the religious bigotry card.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
11:49 am
@Dusty…”Who has the most to explain about finances?”
Romney by far. Outside of tax havens, offshore companies and Swiss bank accounts the bit I really want to know is how one amasses $100 million in a 401K…when contribution limits run around $22K per year now and much less when he was contributing.
The only way is pure fraud by stuffing it full of deliberately undervalued assets in an attempt to avoid taxes.
Don't Forget
July 10th, 2012
11:50 am
•If Obama were serious about the deficit, he would join other notable Democrats — and Republicans — in embracing the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson report he commissioned. Among other things, this would mean lowering rates across the board, while broadening the tax code to eliminate loopholes, carve-outs and subsidies/spending disguised as tax breaks.
I also with Obama would come out in support of Simpson Bowles but lets be real about this. Simpson Bowles was put to a vote in the house in March of this year. It got crushed. The final tally was 382-38. Twenty-two of the supporters were Democrats, while 16 were Republicans. But overall, the rejection was overwhelming, and overwhelmingly bipartisan.
This was, of course, what the White House always complained would happen if they had listened to the pundits and brought Simpson-Bowles to a vote. Republicans would reject it because it included $2 trillion in new taxes and $800 billion in defense cuts. Democrats would reject it because they weren’t going to vote for a doomed proposal that included deep Medicare and Social Security cuts in addition to a large tax increase just to show how much they cared about deficits.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
11:53 am
“But Obama’s plan has actually been written up as a 423-page piece of legislation, making it considerably more specific than anything Romney has put forward.”
Well considering Obama is actually IN office, one would expect him to actually have a bill in place (even if it is tax, borrow, and spend – why that takes 423 pages is beyond me).
I have no doubt that once in office in 2013, Romney will file similar, if not separate bills to accomplish his goals.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
11:59 am
Tiberius- What is bigoted about what I wrote? I did not call names. I did not make false accusations. If you do your own research on Joseph Smith and the LDS movement, you will see that I provided only facts, not opinions. When a man is running for the most important office in the world, we should examine him as thoroughly as was Mr. Obama (attempts to link him to Islam, domestic terrorism, inflammatory comments by his minister). Unfortunately for Willard, his connection to a cult and the cult’s financial connection to Willard is a matter of facts and should be considered by anyone with a fully functioning brain.
iggy
July 10th, 2012
12:00 pm
Obama is just pitiful and sad.
eagle1
July 10th, 2012
12:01 pm
OBummer,
Worst President ever! He doesn’t have a clue about fixing the economy! Come on November, so we can get this bafoon and his idiot ole lady out of the White House!
td
July 10th, 2012
12:01 pm
DannyX
July 10th, 2012
11:29 am
This is because all re election campaigns of an incumbent is about if that person has a good enough record to deserve a second term (will be the same thing in the governors race here in two years). Voters will look to see if the other person running is qualified (many Dems including Bill Clinton) have said Romney is more then qualified to be Presidents but then the rest of the race is suppose to be about the record of the incumbent.
1961_Xer
July 10th, 2012
12:04 pm
The basic campaign messages of each side so far amount to:
Romney: Obama has failed!
Obama: Never mind that; Romney is an evil, rich capitalist!
Bingo! Of the two arguments, the one that affects ME most is:
“Obama has FAILED”
Let me tell you a story about venture capital. I have worked for two firms (still working at one of them) that were funded by venture capital. The first was sold to a fortune 500 company, where I got a 50% pay raise and stock incentives. I continued to work there for 10 more years. The company I am at now is also funded by venture capital, and has been for about 8 years. They could have pulled the plug at any time, and let 80 people lose their jobs. But they have stuck with it, and we will make a profit for the first time this year.
I owe ~6 years of my working life to venture capitalists who thought enough of our company to fund us and (my) our salaries. If the company fails, it will not be their fault for sending 80 people to the unemployment lines. They should be commended for pumping millions of dollars into this company while waiting patiently for a return on their investment… a return that is not, and was never, guaranteed. They aren’t doing this to be kind to our 80 employees. They want only one thing in return: a profit. They are not evil. They have MILLION$ on the line. They might lose it all, and it certainly looked that way a few years back.
So yeah, I am a middle class worker who realizes that Obama’s class warfare line misses the mark. The folks who fund us are not Bain Capital in size. They are a local venture firm with about $25 million in local investments in 5 companies. They are responsible for keeping about 500 people in jobs in Atlanta, at the risk of their own $$$. They are not evil. To the 500 of us employed through this recession, they are a godsend.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:06 pm
“What is bigoted about what I wrote?”
Oh, gee, I don’t know . . . . How about calling his religion “a cult”?
And then doubling down on it?
And does it really matter to you what Romney’s religion is, or are you simply typing in more talking points because you don’t like his policies?
Really, Gravy Train?
From the Center
July 10th, 2012
12:09 pm
“Can someone provide me with evidence that Obama is out of step with the voting public on this issue?”
November 7th will provide the evidence
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:09 pm
Of course, Mitt is qualified to be POTUS.
Like everyone of his recent predecessors he will dutifully take his marching orders from his paymasters on Wall Street, K Street and in corporate board rooms across the land.
His ethics are the real question? He appears staggeringly unprincipled to me.
And has completely reversed himself on a wide range of topics from gun control to abortion to support for Ronald Reagan’s policies to signing a no-tax pledge to stem cell research to lying about seeing his dad march with MLK Jr to the grand daddy of them all individual mandates and socialized health care…
I honestly don’t think that there is much of ANYTHING he won’t compromise himself on to get a few more votes…
carlosgvv
July 10th, 2012
12:11 pm
Obama is simply asking the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.
As to the objection that this will punish the job creators – if they were truly creating jobs we would not still have an over 8% unemployment rate.
eagle1
July 10th, 2012
12:12 pm
There is no way America can survive 4 more years of Obama’s ultra liberal, racist, class warfare policies!!!!! He will bankrupt the country in 4 more years! He is totally unqualified to be POTUS!
JDW
July 10th, 2012
12:13 pm
@Tiberius…”I have no doubt that once in office in 2013, Romney will file similar, if not separate bills to accomplish his goals.”
Given that as the bar I guess we will never know.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:14 pm
Has the economy ever flourished with higher rates than we have today and the one’s proposed for those making over 250K?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:15 pm
“Like everyone of his recent predecessors he will dutifully take his marching orders from his paymasters on Wall Street, K Street and in corporate board rooms across the land.”
And yet, he’s the ONLY candidate calling for getting rid of corporate tax loopholes.
Go figure.
Aquagirl
July 10th, 2012
12:16 pm
And does it really matter to you what Romney’s religion is, or are you simply typing in more talking points because you don’t like his policies?
Yeah, you’re interrupting the discussion about the Mooslim in the White House. How tacky.
Remember, without Mormons we would never have had Battlestar Galactica. So we owe them a debt that can never be repaid.
AU Liberal in ATL
July 10th, 2012
12:16 pm
The only people I hear using the word evil are the talking heads on TV. The Obama campaign has not charaterized any person or any business as evil. President Obama is without question our best option to make positive differences for the entire country. Anyone, ANYONE who is not rich and votes for Romney is a fool. A FOOL!
AU Liberal in ATL
July 10th, 2012
12:16 pm
Make that damn fool!
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:17 pm
9 years of the Bush tax cuts.
Where are all the jobs ?
I thought if we gave the rich huge tax breaks then we would have full employment.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:17 pm
And yet, he’s the ONLY candidate calling for getting rid of corporate tax loopholes.
Cite, please. With specific recommendations…
eagle1
July 10th, 2012
12:17 pm
The so called rich already pay 50% of the taxes in this country! The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes! Obama believes in punishing hard work and success! He has to take more from the successful and give to people who lay up on their rear ends and do nothing but suck the life out of the government! Leaches! He is building a welfare state. Plain and simple. It’s time for Obama and his gay agenda to go!
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:17 pm
Has the economy ever flourished with higher rates than we have today and the one’s proposed for those making over 250K?
Yes.
See Clinton years.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:18 pm
Getting rid of loopholes and lowering the rate to get as close to the same liability as possible, has exactly what impact?
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:18 pm
The so called rich already pay 50% of the taxes in this country!
Wrong. Romney only paid 15 percent.
Thats alot less than me or you.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:18 pm
JDW @ 11:34: I have long advocated moving in the direction Bowles-Simpson points to. Reasonable people can disagree about how far we go on any particular detail (how low the rates go, how many exemptions are eliminated, etc.).
And how exactly is raising rates on some people moving “slowly” — or otherwise — in the same direction as Bowles-Simpson? It is the opposite of moving in that direction!
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:20 pm
I’m for phasing in the tax rates under the Clinton years and phasing out the EITC.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:21 pm
The rich in this country dont pay much in taxes.
They have fancy lawyers and accountants to get around that sort of thing.
Its the middle class that pays the bills.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:21 pm
Despite making more than a billion dollars, some of the nation’s super rich manage to pay an extremely low tax rate.
The top 400 earners in the U.S. paid an average tax rate of 18 percent, according to a Bloomberg TV report noticed by Think Progress. And though that’s a far lower rate than the 26.5 percent that many families making less than $100,000 pay annually in taxes, some of America’s super-rich have been able to whittle their tax bill down even more, paying a tax rate as low as one percent, according to Bloomberg.
How? Many of the super rich take advantage of a variety of tax loopholes to lower their tax burden. For some of America’s rich, most of their wealth comes from stock appreciation, according to Bloomberg, which some billionaires don’t end up defining as taxable income.
These findings echo earlier reports, which suggest that the super rich may not be paying their full share in taxes. More than 1,400 millionaires paid no U.S. income taxes in 2009, according to an August report from the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, 25 percent of all millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income taxes than millions of middle class households.
eagle1
July 10th, 2012
12:22 pm
EITC is nothing but welfare! How can you get back more than you pay in? Nothing but a handout! Taxes are nothing but legalized pickpocketing!
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:22 pm
AmVet @ 11:45: “New”? I’ve been writing about that for at least two years, if not longer.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:24 pm
“Cite, please. With specific recommendations…”
I suggest you Google “Romney’s tax plan”, AmVet.
And as to specific recommendations, does “All of them” count?
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
Ive been hearing that trickle down crap my whole life.
It goes like this.
Lets give the rich all the money and they will create jobs for everyone. You see it will trickle down to us.
Us middle class and poor people cant be trusted with money. Only the rich posses the knowledge to create business etc.
The problem is it never trickles. It just stays at the top.
Ever been to the Biltmore house? How much of their money do you think trickled down ?
The rich just get richer and can afford a second home in Aspen instead of just the one.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
JDW: And that 423-page piece of legislation has gone nowhere in Congress. It has as much chance of becoming law as Obama’s unanimously opposed budgets. So what makes you think it’s worth even the paper it’s printed on?
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
If tax rates are the end all of end all, where are the jobs?
Are average tax rates for the top earners and major corporations less today or more than they have been on average over the last 50 yrs?
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:26 pm
The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes!
Not correct.
They pay 38% of the federal personal income tax.
Not “taxes.”
Read this article from Forbes. (Or don’t…)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/01/30/do-one-percent-of-americans-pay-38-percent-of-taxes/
stands for decibels
July 10th, 2012
12:26 pm
Has the economy ever flourished with higher rates than we have today and the one’s proposed for those making over 250K?
You can pick a year that constitutes “flourishing” and check for yourself, below.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Just to check, I looked at 1962. Our GDP grew 5.17% that year, I guess we were doing ok.
Inflation adjusted, the tax rates for income above 250K was 50%. there were a bunch of brackets above that level, though–when you got to income over 1 million (again, adjusted for inflation), the rate grew to 81%.
and yes, I know JFK thought this was excessive, and eventually legislation was passed to bring these rates down (which, I believe, LBJ wound up signing into law). However, somehow, America muddled through all this punishment of “job-creators.”
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:27 pm
“The so called rich already pay 50% of the taxes in this country!
Wrong. Romney only paid 15 percent.”
Actually, correct.
Romney’s 15% is included in the 50% of income taxes paid by the rich. And it’s closer to 75% of all taxes, btw, depending on your definition of “rich”.
eagle1
July 10th, 2012
12:27 pm
Do you Koolaide drikers miss Bush yet? Gas goes from $1.89 a gallon to $3.59 a gallon under Obama. Groceries go up 30% under Obama! Unemployment stay at 8.2% or higher under Obama! And this man wants 4 more years on the job!!!! Wake up America! Enough is enough!
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
12:29 pm
Some will hold on to kissing butt because they know they don’t deserve what they get.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:29 pm
“Getting rid of loopholes and lowering the rate to get as close to the same liability as possible, has exactly what impact?”
Well the first thing it will do is put a lot of K Street lobbyists out of work.
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
Yard birds get pushed around.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
12:31 pm
“And how exactly is raising rates on some people moving “slowly” — or otherwise — in the same direction as Bowles-Simpson? It is the opposite of moving in that direction!”
Bowles Simpson advocates eliminating Tax Expenditures to create a higher effective tax rate that the one in force today. By increasing taxes to the pre-Bush Tax rates Obama is doing EXACTLY what is recommended albeit for only a portion of the population. From the plan….
“The committee assumed that the Bush tax cuts would be extended for lower earners, but would be allowed to expire for the two highest brackets.”
Any adjustment downward in those rates must be accompanied by a decrease in Tax Expenditures.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:32 pm
Love me some Reagan @ 12:18: It takes the tax-code distortion out of decision-making, for one thing. Which, for starters, should make for a more efficient use of resources, greater wealth creation, and higher tax revenues.
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
12:33 pm
Fear and greed, runs the life of a republican.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:34 pm
Cheesy Grits @ 12:18: You cannot be serious. You are trying to refute the proportion of all taxes paid by an entire group by comparing it to the effective tax rate of one person??
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:34 pm
Kyle
That is debatable but I see your point.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:35 pm
Do you Koolaide drikers miss Bush yet?
Absolutely not. He got us in this mess.
Two wars he never bothered to finance and cut taxes at the same time.
No American President in history has ever cut taxes during wartime. Didn’t stop Dubya.
When Obama took over the economy was in free fall. Dubya himself said ” This sucker could go down ”
We are just now recovering from the last round of disastrous Republican policies.
And you want to go back to that ? Thanks but no thanks !!!
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:35 pm
“Well the first thing it will do is put a lot of K Street lobbyists out of work.”
Since both parties are in love with lobbyists, we can agree with that
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:36 pm
Kyle, fair enough.
But again, I implore where are the specific, substantive recommendations?
Where is the political will to end these giveaways, handouts, bailouts and taxpayer funded welfare for the few?
The Boehner/Paul Ryan wing of the GOP will hear of NO increase in revenues, right? Even the “back door” variety, right?
ONLY spending cuts and privatizing Medicare, right?
It’s OK, Tiberius, I get it. Reasonable requests to you for corroboration are met with deflection.
Here’s the problem: Romney says he’d make sure that the tax cuts are revenue neutral. He’d cut some spending and get rid of existing tax loopholes to pay for them. Everyone wants a simpler tax code, right? But it’s one thing to say that simpler is better. It’s another to say which deductions, each of which benefits a class of people, should be scrapped. And Romney won’t say which spending he’d cut, or which loopholes he’d close—and, in theory, this would be on top of additional spending cuts that’s he’s also declined to name. It’s tax reform mystery meat.
LOL at the mystery meat reference!
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:37 pm
If lower taxes on the rich meant more jobs dont you think unemployment would be lower than 8.2 % when the rich have had some of the lowest taxes in the history of this country the last 9 years ?
Just sayin
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
Of course it’s all politics. Very few Democrats pay income tax, so they understand quite well that Obozo’s aim is to stick it to the Republicans who are already carrying nearly all the burden.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
Do you Koolaide drikers miss Bush yet?
I miss him like I miss a heat rash!
JDW
July 10th, 2012
12:40 pm
@Kyle…”And that 423-page piece of legislation has gone nowhere in Congress.”
Of course not…I wonder who is holding that up?
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:41 pm
Very few Democrats pay income tax,
Actually its the other way around. Rich Republicans pay very little in taxes.
Like Romney they keep it in Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Islands.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:41 pm
“Very few Democrats pay income tax”
Translation: I have no ability to converse with facts, but I regurgitate talking points that I allow myself to be brainwashed with very well.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:43 pm
“He got us in this mess.”
Repeating it a thousand times doesn’t make it true.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:43 pm
“Do you Koolaide drikers miss Bush yet?”
You mean Republicans. They miss him so much that he is MIA on the campaign trail. He is a cancer to the Republican Party. They know it and he knows it; hence the low key.
Peadawg
July 10th, 2012
12:43 pm
“Very few Democrats pay income tax,”
I’m sure you’ve got a link to back up that claim, right?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
12:44 pm
Sorry, Cheesy, but it’s well documented that nearly half of Americans pay zero, and we know who they’re voting for–the Marxist promising them ever more of the income earned by the productive class.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:44 pm
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
I wonder if Jesus would be worried about how much the rich pay in taxes ?
Or would he be more concerned with taking care of the poor ?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:45 pm
“He’d cut some spending and get rid of existing tax loopholes to pay for them.”
Thanks for proving my point, AmVet.
ALL of them.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:46 pm
Sorry, Cheesy, but it’s well documented that nearly half of Americans pay zero,
Ever heard of sales tax ?
FICA ?
The poor pay plenty. They pay a great deal more of the little they have than people like Romney.
Darwin
July 10th, 2012
12:47 pm
I’ve asked this many times. Prior to the present Democratic administration, when wsa the last time the Republicans harped so loudly about deficit spending? (Answer: Clinton a dministration) It’s disingenous for the Republicans to harp about deficit spending only when they don’t occupy the White House. I simply can’t take the right wing seriously when they don’t care about government spending when “their guy” is in the White House. You have to be for something, not just against.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
12:48 pm
What does the bible say about those who do not work?
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:48 pm
“but it’s well documented that nearly half of Americans pay zero,”
Many low ranking NCOs who are serving to protect you and allow you to display your usual stupidity are not paying taxes due to their income level. Are they all voting for Obama?
You should be ashamed of yourself, but sadly you will continue to spout talking points unwilling or unable to actually think for yourself.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:49 pm
What does the Bible say in regards to taking care of those who have the least and how it reflects on Jesus himself?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:49 pm
“Rich Republicans pay very little in taxes.
Like Romney they keep it in Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Islands.”
Well, considering Romney shelled out over $6.2 MILLION to the Federal government in 2010, I’d say he’s paying PLENTY, Cheesy Grits.
But then, I’m SURE YOU paid much more than that, right?
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
Ill leave you now.
Let me know what plans you guys came up with for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
See ya.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
Obozo isn’t talking about cutting sales tax or FICA…he’s talking about income tax. And most of his voters don’t pay it.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:51 pm
Well, considering Romney shelled out over $6.2 MILLION to the Federal government in 2010, I’d say he’s paying PLENTY, Cheesy Grits.
But then, I’m SURE YOU paid much more than that, right?
Considering he is worth 200 million i doubt he felt it.
I didn’t pay more but I paid a much higher percentage.
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
12:51 pm
Keep the rates the same on 98% of the lower income earners.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
12:51 pm
@LBB…”Of course it’s all politics. Very few Democrats pay income tax, so they understand quite well that Obozo’s aim is to stick it to the Republicans who are already carrying nearly all the burden.”
Not to let facts get in the way of an oft repeated lie but….
“Who pays how much
To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do-they-pay-now
Fact is while some pay less income tax, under our system today EVERYONE carries about the same overall burden.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
12:52 pm
The government doesn’t have to do anything to make the rich richer or the poor poorer–they do that all by themselves through ambition and character, or lack thereof.
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
12:52 pm
Romney has you scardy cats for schills, he is nothing to relate to you with.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:53 pm
“It’s disingenous for the Republicans to harp about deficit spending only when they don’t occupy the White House.”
Or maybe they’re just harping about it because it is growing faster than ever, with no end in sight? Maybe because if it continues unabated, we will be responsible for taking down the entire world’s economy?
Maybe because it is now more important than ever to get spending under control?
Ever thought of THAT, Darwin, or does it just not fit into your GOP=Bad, Democrats=Good way of thinking?
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
12:54 pm
Tiberius: From the dictionary: Cult – a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. The LDS are a cult, formed by Joseph Smith, using “The Book of Mormon” as the vehicle for recruitment. Also, the Catholic Church and most Protestant churches define Mormonism as a cult. Smith claimed to have talked with God and found a sacred text that told of a lost tribe of Israel that made it’s way to North America where Jesus appeared to them. There are no historical artifacts or DNA evidence to support this claim. They have practices and ceremonies that diametrically oppose the teachings of Jesus. Most of “The Book of Mormon” is paraphrasing the Bible with slight alterations to fit the beliefs of Joseph Smith. Lastly, if you take the time to invite a Mormon missionary into your home or visit a Mormon church for services you will see what I have written is fact. You will see that they spend most of their time trying to convince you that what they believe is true and is also the only way to get to heaven, where if you built up enough points here on Earth, you will get to be a god of your very own planet. It is concepts such as these, along with several others, that qualify the LDS as a cult.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:54 pm
What does the bible say about those who do not work?
Dunno. I dont now many people who dont?
The poor work their tail ends of in this country. Every day out there doing blue collar jobs that pay very very little and probably without insurance.
But of course in the Republican mind those people are lazy and just looking for a free ride.
Its a myth but it is one that will die hard.
How Inciteful Is That!
July 10th, 2012
12:54 pm
If only Republicans could produce some analysis showing us a relationship between those tax cuts for the wealthiest and job growth. If only they could deliver something that wasn’t a Laffer.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:54 pm
Barry
NCO = enlisted personnel
No problem. Glad I could help you out. Figured you would have to google because it wasn’t on your talking point memo
later
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
ALL of them.
LOL!!!
Verifiable evidence is the holy water to misinformation.
ALL of Mitt’s “closed loopholes” are “unspecified”. Imagine that! He dares not say specifically which ones. THAT would take some degree of moral courage and the flip flopping master has ZERO of that.
Otherwise, where is the list of definite proposals on the matter?
I doubt that the pretzel-spined-one has ANY intentions of screwing with his board room buddies. In ANY fashion.
He knows that the political machinery in corporate owned and paid for Washington DC will NEVER stand up to their paymasters. So he has no choice but to get on board. Which is what he wants to do anyway.
The liberal gasbag is just pretending to be quasi-fiscally responsible, knowing that the faithful will swallow his “unspecified specifics” hook, line and sinker.
But when push comes to shove, he’ll cave faster than a drunken girl at a frat party…
Might as well keep the corporate wh&re we have now in the West Wing…
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
stands for decibels @ 12:26: A lot was different in 1962. Less globalization and thus less competition (even in the domestic market). Less environmental regulation. Fixed exchange rates. And so on. We can agree or disagree about whether the changes since then were for the best, but the fact is they’ve had an enormous impact on how the economy works and whether it can stand up to higher taxes.
Another thing: If you look at the data, revenues as a percentage of GDP were more or less what they were from 2005-08 (i.e., under the current tax rates but before the recession). Which suggests, among other things, that effective tax rates probably were not as high as the headline tax rates would make you think (due to exemptions, loopholes, the fact that the highest tax rates applied to income levels much higher than what Obama is talking about, etc.).
Also, spending was lower back then — by 4 to 6 percentage points. The burden of public spending has a sizable effect on economic growth. (In fact, and I’ve made this point many times before, the only times we have run a surplus have been those times when spending was 19% of GDP or less.)
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
“Fact is while some pay less income tax, under our system today EVERYONE carries about the same overall burden.”
Thanks for finally admitting that everyone is paying their fair share, JDW. Pssssst . . . . Don’t tell Obama that . . .
Knew you’d come around to reality someday!
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
The government doesn’t have to do anything to make the rich richer or the poor poorer–they do that all by themselves through ambition and character, or lack thereof.
Yes. Of course. People CHOOSE to be poor.
I forget the kind of people I was dealing with on here.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:57 pm
Would Jesus be for protecting the rich mans wealth ?
Or protecting and helping the poor ?
The bible I read makes it pretty clear.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
12:57 pm
Gravy train
Going after Romney’s religion is about as week as the right going after Obama being a Muslim and also going to a Christian church they don’t like and the birther issue.
It is the same bigotry just being displayed from the left as it is displayed against Obama from the right.
Waste of time and just as shallow as those who went after Obama for the items I listed.
And?
July 10th, 2012
12:57 pm
From a National Journal poll: 60 percent think it is “very important” to extend the cuts for families making less than $250,000, while just 40 percent think it is “very important” to extend those rates for all taxpayers. When the percentages are combined for those who said each was very or somewhat important, 68 percent place importance on extending the cuts for all, compared with 82 percent for just those who make less than $250,000 a year.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
July 10th, 2012
12:59 pm
If only Republicans could produce some analysis showing us a relationship between those tax cuts for the wealthiest and job growth. If only they could deliver something that wasn’t a Laffer.
They cant but that trickle down crap will live forever.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
12:59 pm
“Would Jesus be for protecting the rich mans wealth ?
Or protecting and helping the poor ?
The bible I read makes it pretty clear.”
Then it’s a good thing we’re not a freakin’ theocracy then, isn’t it, Cheesy Grits.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
12:59 pm
JDW @ 12:31: The recommendation was for three tax brackets, topping out at 23%, with fewer deductions and credits. Tell me how that squares with a top tax rate of about 40% and no change in deductions and credits.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
12:59 pm
@Gravy Train…”You will see that they spend most of their time trying to convince you that what they believe is true and is also the only way to get to heaven”
When that doesn’t work they wait until you die and then “baptize and convert” you. As they did for Mitten’s athiest father in law…YOW!
http://gawker.com/5879888/
CDC
July 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please: Please. Conservatives only crack open their Bibles in order to bash gays and Muslims.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
1:01 pm
JDW @ 12:40: Harry Reid’s Senate, for one.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:01 pm
“Yes. Of course. People CHOOSE to be poor.”
Some do, Cheesy Grits.
Many others make poor choices in life, which results in them being perpetually poor. Except for a few bad (and sometimes lucky) breaks you’re still largely responsible for your success or failure in life, no matter how much you want government to be that arbiter.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
1:02 pm
Nice try, JDW, but I was quite clear that I was speaking of income tax, and nothing else.
My statement stands unchallenged.
Most Obozo voters pay zero federal income tax. They contribute nothing to the running of their government and, instead, are a load on the system.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
1:02 pm
Except when one is particularly slow on the uptake. . . .
Uh oh!
Looks like that may be a violation of “Anyone who comes onto the blog with personal attacks…”
I smell trouble ahead.
Which loopholes would Romney snip? Which spending would he cut? Anyone wondering about these questions might as well ask a magic eight ball, which would at least provide an answer.
I guess he’ll cut all loopholes and cut all spending!
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:04 pm
“Most Obozo voters pay zero federal income tax.”
As usual a LIE and the poster will produce NOTHING to back it up.
Typical BS
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:05 pm
I find this so amusing. Rob-me is clearly a flip flopping plutocrat who is definitely not a tea party conservative, but you convservative posters are all on your knees in front of him just because he’s the guy with the R next to his name.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
1:05 pm
And? @ 12:57: So two-thirds of those polled oppose raising taxes on anyone. Thanks.
How Inciteful Is That!
July 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
To be fair, Republicans (in particular, Paul Ryan) did actually utilize an analysis from Heritage to support their tax cuts for the wealthiest. Unfortunately, they just have not figured out how to get us to 2.8% unemployment rate and hold it there so that Heritage analysis is valid.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
@Kyle…”The recommendation was for three tax brackets, topping out at 23%, with fewer deductions and credits. Tell me how that squares with a top tax rate of about 40% and no change in deductions and credits.”
That 23% rate assumed that ALL Tax Expenditures were eliminated, which we all know is not going to happen. They also published other illustrative implementations.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Issues/Simpson-Bowles/
All that not withstanding the starting point for the 23% rate was the pre-Bush tax cut rate. Subtracting the Tax Expenditures gets you to 23%. By increasing tax rates back to that level without reducing Tax Expenditures Obama is at least achieving the recommended NET TAX rate for an income class.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
Barry
Do any people who vote Repub not pay taxes?
bwhahahahahahaa
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html
You wouldn’t know what to do if a fact walked up to you and shook your hand..
hahahahahaha
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:07 pm
So…we don’t raise taxes on the wealthy but we cut programs for the poor and our deficit problem is still not solved (we’re still supporting a huge military industrial complex). Think about that for a minute. Use rational, non political, sensible thinking. For once.
stands for decibels
July 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
“Very few Democrats pay income tax,”
I’m sure you’ve got a link to back up that claim, right?
hang on, PD.
1. I pay taxes.
2. I usually vote Democratic, so I guess I qualify as a “Democrat.” and
3. There are very few of me. (thank God, right?)
ergo, he’s correct. And there’s link to this post to back up this claim, so now you’re all set.
How Inciteful Is That!
July 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
All “Obozo” voters were write-ins.
cranky old man
July 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
What neither party is addressing is what the economy will look like in the long term. We could argue about whether globalization, off-shoring, free trade, etc. were good ideas or not. But, despite what anyone does, the good paying jobs that were lost are not going to come back. The relentless drive for increased efficiency and productivity (fancy terms for making people do more work for less money) will continue. If we suddenly reinstated protectionist tariffs, expelled every illegal worker, and raised the minimum wage to a rate above the poverty line, employers would simply turn to automation to eliminate as many jobs as possible. Even this would create some jobs for those people designing, building, and maintaining the machines that would replace workers. But it would be a small fraction of the jobs eliminated. Essentially, we will have in the future is an ever larger pool of people who will never be able to find jobs that pay a living wage. At some point, increased efficiency, automation, and productivity will create a situation where all demand for consumer goods and services can be met by a workforce that represents a much smaller percentage of the population.
What’s the solution? Some form of welfare? Having a large segment of the population doomed to a life of welfare doesn’t sound very appealing. Maybe a reincarnation of the WPA? Well, at least we’d get some much needed infrastructure improvement. But somehow that doesn’t seem like a viable long-term solution. Go the way of France and limit the work week to something below 40 hours, combined with some minimum legally mandated vacation time? Or just live with the fact that a large percentage of our population will simply be unemployable, poor, and miserable?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
“NCO = enlisted personnel”
Technically incorrect, Love me some Reagan. Enlisted personnel come in two categories; enlisted and Non-commissioned Officers, or NCO’s.
E-1 thru E-2 (and sometimes E-3) are enlisted. Once you become a Sergeant (I believe the Marines consider a Corporal an NCO), you them become an NCO. All are enlisted, but not all are NCO’s
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
“And? @ 12:57: So two-thirds of those polled oppose raising taxes on anyone. Thanks.”
There were polls during the height of the Iraqi and Afganistan war that said the majority of people wanted us out. Did we leave at that time?
So what is your point? We can all talk about what polls say. Doesn’t mean either Party or the government as a whole react directly to that poll, does it?
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:10 pm
Tib
Thanks for the correct. But when Barry knocks those not paying taxes he is knocking service men and women who are protecting his right to his stupidity.
But thanks for the clarification
JDW
July 10th, 2012
1:10 pm
@Kyle…”JDW @ 12:40: Harry Reid’s Senate, for one.”
Indeed the Cloture vote was 50 to 49 in favor of proceeding with 47 Republicans voting against and one abstaining…now who is blocking the way again?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160#top
JohnnyReb
July 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
Good piece, Kyle. Romney needs to call Obama out on a lot of things that if he does not most voters won’t know of it.
With legacy media in Obama’s pocket, only Romney has the power to make an item wide-spread news. Commentators, journalists, etc can bring up a subject, but if its negative to Obama the legacy TV networks won’t mention it.
If Mitt makes a speech on it time and time again, they will cover it. Things like Obamacare being the largest tax increase in our history and how Obama and the Left want to transfer our wealth and give away our soverenity with Law of the Sea and UN Arms treaties.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:12 pm
“So…we don’t raise taxes on the wealthy but we cut programs for the poor and our deficit problem is still not solved”
And yet, strangely, Steve, not one candidate is calling for that.
Go figure.
I suggest you wean yourself away from the HuffPo and all DNC talking points.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
1:13 pm
Love me some Reagan @ 1:09: No, it doesn’t. But the person who linked the info (he doesn’t always go by “And?”) intended it to suggest there’s little public support for extending all tax rates. In fact, it shows the opposite.
DwayneL
July 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
obama is a complete failure and the people of this country have seen that and will not vote for him again. The only ones that will vote for obama are brain dead liberals and those receiving govt. money.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
Love me some Reagan: there is one key difference between the two: Obama’s supposed connection to Islam was never true and was meant to scare people away from him. Romney really is a Mormon and he’s taking in a lot of money from them. I am not trying to scare people away from Romney, nor condemn Mormons. This is America and they are free to believe and practice what they wish. I am simply suggesting that we examine Mitt’s connection to the organization and the motives of that organization. Where are his morals and ethics? What are they based on? It may be the only place that Willard stands firm on something. He sure doesn’t stand firm on anything else other than what will increase his profit margin.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
“now who is blocking the way again?”
What part of “Harry Reid’s Senate” do you NOT get, JDW?
Here’s a thought: Why doesn’t Obama (or ANY of the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate) put together a bill that contains things that BOTH parties would agree to, rather than just trying to cram things through they know will fail and are simply done for political talking points?
That is what LEADERS do, JDW, not politicians. Obama is SUPPOSED to be a leader. He needs to act like one.
Bruno
July 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
If it doesn’t have anything to do with the deficit, it’s plainly about politics. But it’s the same “eat the rich” politics that Obama and the Democrats tried in 2010 — and which cost them spectacularly in the midterm elections. Maybe he thinks it will play better this time because his opponent is (like him) a rich guy, but I suspect most Americans still care more about what each candidate’s policies mean for their own wallets than those of other people.
From my perspective, this election is one more referendum between those who want something for nothing and those who understand that it’s going to take a shared sacrifice to get out of this financial quagmire our government is stuck in. I’m voting for a shared sacrifice.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
Barry
Beside something about the weather like “man it is hot outside”, you are doing to produce a substantive fact one day.
Regardless of politics, we will all rejoice and have a party for you…….
Until that day, keep trying
md
July 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
The truly sad part of the equation is that he has already ended the tax cuts for the middle class, they just don’t know it…..yet. It will take awhile, but then they will notice the chnages to their hsa’s, fsa’s, and premiums. Not to mention their trips to the cig store and the tanning salon……will the big gulp be taxed next? probably, along with various other items that are bad for us and are driving up the costs of healthcare……and since the benevolent uncle sugar is now in charge of maintaining those costs, it’s a matter of when, not if……..they’ve already set the precedent and the masses shrugged it off………………
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
1:19 pm
Class warfare is all Obozo has. Meanwhile, the task of uniting the country and healing the damage done in the last four years falls to President Romney. Another Democrat mess to be cleaned up by a Republican.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
Gravy train
Do what you must. In the end no matter what spin you put on it, going after Romney for being a Mormon and his connection to the LDS church is the same the right did to Obama.
It is bs and we know how well it worked for the right
Bruno
July 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
To Kyle from the thread below: Sorry for any part I played in the recent shenanigans. I don’t plan on blogging a lot, but hope to add one more conservative voice here.
Two questions: (1) Do you have any objection to playing music from time to time, e.g. on Fridays??
(2) Will you mind if I keep my nickname for AmVet intact (JamVet) ??
Bruno
July 10th, 2012
1:23 pm
Quick shout out to md, Ti, @@, Dusty, td and Reporter.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:24 pm
“I am not trying to scare people away from Romney, nor condemn Mormons.”
Yeah you are, or you wouldn’t keep bringing it up – or calling it a cult.
“Where are his morals and ethics? What are they based on? ”
Let’s see. He’s been married and faithful to the same woman for their entire adult life. He has a set of upstanding young sons who are successful in their own right and have the same qualities as their father. He contributed both time and money to his churches outreach programs as a youth, and does the money thing now. I suggest you read this link about what he did when one of his fellow executives daughters went missing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/mitt-romney-melissa-gay_n_1355317.html
From the report: “Romney stepped in and committed Bain’s resources to help with the search.
“I said let’s close the firm, let’s close the company – we were in Boston – and let’s all of us fly down to New York and try to find her,” Romney recalled recently when ask about the incident at a rally in Ohio this month. “So we closed the business, we went home and packed our things.”
The search ultimately led to a home in New Jersey where Melissa was found safe. Soon she was back with her family.”
Now, Gravy Train, I suggest you move on to more substantive matters.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer previously argued for keeping rates steady for anyone earning up to $1 million.
That’s called “haggle room”.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Hiya, Bruno!
md
July 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
“What does the Bible say in regards to taking care of those who have the least and how it reflects on Jesus himself?”
And I would hope that even Jesus would tell those that can take advantage of an opportunity given to them by the masses to do so…….wouldn’t he?
You think he would tell others to continue to care for those that choose not to participate in a program like education?? I don’t, I think he’d tell them to get their act together and take advantage of the opportunity vs snubbing their noses at those trying to provide it to them……….
1/3 currently drop out of school……..costing society billions every year……..I doubt the big guy upstairs would condone that kind of selfishness…………..
JDW
July 10th, 2012
1:28 pm
@Tiberius…”What part of “Harry Reid’s Senate” do you NOT get, JDW?”
Why I think it’s the part where you assign the blame to “Harry Reid’s Senate” when the obstructionists are 96% Republican.
“Here’s a thought: Why doesn’t Obama (or ANY of the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate) put together a bill that contains things that BOTH parties would agree to, rather than just trying to cram things through they know will fail and are simply done for political talking points?”
What a GREAT idea. Let’s start with an Individual Mandate to buy health care. You know the one The Heritage Foundation created, Newt Gingrich supported and I believe there was even a Republican Governor of MA that implemented the idea. Lets use that as our test case for how well the Republicans can come to the table.
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
TIberius – cutting taxes and cutting safety nets programs IS what the GOP has been touting for years now (see Paul Ryan & Boehner)
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
There is an enormous opportunity for Romney to talk about….
Any plan, Mr Romney? With details? Didn’t think so.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
md
I know what he said about taking care of the least among us
Every single thing you posted will not because it can not be backed up with anything more than conjecture
Next
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
So folks, how DID Romney fare as a job creator in Massachusetts? I don’t think there was much of a stellar record there…
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
1:31 pm
Kyle, if both sides agree that the tax cut for the under $250,000 should stay, why don’t we go ahead and get that taken care of and then we will have time to address the over $250,000 and tax reform in general down the road?
Of course you folks aren’t going to bite that one, are you?
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
Bruno @ 1:22: If AmVet doesn’t object, that’s fine.
As for music…we’ll have to see.
JMH
July 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
There maybe a reason alot of you whiny leftist libs aren’t among the 1% or whatever you consider rich and that’s because you are a bunch of idiots. Get a clue, read a book, do something other than whine about rich people. Stop being a loser and get a job…or two!
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
Finn, Mitt’s record in Mass was very mixed.
But at least he wasn’t a caricature of himself like he is now.
People who worked with him back then, say that they cannot even recognize this guy!
A complete, utter sellout and severely conservative (LOL!) fraud.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
1:36 pm
After consulting with my legal team, I can report that AmVet does not object…
Hi, B. Hope you had a great 4th. (Ya sorry rascal!)
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
1:37 pm
Romney will be about the same as President Bush, maybe worse. Rich guys care little for workers, but they will say they do. Actions speak volumes when Bain killed jobs. The truth hurt Romney, kiss his butt and you become a butt kisser. I do enjoy watching the guilty squirm, meaning those insecure in their jobs due to getting them from butt kissing instead of results, and they know it.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
1:38 pm
and get a job…or two!
Or three!
“Uniquely American. That is fantastic!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjo-dWE1Jg
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:40 pm
“Let’s start with an Individual Mandate to buy health care. You know the one The Heritage Foundation created, Newt Gingrich supported and I believe there was even a Republican Governor of MA that implemented the idea.”
Both in correct, and a deflection, JDW.
Let’s try it in 2012 with a real bill.
Most of us would call that reality, rather than fantasy
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
1:41 pm
Tiberius- I am stating facts, it is not my fault if they sound scary. Mormonism is a cult. I’m sorry if you have trouble accepting that. How many other “wives” does “Mitt” have? Ask “Mitt” how to get to heaven. He’s working on pushing a camel through the eye of a needle. Two more facts: “Mitt” inherited his wealth and grew it by being a corporate raider. “Mitt” put his money in a “blind trust” to deflect questions about his immoral and unpatriotic financial practices. If you really think he has no idea where his money is then maybe you are blind.
md
July 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
“Every single thing you posted will not because it can not be backed up with anything more than conjecture”
Conjecture? Google is your friend…………..
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6528227.html
And I’m pretty sure “the least among us” probably refers to those that “can’t” help themselves…….I highly doubt it means those that “won’t” help themselves…….such as those that are given assistance in the form of education and choose to turn their back on it putting themselves on the hard road of life and becoming a burden to those very same people that offered them the opportunity………
And I’d bet my last dollar that those that “can’t” help themselves would give anything to swap places with those that “won’t”…….all day every day.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:43 pm
“So folks, how DID Romney fare as a job creator in Massachusetts?”
Well, let’s see. . . despite reports from the Obama campaign to the contrary, Massachusetts was in the upper third in job creation during Mitt’s term of office, and unemployment rates went from over 6% to just over 4%, which most economists consider full employment.
Anything else, Steve?
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:43 pm
md
I was talking about the Bible and what Jesus said
All that bs and conjecture you brought to the table and that website is some form of what?
next
JMH
July 10th, 2012
1:43 pm
AmVet…I know the idea of a job or hard work is a foreign concept to most of these lazy government leeches but if we would practice a little “tough love” and get some of these people off theire lazy butts i guarantee you within 5-10 years this country would be back where it needs to be and people would realize that although they have a safety net they don’t have a cradle to grave entitlement to mooch off the other hard working prople in this country for their entire lives.
How Inciteful Is That!
July 10th, 2012
1:44 pm
In 2009, there were 3,924,489 out of 137,982,204 (or 2.8%) returns filed with AGI’s of $200,000 or more. Collectively, their AGI’s accounted for 25% of the total reported AGI’s of all returns. That group paid almost 50% of the federal income taxes as well.
Republican like to highlight the fact that an analysis of 2009 tax units showed that nearly 50% of tax units paid no federal income tax with the implication clearly being that our country is inundated with millions of moochers leeching off the wealthiest few who are forced to carry the weight of the tax burden on their little shoulders. Nothing could be farther from reality but it makes a good sob story to tell around campfires on those hot summer nights in the Hamptons.
In reality, individual income taxes accounted for 898.5 billion of the federal revenues collected in 2010 while payroll taxes accounted for 864.8 billion and corporate income taxes accounted for 191.4 billion.
But given that Republicans think the only hope we have is to cut incomes taxes on the wealthiest and on corporations, I suppose they will have no choice but to go after that 50% that pay no federal income taxes and squeeze something from them if they ever hope to be able to pay anything at all toward that national debt that they claim to be so concerned about. Perhaps an elimination of the personal exemption and standard deduction for that 50% will have the desired effect. That sure beats asking a hedge fund manager raking in one billion in one year, for example, to feel the pain of so much as a 17% tax rate.
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:44 pm
Wow – we need to get jobs? I’m pretty darn liberal yet I make $113K plus a good bonus each spring. But I would like to pay my fair share of taxes as I can AFFORD TO.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
@Tiberius…”Both in correct, and a deflection”
So what is incorrect…did the Heritage Foundation not propose the idea originally?
Did Newt not support the idea?
Did a Republican Governor not implement the idea?
Sorry I don’t see a false statement there…
I could have even noted that the idea was introduced as legislation cosponsored by 19 or more Republicans…
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
Tiberius
During the bubble many states went to full employment or close. I’m not sure if I would credit or discredit the governor for being caught up in a bubble that a good portion of the country was also caught up in.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
1:46 pm
One vote here against music, your music may be my noise pollution.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
1:49 pm
Steve
But I would like to pay my fair share of taxes as I can AFFORD TO.
_____________________
Nothing stopping you, bud!
As for me, don’t think so, unless some of the ridiculously stupid spending, fraud, waste, and abuse is eliminated.
md
July 10th, 2012
1:50 pm
“Two more facts: “Mitt” inherited his wealth and grew it by being a corporate raider.”
Might want to think about getting a different fact book…..the one you have is obviously faulty:
“When Mitt Romney’s father passed away in 1995, he left an inheritance to Mitt totaling $1 million. Romney turned around and donated that inheritance money to Brigham Young University for the George W. Romney School of Public Management. This is an institute of public management that helps young people learn about government and about serving in public service.”
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
1:52 pm
As some one smarter than me once said, if you want less of something, just tax it. So, why do we tax prosperity? Maybe we should tax poverty. That might change some attitudes.
md
July 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
“All that bs and conjecture you brought to the table and that website is some form of what?”
Many call it the real world……….unless you have evidence it doesn’t really exist…..maybe that those folks don’t really choose to drop out of assistance program number 1……..
Steve
July 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
Rafe – well heck, I had no say in the three TRILLION dollars the recent wars cost, or corporate welfare and tax loopholes that I’m subsidizing, but I don’t mind paying for infrastructure, clean air/water, safe flying, safe foods, Medicare/Medicaid, and social security.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
1:55 pm
“I am stating facts, it is not my fault if they sound scary.”
“How many other “wives” does “Mitt” have?”
Facts, Gravy Train? And you ask THAT question?
“Ask “Mitt” how to get to heaven.”
Why do you care? If an Agnostic or an Atheist ran for office, would you ask the same question?
““Mitt” inherited his wealth and grew it by being a corporate raider.”
Actually, factually incorrect. Mitt was wealthy and successful all on his own, long before his father passed away. He even gave away the $1 million in inheritance he received from his father:
http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/mitt-romney-donates-entire-inheritance-to-byu-college-scholarship-funds/
And during his tenure at Bain Capital created or saved jobs in over 70% of the businesses they invested in..
““Mitt” put his money in a “blind trust” to deflect questions about his immoral and unpatriotic financial practices.”
Incorrect again. Elected officials typically put their money in blind trusts when serving in office to remove any chance of being accused of steering legislation that might further enrich them. It is a common practice, especially for those whose wealth is divested in many directions. A blind trust is just that – blind. The candidate (or official) only gets to see the bottom-line, NOT the details.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
1:57 pm
md- yes, that was a touching gesture. Too bad that $1 million was a drop in the bucket compared to what Daddy gave ole “Mitt” while he was still alive. Mitt was already worth more than that in 1995. “Mitt” is just like W Bush, he’d be nowhere without Daddy’s money and Daddy’s connections.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
1:57 pm
JHM, that looks good on a REALLY big bumper sticker, but that is all.
Take a good hard look around.
Where are the decent jobs?
Inform yourself, the number of applicants per job now are the highest in history.
For example, Apple employs 43,000 people in this country. 30,000 of whom make $12 per hour or $25k per year. $1 above the poverty line.
While nine of their executives make an average of $441 million per year.
The minimum wage is worth less now than it was in 1968!! For almost 75% of Americans they make less in adjusted inflation dollars than they did in 1973!! Though their productivity has doubled!
And who do you shuck and jive for? The super-wealthy!
80% of the wealth in this country resides in 20% of the hands. I have NO doubts that before long it will be 90% in 10% of the hands.
Welcome to the plutocracy.
And you wonder why the economy is in the tank?
Tens of millions of once solidly middle class Americans are scrambling desperately to just get by. TONS of them are your Republican neighbors. Countless numbers of whom live in constant fear that they are one catastrophic medical problem away from bankruptcy and homelessness.
They cannot afford what companies are selling, so the companies don’t hire them.
A vicious trickle down cycle of middle class destruction. And growing despair that has been forty years in the making.
Fit that on one of your bumper stickers…
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
1:58 pm
md
You replied to one of my post that I referenced the Bible.
It came with a bunch of unfounded bs with you also referencing Jesus and/or the Bible
Like I said you couldn’t, and you didn’t back it up so you diverted from the Bible to something else. That is fine but I’m not going down your rabbit hole.
But nice try
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
2:01 pm
“During the bubble many states went to full employment or close. I’m not sure if I would credit or discredit the governor for being caught up in a bubble that a good portion of the country was also caught up in.”
So governors don’t have an effect on what happens in their states, Reagan?
At some point we have to start crediting what happens at the local level more than we do the Federal level, as they are more nimble and closer to the problems facing them. Which is probably why states that elected Republican governors in 2010 are faring much better than those who didn’t in unemployment numbers and budget woes.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
2:03 pm
Rafe, so just scrolling by is not an option for you?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
“And growing despair that has been forty years in the making.”
More like 80 years in the making.
“Fit that on one of your bumper stickers…”
It’s FDR’s fault!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
I see you guys are still confused about what qualifies as “wealthy”. Let me help clarify:
If you hire a lawn service to cut your lawn you might be well off or rich…but you are not wealthy. IF you employ a full-time gardener, you are probably “wealthy.”
If you cook your own meals or eat out every day, you probably aren’t wealthy, IF you employ a full-time chef, you are probably “wealthy.”
If you frequently hire a maid service you are not wealthy. If you employ a full-time “house staff”, you are probably wealthy.
If you drive your kids to sports practices you sure aren’t wealthy, IF you employ a full-time chauffeur, you probably are wealthy.
The delusion of the middle class is that if you work hard and play your cards right, you’ll be able to join this group some day
Mwuahahahahahahahaha
md
July 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
“md- yes, that was a touching gesture. Too bad that $1 million was a drop in the bucket compared to what Daddy gave ole “Mitt” while he was still alive.”
Have a link for us gravy? I’m more than willing to take a look at it. If not, I’ll chalk it up to your uninformed opinion and move on…….
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:07 pm
Tiberius
You had a bubble. That is why I said I would discredit or credit.
If you think Romney deserves all the credit for that time frame, then name the policies that were enacted during his term and the exact number of jobs that resulted.
I’m not saying he was a bad governor. Actually he seemed much more practical then his current run to the right, but I can name governors who were D and R at the same time whose employment roles went up. I’m not sure I would tout them because of a bubble outside of their control but certainly gave them employment a boost, at least for awhile
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
Kyle, Obama might be rich but he isn’t wealthy…like Mr. Romney.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
excuse me
“would not credit or discredit……..”
Aquagirl
July 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
One vote here against music, your music may be my noise pollution.
Yes, but then we could all scream at each other over a totally new topic—the other person’s obviously terrible choice in crappy noise pollution.
Imagine the possibilities.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
Tib, read about the Powell Memorandum of 1971.
The beginning of the end for the American middle class…
md
July 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
“80% of the wealth in this country resides in 20% of the hands. I have NO doubts that before long it will be 90% in 10% of the hands.”
Once again, these percentages mean absolutely nothing in a global economy…….just a daily snapshot of where some of the money is at a given point in time.
Question for you Am, how much went to China and stayed there?? Vietnam and stayed there?? S.Korea and stayed there?? Japan and stayed there??
Hopefully, you get the point and see that those numbers mean next to nothing…….
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
How many of those “created jobs” were in China? Is “Mitt” counting that too? I find it hilarious that people will blindly buy in to any story so long as it involves a person with an (R) next to their name as the “hero.” The point I was driving at (I will spell it out for you like I would with a four year old) is that “Mitt” has flipped and flopped on so many issues that it’s hard to pin him to one position. In simple terms, he has no foundation or platform. So, perhaps we can find one in his affiliation as a “priest” in the LDS. Just be careful there, because even that organization has a questionable origin and function. Why shouldn’t I or anyone else consider this? I want you to understand that according to Mormon doctrine your minister, reverend or priest is not true unless they subscribe to “the Book of Mormon.” However, according to them, “Mitt” is a true priest because he is a Mormon and wears the magic underwear, any man in the organization can do this. I am not joking with you or trying to scare you. Look it up for yourself. Now then, show me anywhere in the Bible where God or Jesus says that Mormonism is they way. It doesn’t because God is the way. It is between you and God. Not Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or magic underwear. Just you and God.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
Tib
He was a mixed bad. Like I said much more practical than the guy on the stump today. Wont matter in my case if he could have convinced me or not because we know who will win in GA. Can he convince enough people in the swing states is the question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
2:15 pm
Aquagirl, LOL!
http://tinyurl.com/662u26
md
July 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
“You replied to one of my post that I referenced the Bible.
It came with a bunch of unfounded bs with you also referencing Jesus and/or the Bible”
And? As I see it, that may or may not be a book of fiction…….and the guy you reference may also be fictitious……so any other conjecture on what a possible fictitious character may or may not have done is fair play……………
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:19 pm
md
If it makes your feel good, keep babbling
bless your heart
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
2:20 pm
I bet Governor Romney’s unemployment rate in Massachussetts never got as high as Obozo’s perpetual 8-10%.
Obozo: A failed do-nothing on jobs.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
Reagan, from the Boston Globe: (hardly a bastion of conservative reporting)
“In fact, Romney raised taxes on millionaire CEOs and stockholders by conducting an aggressive campaign to close loopholes in the state’s corporate income tax. And, in fact, it was the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature that imposed a huge tax increase on the middle class the year before Romney took office — a tax increase that slowed down the state’s economic recovery, that Romney opposed when he was running for governor and that he tried in vain to repeal when he was governor.
Another metric that can be used is competitiveness. The Beacon Hill Institute publishes an annual report in which it ranks the 50 states for their competitiveness. The World Economic Forum similarly publishes a report that ranks 142 countries for their competitiveness. Both reports are modeled on the pioneering work of Harvard’s Michael Porter and both provide rankings that are intended to reflect the ability of a state or country to attract capital and workers and to maintain a high standard of living for its residents.
Massachusetts, which has always stood high on BHI’s competitiveness index, rose from 2nd place in the Beacon Hill Institute’s 2002 report to 1st place in its 2006 report.”
“What matters is that by the end of 2006, Massachusetts employed a larger fraction of its working-age population than did 32 other states, including Texas.”
Hmmmm, raised taxes on the wealthy buy closing loopholes . . . Where have we heard that before?
An already sterling competitive index even higher?
Oh, and he changed the way taxes were collected by making them fees for the product being used and charging the person / company using them, not passing them on in general taxes against everyone.
And did it with a veto-override guaranteed legislature of about 90% Democrats.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
And that resulted in exactly how many jobs as compared to the bubble which was prominent in Mass as it was in a good many states throughout the country?
Thanks again
Steve
July 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
Barry, you KILL ME with your invalid comparisons.
md
July 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
“Now then, show me anywhere in the Bible where God or Jesus says that Mormonism is they way. It doesn’t because God is the way. It is between you and God. Not Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or magic underwear. Just you and God.”
And there in lies your problem……you are operating off the assumption that you are right. Don’t feel bad though, as all others do the same…….but the reality of the situation is that not a single soul on this planet actually knows who is right and who is wrong………..you might want to start there before coloring others wrong……..
curious
July 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
What’s the big deal? The Republicans made these agreements (Bush tax cuts supposed to expire, Obama extended & budget deal that called for automatic cuts), so why complain.
Maybe if they had gotten on board and worked with the Democrats we wouldn’t be in this mess.
A party that has one onjective; defeat Obama, is not helping this country.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
2:25 pm
Gravy Train, I am done trying to reason with a bigot.
Can’t be done.
All your points have been knocked down with facts each and every time, and you keep coming back with more nonsense.
Now it’s off to mow the south 40 before the rain comes in.
md
July 10th, 2012
2:25 pm
“If it makes your feel good, keep babbling
bless your heart”
No feeling to it…..just facts. I’ll refer you to my 2:23 as well…………
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:27 pm
Wasn’t there a capital gain increase right before or after Romney took office?
Did that bring in more or less money to help with the deficit at that time?
Like I said, once upon a time he was a practical man
He played down his party affiliation,[135] saying he was “not a partisan Republican” but rather a “moderate” with “progressive” views.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
2:28 pm
“And that resulted in exactly how many jobs as compared to the bubble which was prominent in Mass as it was in a good many states throughout the country?”
I think you missed the point about Mass. job growth being in the upper third of all states, Reagan.
His was better than average. If it was bubble (as you prefer to believe), he’d be in the middle of the pack.
Steve
July 10th, 2012
2:30 pm
Ok – so it’s ok for the conservative world to call Obama a “Kenyan” (wrong), “Muslim” (wrong), etc…but we can’t point out that Mittens belongs to what is considered by many Christians to be a cult?
md
July 10th, 2012
2:32 pm
“Ok – so it’s ok for the conservative world to call Obama a “Kenyan” (wrong), “Muslim” (wrong), etc…but we can’t point out that Mittens belongs to what is considered by many Christians to be a cult?”
If you want to look just as silly…….go for it.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
2:32 pm
Tib
Like I thought. You always want others to produce evidence, but when asked not one number in terms of jobs outside of the bubble can you produce.
Typical you, but carry on
Steve
July 10th, 2012
2:34 pm
It’s not silly to point out the obvious. The religious “right” needs to be reminded of this, and the Democrats are surely going to get payback from all the slander against Obama to bring to light the truth about an elitist, corporatist, candidate who wears holy underwear. He is running for President, you know.
md
July 10th, 2012
2:38 pm
“It’s not silly to point out the obvious”
You are aware that some consider the “Christians” to be the cult…..right? With that in mind, you may want to keep that aspect out of the conversation………or not. Your call.
Steve
July 10th, 2012
2:41 pm
It’s the GOP base that is made up of these so called conservative Christians who aren’t the most tolerant group in the nation – so to point out the Mormon/cult thing to them is a wise move on the part of the Democrats. Politics are never fair.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
July 10th, 2012
2:46 pm
Mormons have super secret underwear they have to wear night and day.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
2:50 pm
I don’t claim to be right. All I have is the word from the Source. What you aren’t seeing is that it is not me coloring people as wrong. It is them, the Mormons, challenging the validity of my relationship with God and the validity of my church. Underneath the white shirts and black ties, the magic underwear, with the Ned Flanders impersonations, they think we are wrong if we don’t buy into Joseph Smith’s “vision.” So, they will shake your hand and smile to your face because you are in need of “revelation.” They look down on you and want to save you. That is their judgement, not mine. I personally don’t think God would have created all of this to send 99% of it to Hell or whatever it is. Seriously dude, just look at the factual history of the LDS cult, the life and death of Joseph Smith, Utah, and their previous attempts to impact national politics. If you can make it through the whole thing without noticing the hypocrisy and holes, then God bless you. And the Mormons will have a space saved for you on Sunday.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
2:57 pm
Gravy Train, maybe ole Mitt just sat in the pew for 20 years and didn’t hear any of what you say they believe in. It has happened at least once, I’m sure.
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
2:59 pm
Theoretically, an incumbent President should have an advantage in getting re-elected. The fact that the race is about even, depending on who you listen to, says a lot about what people think of the incumbent’s performance.
On the flip side, given the state of things right now, especially the economy, a challenger should be able to exploit that and walk right in. Again, the fact that it’s about even, says a lot about what people think of the challenger, as well.
Eating in a cafe today, and overhearing a conversation at the next table (I knew everybody, though I didn’t take part in their discussion), the general consensus among that group was that they really didn’t want to vote for either one and a couple of them even said they thought they might just skip the top of the ticket and vote in the other races.
I’ll vote, but I’ll have to hold my nose to do it. Regardless of which side wins, I look for no real change, after it’s all over. The ins and outs will cuss each other, as always, and we’ll continue our slide.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
3:00 pm
So what if Mormonism is a cult?
Like the Baptists don’t have their own? Or the Catholics? Or the Pentecostals? Or the Jews? Or the Muslims? Or the Hindus?
Just keep your particular mythology to yourself and everybody is happy…
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
3:03 pm
Finn
Mormons have super secret underwear they have to wear night and day.
________________________
They do so voluntarily and are not forced to wear the veil and cover themselves head to toe by their husbands and their society. You don’t seem to have a problem with that requirement.
It is America after all, you can believe anything you want as long as you don’t try to force your belief on others.
Mr_B
July 10th, 2012
3:06 pm
Hey, Bruno! You stilll around?
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
3:11 pm
“I look for no real change, after it’s all over.”
Best post of the day
Jack
July 10th, 2012
3:13 pm
Same old story: Obama is about taking money from those that earn it and giving it to those that don’t.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
3:14 pm
Rafe
Great point and I have said Romney’s religion should be off limits. Strange Obama’s wasn’t.
Both sides crying about, but doing the same exact thing
crying shame
OBIWAN
July 10th, 2012
3:17 pm
“Aquagirl
What next? We get the Bastille and the guillotine for those “evil” rich people?
Like it or not, that’s what ultimately happens in a society with a few rich people at the top and everyone else way down the ladder.”
Can we start with the entire Obozo administration?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 10th, 2012
3:18 pm
liberalism is the real cult.
G-man
July 10th, 2012
3:22 pm
Taxing the rich does not even make a good bandaid for what is going on, 81 billion generated annually wont last a week.
Do some 8th grade math here people, Obama and his team can’t
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
3:23 pm
Steve
I don’t mind paying for infrastructure, clean air/water, safe flying, safe foods, Medicare/Medicaid, and social security.
Yes, if only the increased revenue was spent for those things, instead of being given to his campaign supporters, i.e. Solyndra et al.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
3:29 pm
Gravy Train
“Mitt” is just like W Bush, he’d be nowhere without Daddy’s money and Daddy’s connections.
Go on with your self delusion, it makes you feel better. However if you are interested in the truth Google is your friend. He received a JD and an MBA in 3 years, after his father expressed remorse that his son had chosen to persue an MBA. I would say he is both motivated and prepared, which suggests that your statement above is just self delusional.
@@
July 10th, 2012
3:30 pm
Obama gives ‘tax the rich’ one more heave
And it’s a dry one at that.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
July 10th, 2012
3:31 pm
pursue an MBA, it should read. It may have been only two years, as it has been awhile since I read up on his qualifications. He actually is very qualified, unlike his opponent.
Don Abernethy
July 10th, 2012
3:34 pm
Nothing but a good old case of socialism (almost communism). Take from the rich and re-distribute the wealth. Comrade Obama is trying to use class warfare to get votes. Way more voters on the lower end than above $200k/yr folks. When the tax puts enough of these businesses out of business and jobs are lost I guess the socialist government will make up the difference with higher taxes and increase the deficit even more.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
3:43 pm
“Like I thought. You always want others to produce evidence, but when asked not one number in terms of jobs outside of the bubble can you produce.”
Pardon me for not being able to skim through the hundreds of bills passed in the Mass. legislature during a 4 year period just to satisfy your delusions about the Mass economy under Mitt Romney, Reagan.
In a short period of time, I produced a LIBERAL source which showed that Romney’s results were pretty good, improved year over year, and were better than the national average. Maybe, if I’m so inclined, I’ll peruse the records of the Massachusetts legislature from 2002 through 2006 and come up with specific bills, but if you are going to cop that attitude, you might just not be worth my time.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
3:43 pm
@@ at 3:30
@@
July 10th, 2012
3:49 pm
Tiberius:
You can’t address me as I’ve posted as @@ on three different AJC blogs in the past.
New rules.
(ISH)
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
4:01 pm
“Mitt” also used his “priesthood” and his Mormonism to get multiple deferments from serving in Vietnam. He also dressed up as a state trooper and pretended to be a real officer of the law. He harassed people for fun while in college using this guise. You’re right, Google is your friend. Especially if you want the whole story instead of just the one that Willard tells. You know, including the part where he marched with MLK. This is interesting because there is actual scripture in the “Book of Mormon” that describes how God put a curse of black skin on a group of people so that they would be unattractive to the rest of the world. Joseph Smith said that slavery was a divine institution because it was part of the curse from God. According to them, God punished by making a group of people black slaves. Have you ever seen a black Mormon? Are there any blacks in the inner circle of Willard? The fact that so many of you can gloss over these things proves your indoctrination to follow the (R). The reality is that anyone with common sense knows that the tax codes need to be adjusted to increase revenue and spending needs to be trimmed. I’ll vote for the guy who has the intestinal fortitude to recognize that. It won’t be Willard, because he’s going to do the demonize taxes dance to get your vote. Go ahead and vote against yourself. I will also take comfort in the fact that neither “modern day prophets” nor robber barons like the Koch brothers will influence President Obama. You can cave to the false howls of the super wealthy because they will actually have to pay taxes at a more proportional rate.
td
July 10th, 2012
4:03 pm
A few facts for you libs on taxes:
1: Top 1% of income earners (making over $343,927 per year) make 16.9% of all the money in a year and pay 36.7% of all Federal income taxes.
2: Top 10% of income earners (making over $112,124) make 43.2% of all the money in a year and pay 70.5% of all Federal income taxes.
3: Bottom 50% of all income earners (Making under $32.396) make 13.5% of all money in a year and pay 2.3% of all Federal income taxes.
Top 10% of wage earners include people like two teacher households. If you and your spouse are both college grads and do not make it into the top 10% of wage earners then it is either by choice (one spouse stays home to raise children or only works part time) or you are not doing something right.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
4:07 pm
“You know, including the part where he marched with MLK.”
Where he said HIS FATHER marched with MLK. Can’t you get ANYTHING right? (the new rules prevent me from calling you what you really are)
Please do us all a favor, Gravy Train – DON’T VOTE.
You diminish all the rest of us when you do.
Steve
July 10th, 2012
4:09 pm
Every trend I’m seeing shows that Obama will win this. It’s always close – every freaking election as people are set in their views, but the tide is turning and old/rich/greedy/racist/white people are on the way out.
Jefferson
July 10th, 2012
4:10 pm
Romney is the least likeable, and as other republicans have said “The worse republican to run against the President.
True as hot.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
4:12 pm
Trends don’t mean a thing in July, Steve.
td
July 10th, 2012
4:12 pm
Steve
July 10th, 2012
4:09 pm
What about these two little “trends”:
1: GWB is the only President to ever win with an approval rating of less then 50%.
2: The candidate to raise the most money has won every election?
Steve
July 10th, 2012
4:12 pm
If any of the other candidates were running against Obama right now, Obama would have a clear lead. Romney is easy on the eyes and doesn’t stand for anything, so he garnishes more support from those who don’t have a clue (which are most voters).
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
4:15 pm
The Mormons I’ve known have all been very industrious, hard working, generous folks. Contrast that with Obozo, who has one year of real work experience; all the rest of his time has been a waste of oxygen–rabble rousing and ginning up fear and hatred per “Rules for Radicals”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 10th, 2012
4:20 pm
Steve: old/rich/greedy/racist/white people are on the way out.
——–
Not much hate there.
Let us hope that your “thought” process is what’s on the way out in America.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
4:24 pm
He initially said he was there with his father. His tax hikes while governor of Massachusetts are now described as “fees.” The healthcare reform he signed into law is now “bad legislation” even though the program enjoys broad support there. If he were a Democrat there would be a week long tirade on Fox News on his “tax and spend” method, instead of “fees” or how he is trying to “socialize” America. Bill O’Riley would find some people who really did march with MLK to come on his show and refute Romney’s claims. They could be called “Former Marchers for Justice.” They would then form a Super PAC and launch a series of commercials that paint Romney what he really is, a spineless phony that leans on his cult when it’s in his best interest, otherwise it’s “off limits.” If he were a Democrat, you can bet there would’ve already been a barrage of “reports” about the dangers of his cult membership. How many flip flops will he do this week? But, unfortunately, all that you see is the (R), so none of it really matters. I feel sorry for you.
Darwin
July 10th, 2012
4:24 pm
Sorry Tiberius – your bias is showing. Look at W for example. Two unpaid wars, biggest expansion in the history of Medicare, nothing on immigration or health care, Wall Street unregulated. And you guys consider those the good old days.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
4:31 pm
Darwin, in case you’ve missed it (and of course, you did) I have been consistent in my opposition to both Afghan and Iraq wars from day one and the expansion of Medicare, and as far as Wall St unregulated is concerned, I have also been consistent in calling for ONE simple regulation to be put back in place – Glass-Steagall. Would have stopped most of the negative inertia in the investing industry, but not the housing or mortgage industries.
But you would have to have been paying attention instead of assuming things you don’t bother to actually read or investigate.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
4:33 pm
Nice to see that Gravy Train is supplementing his bigotry with lies now.
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
4:35 pm
but the tide is turning and old/rich/greedy/racist/white people are on the way out.
If that’s the case, they’ll just be replace by old, rich, greedy people of some other stripe. Old, rich, greedy people always run the world.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
4:42 pm
“Old, rich, greedy people always run the world.”
And yell at you to get off their lawn!
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
4:47 pm
Show me the lie. Show me the bigotry. I’ve got nothing but facts. Go do some real research about your savior “Mitt” and the history of Mormonism and get back to me. That would require some work, effort and independent thought, so I won’t hold my breath.
JMH
July 10th, 2012
4:47 pm
Amvet,
Not looking for bumper sticker slogan but a way to get the country on the right track. I can’t understand and don’t understand why people want to punish someone else to make themselves feel better. It’s always easy to say yeah i support raising taxes on the other guy, the rich guy and make him pay for it. Why? Don’t you think everyone should pay their “fair share”? Is earning income and not only not paying federal taxes but getting a refund “fair”? If you can explain that to me with facts i’ll take your side; don’ t think you’ll be able to though!
What is your answer to income inequality? Is taking from one and giving to another your only answer?
As far as the unemployment rate goes; what is it for college educated people? Much lower?
Yes! Why?
How about getting your facts straight!
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
4:49 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5eKfC6TYjk
md
July 10th, 2012
4:52 pm
“Seriously dude, just look at the factual history of the LDS cult, the life and death of Joseph Smith, Utah, and their previous attempts to impact national politics. If you can make it through the whole thing without noticing the hypocrisy and holes, then God bless you. And the Mormons will have a space saved for you on Sunday.”
Seriously dude…..just look in the mirror. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? You?
Seriously!!
Ej Moosa
July 10th, 2012
4:52 pm
“Although the US still hosts the lion’s share of Global 500 corporations, no country has lost more companies during the last decade. There are 132 US-headquartered businesses on this year’s list, down from 197 a decade ago,” the US business magazine said.
=====================================================
If you think what we have is working, you need to read the above carefully.
We are doing something to drive US corporations away. And it’s certainly not the corporate welfare you think they are receiving.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
4:56 pm
In 1978, Willard claimed that he and his father marched with MLK. Fact. Mormonism is a cult by every measure of the definition. Fact. Please do your own research so I don’t have to clog this thing up with links that disprove your position. You are wrong. Be a man and admit it and move on.
md
July 10th, 2012
4:56 pm
“so he garnishes more support from those who don’t have a clue”
Steve…..just to make sure you have a clue, can you tell us how many of the new taxes in the hc bill will be affecting you??? Let’s see how clueless you aren’t.
Junior Samples
July 10th, 2012
4:59 pm
Girls, Girls, your both pretty.
I’ll say this, at least Mitt isn’t a Scientologist
md
July 10th, 2012
5:01 pm
“We are doing something to drive US corporations away.”
One can start with the trillions being held offshore because uncle sugar wants a big cut to bring it home……so those corps have found it to be just as easy to set up subsidiaries around the globe and use it there……..the dems are too ignorant to understand that even if it came home untaxed it would then be in our system generating other taxes and much needed capital…..instead, they sit on their hands hoping that one day they may (operative word…equivalent to one in the hand vs 2 in the bush) get their hands on 1/3 of it.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
5:04 pm
md- I can only go by what is provided. The Bible. Historical documents, artifacts (or lack there of) and eye witness accounts that were entered into record. It’s all there on the web for you to see. I’m not claiming to be right, just stating facts. I know when something feels wrong, and I suspect you do too, you just don’t want to admit to it and diminish Willard.
md
July 10th, 2012
5:05 pm
“at least Mitt isn’t a Scientologist”
And who’s to say they are wrong??
Come on folks, get with the program……the possibility exists that we are all wrong….or some right….or only the guy down in his basement praying to his own deity that may be right……
The un-cluless should get the picture…….faith and beliefs do not necessarily equate to facts.
md
July 10th, 2012
5:09 pm
Gravy train…..and every religion on the planet can produce some form of recorded history, some kind of artifact, and some kind of recorded observation…….and guess what…..they ALL think they are right.
Billions upon billions of people that don’t believe the same thing………guess what, somebodies wrong……and the possibility exists they everybody is wrong…………start from there.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
5:16 pm
So much fun watching Gravy Train did a deeper and deeper hole for himself.
Kinda like watching Jay Carney trying to defend his boss . . .
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
5:24 pm
That’s just it, md. Mormons cannot provide artifacts or genetic links. Oh, they try to claim the ruins in Central America could be from the people talked about in the “Book of Mormon” except that scientific and historical data prove otherwise. To be a Mormon, you have to recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet, martyr and diety. You have to take his word for it because that’s all there is. Maybe everybody is wrong. But I know there is God. I know that Jesus walked the Earth. I know there were 12 Apostles that started Christianity. I know that Joseph Smith is not one of them and that he lived his life like a power hungry adulterer. He even shot and killed two people before he was killed. Hardly the behavior of a true “prophet from God.” Willard is part of this movement and he is considered a priest in the organization. That means he gets his marching orders from the president of the organization who has been bestowed the title of “modern day prophet.” His name is Thomas S. Monson. He was granted that title by other Mormons in a secret ceremony, not by God. So there, if you are cool with this clown having influence on the highest office in the world, have at it. Just ask yourself, would you be willing to swallow this if it were Obama that was linked to the cult?
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
5:24 pm
On the subject of religion, of course I think mine is right. If I didn’t I’d be of a different one.
That being said, other folks choose to believe otherwise. Them and God can sort that out, come Judgement Day. I imagine I’ll have my hands full.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 10th, 2012
5:25 pm
Let’s see the liberals bad mouth this “religion-”
According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypt’s Great Pyramids—or, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabi‘i, those “symbols of paganism,” which Egypt’s Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax.
They won’t because they’re kowards.
Back to your regularly scheduled Mormon bashing.
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
5:27 pm
@@ @ 3:49: To be clear, what I mean is that if you previously posted as Joe Smith but now use @@, other commenters should address you as @@, not Joe Smith.
As silly as this sounds, it has been a source of too many headaches for me.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
July 10th, 2012
5:29 pm
Hard to take Obama seriously when he proposes anything with a potential economic effect – he seems so totally oblivious to the consequences of everything he has done.
snoqualmiefalls
July 10th, 2012
5:39 pm
Lets take a look at Mittens tax returns for the last 10 years…not copies but the originals, long forms, signed by his CPA’s and a return receipt from the IRS. Since so many people claimed our President was not properly vetted I say do it right this time, we can use Mitt’s father’s standard when he ran. If it was good enough for George it’s good enough for Mitt… no deflection here, just using Tea people tactics which seems to have gone over very well in the last 4 years.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
5:40 pm
It’s also hard to take Obozo seriously when his “jobs plan” consists entirely of stoking hatred of people who are more successful than his voters.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
5:45 pm
“Lets take a look at Mittens tax returns for the last 10 years…”
Why? DO you need even MORE deflections from Obama’s failures, sno?
Tell you what. I’ll go along with your suggestion just as soon as Obama releases his college transcripts and medical records, OK?
Otherwise, what is in a blind trust is no business of yours.
Michael H. Smith
July 10th, 2012
5:48 pm
Just ask yourself, would you be willing to swallow this if it were Obama that was linked to the cult?
Um… Considering Rev Wright – Obama’s spiritual father – and the links to “black liberation theology” how willingly do you swallow all of that my friend?
Uh… Considering Obama’s parents, close associates throughout various periods of his life and even appointees as President that were either Marxist or tied to Marxist, Socialist or out right declared Communist, how easy is all of this to swallow?
Oh, and we’re not even talking what if…
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
5:49 pm
Why don’t we release all of it for both of them? Tax returns, college transcripts, medical records, the whole kit and kaboodle. You want the gig; there’ll be no secrets.
Michael H. Smith
July 10th, 2012
5:52 pm
Don’t count on that happening HD
Kyle Wingfield
July 10th, 2012
5:52 pm
As it happens, the CBO today released its annual look at how much U.S. households earn and pay in taxes — not just income taxes, but also social insurance taxes, corporate taxes and excise taxes. Here’s the upshot from 2009, the most recent year the CBO has examined:
Top 1%: Earned 13.4% of pretax income, paid 22.3% of all federal taxes
Top 10%: Earned 36% of pretax income, paid 51.8% of all federal taxes
Top Quintile (i.e., percentiles 81-100): Earned 50.8% of pretax income, paid 67.9% of all federal taxes
Second Quintile (61-80): Earned 21.1% of pretax income, paid 18.3% of all federal taxes
Middle Quintile (41-60): Earned 14.7% of pretax income, paid 9.4% of all federal taxes
Fourth Quintile (21-40): Earned 9.8% of pretax income, paid 3.8% of all federal taxes
Bottom Quintile (1-20): Earned 5.1% of pretax income, paid 0.3% of all federal taxes
So, the picture changes somewhat when FICA taxes, etc. are counted, but the story is still the same: Our tax code is already very progressive. One-fifth of the taxpayers foot two-thirds of the bill.
The question progressives never want to answer is, how much more progressive do they think it should be?
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
5:53 pm
Lets take a look at Mittens tax returns for the last 10 years…
Actually his dad – a man of some courage, unlike his son – released 12 years of returns.
We all know why Flip doesn’t want to. It would be a HUGE embarrassment.
Talk about your welfare king and uber-parasite right there in black and white!
Maybe it would confirm what most people suspect. He pays a lower effective tax rate than Warren Buffett’s secretary!
HUGE LOL at you trickle downers…
JDW
July 10th, 2012
5:54 pm
@td…”A few facts for you libs on taxes:”
You forgot some facts there td…fact Income Taxes only account for around 40% of revenues. In fact when you look at the entire federal tax burden you find a far far different story…
“Who pays how much
To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do-they-pay-now
Fact is under our system today EVERYONE carries about the same overall burden relative to the income they make.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
5:54 pm
This would considered an “Oooooh, SNAP!” moment for those of the fiscal conservative persuasion, Kyle.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
5:55 pm
One-fifth of the taxpayers foot two-thirds of the bill.
Considering that they have 80% of the wealth, sounds like a pretty good deal for them…
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
5:56 pm
Don’t count on that happening HD
I’d be ducking flying hogs, if it did.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
5:56 pm
More evidence that Democrats pay nothing, while enjoying full Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
5:59 pm
AmVet, that might be interesting except for one little fact you omit. We don’t tax wealth.
The productive class (loosely defined as the top 20%) are paying their way and most of yours.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
6:01 pm
@Kyle…my guess is that the difference in the numbers the CBO put out the ones I cite are Corporate taxes and the way the segments are split….don’t know and don’t have time to chase it now.
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
6:01 pm
AmVet, that might be interesting except for one little fact you omit. We don’t tax wealth.
No Shiite, Sherlock.
We tax wealth relatively little and we heavily tax human labor instead.
Now get busy you human laborer!
You need to pay for Mitt!
Michael H. Smith
July 10th, 2012
6:05 pm
Billions upon billions of people that don’t believe the same thing………guess what, somebodies wrong……and the possibility exists they everybody is wrong…………start from there.
That is basically what is done when one under goes any serious theological training in a seminary or Bible college.
Many differing views – as they are called – are presented including the ones that many say are cults, including the views of Atheist, Gnostic, Agnostics, etc. etc. Noting the usual institutional bias including that of the professor, nevertheless the poor divinity student is left to form their own opinions and choices as to which is from God and what is doctrinally sound.
ld
July 10th, 2012
6:06 pm
The positions staked out by both the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue is purely political. The problem is that the Democrats don’t want to compromise enough and the Republicans will not compromise at all.
I, for one, hope they ALL expire. Then Congress can start from scratch.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
6:10 pm
Compromise? Like Obozo’s threat to veto a Bush-tax-cut-extending bill that doesn’t raise taxes on the productive?
Michael H. Smith
July 10th, 2012
6:19 pm
The cram it down their throat Democrats compromise?
Tomorrow folks, I’m out of here for now
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
6:22 pm
Obozo: “My way or the highway”.
Nice compromise.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
6:26 pm
@LBB…”The productive class (loosely defined as the top 20%) are paying their way and most of yours.”
See that’s the problem LBB, we have destroyed the livelihood of those between 20% and 80%. For our society to be productive that’s the issue that must be fixed.
Hillbilly D
July 10th, 2012
6:26 pm
I’ve been noticing this the last couple of weeks. If you click “Show All”, it of course, shows all the posts. However, if you refresh and the post total has required a new page, it goes back to the page setup and you have to click “Show All” again, to go back to all the posts.
I don’t think it did that until recently. Anybody else noticed this?
JDW
July 10th, 2012
6:30 pm
@Tiberius…”why?”
Because every serious candidate, including Obama, since George Romney has released 10 years of returns. Plus I want to know just how one legally builds a IRA worth over $100+ million…given contribution limits and all.
BTW if Romney had maxed out both his and the company’s legal contributions since 1974 and sustained a 10% return (which would have been remarkable) the account would be worth about $12 million.
Michael
July 10th, 2012
6:44 pm
JDW – I think it’s likely that Romney had to put some of his carried interests in the IRA at little or no value. That’s probably the only way to explain these extraordinary returns, especially including the bear market of 07-09.
If that is the case, it will show that the low 15% tax rate on carried interests was too high for Romney. His solution was to put quasi-investments in the IRA, so he could defer taxes indefinitely.
It appears likely that he will be the poster boy for tax avoidance in the US.
td
July 10th, 2012
6:49 pm
JDW
July 10th, 2012
6:26 pm
@LBB…”The productive class (loosely defined as the top 20%) are paying their way and most of yours.”
See that’s the problem LBB, we have destroyed the livelihood of those between 20% and 80%. For our society to be productive that’s the issue that must be fixed.
We have destroyed the livelihood of people making between $23,000 to $60,000 (roughly 20 to 80%) per year? May I ask how?
It seems to me that the real problem that no one wants to talk about is that we have too many households with only one parent. 2 parents making minimum wage almost falls into the top 50% of wage earners ($30, 157 per year). How long will both parents only make $7.25 per hour?
I submit that we do not have a wage problem in this country but instead we have a social problem.
MarkV
July 10th, 2012
6:53 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:52 pm
Kyle,
I do not speak for progressives, but I do not mind answering your question. But first, your argument is based on ignoring the reality – while the US has a very progressive tax system, it also has one of the highest income inequalities among the developed nations. The progressiveness of the tax is to overcome some of this inequality, but does not do it effectively.
So to answer your question, in my view the tax progressivity should be such that the changes in the income of the various groups with time were about the same. This clearly has not been the case for some time.
td
July 10th, 2012
6:55 pm
JDW
July 10th, 2012
6:30 pm
@Tiberius…”why?”
“Because every serious candidate, including Obama, since George Romney has released 10 years of returns.”
Is it also true that every serious candidate released their college and even HS grades and papers written? Are you calling for Obama to do the same?
td
July 10th, 2012
6:57 pm
MarkV
July 10th, 2012
6:53 pm
“it also has one of the highest income inequalities among the developed nations. ”
Proof please?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
7:00 pm
JDW: I want to know just how one legally builds a IRA worth over $100+ million
————————–
I want to know why you think it’s any of your business.
Just as an aside, my IRA is worth a lot more than what I contributed to it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
7:03 pm
JDW, if you knew as much about Romney’s personal finances as you’ve displayed regarding political issues . . .
. . . you’d be wrong about even more things than you already are.
You’re kinda like a Peeping Tom, always wanting to look into somebody’s windows, and hoping you’ll catch them doing something wrong.
Bottom-line, Romney and his finances have been vetted by people much, much smarter than you, and if I were Romney, I wouldn’t give you your cheap thrill.
Dusty
July 10th, 2012
7:03 pm
Well, Kyle must have done the right thing. Looks like every liberal in town is here preaching the good news of Obama and the bad news for the rest of us. And all the middle of the roaders being very careful not to step over any political line, have any religion, or possess riches. What a way to go!
But the good news is (trumpet blast) BRUNO is with us again. There’s a doctor in the house!!! And he carries a sharp scalpel!
So adieu adieu adieu……I asked a question this morning that no one answers. How did Obama get so rich in a hurry? JDW promptly rattled off about Romney’s riches! OH well…doesn’t matter. After the next election and exit from Washington, he can write another book. I’m sure it will be “How I saved America!”
I’ll say one thing for the president. He has a great imagination! Better than Alice in Wonderland.
md
July 10th, 2012
7:18 pm
“Maybe everybody is wrong. But I know there is God. I know that Jesus walked the Earth.”
No, you don’t…..you “believe” there is a god and that Jesus walked the earth……there is a difference in “knowing” and “believing”…….hence the reason the naysayers are in the same boat…….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
July 10th, 2012
7:18 pm
Interview with a liberal:
“So, what do you think about Obama’s worsening unemployment numbers?”
“But, but, but. . . Romney hasn’t released his taxes!”
Is there any cuts in spending you’d like to see Obama make?”
“But, but, but . . . Romney is a MORMON!”
Tell us how you’d like to see Obama address our deficit.”
” But, but, but . . . Romney is a BULLY! And RAISE TAXES on the rich like Romney!”
How Inciteful Is That!
July 10th, 2012
7:19 pm
Kyle,
As I mentioned in an earlier post, you could always take away the personal exemption and standard deduction from the millions that earn minimum wage, such as college-age people and social security recipients trying to make ends meet by picking up a minimum wage job, if that makes you feel better. Squeeze a little more than just payroll taxes from them so that progressive tax code is less of a burden for the wealthiest that you seem to idolize.
md
July 10th, 2012
7:21 pm
“Considering that they have 80% of the wealth, sounds like a pretty good deal for them…”
80% of what wealth?? There you go again…..80% of what happened to be in this country at that given point in time.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking we are living in a closed system……money moves in and out by the second…….it is a false pretense to say those that have 80 took it from those that have the 20, when it very well could be coming from Uganda…..while the money from the 20 could very well be going to some guy in Indonesia………..
MarkV
July 10th, 2012
7:24 pm
td @6:57 pm: “Proof please?”
Can’t you find it by yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
md
July 10th, 2012
7:27 pm
“so he could defer taxes indefinitely.”
I do believe “defer” is the operative word……..which is what we all do in our 401k’s and pensions…..defer until we start taking it out. Why should Romney have to be any different?
Bruno
July 10th, 2012
7:30 pm
I don’t know if we’re safely “off-topic” yet, but I did want to address Dusty’s post from a few days ago:
And where is Bruno? I read that physicists are sure they have discovered the “God particle”. They said that the Higgs boson might be it or something!! This is the kind of thing that Bruno loves. Not me. I’m sorta the “What in the world is that?” Bruno knows!!
For starters, Dusty, the person who proposed the existence of the Higgs Boson, Peter Higgs, was opposed to naming it “God’s Particle” for two reasons. (1) It greatly overstates the importance of the particle in terms of leading to a proverbial “Theory of Everything” and (2) Although he is an atheist himself, Mr. Higgs didn’t want to offend anyone who had strong religious beliefs. The name “God’s Particle” came from the title of a 1993 book on particle physics, “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?” by physicist Leon Lederman and science writer Dick Teresi. Obviously they understood that a controversial title sells more books than a dull title.
As for the importance of the alleged discovery of the Higgs Boson, I’m not really certain. Particle Physics is a very strange field of endeavor, in which human constructs are so intertwined with actual experimental results, it’s very hard to separate fact from fiction. For example, various properties are assigned to quarks, such as “isospin, strangeness and charm”. Whether these represent actual physical properties of sub-atomic particles or whether they are simply mathematical constructs designed to make the theories match the experimental results is hard to say. Central to the Higgs Boson proposal is the existence of a “Higgs Field” which has non-zero values even in a vacuum and is reminiscent of the famously discarded “ether field” which was proposed many years ago to be the medium of proposition for electro-magnetic radiation. The fact is that quarks have never been directly observed, and likely never will be due to their micro-micro-microscopic size. In fact, not even electrons have ever been directly observed, though we like to think that we know a lot about them.
The bottom line is that there are “charged particles” in our Universe of different polarity (positive and negative). How and why this is so will forever remain a mystery, no matter how sophisticated our experiments and mathematical descriptions become. It is once again the unbridgeable divide between Absolute Truth and our meager, man-made descriptions of the Absolute Truth. Wise people understand that critical difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model
If Erwin’s Cat checks in later, maybe he can shed a little more light on the topic for us.
@@
July 10th, 2012
7:35 pm
Mitt Romney’s gonna speak at the NAACP tomorrow. Now THAT takes courage. Newt did it.
Given the high unemployment among blacks, Obama’s dream (act) AND opposition to same-sex marriage within the black community, he may gain some converts. Free men (and women) if they so will.
Kyle @ 5:27
Whatever!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
July 10th, 2012
8:25 pm
Brad Pitt’s gets death threats for penning anti-Obama letter to the editor
By Hollie McKay
Published July 10, 2012
FoxNews.com
———————————–
That’s real nice, Democrats. At least you’re consistent–consistently filled with hate for real Americans.
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
8:29 pm
Hope this is all about civil discourse and not civil suits………….
Everyone knows how certain people can be these days, especially on blogs
Love me some Reagan
July 10th, 2012
8:30 pm
“You’re kinda like a Peeping Tom, always wanting to look into somebody’s windows, and hoping you’ll catch them doing something wrong.”
Sounds like the social conservative movement to some degree
AmVet
July 10th, 2012
8:46 pm
“it also has one of the highest income inequalities among the developed nations. ”
td: Proof please?
Really?
This is widely known and basic stuff that you should know.
The burgeoning American plutocracy has very few peers.
Yep thanks to the forty year destruction of the middle class we are WELL on a way to a nation of haves and have nots…
The U.S., in purple with a Gini coefficient of 0.450, ranks near the extreme end of the inequality scale. Looking for the other countries marked in purple gives you a quick sense of countries with comparable income inequality, and it’s an unflattering list: Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda, Ecuador. A number are currently embroiled in or just emerging from deeply destabilizing conflicts, some of them linked to income inequality: Mexico, Côte d’Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Serbia.
Perhaps most damning is China, significantly more equal than the U.S. with a Gini coefficient of 0.415, where the severe income gap has been a source of worsening political instability for almost 20 years. Leagues ahead of the U.S. on income inequality is India, Gini coefficient 0.368, where outrage over corruption and income inequality recently inspired a protest movement that shook the world’s largest democracy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/
getalife
July 10th, 2012
8:51 pm
New sheriiff in town said no cheating gop.
No poll tax cons.
Ray
July 10th, 2012
9:29 pm
Looking at “pre-tax” dollars to total taxes paid, hides the disproportionate amount of tax benefits the top 1% reaps because the tax code is specifically written to their great advantage (ask Jack Abramoff how it was done). Gross income, before deductions would have been more revealing, and provide a truer income to tax ratio.
Gravy Train
July 10th, 2012
9:34 pm
Who died and made you Judge of Kyle’s blog, Tiberius? Pompous much?
The only thing Romney had done by very smart people is have his books cooked and hidden and they’ve attempted to craft a message for him that will appeal to the lowest common denominator (you). If Romney wants to win, he will have to neutralize at least two things. 1. His financial records. He is going to get reamed on that unless he does. 2. Lack of compassion and lack of character. He is a human waffle in a stuffed suit with a overpriced haircut. Most folks see right through him on the right and left. He appears to have no fixed position, to be moved by popular opinion of a perceived “base.”. No true fundamentals that have stood throughout his career other than a lust for money and power.
Who has vetted his finances and how have they done so when it’s supposedly sealed away and is now part of a “blind” trust that even you say he has no idea where it’s at? None of those things can be true at the same time.
For me, I am smart enough to get into Tech but wise enough not to go there. Sure, there are people much smarter than me. However, you aren’t one of them. Being smart and having common sense don’t necessarily go together, as your posts today have proven. You can have the smarts to memorize as many facts and statistics as you wish but without wisdom and common sense to apply that knowledge you sound like a bitter herb. Sort of Newt like if you will. Also, you don’t have to be smart to be wealthy, look at the Bush boys and Donald Trump.
Are you ready to admit that Willard claimed to march with his dad and MLK? Detroit Free Press 1978
Happy reading pal.
yuzeyurbrane
July 10th, 2012
10:31 pm
Pretty good analysis although your conservative point of view distorts your view somewhat. Obama is not a John Kerry or Mike Dukakis nor are his key advisors. My own view is he is connecting a lot better than Romney. But who knows–maybe my view is distorted because of what I perceive as the pandering and intellectual emptiness of Romney’s campaign.
JDW
July 10th, 2012
10:54 pm
@LBB…”I want to know why you think it’s any of your business.”
Mathematically impossible returns in the IRA of a Presidential Candidate are everyone’s business.
Old Timer
July 11th, 2012
12:39 am
Narcissist Obama has his own little county he is ruling in his own mind. His handlers can’t even handle him. Tax and spend, tax and spend.
Sorry, Obama: The tax code is already more progressive than pre-Reagan | Kyle Wingfield
July 11th, 2012
7:03 am
[...] the discussion about President Obama’s desire to raise taxes on “the rich” — i.e., families earning more than $250,000 a year [...]
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
July 11th, 2012
7:53 am
JDW, go ahead and give us the details on President Romney’s IRA.
Didn’t think so.
Like Obozo, all you have is hatred of the productive class, deflection, and envy.
Say What? The July 17th, 2012 edition [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces
July 17th, 2012
1:32 pm
[...] Senate leader Harry Reid: “More than 99 percent of business would qualify for this extravagant tax break even if they don’t create a single new job or raise wages for one single new employee. In fact, fabulously rich so-called `small-business owners’ like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton could qualify for these wasteful giveaways even though three-quarters of Americans oppose tax breaks for the wealthiest few – nearly half the benefits of this $46 billion proposal would go to millionaires and billionaires.” So there is no misunderstanding, this is not a tax break, it is continuing the tax rates as they have been for the past 7 years, which are too high right now. If these tax rates are raised, that will allow the government to run for an additional 8 days every year. [...]