What Obama fails to mention is that the 15% tax rate on dividends is already actually closer to a 50% tax rate, because the corporation that paid the dividend likely already paid a 35% tax rate on the income before distributing the remainder as dividends.

Also, if the 'investment income' is from the gain on the sale of an asset that was held for a long period of time, it would be taxing people on 'phantom' income when the reality is that they may have actually LOST income because of inflation I will work up a real life example and post it shortly.

Roy,

No offense, but thats the dumbest argument ever and anyone who drinks that tea should be excused from actual conversation. Thats like saying MY tax rate is 60% because my employer already paid 30% on the profits used to pay me and then I pay 30% on my income. Get real

Until we return to a truly progressive tax system like the one that BUILT this great country (pre-Reagan) we will continue to have extraordinary debt.

If you have been reading the news, most corporations, especially large internationals, DON'T pay much in taxes, certainly nothing close to 35%. General Electric for example paid zero taxes in the past few years.

Why is it a problem that the income is taxed by the corporation and the shareholder? Those are two separate entities and to be fair a flat tax should be imposed that includes cap gains as ordinary income.

In truth Roy, you as an investor, already paid income tax on the money you invested when you first earned it. This is taking a second big bite out of the same apple instead of just a smaller one.

What is more interesting is that the Federal Government has filed suit against Warren Buffett through one of his Berkshire Hathaway units for unpaid taxes. The government is after 366 million in unpaid taxes and penalties, and Buffett is fighting the claims. Seems ironic that the poster child for the Obama administrations drive to raise taxes is in a battle with the government to pay less.

Maybe even Buffett, like Obama, only thinks everyone else should pay more then himself. Much like Senator John Kerry and his infamous tax avoidance schemes. What a bunch of hypocrites we have on the left, the do as I say and not as I do crowd. The crowd that says we need to pass a bill so everyone can find out what is in it. Yeah, no doubt the Democrats have their own best interests at heart, and yet they are able to fool a legion of supporters.

ROY WILSON-336103

U.S. average corporate taxes are low by international standards: 13.4%. We are beat by countries like Poland, Slovak Republic, Germany and Austria.

The current U.S. corporate income tax provides a credit for foreign taxes paid in order to avoid double taxation. Foreign profits are NOT taxed until they are repatriated and many if not most corporations often defer repatriating their foreign profits indefinitely, with the result that those profits are never subjected to U.S. taxes.

This deferral plus other provisions reduce the effective tax rate on foreign investments and allows U.S. multinationals to pay significantly lower taxes on profits from their overseas investments than on profits from their domestic investments.

The corporate income tax code encourages corporations to finance their investments with debt rather than equity. The tax code provides a subsidy (-46% tax rate) for corporate financing of equipment investments with debt.

This is why 2/3rds of US companies don't pay taxes. On paper, taxes are high but with all the tools given to corporation they can manipulate their numbers so that they can pay little or no tax.

So your propaganda of poor corporations paying high taxes is full of holes - or loopholes - and thus holds no water.

REB-1013231

In truth Roy, you as an investor, already paid income tax on the money you invested when you first earned it. This is taking a second big bite out of the same apple instead of just a smaller one.

this is where your reasoning is flawed: you don't pay taxes on the money invested. You pay taxes on the profit that the investment generated.

When you put money in the bank, you don't pay taxes on the principal - you pay taxes on the interest earned.

You also get credit when you lose money - thus pay less in taxes. It works both ways.

Should investment income be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income?

Here is an example of what would be likely to happen;

Let's say an 'investor' made a $1 Million investment in plant and equipment in 1980 which resulted in
the creation of dozens of new jobs, and then sold the investment for $1.5 Million in 1990, for a taxable gain of $500,000. If they would have to pay taxes on the income at the regular taxable rate of 35%,
they would have to pay $175,000 in income taxes (ignoring the additional gain on the depreciated cost basis for simplicity).

Many people would say – Yes, that's 'fair', but what's is the investors REAL 'gain'?

In 1990, the value of a $Dollar had actually declined by about 37% because of inflation (vs 1980), so his sale for $1,500,000 is actually now worth only $945,000 in purchasing power equivalent to his original investment of $1,000,000.

Now if we make them pay an additional income tax of $175,000 on his 'phantom gain', they would net $770,000 of real value on their $1,000,000 original investment. We could take the above scenario and apply it to any decade over the last 40 years, and in every case the investor would end up losing money.

Who in their right mind would make that kind of a long term investment? And if investors are not willing to take chances making long term investments in plant and equipment, which in turn helps create jobs, then what would happen to the investments needed to foster long term economic growth and job creation?

We the corporations? "Roy, No offense, but thats the dumbest argument ever and anyone who drinks that tea should be excused from actual conversation. Thats like saying MY tax rate is 60% because my employer already paid 30% on the profits used to pay me and then I pay 30% on my income"

It's obvious that you don't understand how things work. Your employers pays you with pre-tax dollars and writes off the cost as an expense, so he pays no additional taxes on your payroll expense.

ug1 "If you have been reading the news, most corporations, especially large internationals, DON'T pay much in taxes, certainly nothing close to 35%. General Electric for example paid zero taxes in the past few years."

That (and GE not paying taxes) is the result of the special tax 'credits' built into the tax code, which should be eliminated, in my opinion. Actually, many in Congress (Republicans and Democrats) have proposed doing away with those tax 'credits' and making the top corporate tax rate a little lower, which I would support.

Not all corporations have these special 'credits' available to them, and in my view, none of them should be available.

bayllie " REB-1013231 In truth Roy, you as an investor, already paid income tax on the money you invested when you first earned it. This is taking a second big bite out of the same apple instead of just a smaller one...............this is where your reasoning is flawed: you don't pay taxes on the money invested. You pay taxes on the profit that the investment generated.....You also get credit when you lose money - thus pay less in taxes. It works both ways."

You seem to have missed REB's point, which is that the original investment was what remained after the investor had already paid income taxes on the money - which is a valid point.

By the way - the government has no limit on taxable gains, but limits the amount of 'credit' you can get from investment losses to a negligible amount (the government loves sharing in your profits, but not your losses).

According to the government the US tax code books, all 20 plus volumes has a total of 16,845 pages. You could loose track of all sorts of loopholes in that monstrosity. Funny how the Obama administration claims that the Ryan budget doesn't specifically list all of the loopholes they would close when they only have 16,845 pages to go through. ObamaCare is only about 2732 pages and no one in Washington seemed concerned that no one actually read it before it was passed and signed into law.

Romney will only show us the last 2 years of his tax returns.

What is Romney hiding from us? Why can't I see his tax returns, I will show mine.

Maybe Romney does not pay his fair share of taxes?

That alone should disqualify him from public office.

He is a clear danger to anyone but his super rich friends.

A rich man never has poor friends.

ObamaCare is only about 2732 pages and no one in Washington seemed concerned that no one actually read it before it was passed and signed into law.

Why are you guys so afraid of reading? I mean, besides the general republican reaction to fear everything, but to be scared of reading...

It regulated 16% of the economy from abortions to end of life care, would you really want it to be 3 pages like Bush/Paulson?

Who cares anymore and who wants to argue anymore. The plain truth is that as long as we have ALEC making our laws, ALEC will generate as much money as they can. 500 corporations making boilerplate laws and forcing them down every Republican dominated state. If every republican politician would severe ties with ALEC, we might have equalization; but, they have the $$ to fight for their "crown" - the presidency. We can thank Bush (another ALEC member) for this infiltration of our democracy. Glad he's "wanted" for war crimes - ha....has to stay here in the USA and hide his face - serves him right for what he's done to our Democracy.

Obama care is the best thing any president in recent history has done for Americans. The argument is between the middle class with insurance and the middle class without insurance because insurance companies won't sell it to them. Obama care eliminates millions of Americans from being uninsured just because the health insurance companies think they won't make enough money on them. Socialism is needed and created when there is a need and Capitalism can't or won't fill it.

Obama is doing the right thing by raising the long term capital gains tax rate because currently it is a tax break that mostly the super rich enjoy. He has an uphill battle though because the people that benefit from it are the ones that make the laws and benefit financially from others affected by it.

The bottom line is that America has to stop borrowing money to finance this huge tax break for the wealthy.

Obama is going to Boca Raton, one of the wealthiest communities in Florida, complaining about rich people? What's he doing tomorrow, going to Overtown to complain about poor folks? Who is running his campaign, the Three Stooges Mo Ploufe, Larry Axelrod and Curly Gibbs? He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

This is your economy.

This is your economy on Obama

Any questions?

What job is paying $1,000,000.00 per year??

Are these high rollers are the ones that own and operate small businesses? Are these large wage earners the ones investing in businesses??

A entity that is making this kind of income could just as easily move to a little kinder environment or just stop earning, and send all the hired hands to the unemployment office.

Is it a crime to be prosperous. What will be the incentive in taking a risk.

The problem is the government's spending.

You can eat the rich, only if your sure its your last meal.

ROY WILSON-336103 / bayllie

You seem to have missed REB's point, which is that the original investment was what remained after the investor had already paid income taxes on the money - which is a valid point.

This is exactly correct. As a W-2 taxpayer, I have already paid tax on my income and what was left over I invested. Now he wants the same tax rate on the dividends!! That is BS even with my meager gains.

IfITellUWhoIAmUCanWireTapMe?

What do you need more returns for?? You know what he has, where he has it and how he earned it. Just more of a smoke screen. Another waste of time.

Roy,

You seem to have missed REB's point, which is that the original investment was what remained after the investor had already paid income taxes on the money - which is a valid point.

it's not because REB claims it's double taxed and it's not. I don't keep paying taxes on my original investment over and over. I pay taxes on any money made ABOVE that investment.

Actually, many in Congress (Republicans and Democrats) have proposed doing away with those tax 'credits' and making the top corporate tax rate a little lower, which I would support.

That's not true either. If getting rid of loopholes results in a higher tax rate, the Republicans will not vote for it - they signed the pledge, remember?

The point is that our tax code is a mess. I allows manipulation to the point that over 60% of corporations don't pay taxes. Who ends up paying? The little guy. The little business which puts the small business at huge disadvantage.

We tried to eliminate a loophole for getting a tax credit for off shoring jobs. This was back in Sept of 2010. The Republicans would not vote on it. They killed the bill so their names would not even go on record that they voted against it. Why? They did not want the voter to know that they voted for a bill that would start rewarding companies that bring jobs home.

bayllie

Yes you are paying taxes on the dividends from the initial investment that you already paid the high tax rate on. Why would you invest and risk the loss if the dividend income which may or may not be so great depending on how much you have were going to be treated the same as ordinary income??

There has to be some incentive and risk reward.

Bayllie,

Can you provide details on the Sept 2010 vote? I'd like to see exactly what was in the bill and the reasoning behind not supporting it. I know in lots of cases people attach completely unrelated crap to a bill - and that's why some seemingly good bills fail. I don't know if this is the case...but I am curious about exactly what it contained.

Also, did the bill pass the House? I'm curious because the House had a Democratic majority back then.

Thanks! (and this isn't intended as a slam on the bill...I'm just looking for info so I can make an informed decision)

I need to see Romney's returns because I suspect he has only quit cheating on them in the last two years since he has known he is running for President.

Why would Romney not show his tax returns if his is not ashamed of what he has done in them?

What other deceitful acts is he capable of?

ROY WILSON-336103 and to everyone else; What Roy fails to tell you is that only 8.5% of that group's (those making over a million) total income comes from dividends and dividends only. Almost 51% of their income comes from capital gains only, where merely buying and holding and then selling the stock resulted in the capital gain with absolutely NO job creation, other than the increased number of brokers, and NO corporate income taxes are embedded.

Corporate taxes (the double taxation concept) should be effectively eliminated through the following methods:

1. An 80% dividend deduction with an increased top rate to 25% (the result is an effective "combined" rate of 35%, just for federal)... with additional flow through credits for "responsible" employment

2. On the remaining 20%, credits IF the company can prove that it pays the bottom 1/2 of its wage earners 3 x minimum wage AND pays at least 75% towards individual health care for all employees, not just those over 30 hours (think Wal-Mart).

3. On the dividends being paid, ensure that each owner over $500,000 has paid both social security and medicare taxes for themselves totaling up to a new limit of $500,000 (not all owners actually draw high enough salaries to meet that new limit, let alone the current one).

4. IF after that test, there are flow through credits for having "owned" a responsible employer's stock, allow the credits for the shareholder above the $500,000 level, again, provided that the employer is responsible, which I consider 3 x minimum wage (I believe in a lower one of $6.00, regionally adjusted as I live in Phoenix) and providing at least 75% of individual health care with an HSA requiring the participant to fund at least $2,000 for a family).

Any person paying any form of income taxes IS subsidizing companies like Walmart by allowing them to "game" the system in the form of pushing their employee's health and welfare onto the local, state and federal governments' teats.

I don't mind subsidizing the small business person with 10-20 workers earning from $75-$150k, I want them to succeed as they ARE the backbone of this nation's economy. It's the larger 300-500 employee based type companies where the owner is pulling down millions but then pays @!$%# for wages (less than $12 / hour and no benefits), they're the ones we need to weed out and punish as you and I ARE subsidizing that millionaire, and what's worse, he knows it and is laughing at you all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants the "opportunity" to be successful in America.

No one wants over burdensome laws and regulations.

But when left unchecked, pure greed will consume all you have and still want more.

The laws, regulations and courts are what allows you and I, the little person, to stand up at election time to the greedy millionaire motherf#ckers and say "Enough! Time to balance the books!"

The struggle in the economy is NOT the result of burdensome laws and regulations but rather the wealthy have sated their appetite and continue to earn exceedingly more without changing staffing or investment requirements, meaning their cash sits in a bank, offshore, etc.. They don't spend money, period, that's how they got wealthy.

For the rest of us, there is no more "disposable" cash on 2% or, if you were lucky, 3% raises, let alone enough to stuff in retirement.

Hence, the struggling economy.

History has shown when any nation's wealth approaches a 95-98% saturation within a "ruling" class, especially an arrogant ruling wealth class, that nation's population revolts and takes away the wealth from all of those "wealthy" people. That's why Warren Buffet agrees with Obama, better to give more now than to lose all of it anyway.

If Warren is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, then lower the secretaries tax rate.

Make the government operate on a balanced budget.

Problem solved.!!

We had it there until Bush II got in office!

Dick,

Complaining about Bush won't solve our current problems. Personally, I think Bush sucked as a president, but Obama seems just as bad.

bayllie " If getting rid of loopholes results in a higher tax rate, the Republicans will not vote for it - they signed the pledge, remember?"

The Republicans (Boehner) proposed eliminating 'loopholes' as part of streamlining the tax code in their 'negotiations' with Obama over raising the debt limit which would have raised about $800 Billion in tax revenues, but when Obama talked to Reid and Pelosi, he came back and demanded another $400 Billion in tax increases (a total of $1.2 Trillion over 10 years), and the 'grand bargain' fell apart.

Part of Obama's 'negotiating' ploy is to always insist on the other side putting things in writing, while never doing that himself - so he can deny when things don't work out. Notice that he constantly says that 'everythings on the table' (including 'Entitlements'), but he never puts down anything specific that can be evaluated by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office - 'We can't score a speech'). His 2013 proposed Budget is a prime example - It shows close to a $9 Trillion Deficit in health care (Medicare/Medicaid) alone over 10 years, but not a single word about how to address this huge entitlement problem. In fact, if it were not for the health care Deficit, we could have a $1.6 Trillion SURPLUS in the Federal Budget over 10 years. While he totally ignores this gaping problem, he demonizes any Republican that tries (Rep. Ryan).

It's always about 'politics' with Obama, never about 'solutions'. There has not been a single significant example of Obama working in a bipartisan way on any major piece of legislation, which is probably why Obama will pass Jimmy Carter as the "Worst President Ever" in recent memory.

Ron-1861300

Bayllie,

Can you provide details on the Sept 2010 vote?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242

Roy - The primary flaw in your argument @ 1.8 is the fact that most capital gains do not come from initial stock purchases but from downstream sales. After the first resale of stock, the issuing company has no significant financial interest in the transaction.

GuyLittle

If Warren is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, then lower the secretaries tax rate.

Make the government operate on a balanced budget.

Problem solved.!!

Better yet, don't start 2 unfunded wars, then borrow money to pay for them, then leave the taxpayer and the next administration with paying interest on it after you're long gone.

JayCFO-3768452 "Corporate taxes (the double taxation concept) should be effectively eliminated through the following methods:"

Your 'solution' sounds more complicated than the existing tax code and would likely discourage investments, which are required for economic growth.

Perhaps a simpler method would be to have people pay a higher tax rate on dividends, but give them credit for any corporate taxes paid on the original income.

But even that would end up costing millions of jobs if we taxed them at the highest tax rate (35%), because few people would make long term investments (needed for long term economic growth) - It would be too risky.

Brian-1075075 "Roy - The primary flaw in your argument @ 1.8 is the fact that most capital gains do not come from initial stock purchases but from downstream sales. After the first resale of stock, the issuing company has no significant financial interest in the transaction."

Sorry, but your comment makes no sense.

Roy,

But even that would end up costing millions of jobs if we taxed them at the highest tax rate (35%),

Again, no companies, except the little mom-and-pop shops pay anything close to that. We either get rid of the loopholes and lower the tax rate or we keep the loopholes but up the the tax rate so companies actually end up paying SOMETHING.

The Republicans will vote on anything that will raise taxes. They want to lower the tax rate AND keep loopholes. They want to lower the overall amount that companies end up paying to IRS.

The best way to start is to eliminating loopholes that reward sending jobs elsewhere and replace them with tax credits on jobs that comeback to the US. Right now companies have the best of both worlds: they get cheap labor and tax loopholes so why would they want change???

I have no problem with companies paying little tax but only if they start bringing jobs here. But Republicans already proved that they have no balls to even vote on that bill. They are not about bringing jobs home. They are about bowing to corporations. Why not reward reating American jobs????

JayCFO,

I don't mind subsidizing the small business person with 10-20 workers earning from $75-$150k, I want them to succeed as they ARE the backbone of this nation's economy

Excellent post. Small business has no chance. They cannot stay competitive. It's like a natural enviroment: things have to die for other things to be able to grow but it also requires an access to the sun, water and nutrients. Right now companies are like giant trees - they steal all the sun, all the water and and all the nutrients and kill anything under or near them.

We don't give a crap about the small business - and like you said - that is what made our country great. There was an opportunity - You worked hard, you earn a good living for yourself and people in your community. Now, we concentrate on how we can make an above average return for shareholders. But eventually, you end up like Bank of America or AIG getting so big that the only way they can go is down or lie, cheat and steal to beat their previous year's numbers...or stick their hands out for the taxpayer bailout.

Oh those little article lines, "...that wealthy investors should not pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class wage earners." They really try to convince you in one line that investors and earners are the same thing, while "investors" invest what they've already earned and been taxed on.

I'd start listening/believing in the "Buffet rule" if the President was to say- "See, we're trying to be fair here. Mr. Buffet makes $1 a year in salary, but he gets options worth millions and his investments make billions. So he pays mostly capital gains, not income taxes. They are taxed differently, so we need to adjust your capital gains taxes as based the amount of your holdings. This would give billionaires like Mr. Buffet a fair chance at paying their taxes. Similarly, I've asked the IRS to make modifications to the tax code so that Mr. Buffet's Birkshire Hathaway can no longer hold out their corporate taxes longer than 3 years. You see, Mr. Buffet's company still hasn't paid their $2 billion in 2005 taxes and aren't paying their current taxes- it's only fair that they do so........"

I just can't swallow the pandering and waivers being given to friends, in the name of "change". Sure Buffet is crowing for the President's plan on more taxes for the rich- because he won't be paying them!

BTW- In all fairness I'm also dead set against the federal government removing all tax incentives for philanthropy and good deeds. That will only leed to more government dependency and less giving by individuals. Maybe that's what they are trying to do??

Money, money, money, money. Doesn't anyone realize the argument is not about money?

The current capital gains tax rate rewards investors for non-productive investing. Investors have been investing throughout this recession - the DJIA is up because of those investments - yet business start ups are down - job creation is down. The investments have been non-productive because those investments have not grown the fundamental economy. Until that non-productive investing is discouraged - we are stuck in a slow growth, non-productive economy.

The objective of raising the capital gains tax is NOT to generate tax revenue. The objective is to discourage non-productive investing. It's not about punishing the successful - it is about requiring the successful to work for their success.

Nerm...I suggest you take a finance, macro and micro econ courses. Your ignorance is showing very badly.

With your logic we can shut down the stock market and grow our way to prosperity.

According to this article, the Buffett tax increase proposal on millionaires would raise 47 billion in new tax revenue over the next 10 years. What is interesting is that the first time the Buffett tax increase was floated (about a month or so ago) it was said to increase tax revenue by some 31 billion, and the next time we hear of this proposal the amount will no doubt be further inflated. Who's the math genius that's in charge of calculating this?

In any event, using the 47 billion over ten years which comes out to 4.7 billion a year, with Obama's trillion dollar plus deficits each and every year, it wouldn't be noticeable and have absolutely no impact on anything.

Only Obama and his maniacal spending proclivities could relegate such a large amount of money (4.7 billion) to insignificance.

As others have pointed out, this tax increase will have absolutely no impact on the likes of Buffett, Soros, and Obama's other cronies. Only the hard working and small business owners.

I don't seem to remember screaming about John Kerry's or the Kennedy's wealth when they ran for office.

So, when do we get to see Romney's previous years tax returns???? You know, the ones he filed BEFORE he decided that he was going to run for President..............the ones where he used Swiss bank accounts and Bahamian Island investments to avoid pay taxes to support the two unfunded Bush era wars we were fighting? The years that the US economy was reeling from Wall Street abuses that Romney profited from and then shipped his profits out of the US to avoid paying taxes on them?

Romney doesn't believe in America. Romney believes in Swiss bank accounts...and making himself richer....

@John-2032532 -- Please, enlighten us on how Wall Street grows the economy - creates jobs. Since the DJIA has just experienced a period of record growth - why is the economy stagnant? The performance of the DJIA shows that investors have been investing. Yet the economy limps along - in spite of all the investment dollars flowing into Wall Street.

If you take the RWNJ approach - blaming government - please, explain why the tax burden on the economy is lower today than before the recession started? Please, explain why regulations that are hurting the profitability of businesses seems to be attracting so much investment on Wall Street?

You may be correct - shutting down Wall Street may actually require investors to put their money into the fundamental economy. That would put those investment dollars to productive use.

Sheeesh, another Obama deflection issue......Buffet Rule.....and you folks took the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Notice that Mr. Obama is continuing his THREE years plus campaigning on Wealth Redistribution and Class Warfare, and has even sent Jumping Joe out on the streets to "talk about the Buffet Rule", yet he will not mention ANYTHING about his FAILED economic stimulus programs, his lack of International leadership, nor the fact that his "Obama Bucks" are running out.

Maybe if Mr. Obama would DIRECT his 41 White House staffers and some of their aides to pay their Dad Gum back IRS taxes, that could help reduce the deficit somewhat.

@ldo -- Has Obama been campaigning to redistribute wealth - or - has Obama been campaigning to STOP redistributing wealth?

The data for wealth accumulation in the United States over the past 30 years does not support your view. Opinions based on political fiction do not stand up to scrutiny.

The best defense is a good offense. You don't cut your pay when you are increasing your spending. That is what Bush did. he cut taxes and started 2 wars. The middle class and poor are paying for it now. It is time that the rich start paying their share. Let the tax custs end. Put the rates back at 39.6% where they were or lets raise them back to Nixon era rates.

Nerm_L @John-2032532 -- Please, enlighten us on how Wall Street grows the economy - creates jobs. Since the DJIA has just experienced a period of record growth - why is the economy stagnant? The performance of the DJIA shows that investors have been investing. Yet the economy limps along - in spite of all the investment dollars flowing into Wall Street.

Nerm...This isn't business school. I'm not your professor. I suggest you find a school with professors and stop posting about making a living, something you know nothing about.

GuyLittle

If Warren is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, then lower the secretaries tax rate.

Make the government operate on a balanced budget.

Problem solved.!!

First question: How would lowering the secretary's tax balance the budget???

Second question: Why not raise Buffett's taxes to that of the secretary???

Third question: Would you be willing to raise taxes to balance the budget???

Fourth question: How is the problem solved??? All you stated were general arguments.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Sheeesh, another Obama deflection issue......Buffet Rule.....and you folks took the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Notice that Mr. Obama is continuing his THREE years plus campaigning on Wealth Redistribution and Class Warfare, and has even sent Jumping Joe out on the streets to "talk about the Buffet Rule", yet he will not mention ANYTHING about his FAILED economic stimulus programs, his lack of International leadership, nor the fact that his "Obama Bucks" are running out.

Maybe if Mr. Obama would DIRECT his 41 White House staffers and some of their aides to pay their Dad Gum back IRS taxes, that could help reduce the deficit somewhat.

Ido, you do know that Obama is actually trying to stop wealth redistribution??? Over the past 30 years the rich have gotten richer while the poor and middle class barely scrape by. How the hell is telling wealthy people to pay a slightly higher tax rate class warfare??? What about Romney's tax plans that cuts taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on the poor??? Or Paul Ryan's budget, which cuts funding for social services and safety nets while cutting taxes for the "holy job creators????" Where the hell is the class warfare now???

You do realize that the CBO stated that the stimulus saved or created 3.3 million jobs, right???? You also know that Obama has many foreign policy accomplishments, like killing bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, overthrowing Gaddafi, and acting in a more peaceful matter before sending in the F-18s, right??? You really need to kick the kool-aid and come up with a REAL argument. Right-wingers liek you are ruining this country.

Oh, and I'd gladly support class warfare??? It beats being massacred by the rich and becoming poorer, like we have over the past 30 years. The GOP is proposing class genocide; Obama is promoting class fairness. Go ahead and kiss the ass of the rich; but remember that the real "job creators" are the middle class.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

CLASS WARFARE MY ASS

END THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR 2012

Roy.... Sigh... Investors don't create jobs; the consumer does. The investor is just the middle man of this economic whore house you and your Republicans have created.

When are you going to realize that $20k, $30k, no insurance and @!$%#ty raises, if any, just simply isn't enough any more to fuel an economy. The complexity I refer to is to hold lousy employers accountable and reward the better employers with a "competitive" advantage through taxation. Letting Walmart get away with closing down small town main street businesses AND then, asking you and I to subsidize their employees, kind of smacks of monopolistic behavior. THAT is not free enterprise. I find it interesting you and your buddies are all for free enterprise as long as it works for you but not your competitor.

Your comment about the complexity shows me that you really were a sales person all these years and left the dirty little details to someone else, probably bullying your accounting and delivery staff into getting what you should have been doing AND, probably paid them for @!$%# to add insult to injury.

Go back and read the basic concepts of what I propose and what you will always see is "hold those responsible accountable!" Lousy paying employers, poor raises has been substantially responsbile for this past recession, not just the housing market, federal reserve monetary policy, interest rates or world wide competition but just the simple basic greed formula rewarding a single few beating the @!$%# out of the very workers that make them the money.

As I said, "Enough!" Time to send a message to you, who do not want to pay a livable wage anymore.

@John-2032532 -- Claiming to have expertise - without demonstrating any knowledge. The true hallmark of the RWNJ.

With your financial expertise - you understand that Wall Street is not going to survive the next twenty years. You understand that the economy has reached an inflection point - that Wall Street must generate non-productive inflation to simply survive. You understand that a third to a half of the current assets on Wall Street will be liquidated over the next twenty years.

Now is the time to change that future. Fix the problems now before Wall Street will become a parasitic anchor on the economy.

Or we can take the approach offered by the RWNJ - search for scapegoats and ignore the problem. Relying on a copy of 'Investing for Dummies' is not going to cut it.

Jay,

I am sorry but you really do not understand the free market system. You claim that the consumer creates jobs and needs money to do this so employers should pay them more. Where do you think the employer is going to get the money from or in your mind they should just pay people a huge salary and worry about the source at another time. That is completely illogical and makes no sense. Also you do not talk about lousy employees those who are not productive but claim to deserve the same wages as the most productive.

You talk that lack of raises was responsible for the recession and that also goes back to where is the money coming from or do you think in the last few years small business owners were making huge sums and refusing to pay people because you could not be further from the truth.

Freshieee The government has a spending problem look at post 1.31.

We could all give 100% to taxes and they would still want more.

If they don't spend it they cannot justify taxing for it.

It is not about money, taxes, rich, or poor..

IT'S ABOUT CONTROL.!!

John-2032532 - Nerm_L is right about productive and non-productive investing; it is you that know nothing about the finance world. I suggest you take accounting 101, you need it! I don't think you want to learn though, which is atypical of a Republican bagger.

Fundamental #1 - Money has to exchange hands for goods and services for an economy to grow; not stock, bond or currency for each other.

When you sold your Wells Fargo stock or bought your Microsoft stock, who bought your Wells Fargo stock? Who did you buy your Microsoft stock from? Did a "broker" or e-Trade transact the exchange? Did Wells Fargo or Microsoft get a piece of that transaction? Ok, now be honest, if you can?

The only wall street transaction that creates jobs is an IPO (Initial Public Offering) when that company actaully issues shares for other than paying off debt but spends it on tangible products or services.

Everyone knows, and many have experienced first hand, when companies merge, jobs are lost, period. Mitt bought, parceled and merged companies increasing the shareholders' value, good for him and the investor; not so good for the workers. So now, which job was the thousands Mitt created... the housekeeper at $18k per year, no insurance? The driver at $23k, no insurance as well?

Stop, pull your head out of your Fox bagger news and read, listen and learn but above all else, learn what motivates others, especially the wealthy. Forget your pipe dream of being a millionaire by giving away the farm to the wealthy but instead demand they pay properly for the goods and services you and I provide them AND each other... and if they don't we can tax them higher but not ourselves which means they have to put the money to productive use not just monopoly play money.

Even if the 1% paid more in taxes it would not help the 49% who need it (the other 50% of the tax filers pay no income tax), it would just be spent.

We...the 49ers...are not going to get any relief until spending is brought under control!

Obama's math gets an 'F', IMO.

There are 413 BILLIONAIRES in USA, with a total net worth of $1.5 TRILLION ... Obama takes everything they own.

Obama's budget for THIS ONE YEAR 2012 is that much.

Without Obamacare.

Now what?

........first they come for the billionaires....then they come for the millionaires....then they come for us!...(the 49% who are paying income taxes)!

Any increased taxes on the 1% should go directly to tax relief for the 49%...not increased spending, or even the support of current spending...tax relief!

jerry l-1335133

Jay,

I am sorry but you really do not understand the free market system. You claim that the consumer creates jobs and needs money to do this so employers should pay them more.

the consumer creates jobs by backing backing products with a purchase. A company can produce millions of things but if no one buys them, the company goes under and people lose their jobs.

Which brings me to point #2. If people don't have jobs or make enough to pay their bills and have no discretionary income, they will not buy products...of course this is simplified but that's how our market works.

Where do you think the employer is going to get the money from or in your mind they should just pay people a huge salary and worry about the source at another time.

It's not about paying everyone huge salaries. It's about paying fair salaries if companies expect the consumer to pay a premium price for their products. A CEO who gets huge salary+huge bonus (which he/she may or may not deserve) does not produce a society which will support that company (or many companies).

While salaries of top 1% have been going up (by300%?), the salaries of the rest of us have been stagnant. Now, no one will force companies to put a cap on the salaries of their execs but a companies cannot expect people to continue to purchase their products when there is no money to be spent.

This is a two way street: it trickles downward AND it trickles upward. Also the job market is influenced by supply and demand. When jobs are sent to China, the availability of jobs goes down in the US. When their are more people looking for jobs than actual jobs, companies will give jobs to the lowest bidder. This is exactly what is happening throughout the nation. Companies get rid of seasoned workers, and replace them with cheaper labor workforce. Can we blame them? No! They do what companies do but again, don't expect people to be able to buy like they used to. Many are now reduced to paying their basic bills only.

Kenn the Dem

Even if the 1% paid more in taxes it would not help the 49% who need it (the other 50% of the tax filers pay no income tax), it would just be spent.

Holy cow Kenn, you just took the blue ribbon for the largest number of fallacious arguments in one sentence! So by your lack of logic, even if the 1% was taxed 100% it wouldn't balance the budget, therefore why bother collecting any revenue from the rich? That makes NO sense -- everything helps, everything adds up -- you know, like "ear marks!" The Buffet Rule is just a first step to tax reform, because right now no one pays the 35% rate -- NO ONE!

And the 47% (you exaggerate it to 50%) who don't pay income tax includes who?

...22,000 households earning more than $1 million annually that paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes in 2009. Nearly 1,500 of those households paid no federal income taxes, the report said.

It includes these millionaires, and it includes the so-called "job creators" who use write offs to show zero income.

Then you say it would not help the 49% (more like 95%) who need it, though of course it would! And then you say we need to just cut spending. But cuts in spending (and no revenue) would not help the working poor and middle class because it would cut all the programs they depend on. Wow, just wow!

This is not just about fairness in taxation. This is about fairness in opportunity-- to educate your kids, including Pell grants for college, to have affordable health care, to have retirement in old age, and on and on. The rich need to contribute their fair share to the security, workforce, infrastructure, etc. they depend on to make their money, and they need to stop sending our jobs overseas!

Romney only gives lip service to opportunity. Ask him for actual details of how he would level the playing field so others can move up in their standard of living. The fact is Romney and the Teapublicans want a Race to the Bottom, with every man, woman, and child for his/herself. They care nothing about restoring the American Dream.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

Kenn the Dem

the 49% who are paying income taxes)!

do me a favor so you can stop spreading this crap. look up how many of us are actually full-time employees. And then look up how many are: retired (but forced to work to supplement their $800/month check); single moms, college and high school kids, disabled, or minimum wage workers.

These people work so they file taxes. But they do not work enough to qualify to pay taxes. So pick on grandma (how unusual) for not paying taxes and say nothing about 66% of corporations that do business in this country and PAY NOTHING!

GuyLittle -- What's with conservatives and the rigid black-and-white thinking? Greece had a spending problem but also had a revenue problem -- No one was paying their damn taxes, especially the rich!!! Stop with cherry picking facts to fit your ideology. There are TWO parts to the equation (i.e., math), and that is spending AND revenue needed to reduce deficits.

Even in your personal household budget, do you really think you could cut spending and eat Ramen every night, and somehow get by without income from a job? Really, seriously? Enough with the stupidity!

Bayllie,

Thanks for the link on the bill. It sounded like a good idea to me, although I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing possible ramifications. I was a little surprised the Chamber of Commerce was against it, but I don't follow them enough to know how much they generally lean on these types of issues.

Also, I agree with you on the need to focus on giving small businesses a better chance. The large companies continue to manipulate the system to give themselves advantages, and add stumbling blocks for their smaller competitors...but small businesses are the foundation for our economy.

Picking an election-year fight with Republicans, President Barack Obama is urging Congress to boost taxes on millionaires

Headline should have been "Obama Fires First Volley in Class War!" No ideas, no results, worse off then we were. Who in their right mind would vote for this clown?

Obama is outlining his support for the so-called "Buffett rule" in Boca Raton, Fla., arguing that wealthy investors should not pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class wage earners.

OK big eared jug headed incompetent idiot. If we go ahead with your idea about raising capital gains taxes, on investors making over $1 million a year, are you also going to increase the amount over these investors can right off for a capital loss? Currently it's $3000 a year max. I'm all for bumping the capital gains tax for these individuals if you agree to take the limit off the capital loss write-off. Right now an investor takes a chance with his money. If you really want to make things fair you'll do that.

TruePatriot,

Even in your personal household budget, do you really think you could cut spending and eat Ramen every night, and somehow get by without income from a job? Really, seriously? Enough with the stupidity!

You surely can't call your boss and demand he pay you more because you spent too much. You can't call your credit card companies and tell them to raise your credit limit cause you are maxed out and don't have the income to pay down your debts. Hmmmm, now if the government only realized this. You're right. Enough with the stupidity Pot.

ROY WILSON-336103

What Obama fails to mention is that the 15% tax rate on dividends is already actually closer to a 50% tax rate, because the corporation that paid the dividend likely already paid a 35% tax rate on the income before distributing the remainder as dividends.

Also, if the 'investment income' is from the gain on the sale of an asset that was held for a long period of time, it would be taxing people on 'phantom' income when the reality is that they may have actually LOST income because of inflation I will work up a real life example and post it shortly.

By that logic; no one receiving wages in the private sector should pay taxes on their earnings. After all, the money they are being paid was taxed before the consumer paid for the product. In fact, public employees shouldn't pay taxes either since they're earnings were all taxed previously.
I'll be very interested in your example. At the moment it sounds like more 1% rhetoric to deflect income inequity in this Country.

Half or more of the speech he just gave was "pay your fair share Buffet rule". Thats half of what he talks about most everywhere and one would think a major piece of legislation for the country. Until you look at actual revenue. CNBC project 47Billion in 10 years. Tax policy organization estimated 31Billion over 11 years. Which means rounding up on the high end it gets 5 Billion a year. Which is almost as much tax dollars as we are losing from the green companies going bust every year.

We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit. If he gets his "Buffett rule" we would have a $1.295 Trillion deficit. Won't even scratch the surface of our HUGE deficit and debt. Then what is the plan??

And the revenue estimates don't take into account behavior. What do you think the rich will do with their taxes raised? We are global everything now and its easy to do. Watch the money flow overseas for investments.

Government sues Buffett's NetJets unit for unpaid taxes

(Reuters) - NetJets Inc, a private jet-sharing company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), was sued for $366.3 million by the government to recover unpaid taxes, four months after sued the government for nearly twice as much.

Dem's don't pay taxes

Svenolafson

TruePatriot,

[My post] "Even in your personal household budget, do you really think you could cut spending and eat Ramen every night, and somehow get by without income from a job? Really, seriously? Enough with the stupidity!"

You surely can't call your boss and demand he pay you more because you spent too much. You can't call your credit card companies and tell them to raise your credit limit cause you are maxed out and don't have the income to pay down your debts. Hmmmm, now if the government only realized this. You're right. Enough with the stupidity Pot.

I just read what you quoted, and wonder where I said employers have to pay more. How do you right-wingers come to the conclusions you reach? I'm saying you can't balance a budget with only spending cuts -- you must have revenue as well. What's so complicated about this that conservatives can't understand it?

The fact is spending needs to be at least 20% of GDP. We can go lower (the president's proposal at 18% of GDP), but only temporarily. Otherwise it will be anarchy. That's exactly what the far-Right wants. They'd rather have anarchy than pay their damn taxes.

Enough with this stupidity, and trying to twist my words Kettle.

Ol Doc, maybe i can clarify. (i usually don't do that well) LOL. If someone makes a million bucks and pays 35% taxes, then invests money from that same year he is investing from a pool of his ALREADY TAXED money. You then make an investment and make money ...... you are paying taxes again on that same money that was taxed the year before.

As a die hard conservative, I'm willing to go against my better judgement and support the Buffett tax plan, but only in that it will expose the folly of trying to close the budget gap with tax increases. While to normal people, the revenue generated is a lot of money, 41 billion in 10 years. Unfortunately, compared to the deficits we're running, it is so pathetically insignificant, that it has to make you wonder, who thinks this is a solution? Furthermore, there are always, and I do mean always unintended consequences from tax increases. Who remembers the "Tax the rich" scheme that Clinton hatched? It had to be repealed due to the fact that it drove many companies out of business that catered to the wealthy. Burger Boats is an example of a company that shut their doors when the rich stopped buying luxury yachts made in the US. They reopened sometime after the tax was repealed. This proposed tax increase will have some negative affect that will likely out way the benefit.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Maybe this is the Buffett rule Obama is talking about, just don't pay your taxes!

Patriot, if you go by historical revenue.... 30 year average of 18.3% and 50 year average of 18%, you can't spend 20% or you will have perpetual deficits. Those numbers are through 2010 by the way. Current spending is around 24% of GDP.

It's not possible to come anywhere close to closing our 1.3 Trillion deficit with taxes. Whether you take the Rep approach to lower taxes = more revenue OR the Dem approach of tax the rich it is a drop in the bucket compared to a $1.3 Trillion spending deficit. For example ... the Buffett rule may get 5 Billion. Then you have the other 1.295 Trillion to worry about.

i paid $47000 last year. I'm a registered independent that doesn't vote for any republicans. Does that mean if I register democrat I won't have to pay any taxes?

dadoftim

hardtostarboard ...... that was part of the taxes Bush 1 bought off on that got him kicked out with the boat luxury tax. Was funny, just googled an article on it and then Sen maj leader George Mitchell was saying its about time the rich payed their fair share. Where have i heard that before?????

One thing people don't take into account is behavior when you raise and lower rates. They look at a Million dollars taxed at 20% and say .... we tax at 40% and we will get 400k instead of 200K. Looks good on paper but doesn't work like that. They said the same thing about the boat luxury tax of 1990 and just looked at static numbers. However they brought in 97 million less than expected, boat sales decreased 77% and around 25,000 people were laid off in the industry. Decimated the industry and the tax was soon repealed in a bipartisan effort.

@TruePatriot: Spare me the spin and the talking points...if you took EVERYTHING America billionaires have you wouldn't cover this years deficit alone. The problem is SPENDING and no matter how much the Federal government takes in...it is going to spend more...and this has to stop!

Sorry Bayllie, I don't mean to affront you, it's just a fact, 47% (not 50% as pointed out by TruePatriot) don't pay income taxes, I'm sure they would like to (well maybe not) but the fact is they DON'T!

We, the 52%, we are not the rich, and ARE paying income taxes want TAX relief! So said simply....increase the tax on the 1% and use that to decrease the tax on the 52%, then balance the budget by cutting spending.

P.S. Patriot, if you can find those not paying any income tax...who should be paying income tax...TAX THEM AS WELL!

Another behavior example with taxes easy to track is cap gains. Going back to Reagan over 30 years there have been 4 cap gains changes .... 3 down and one up. Revenue forecasts from the CBO and others was down for the cuts and up for the increase (they use current static numbers). However just the opposite happened, revenue went up after the 3 cuts and was stagnant for 10 years after the increase. The one increase was in 1987, and revenues for the next 10 years was LOWER than what was taken in in 1986 ... the year before the rate increase from 20 to 28%.

Ron-1861300

Thanks for the link on the bill. It sounded like a good idea to me, although I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing possible ramifications.

Nothing is perfect and I am sure this bill wasn't either. But it's a start. We cannot continue the status quo and expect things to change. Let's start rewarding companies that actually create American job with tax breaks and kill those that do not with higher taxes. I know an American worker is expensive but American worker pays taxes and spends back into the American economy.

In a reception at a gated community in Palm Beach Gardens, Obama said Democrats would ensure the rich pay their fair share, while focusing on investments in education, science and research and caring for the most vulnerable.

Oh, I am so thrilled that Mr. Obama is campaigning in a "rich"gated community" and then turning around and saying "we need the Buffet rule on the rich".

And here he is again......"caring for the most vulnerable"......more Wealth Redistribution. Is he saying his "Obama Bucks" and "Obama's Stash" are going to continue if he is re-elected ?

After Mr. Obama is thrown out of office in November, then he would make an ideal candidate for a member of the IMF to support Worldwide Redistribution of Wealth. Maybe he could take Mr. Geithner and Mr. Bernanke with him. Talk about muddling the financial affairs of the World.

Every damn one of them in the Three Branches of Oligarchy is full of sh!t........... Self interests first.... We the people last....

Nerm:

The objective of raising the capital gains tax is NOT to generate tax revenue. The objective is to discourage non-productive investing. It's not about punishing the successful - it is about requiring the successful to work for their success.

Well said. The whole notion that lower tax rates on capital gains is intrinsically beneficial to the economy is just ignorant. Why should those who merely have excess cash (and I admit to being among that group) get a tax break simply for having the money to speculate with?

Real investors invest in real businesses, not just buying and selling paper. Don't reward speculation, reward working for a living - including investing in real growth.

We should raise taxes to make people work harder on investing? Now that's a new one.

@tim-2799493 --

Real investors invest in real businesses, not just buying and selling paper. Don't reward speculation, reward working for a living - including investing in real growth.

Well said. Capitalism is about rewarding work - 'free enterprise' or 'free market' economics is about rewarding risk (gambling). The country needs to return to capitalism and forget the failed experiments in 'free enterprise'.

There were valid arguments for lowering the capital gains taxes when the incentives were enacted. But the incentives have become institutionalized - they are no longer effective at spurring innovation or encouraging productive investments. The only innovation the lowered capital gains taxes are currently providing - is in methods of compensating executives.

The country cannot gamble its way to prosperity. We have too few winners and too many losers with things as they are.

We should raise taxes to make people work harder on investing? Now that's a new one.

No, we should reward earning money, not just having it.

BigATC -- Since you're a troll, I'll respond one time. The percent of GDP comes from economists, not my opinion. Heck, even right-wing economists like Ben Stein say that tax breaks for the rich is a bad policy. You're not an expert, so your personal opinion means nothing. Also, how does giving more tax breaks to people who are already rich provide incentive to work harder at becoming rich? It's not logical to give incentives to people who are already millionaires (think about it, even if it takes all afternoon, try).

Kenn the Dem-- No one is saying that taxing the rich will solve all our deficit problems. So YOU stop spining and try some reading and comprehension. The Buffet Rule is about fairness in taxation, and more importantly fairness in opportunity for people to move up in socio-economic status -- You know, the American Dream.

Once again, look at Greece (the whole picture, not just the spending that conservatives obsess with). Austerity is causing unemployment to skyrocket. Learn from history and learn from other countries. No more voodoo economics. We've tried it and it doesn't work! Making the rich richer, only makes the rich richer. When the middle class does well, everyone does well, including businesses and the rich.

To get our financial house in order, we will need a multiple approach such as increases in revenue, job creation, reducing trade deficits, and so forth. We cannot reduce the deficit with "starve the beast" idiocy -- In fact, lack of investment in education, research, infrastructure, etc. would destroy our country and our ability to compete in the global market.

Why are you right-wingers stuck on only one part of what we need to do? Are you so incapable of creative thinking, analysis, and problem solving? If so, then move aside and let more capable people get to work on real and viable solutions.

Back to the article... The GOP/TP has moved so far to the Right that Goldwater looks like a liberal. Romney is worse, because no one knows what he really stands for (see SNL skits). We'll be taking names on who votes how on the Buffet Rule, and we'll see ya in November.

You guys killin me with this low cap gains rate is counter productive, that is down right silly. I do a fair amount of investing in different areas and am developing a product as the result of my investing efforts. It is up to each individual and their risk appettite as to what they invest in and how they see it.

The biggest "paper" market is loans. Small business, real estate, cars, etc are issued and a lot of the notes are sold to investors. Again, up to each buyer to determine the value through their own due diligence. It is many Trillions of dollars in the paper market.

I was wondering when you were gonna start calling me names again Patriot. I was feeling left out. I just wasn't expecting you to call me a troll. LOL that is a different one than you usually use.

I never said crap about being pro this or that with taxes. I am indeed no expert. I said it doesn't matter which parties policy one favors it won't come close to closing the deficit.

I will take your side on raising taxes (or revenue as you call it) with the Buffett rule. Estimates are between 31 and 47 Billion i have heard for the decade. We will go on the high side and say 5 Billion per year. So now Patriot ...instead of having a 1.3 Trillion deficit we have a 1.295 Trillion deficit. What do we do then Patriot??

We should learn from Greece and stop the massive spending that will put us in their predicament. Once you get into their shape there are no good options. They owe waaaaaaaay more than they can pay off and anything they do will be painful.

Patriot ....from the St. Louis Fed research center, 1950-1974 revenue/GDP was 17.6 and from 1975-2007 was 18.2. Not my opinion. Where can i find your economists that say we MUST spend 20%+ of GDP?????

JayCFO-3768452

Roy.... Sigh... Investors don't create jobs; the consumer does. The investor is just the middle man of this economic whore house you and your Republicans have created.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! For months I have been trying to voice that. Technically, both of them create jobs, but we have delved so much into the supply equation that now we need to focus on the demand side. That includes investments in education and social services and ending loopholes and breaks for the wealthy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Obama = the GREAT DIVIDER.

Obama is attempting to pit American against American, instead of uniting this country and protecting our borders.

Taxing the "wealthy" is a Obama Campaign Slogan and this little revenue generated from taxing the wealthy, will do NOTHING TO pay on THE FEDERAL DEBT AND DEFICIT, NOTHING!

Obama wants and needs "illegals, welfare fraud, unemployment fraud, disability fraud to get elected".

Rather than work, these "government aided fraud types" earn more on government aid and for that, the END is in sight for America, unless, this country changes course.

A country can not borrow their way out of debt!

Cut, Cap, Balance, and stop the government fraud!

The biggest "paper" market is loans.

Not even close. The derivatives market is many times larger - in the tens of trillions. Trading derivatives, equities and bonds (which are not the same as loans) creates no real value.

Lending money to businesses, new and old, large and small, however does contribute to the creation of value and rightfully should be encouraged.

They're two different types of markets.

Obama = the GREAT DIVIDER..........

Nice going.

What a wonderful collage of random, disjoint Fox News, right-wing nut-job brain farts. One has to wonder how anyone can cobble together such a melange of arbitrary, second-hand ideas thinking there's some kind of coherent message behind them. It's a Jackson Pollock work of political thought.

Let us know when you have an original thought, if ever.

IfITell: Why won't Obama show us his transcripts? Is that much different than Romney's 3+ year old tax returns. Maybe the transcripts will suggest the real reason Obama got into Harvard?

tim-2799493

Why do you libs ignore Obama's record, here it is!

Taxing the wealthy, dividing America, solves absolutely nothing, nada! Cut, Cap, Balance!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I remember the 64 election I don't think Obama will get the sympathy factor previous president assasinated in office 1 year earlier.And I doubt Romney will be stupid enought to advocate a nuclear option for Afghanistan like Goldwater did for the USSR.

@True Patriot: Your comment in part says..

• Are you so incapable of creative thinking, analysis, and problem solving? If so, then move aside and let more capable people get to work on real and viable solutions.

Yeah, we tried that...in 2009 and 2010 we controlled everything...the presidency, the senate, the house and we let the "capable people" (aka the progressives) in to run things...and in November 2010 we were handed one of the biggest election losses in our history! The answers those "capable" people came up with were the same thing for every problem....throw lots of money at it and it will go away. Well the only thing that went away was our money!

You do realize that the Social Security Trust fund holds US Treasury debt, and the US Treasury is currently running a deficit of $1.5 trillion! When the Trust fund has to redeem the debt it holds the US Treasury pays it off by more borrowing, and the Trust fund is now paying out more than it is receiving! The Chinese government, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, is publicly calling for us to reduce our deficit spending.

In the face of all this you refuse to acknowledge that spending cuts are required...all can be solved by tax increases and yet more spending...it is you that has something to learn...begin by studying the election of 2010!

Kenn your not a dem-you appear to be Tea Party handler. You are proud of your work in 2010 but 2012 is going to remove many of the nutty Tea Party house members who have thrown a wrench in even Republican programs. Kenn - do you have any daughters or a wife? How can justify the Rush Limbaugh slander against women-how can any woman or lover of women support any Republican program? We can not go back to the 1950's-no matter how much WASPs want to return to absolute control. We need to increase revenue in order to begin the daunting task of repairing our infrastructure. This creates jobs and revenue in several ways. Buffet rule-yes. Make corporations pay their fair share-yes. End as many loop holes as possible-yes. Investigate Grover Norquist and his asinine pledge-yes. What corporations fund Grover and thus control Republican legislators. Advertise the republicans who signed the pledge-yes. It is a violation of their oath of office. Their oath-not talking about any other.

Kenn the Dem,

Sorry Bayllie, I don't mean to affront you, it's just a fact, 47% (not 50% as pointed out by TruePatriot) don't pay income taxes, I'm sure they would like to (well maybe not) but the fact is they DON'T!

You make it sound like I dispute that many don't pay taxes. But what you are doing it ignoring the reason why they don't pay taxes. You don't expect grandmas to make enough working at WalMart to hit the above the poverty level to qualify, do you?

You are claiming that 100% of those who work qualify to pay taxes and that is just silly. Only 47% of Americans have full time jobs and guess what - that is the number (more or less) of people who pay taxes.

Also,

The total non institutional civilian labor force includes Americans 16 years and older who are not in a institution -criminal, mental, or other types of facilities- or an active military duty - forgot to mention that. I guess you consider them deadbeats, too, right?

TO: navyvet98 who wrote:

"Odd that obama's Buffet Rule would not affect Warren Buffet, George Soros or any other long list of billionaires..."

Why do Republicans waste their time making up one lie after another? Could it be because Republicans have no message, no positive input, and no level-headed or reasonable solutions to the mess Republicans themselves created?

Why not tout the Republicans' "Ryan Plan" which makes the poor even poorer, makes the elderly -- poorer, the middle class -- so poor that they're no longer considered "middle class" by laying the full weight of the national debt on Working Americans and cancelling the miniscule help given to Poor Americans.

Republicans argue that no quality affordable health care for anyone but the wealthy should even exist! Why not mention how GREAT Republicans think the idea of robbing Working Americans of our Social Security money that we've been paying into all our working lives, and how GREAT it would be for the country if our Seniors had no more medicare.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Republicans come up with one sick idea after another, and would dare to actually believe that the American People are stupid enough to vote against our own best interests. Never.

Obama / Biden 2012

BigATC, thanks for the clarification on the Luxury tax. I should have takenthe time to look it up but was pressed for time. The point most liberals don't get is there are negatives associated with raising taxes, in some case the negatives are catastrophic. The only way out is to cut spending, if it only reduces the deficit by $1/ year, at least we'd be heading in the right direction.

Two interesting points that the Democrats can now roll out:

1) Romney and Bain Capital were very, very good at setting up shell corporations in the Caymans that allowed people to endlessly "roll forward" earnings in a daisy chain to avoid paying ANY taxes. In fact, Romney's trus tax rate is less than 5% because of this little trick. And Bain Capital set up literally thousands of shell companies for other corporations to illegally avoid taxes as well. Much of Romney's liquid assets are still in the Caymans being shuffled around to avoid taxes.

2) Companies like Bain Capital played a much larger role in the recession that most people realize. It used to be that a lot of companies would accumulate a "rainy day" fund. This liquid reserve pool would be used to heal the company weather downturns, retooling, or other changes in the business environment. It was just good common sense. But companies like Bain came along and would initiate hostile takeovers that used that "nest egg" for financing the takeover of these companies. Bain would take the cash assets then charge consulting fees to the company to take them into bankruptcy. As a result companies either adopted "poison pill" or other strategies to avoid companies like Bain or would simply stop accumulating liquid reserve funds and depended on daily borrowing instead. So when this recession came, it was devastating for those businesses who had no reserve and no way of borrowing money.

Why do you libs ignore Obama's record, here it is!

Taxing the wealthy, dividing America, solves absolutely nothing, nada! Cut, Cap, Balance!

Turn off the TV, Mike. Take a look around at the real world. Nothing you've posted so far is even remotely accurate.

For one thing, it's not fiscally or ethically possible to balance the budget by cutting spending alone, regardless of what so-called 'conservatives' say about it.

Well, this thread has gotten so long (but some actual decent comments for a change, not everything a slam of "teabaggers", "Faux News", or "libtards" who love "Odumbo") that it may be impossible to address what I want to say to things far above in a coherent manner, but here goes my feeble try:

Between my spouse and myself, about 20% of our meager net worth is invested in Berkshire Hathaway "B" shares, so what Buffett says and does is of otherwise-inordinate interest to me. Neither of us has ever been so fortunate as to have a private-sector job which provided any sort of retirement beyond a 401(k); we also have IRAs. Buffett's returns have surpassed the S&P Index nearly every year since he took control of what was then a group of New England textile mills specializing in men's suit linings in the mid-60s so we put what for him would be a rounding error but for us is a considerable sum of money under his control.

Buffett has about 99 % of his net worth in BH stock and only has himself paid a $100,000/yr. salary as chairman. BH reinvests its profits -- no dividends. Buffett occassionally sells shares when he wants money. As he bought his shares long ago he only owes the tax on a long-term capital gain. If he chose to, he could pay himself a gigantic salary which would be ordinary income and taxable at a rate at least equal to that paid by his secretary, or bonus himself money based on share performance like other CEO's often arrange for, which would also be fully taxable. He could also declare a dividend and then BH would pay tax on those earnings and he would pay tax on his income derived from them. Instead, he chooses to make most of his money in the most tax-preferred manner, which is smart, but then complains about the fact that he can do so. Most of his net worth is unrealized capital gains in BH stock, which no one in a position of authority in the U.S. is currently proposing to tax, and while I don't know anything about Geo. Soros' capital structure, I assume that his is the same or quite similar. Of course, Buffett also has a portfolio of around $400,000,000 outside of BH, and I assume that he does quite well with it as well, but his stated goal is to be a "forever" investor, meaning that he buys things with the goal of holding them indefinitely, which means that most of his capital gains remain unrealized. As long as this is the case, he will never pay much in the way of taxes relative to his huge net worth and his large, but largely unrealized, captial gains. He does invest primarily in the U.S. and mostly in comprehensible businesses, but does occassionally use derivatives.

@RealistPondering: Since you're not pulling punches neither will I. Wrong...I'm a life long Blue Dog with family roots that go back to the depression...my relatives went to Washington to pick apples in order to hang on to their land...they invented the term "dyed in the wool" Democrat...most likely we were voting Democratic while you were still in diapers! You come across someone like me who disagrees with your progressive agenda and the first thing you do is to go "absolutely hog wild" with labeling...just who died and made you the parties gatekeeper?

It's just amazing how you latter day "progressives" claim total ownership of the party and yet do not accept any responsibility for the 2010 losses...many of those losses were Democrats who believed like me "Blue Dogs" who lost their seats because they supported (under party pressure) some of this latter day "progressive" agenda! Perhaps you think that was a good thing...cleansed the party...well it cost control of the House and until your kind can come to accept "Blue Dog Democracy" the party will never get it back!

We held the House for decades because we were fiscal moderates...we wouldn't throw hard earned tax dollars around like they were nothing...we were members who could work across the aisle...things were getting done and jobs were being created! Don't define Democrat to me...read up on the Blue Dog Coalition and learn something about the party members you're libeling!

@Bayllie: Nope...never said that...I don't expect Grandmothers working at Wallmart bringing down poverty line wages to pay income taxes.

...and no...never said that "everyone working qualifies to pay taxes"!

...and no...never called anyone a deadbeat who was not paying taxes!

What I did say was that "47% of the tax filers do not pay income tax" and you have helped to identify many of those in this category who...for good reason...repeat for GOOD reason...do not pay income tax! But that is not the whole story! Just Google "who is not paying income taxes" and you will get several articles on it. Here is part of just one;

Amid complaints that nearly half of tax filers in the U.S. won't pay federal income taxes this year, this has been lost: Those making $75,000-$100,000 a year are the fastest-growing share of people who don't pay federal income taxes.

Do I think these people are dead beats...no...they apply the tax code to their situation and the result is... even though they made $100,000 they paid NO income taxes! No problem...that's the tax code...and we Democrats wrote most of it!

Now for the 52% of us who are not rich and DO pay income taxes many of us feel the tax load is too heavy and since we are going to tax the rich then we should take that extra revenue and give it to US by reducing our taxes!

Said simply tax the 1% more and the 52% less!

tim-2799493

I have really bad news for you, GOVERNMENT GETS THEIR MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, not the other way around.

You continually ignore the debt Obama has created, http://www.usdebtclock.org/

the UNPAID Government Growth and Fraud that Obama created, the People Obama has encouraged and CREATED to LIVE ON THE DOLE of the GOVERNMENT, because they get paid more NOT TO WORK by the US Government, than TO WORK.

A Person is not ENTITLED to a standard of living, THEY HAVE TO EARN IT, THROUGH COMPETITION.

Obama has no plan to get the US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL MESS.

Obama is a COMPLETE FAILURE AND HAS CRIPPLED THE US.

Obama is leading the US into being a 3rd World Country! Obama is done or the US is!

A country can not survive by taking from the producers to give to the non-producers!

He has no ear for music...but the music he should be listening to is the cry of the 49ers for tax relief (the 1% are already rich and the bottom 50% pay no income tax)!

"Relief for the 49ers"....now there's a tune that could go to the top of the charts!

Romney doesn't believe in America. Romney believes in Swiss bank accounts...and making himself richer....

Mike, don't you know; that's what passes for patriotism in the New Republican Party these days.

this is a reply to RoyWilson from his example further up the page...

Roy, how convenient of you to give an example with the initial investment being 1980, the year of highest inflation since 1947! 1980 and 1981 had a combined 23% inflation, talk about cherry picking your data. Your whole example is rubbish because you skewed the data to your liking.

I can see the Obama Johnson resemblance. Johnson just like Obama thought he knew more than his generals and tried to run the Vietnam War from the Whitehouse, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands or U. S. troops. Obama given the chance will destroy the United States.

Why doesn't he come up with something that would actually stand a chance of passing

Seriously?

Where have you been for the last 4 years?

Anything reasonable is obstructed by the Anti-Obama party, even republicans own ideas like tax stimulus and individual mandates. Republicans goal is to hurt Obama, not help America, plain and simple. The sooner we understand that the sooner we can ignore them and vote in people who actually care about America first, not obstruction.

We the Corporation

That simply is not true. The republicans would not stand in his way if it were to help the Country. This man and his cronies have done nothing to help so the Republicans simply said no. It doe's not have anything to do with stopping him. He needs to be stopped. All the rest is Democratic talking points and divisive talk.

rukidding,

It doe's not have anything to do with stopping him. He needs to be stopped

Are YOU kidding....thanks for that one.

rukidding47

Kind of like the healthcare plan that was first suggested by the Republican party but is some how now, not good enough? Your argument is redundancy as is your party affiliation.

I have to disagree a bit with this thread...Obama and the Republicans have worked together successfully on a number of bills designed to help the economy. Yes, they have also fought on a number of bills, but I think it's important to also remember there are areas of agreement. (they just don't get the publicity since the news media is mainly about profit, and controversy sells)

Obama could have eliminated the Bush tax cuts....why is he now so interested in doing this? Maybe he could have taken the BILLIONS in discounted loans to the banks and investors and helped the American people instead. This is all a show, he really doesn't want to hurt his rich white friends ------the rich keep getting richer--------------------

Technically, Obama couldn't have done that; the GOP blackmailed him into passing all of the Bush tax cuts by threatening to vote against extending unemployment benefits.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

jw101

Umm..Just an FYI, he tried to how ever the Republicans would not approve anything that would get rid of them. So he had to comprimise

freshie, the dems had the super majority for a while and could have repealed the Bush policy with a one page Bill if they would have wanted to.

That simply is not true. The republicans would not stand in his way if it were to help the Country.

The Republicans would stand in his way even if he had a cure for cancer that they themselves originally came up with.

They'd call it socialism.

They only had 60 votes for a few months. Plus the GOP could have hijacked the extension of unemployment benefits, which they did in 2010.

And anything the other side passes dies in the senate because it isn't even brought to the floor for a vote . Tell the truth about congressional obstructionism. Both sides are working real hard to screw the people. An Independent

lonereb-you are correct about the Senate's ability to filibuster-even the threat stops everything. This needs to go away.

realist -- on this point you are correct. There are no "real" filibusters anymore, where they actually had to maintain the floor, wearing Depends or doing whatever else it took to stall indefinitely, which at least put them through some measure of personal discomfort. Now if it is as much as threatened, they don't have to make it good, the other side just throws up its hands and says, "Oh, well, we tried but they filibustered it to death."

First, the deficit has decreased every year he was President and is now less that $1Trillion, hyperbole much?

political posturing for the millions of people that he has added to the poverty level by eliminating their jobs and raising their energy bills

I agree and that why we should rid ourselves of the parasite that is the republican party.

Obama has failed miserably and needs to resign, be impeached, or at the very least defeated in 2012.

Impeached? For war crimes like lying to Congress and starting wars of choice on lies? Or for what...

By every indicator the economy has stopped bleeding from Bush's recession and republican greed based policies...and now you want to return?? Silly teabaggers have the beaten wife syndrome.

fb-the candidate who has personally been responsible for the elimination of American jobs and the destruction of American companies is romney. This can not be disputed. He can not hide his Bain Capital destruction of American jobs in the name of profit. We only have 2 choices. Any American who votes for Romney and is not in the 1% should also slap themselves on their way oiut of the voting booth. That leaves Obama until we can get a viable third party.

Yes he is, next question.

BTW, hows Mitt's offshore millions doing?

Hasn't it been nearly four years since America has had one?

It has, and republican have had the House for two of them...wheres their passable budget

Proof? And the budget? The House has passed a budget the past two years and Harry Reid won't allow it to be presented in the Senate, let alone vote on it.

Let's see, self made multi millionaire deposits portions of his money throughout the world as a hedge against potential financial collapse by banks in any given country? Smart business or awful conduct?

DAHLY: When he's running for the highest office in the land, I'd say resoundingly, AWFUL CONDUCT. We want our national leader to be hiding money in offshore accounts??? Hardly a good example for the rest of the country to invest in Amercian, even by sleazy GOP standards.

And all you want to do is get your crying towel out of the uber rich. Boo hoo for Willard and his new 12 Million playpen in California. He feel's the little guy's woes, oh yea. LOL

There's the difference, a very accomplished, very successful business person, and you. Isn't "Envy" bad for you? He's earned his lifestyle, the old-fashioned way, through his own efforts. That's why so many in America can't relate.

When he's running for the highest office in the land, I'd say resoundingly, AWFUL CONDUCT. We want our national leader to be hiding money in offshore accounts???

BINGO!

There's the difference, a very accomplished, very successful business person, and you. Isn't "Envy" bad for you? He's earned his lifestyle, the old-fashioned way, through his own efforts. That's why so many in America can't relate.

Like it or not Taxes are what you pay to live in this Society, betting against our banks and knowingly avoiding the dues for this country are normal conduct for a greed first corporate CEO.

But for the President of the United States, Commander in Chief, entire branch of government unto himself to behave this way, to hide money, to avoid paying back the country that gave him the opportunity to make money the "old fashion way" is absurd, seriously you don't see the difference?

The president has already expressed that he feels that he does not pay enough in taxes and should pay much more through enforcement of the tax code.....Did the entire GOP/TP miss this in the State of the Union Address?

Words and actions are two different things. If Obama feels he should pay more, then he should lead by example and write a check to the IRS. From what I've heard, Romney gives a higher percentage of his income to charity than Obama (or any of the other Republican candidates)...for me, that's more impressive than campaign speeches about the rich needing to give more to the government.

The rich need to give more to everyone. There is no rational reason for hoarding.

Romney's money isn't hidden in the Cayman Islands you moron.

If it's hidden, how would you know? Kind of defeats the point of it being hidden in the first place.

Just a thought about Romney's tax returns. Remember a couple of years ago the government worked with the Swiss and basically forced them to report on Americans who were hiding money in Switzerland? I think it's entirely possible that Romney had been hiding money there, and then moved it when word got out that the Swiss would report on American accounts. I remember the government had an "amnesty" program and allowed people to pay taxes owed on their Swiss accounts without criminal penalty. I think it's possible that if Romney released older tax records, it might lead to some difficult questions. While I'm not saying that Romney broke the law, even if he had followed the rules it could still lead to the impression that he had been evading taxes.

If I Tell you...

Under what rationale should people that make more give more? Why don't you argue the fact of the people that take the most should give the most? The real problem is that the people that take the most from the system are the ones that contribute the least to the system.

According to Whitehouse.gov The obama's paid 34% in taxes in 2007, 32% in 2008-2010. A little looking helps before you ask silly questions.

Still stalled in the senate (democrat) where it has been for the last 3 years. How's that working for y'all?

lonereb-be honest-the republican budgets were just political ploys that were aimed at ginning up their base. They knew that they could not be passed and the long term republican pros didn't really want them to pass. They plan to stay in their seats and are working the long game for reelection. The Tea party nuts would stop any reasonable budget and need to be removed in 2012. The Ryan budget is the bridge too far. The majority of Americans do not pay attention to this level of detail but you can't throw Grandma under the train. Romney seals his fate by signing on to this radical proposal. What is the third rail of politics?

COMMON: Are you actually saying that Buffett has received preferential treatment from the IRS because he supports Obama??? That's one hell of a charge, care to substantiate that with some FACTS???

Intrepid1

You know that this is the party of ACCUSATION and FINGER POINTING without substance. What were you thinking?

Sorry, I thought Buffet just owed millions. This article estimates a billion.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

No offense, but newsmax is a right-wing website.

Do we have a news source that just tells the news and lets us think for ourselves? I'm tired of all news sources treating me like a child or an idiot.

lonereb-the BBC or Pravda??

Netjets, the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary in question, is highly leveraged as are all such firms (translation: they run on borrowed money) and has a reasonable grounds for its defense on these claims. They go way back, as noted, to when GWB was President and before the current recession, during which Netjets and all similar firms lost fortunes, especially when it was put out by the Administration that it was evil and wrong to use corporate jets. So I wouldn't say that this firm has exactly been treated preferentially by the current Administration.

Capital Gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as earned incomes. Any arguments to the contrary are merely to pull the wool over the eyes of those who don't understand what's going on. Furthermore, the double tax argument is the the biggest pile of horse manure anyone ever came up with.

The uber rich on MSNBC are disgusting in their selfishness. Pay your share you mega bunch of rich freeloaders.

if u...

You sound like a freeloader yourself. Why don't you justify a system that allows 47% of taxpayers to get by paying ZERO federal tax? Talk about a freeloader!

Brian -- you are aware, of course, that under Reagan's reforms (the modified Flat Tax, with only two brackets) nearly all forms of income were treated equally. And then both parties ran back to the old system as fast as they reasonably could, and make more new loopholes, credits, and writeoffs annually, because the Internal Revenue Code is more about Congress rewarding interest groups than it is raising revenues adequate to match the expenditure levels (also set by Congress).

Why should someone who earns income through investments get such preferential tax rates over those of us who actually work for our earnings?

Well, ug1, the theory is that I earned the money and paid taxes on it prior to investing it, hence I deserve a break when I reap further rewards on it, especially if I hold onto an investment long enough to show that I wasn't just a "speculator" or a "flipper". After all, investment results in "capital formation", a good and necessary thing.

Actually, as I stated above, I like the idea of all income being created equal. Interestingly, in a few states, there is actually a tax on such "unearned" income, but not on earnings (New Hampshire and Tennessee come to mind immediately but there are others, I believe, although Tenn.'s is actually on dividends and interest, not capital gains per se.)

GOLD: So in your mind, it's just fine that the uber rich get away with murder while working stiffs pay at a far greater rate? This has nothing to do with how the government spends money, that's a totally seperate topic. This has to do with how we collect revenue and the blatant advantages that the rich are given in this country. Who do you think lobbies and actually writes the tax laws in this country, poor people??? Hardly, it's the fancy lobbyists for corporate American and the superrich who curry favor with our Congress and get laws written which are blatantly in their favor.

There is a also the matter of just plain fairness. Regardless of how much money changing the laws would make, it just goes against the grain of American values of fairness and equality allowing the very rich to be charged a much lower tax rate. Guys like Romeny stash their money in offshore accounts, enabling them to get away with murder. And all I hear from the Right is Boo Hoo for the wealthy, they have it so tough. And who said Republicans have no compassion? They have tremendous compassion for the rich and powerful, the working class and the poor however only only earn the scorn of the Right.

intrepid i really do feel sorry for you you are so jealous and think every one owes you something you know i have never worried about what some one else has because their not going to give me any of it but guess what im not going to give them any of mine either, so why have these dreams of taking some one elses money you a sick puppy

JOCKLAND: No need to feel sorry for me, I'm doing just fine. Why would you assume my stance has to do with jealousy??? Far from it. There are many, many super wealthy Democrats. Look at FDR, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and way more. The difference being that these are wealthy people who have not forgotten about the average American and are not the greedy, blood suckers that exist on the right.

You're merely giving me the GOP talking points, that because someone would have the audacity to criticize the disparity in the current tax laws that it automatically follows that I hate the rich and seek to destroy them. The fact that you mindlessly do the bidding of wealthy conservatives and buy into their line of crap, merely shows you to be naive beyond belief.

And since you feel that the rich are overtaxed, then let's reduce their tax rate to 1%? How does that sound to you. After all, we have no right to "steal" their money, now do we. We can do away with every social advancement of the last century and turn the clock back to the Victorian era when we allowed the poor to go begging in the streets for crumbs to eat. I don't want to live in that kind of an America. Evidently, it's OK with you.

I know who has influence over politicians but in the end the politicians have the final say. Instead of being outraged with the super rich, corporate America, and lobbyist maybe we should be more disappoint with our politicians. We elect politicians who have no backbone and have no idea how to stand firm. They can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk

Yes, how the government spends/allocate money does fit this topic. Individuals are more than happy to point out when companies bailed out by the government spend outrageous amounts of money, but when our own government does it we look the other way. Individuals say most of corporate America only does what benefits them but most politicians do the same and no one says a word. Congress has a 12% approval rating. Would you give money to an individual that you have 12% faith in?

Mr. Romney can stash money in offshore accounts because it is legal. You know who made it legal…congress. Romney and the superrich will pay their share of taxes when congress simplifies the tax system so the government can easily enforce tax laws. Until congress does that then Romney and the superrich will continue to do legally what they have been doing in the past. Fair would be congress doing the job that American citizens elect any pay them to do.

Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.

-Abraham Lincoln

Do you even think the Buffet rule will exist 2 days after the election? There are rich democrats too.

I don't think the Buffet rule will have much impact on the election. Since the 5 Supremes passed Citizens United and corporations are people and money is speech-doesn't that vacate corporate taxes and the people become taxable as individuals? It would put a lot of tax lawyers on the streets and increase revenue. You can't have it both ways-corporations are people (it's law) not corporations. The 5 Supremes need to make them pay their taxes. That would really help revenue.

It's not just about taxes - it's about investment. If the wealthy and corporations can make money stuffing it away in some offshore account or other paper investment, then they have no reason to invest in business, jobs, or etc. The myth of the "job creators", is that these people actually create jobs. If, however, the only way for them to make money is to invest it in actual jobs, then it's not just about raising 30-50 billion in taxes, it's also about putting trillions of dollars to work in the economy. Actually, by increasing taxes in the current circumstances, money will be pushed back into the system. But the wealthy and corporate interests, like the system as it is - free money, low taxes, and .... no jobs.

And the whole spending argument - we are in debt because of the loss of jobs and lack of revenue from wage earners (certainly not from taxes on brokers and bankers) Which of course makes the spending on social programs stand out. And so it becomes great propaganda for the right to say we are in this mess because of welfare. No, we are in this mess because a bunch of bankers gambled and stole enough money from the system to collapse our economy. The social programs hurt us now because of their greed - and it's time to set that straight. Not make further cuts so that your neighbors lose their homes, and all they spent 20-40 years working full time jobs to earn. The myth of welfare for the poor worker causing the collapse of society is so old, it's found in the book of Isaiah. @500 bc

Let the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003 Expire Period.

That alone wouldn't begin to balance the budget as spending has increased so much more. Here's the most important thing -- cutting spending back to the level of Clinton's time when the budget was balanced, adjusted of cours for inflation and population increase. Then, holding the rate of spending increases according to that same formula, or at best, to a percentage of GDP, so that we don't get government spending constantly increasing at a rate far faster than the growth of the economy, which in the past only happened in times of major wars like the Civil War and WWI but is now very routine.

The rich are free. The rest of us are slaves of the rich.

Romney will pander to his rich friends, hide his tax returns and trifle with women's rights.

No thanks.

I agree romeny is not our answer but he is the lesser of two evils...

if,

I'm noticing that you aren't defending the president. Why is that? And its clear that wouldn't vote for Romney anyways, so why in the world would you care about him releasing his tax returns? Not to change topics, but if Obama had been more forward with releasing a copy of his birth certificate, if he would let the american people see his college transcripts, then he would be as bad as Romeny (who by the way isn't even yet the Republican nominee yet...). So what is Obama hiding? You see?? It works both ways...

RJ-a truly disgusting and ignorant post. All spending bills originate in the House. Bush spent money at an alarming rate, also. You are not worthy of comment.

GWB spent money like a drunken sailor. BHO spends it like a trailer park girl on meth. Neither is exactly a model of responsibility. And yes, all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. A responsible Chief Executive would veto them and all of their "continuing resolutions" alike and tell them to try again rather than say, "I disagree but I had no choice, if I didn't sign it our brave troops wouldn't have gotten paid." Show what's wrong with it, explain that they and not you are holding our country hostage, and tell them to try again -- if they go home, call them back. When they don't get paid themselves, maybe they'll get the message. Somehow Clinton managed to win the PR war against Newt on this years ago and made Newt blink. The C-in-C's since then lack his skill at that sort of thing, and it shows badly.

No, back then only Unions could dump billions into campaigns... you're obviously clueless about the American Dream or you'd not be advocating punishing people for achieving it... or demonizing the very businesses that create the jobs that make the middle class and pulling yourself out of poverty possible... you want to give Liberal deadbeats something that will really help them? Give them my WORK ETHIC...

Your business did not pull me out of poverty.

Are you also giving away tips on how to cheat on taxes?

I don't need your work ethic.

I have seen your work ethic as it relates to others.

Work harder for my business, work longer in my business and work for less so rich business owners can pile up money and not pay a fair share of taxes.

The American Dream for the rich is the American nightmare for the working class.

Fed Up-I don't know about your work ethic but you seem to have plenty of extra ego to share. Oh, thats right - you don't share with the less egotistical. The ones you would share with seem to have a great abundance of ego. Oh well.

Romney will be a disaster for women.

He will shove his religion down our throats.

MesaMax-Romney has already proposed coming after the non-millionaires and billionaires and his support of the Ryan Budget does just that and gives more tax breaks to the 1%. These are facts not possibles.

When we have a presidential candidate who is hiding his tax returns like Romney, it seems the way to the American dream for the Repulicans is to cheat on their taxes.

Romney needs to show us his tax returns and quit hiding them from the American people.

How can you rich Republicans hold up your heads with such a pathetic candidate?

Tax loopholes are found by cheating-minded accountants and the selfish rich prople who can afford to hire them.

So if...why did Obama hide his birth certificate for so long? Why does he still not release his college transcripts? You make a big deal out of someone that you wouldn't vote for anyways...so why do you care?

Romney and Ryan guarantee to get in the common man's pocket and to give the 1% more tax cuts-because they're the job creators? Not.

OK DA, let me spell it for you... C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M... that's what built this country... that's what made a prosperous middle class possible... not Socialist wealth redistribution... not a bunch of lazy parasites on the gov't dole... not elitist Marxist academians... not small shrill class envy whiners... and certainly not politically correct nutcases.... but people (investers) taking risk, companies producing what people want, and people working hard both to produce and to consume... Your steal from the productive and redistribute to the Liberal voters has come to an end....

I don't envy rich people like you.

I pity the rich.

I have enough but not too much because I am a friend of the poor and the downtrodden.

I give away my excess and do not try to cheat on my taxes to get more so I can hoard it while I watch the suffering of others.

I MIGHT agree with you if everything I buy wasn't "produced" in another country.

If,

What a load of crock!! "do not TRY to cheat on my taxes"??? What the hell does that mean? Is like you are a little bit pregnant? Please...stop with the whining about rich people. You sound like a person that feels sorry for himself...perhaps you should get a job and stop bashing those that have been successful.

Let's face it, it is rather hard to "cheat" on one's taxes if all one's income is on W-2's from jobs. Conversely, if one has his/her own business, rental properties, etc., it's fairly easy and the odds of getting caught are very small due to the IRS not having enough auditors but to go after some of the larger and more visible deadbeats, those who annually trade for newer Jags and BMW 7-series and own large homes but somehow only have $50-60K of income. If you don't flaunt it, you'll likely get away with it.

Who in this country ever got elected by saying that they supported a mixed economy? Yet that is exactly what we have, and realistically, what we want. I don't want to shop in a government-run store or get my haircut from a government barber, but I also like looking foward to Social Security and Medicare after paying into them for the last four decades and want and expect them to be there. I don't decline to use "city water" because it is "socialist", or drive over roads and bridges because they were paid for by public funds, and I listen to the weather radio when it looks like it might storm. Very few Americans want to do without all that government provides, just as very few believe that the government should own all farms, factories, or shops. I want to be free to plant trees in my yard, or not, and want to be able to paint my house a different color if I choose to, but if my next-door neighbor wants to tear down his house and build a horse-rendering plant because "It's my property and I'll build anything I want to on it," I'll be talking to the County Zoning Office ASAP. We want a "mixed economy" whether we know it or not.

The rich are not productive. They cheat their way to the top and cheat their way out of paying taxes.

WATERMOON: Ah yes, the old "Job Creators" horse@!$%#.

Tell me something, after ten years of the highly touted Bush tax cuts which were going to unleash the powers of the Capitalist markets, what the hell happened??? Where the pluck are all those new businesses and jobs they were supposed to create? As I recall, during the Eisenhower years we had a tax rate double that of our current one for the rich and the Fifties were about as good an economic climate as this nation ever enjoyed. Evidently the rich were able to squeak out an existence after all, in spite of being crushed under the weight of those burdensome taxes.

And if you want to talk about puppeteers, how about the Koch boys??? The difference between George Soros and Warren Buffett compared to the uber rich Reich Wings scumbags is that THEY DO NOT SEEK TO PROFIT PERSONALLY FROM THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS. Warren Buffett will not come out ahead of the tax laws are changed from favoring the rich. Nor will George Soros, so how is he making Obama his "puppet"??? In contrast, the Koch Brothers (their father, a charter member of the John Birch Society, nice touch, eh fella?) will most certainly benefit from denying Climate Change and the lossening of oil drilling and transporting regulations. Do you see a difference here Watermoon???

I don't care if it only adds one dollar to the coffers of this nation, it is a matter OF FAIRNESS and the eternal mystery has always been how the GOP gets folks like you (unless you are fabulously wealthy) to take a bullet for the rich and vote against your own self interests.

Watermoon---Were you in a coma until 2008 ?

You are right, it will not pass, and in doing so, show once again, that the rich politians in office care nothing for the common man.

Have fun at the polls...

If you tax pot too much, you'll create a black market just as states and localities which over-tax booze and cigarettes do. Just ending the ludicrous "War on Drugs" approach to it and not locking people away for decades over it will save $billions and help the economy quite a bit. And yes, GE's tax rate should be a least as much as Mom & Pop, Inc.'s, if not somewhat more.

Pissedoffperson

I agree you see what a lot of people do not realize is that most of the debt we have is still coming from the Bush administration, two large tax cut to the top 1% not paid for, a drug plan not paid for and still in a war not paid for.

PERSON: Precisely. And as I pointed out earlier, it's not merely the amount of money collected but also the principle of the thing. What kind of example is being set when the super rich get preferential treatment (oh, excuse me, "Job Creators" LOL) and the average working person pays a far higher rate? I thought leaders were supposed to lead by example, evidently not in the parallel universe in which the GOP faithful dwells.

The only realistic way to way to get the deficit down is both to increase revenue and cut spending. Doing one or the other will get us no where. However, the Republicans are crazy over opposing the idea of getting those that can afford to pay more to do so. They would rather cut spending to the point of crippling the country instead of distributing the pain and still it will fail to lower the deficit, because just cutting spending can not fix the problem by itself.

They would rather cut spending to the point of crippling the country

Iowa - Guy - Would you prefer an economy that is dependent on government spending to maintain it? As for taxing the rich it will make no difference either way. There simply isn't enough money there to satisfy government spending. The only thing that can same our government for ultimately going into bankruptcy is for it to clean up its operation. Every time this comes up the Republicans blame the Democrats, the Democrats blame the Republicans and the merry go round ride to bankruptcy continues unabated.

In the past, they promised to both raise taxes and cut spending, but what they did was to raise taxes and then raise spending even more. I'd gladly pay more tax if I thought they were really going to balance the budget with them rather than just develop further programs.