Romney's tax plan favors the wealthiest by offering earners in the top 20% an average tax cut of more than $16,000 while raising taxes on the bottom 20% of earners.

So Romney is for redistribution of wealth; he just want it to trickle upward.

obama is a crooked thief...just look what he did in chicago

Why shouldn't the wealthiest get a cut, bayllie? I mean, at present, they pay somewhere around 90% of all income tax paid. The bottom 20% should pay more....the botton 50%, actually....because they presently pay NOTHING!

Um, you do realize that neither progressive taxes (where the rich pay a higher percentage) nor the Earned Income Credit (under which poor households don't pay federal income tax) originated under President Obama, correct? He didn't change the tax system.

Having said that, the top 1% pays a SMALLER percentage than middle class families, mostly due to much lower taxes on capital gains. You may recall that Willard paid less than 14% in taxes. And of course, every single household pays taxes, through sales tax, payroll tax and state tax.

Clotho - but for the Republicans it would be even more unfair to the productive taxpayers, however.

Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.”

Too bad his policies focus on making it a fair outcome and not a fair shot. Of course by "fair" I mean equal despite efforts or results.

Having said that, the top 1% pays a SMALLER percentage than middle class families, mostly due to much lower taxes on capital gains. You may recall that Willard paid less than 14% in taxes. And of course, every single household pays taxes, through sales tax, payroll tax and state tax.

Wrong on so many levels...first....Capital Gains Taxes. Long term Capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, because that money has already been taxed at the corporate rate of 35 percent. Thus, when you pay the Capital Gains, that brings your total tax burden on the profits you make from the company you invested in to 45 percent. This is just math.

As to payroll taxes...those are your contributions to money you are promised to receive later by the government...Social Security and Medicare. That's YOUR money allegedly being "invested" on your behalf by the Feds. Don't want to pay payroll taxes, then do away with SS & Medicare, keep your money and invest it yourself...You would come out ahead in the long run.

State Taxes are irrelevant to this discussion. Each state funds its operations differently, so adding state taxes into the mix invalidates the comparison.

Bottom line, in the area of Federal Taxes, the top 1 percent pay not only a greater amount of total taxes, but also pay a greater percent of their income than the "99 percent." Again, this is all public record.

If you wanted a truly "fair" federal tax system, then all taxes would be "use" taxes and one "head" tax that everyone paid and it would be the same. "Use" taxes being gasoline taxes & Airline ticket fees and the like. A "head" tax is to cover stuff that is not measured by "cost per use," like the military and then Federal court system. Every Citizen would have to pay it...even children (parents pay for them). It would be the same for everyone because, as we all know, each of our lives is valued the same.

the great divide lies in their approach to the economy (among other things):

Clinton's policies led to prosperity, Bush's tax cut for the rich gave the wealth away to the rich

Bush's policies led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, Obama has tried very hard to salvage the nation, including bailing out the auto industry which Romney opposed.

Now the economy is recovering, another Repugnant wants to mess up, Missy Romney, that is.

Voters, you will decide if Romney will get away with things Bush got away with, leaving the nation in shambles.

We are not broke. The money has only been redistributed to a few people.

Demand is not dead. We still have a trade deficit for manufactured goods - driven by demand.

The majority of our work force is still working. The majority of the rich still do not need to work.

We do not have a shortage of profits. We have a shortage of jobs.

Conservatives are upset that Obama has not made trickle down economics work - no one can do that.

Ah, yes the myth that we are broke. The government is not the Economy. The government has a deficit; the country is awash in money. Never in our history, or in that of any other country, has there been such a massive accumulation of wealth. Our companies are reaping record profits and sitting on them. We have more billionaires and millionaires than ever. We also have a political system that seeks to ensure that they keep and grow their wealth without any obligation to the country that made them rich.

Capitalism rewards work - free enterprise rewards risk.

Capitalism relies on JOBS.
Free enterprise relies on GAMBLING.

We need to stop GAMBLING on free enterprise economics - and - get back to work.

Wrong on so many levels...first....Capital Gains Taxes. Long term Capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, because that money has already been taxed at the corporate rate of 35 percent.

You know what, that is just so much BS! First of all, the original earnings may, I say may, have been taxed at 35% ( the rich have armies of accountants who make sure that their tax levels never rise to 35%), but the gains made by Capital gains do not tax the original gains, they only tax whatever gains have been made by investments - they tax the increase made by investments, NOT the original investment! Where the hell do you get the idea they have been taxed twice!

Frankly, I do not care! The fact is, only the the rich prosper from capital gain tax reductions. The rest of society, who must spend all of their income on just staying alive, gain NOTHING from capital gains tax reductions; the only ones who gain are the rich; those who don't have to worry about anything but what their investemsnts make!

EE

I make about $6000 per year in Capital Gains. I'M NOT RICH! I'm retired. I get 1400 per month SS and 3300 per month pension. I SAVED MY MONEY and bought DIVIDEND PAYING STOCKS FOR MY RETIREMENT. So now I have a $101,000 portfolio. Now just how am I a RICH???? I built that 101,000 portfolio on minimum wage at the start and added to it as my wages got bigger.

The more I here obama's rhetoric the more I think he wants us to the way of the USSR and Greece. He is anti business and anti success.

Romney has become popular among the young movers and the shakers, as well as the working middle class. That says a lot but means nothing, unless the AIPAC Congress are voted out and held to account. The current mood is ugly to say the least. Forget promise and resurrection, a sore, embattled public are baying for blood

EEngineer: Your 1st line is the gwaddamndest pack of bullsh^t people put out. I earn money with people I hire, and equipment I buy. I pay taxes on profit and keep what's left. Now and then I use some of the money I kept to buy more equipment. I then earn money with it. I pay the same percentage in taxes as earnings by the other equipment. I invest it in myself and the people I use. Sure, I write the cost of the equipment and people off. I could lose, and earn nary a cent, so my investment is at risk. Why do you people think you are entitled to pay less taxes on money earned on investments? I got news for you. You're not! Pissy, begging logic!

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income - just like working for wages. Income is taxed by a progressive rate system - the smaller the income the lower the tax rate. A retired person or very small investor would probably pay less taxes as income as they currently do as capital gains.

The income for a business owner is a cost - like any other labor cost - not a profit. Funds specifically set aside for expanding the business is a cost - not a profit. A prudent business owner plans for their own income and for setting aside capital to expand their business.

Profit is money left after all the bills are paid. A business owner that uses profits for income is maximizing their income by avoiding creating jobs and by paying the lowest possible wages. We do not need businesses that operate that way. A business owner that relies on profits is not planning for their own income or planning for the future of their business - they are gambling their future on profits. That is extremely poor business management.

The reason most business owners want to use profit for their income - is because our government policy is to reward profit - not to reward working for income. Business owners gamble for profit instead of working for income because of the tax incentives to do that.

Mac, why are you wasting your time trying to run a business delivering products and services. You will pay substantially less taxes and make a much larger profit if you use money to make money. This is exactly what Romney and his rich buddies do, they don't have any income, only capitial gains. Income gets taxed a a rate of up to %35 while capitial gains, provided you hold on to the investment for 1 year, tops out at %15. There's some math for ya, and instant %20 increase on your investment. Don't normally get that kind of return on investment producing goods and services now do ya. Of course you do have to have a pretty good down payment to join this club and make enough to survive. Maybe you should follow Romney's financial plan, ask your parents for start up monies just like he did.

Reporter and article is biased. The argument Clinton is academia, (like Obama), REALLY? Clinton was governor of Arkansas. What about Clinton's WHITEWATER REAL ESTATE SCANDAL?

@Mountain Man-3039418 #2.18: Ha,ha,ha,ha. Parents huh? I do both, and have for many, many, many years. I get a real kick out of paying at one rate on earnings and another, much less on investment profits. I especially get a real kick on claims by some that invested money should be taxed at a lower rate, since the money used to invest was saved from already taxed income. Why use the bullsh^t hypocrisy to justify something that is just pure bullsh^t? I'll go along with it for retirement. Otherwise, for those like Romney, it's a gwaddamn slick ride. I really think you are in agreement with me in a sarcastic way. Whether I'm right or not I'm gonna vote you up. Regards

EEngineer #2.12: Made an ass of myself. Didn't read your post right the first time. Sincerely apoligize to you. Hell, you're arguing the same as I, but with much better articulation. You're quite good. Please ignore my silliness and continue. I'll shut up and get the hell out of your way. Best regards

The tax system is not used for redistribution of anything. Yes, hard work deserves reward, but that can also mean that labor that works hard deserves reward and investors who put up some money and then sit on their backsides doing no hard work whatsoever deserve exactly to the amount of sweat equity that they put in. It's real hard work to put up the money you inherited from daddy and expect 10-15% return with no effort whatsoever. And why is that distinction relevant? Because when Romney talks about profits, he means profits for only those people rich enough to invest with his private equity firm, Bain Capital. It's a fair bet that nobody posting on this forum has enough money to buy-in on Bain's schemes.

The people Romney laid off worked hard. Romney's backers who got the profit...not breaking a sweat ever unless it's lying in the sun in the tropics. Remember that Churchill said that capitalism is only the best choice of a pack of bad choices. What Bain does is the worst of capitalism, making profit for the rich without adding one cent to the overall health of the nation's economy.

Jon-1321288 #2.22: I'll bet you are correct. Regards

And that's not to mention that the President got it right when he said the responsibility of the President of the United States is not to simply make profits for your rich investors. As President, your responsibility is to look after the welfare of every citizen in the country, not just the rich. It is to create a country where all can prosper, not only those born with riches.

That notion of opportunity is something Obama understands and Romney does not. Governments are a non-profit enterprise in the best of times, and show a negative balance sheet when necessary to get through hard times. Our country is exceptional in that we ask for shared responsibility from all of our citizens, and share that load financially according to each citizens ability to pay financially. That principle has made this country successful, and if we, as a nation, seem less successful today, I will say it is because we have stopped asking the most well off to contribute their fair share. When the middle class pays tax at 33% of their income and the millionaires at 17% (Bush administration figures), we are going off course and asking the little guy to cover for the big lazy guy's vacation.

I consider myself an independent voter, but going back to the Reagan days and with the only exception having been Perot, I’ve always voted Republican. All this single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go! This is the problem with our country. It shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and it's citizens.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide. (Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals or cheap easily abused labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA)

We need whoever wins the next election to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. They've got to give us somebody who will stand up for the American people.

We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

I guess we should keep letting Corp Boards, Wall Street, CEOs and Foreign Lobbyists promote sending US jobs to countries where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or no real environment regulations. How's that been working for us?

The so called “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "out sourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world’s customer base out of work. I’m not a lefty or member of any union. I run a business that employs over 20 people and produces products that are purchased by customers that do manufacturing and packaging. I’m just an average Joe, but I've been saying this for more than 10 years now. If I can see it, so can our so called leaders (political leaders) who are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

We need to add tariffs that are proportionate to the inequities in wages and regulations in the country where the goods were produced and or where we’re importing them from. We could then use the money raised by these tariffs to help companies build state of the art manufacturing plants here in the USA, which would create more jobs here at home for US citizens, which would then in turn increase our income tax revenue.

Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let’s keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

These so-called “free trade agreements” have to go. It was obvious when they were passing these agreements as to what was going to happen and sure enough it did. Our leaders had to have known this as well when they were passing these bills. It’s just common sense. We also need to bring customer support services back to the United States of America and staff them with employees who are US Citizens.

The “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field! The whole idea of the tariffs is so we can pay our factory workers a decent wage and not be blown out by these other countries where they don’t play by the same rules.

We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect American industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to Stop Illegal immigration! They’re not just doing jobs that Americans don't want. Do they pay taxes? Don't get me wrong most of these people work very hard, but are a drain on the system if they don't pay taxes, have healthcare coverage, learn the language or get paid wages that are in line with their American counterparts. Who’s footing the bill for the education of their children and the infrastructure around them? We all know that the health care provided to uninsured illegals here in the states is being averaged into our hospital costs and our insurance premiums, which have proportionately increased along with illegal immigration over the last 20 years? These costs are also being passed along to Medicaid and Medicare, which means that not only are they increasing our insurance premiums, but that we’re paying for them again with our tax dollars.

Our tax dollars and insurance premiums should not be used to recoup the cost of healthcare given to illegal immigrants, who shouldn't even be here in our country in the first place.

To the people that disagree, we should ask them should this: If a few illegal immigrants knocked on your door and demanded that you pay some medical bills for them, would you pay them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devastating Health Insurance Cost Increases

We just got a notice that the cost of the healthcare coverage that we provide to our employees is increasing by 33% for those of us with the POS plan and 36% for our employees who selected the cheaper HMO version of our plan. Yet our company has had to hold or reduce our own prices over the last 4 years and even going back into the late 90’s we were lucky if we could even increase our prices 3-4% a year. How do these insurance companies justify these types of increases? Last year was the only year that their increases were even close to within reason and that’s only because they were being challenged. If health insurance premiums increased double or even triple the rate of inflation we’d probably be able to accept it, but the ridiculous annual increase percentages over the past 10-12 years have been devastating to our business and our employees. Something needs to be done. I didn’t vote for President Obama and I know that the plan that they passed is not ideal, but at least he had the guts to take this issue on. I consider myself an independent voter, but going back to the Reagan days and with the only exception having been Perot, I’ve always voted Republican. So I’m not a lefty, yet I believe that every U.S. Citizen deserves basic healthcare coverage.

I run a business that employs just over 20 people and neither our company nor our employees can afford this anymore. We’re paying 65% and our employees are paying the balance. About 15 years ago we were paying 100%, then about 10 years ago had to cut it to 75% and then a few years back to 65%.

It doesn’t matter who fixes it – Just Fix It.

All this single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull crap has got to go! This is the problem with our country. It shouldn’t be about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and it’s citizens.

Question: do illegal immigrants pay taxes?

Answer: Yes, and when you do the analysis and add up the numbers they may even pay at a rate higher than millionaires in some states.

Why?: They pay sales tax whenever they buy something. they pay property tax indirectly through their landlord if they rent some housing, which they pretty much all have to. If they work under a false Social Security Number, they get SSI and Medicaire taxes deducted from their paycheck with no ability to get a refund.

Considering all of the above, and the fact that illegal immigrants work at very low wage jobs, they probably pay around 20% of their income in state, local and federal taxes, if not more. According to the Bush administration, people with an income of $400K or higher per year paid 16% of their income in taxes. Romney paid, what was it, 13.7%.

Let's stop blaming our woes on some poor people from south of the border, and start asking those that benefit the most from our system to pay a little bit more, rather than creating a society that will only breed a generation of Bernie Madoffs. The poor people will always come when our economy is strong, that they come should be a good omen for our welfare, there is no way we can stop it.

In fact, we, as a country have one of our biggest monuments to glorify that migration: it's called the Statue of Liberty for those of you who have forgotten. And don't give me your Bs about "what don't you understand about illegal?". That is an empty argument and answered by "what don't you understand about reality?". When a person of ability and ambition is born is a country with no opportunity, they will cross an artificial border (and all national borders are artificial), to seek opportunity for themselves and their family. That is the answer to you technical illegality. Your argument, in a debate, in defeated by "hwat do you not understand about logical?", because your thesis is not logical.

Mike-1499840

What corporation do you know of that paid 35 % tax? 69% of all corporations avoid paying any tax by paying a dividend to it's investors. The tax burden is then shifted to the investor, who pays 15 % on their capital gains. These are known as S corporations by the IRS. Check out the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

And the "war on success" continues,,,,,

As we know, honesty is usually checked at the door when it comes to political campaigns. This campaign is easy to sum up. As Howard Cosell would say: "In the blue corner we have the defending champion of the presidential elections, defender of communism, marxism and socialism..... the right to be taken care of no matter what... the man who proves that you don't have to know anything to be successful in America.... King Barrack Hussein Obama!.... In the red corner we have the newly declared contender to the throne, defender of freedom, free-markets and capitalism... the right to keep the money you earn, successful entrepreneur and man who knows how to get it done... Willard Mitt Romney!"

"Folks, this is indeed the battle of the century. The defending champion is trying to accomplish what no man has accomplished before. He is trying to prove that socialism can in fact work. He faces an enormous task as never in the history of mankind has it ever worked. But, his call for more money, more taxes and more spending has struck a nerve with some voters. His defenders believe that they have been blocked by republicans from spending enough and taxing enough. Time will tell."

The middle class is larger than the rich and the poor combined. The rich can take care of themselves. The middle class takes care of the poor when the middle class can afford to. That is the way societies have operated throughout recorded history.

We do not need a government that favors the rich.
We do not need a government that favors the poor.

We need a middle class government.

We need a government that favors labor instead of profits. We need a government that favors wages instead of debt. We need a government that favors running a business instead of lending capital.

Socialism for the rich - for the capital investor - is no better than socialism for the poor.

@tweet #2.27,

I am not sure how to tell you this .... but you are just plain WRONG !

"C" corporations pay taxes, and my company's effective tax rate is close to 32.8% federal and 6.6% to the states we file returns in.

"S" corporations are indeed, "flow-through" entities where the income passes through to the shareholders on an 1120-S K-1 form. But the nature of the income remains the same. So, if it is ordinary income to the corporation, then it is ordinary income to the shareholder.

The concept that it is merely paid as dividends and magically gets capital gains treatment by the share holder is misleading, if not totally false. There are a few ways a capital gain could be earned at the S-corporation level and then be passed through, but this is the exception.

S-corporations do, however, avoid double taxation that C-corporation shareholders will face when such C-corporation pays dividends from retained earnings that have already been taxed.

I cannot vote for Obama again because if I do things will stay like this another 4 years. I cannot stomach 4 more years of the kind of graft and corruption this administration has brought.

And another thing, the number of Americans working has decreased over 8 million (net) under Obama counting those that have given up.

The 5 presidents preceding Obama kept 132 million working. Obama has only 124 million working.

So Obama is to be the god of all fairness? This should scare the hell out of everyone center and right. It is not the governments job to legislate fairness. Equal opportunity yes, equal outcome, not just no but HELL NO! Besides, there are about 330,000,000 opinions on whats fair, and Obama's shouldn't count anymore than anyone else.

@hardtostarboard - You believe that rewarding someone that does not work for the reward is wrong?

When was the last time Mitt Romney worked for his reward?

Money does not create money. Only work creates money. Investing is simply a sophisticated way to take money out of a working persons pocket.

Socialism for the rich is not any better than socialism for the poor.

Great post hardtostarboard ! Nermy still thinks companies like Solyndra that have failed and gone out of business continue to provide jobs !!

@jim-1455434 -- Even your post admits that Solyndra created jobs. Thanks for the confirmation.

Short term jobs are better than no jobs.
Part time jobs are better than no jobs.

Mitt Romney has not even paid his 2011 taxes yet. Is that fair??

Nerm_L, OK, I'll bite, I would for the most part agree with your first statement, with the exception of making allowances for those who are incapable of supporting themselves, a position shared by 100% of all right wing types like myself, contrary to what the left like to say and believesabout us. By what logic you use to apply this to Mitt Romney escapes me however as he earned his wealth through any number of legal activities that generated income from his efforts. What he chooses to do with his time is of no concern to me so long as it doesn't involve something illegal.

As for your theory of investment, that depends on how you invest. If you take a high risk/ high reward approach, anything can happen from losing it all to fabulous wealth. Taking a more conservative line will guarantee a positive return on your investment but you may not be satisfied with the results. I am a working man, I have all the typical working man expenses like home mortgage, insurance, utilities, food, gas, college for my kids and so on. I've managed to do quite well on $55K/year total income before taxes. I take some money from each paycheck and put it into a 401K. We have purchased other stocks over the years as well. To date the total value of our investments is in the $100,000's. So don't even try argue with me that it's only the rich who benefit from investment, anyone can if I can.

Finally, it isn't Mitt Romney's, rich republicans, rich democrats, or rich people in general's fault that some people are struggling. There are consequences for life choices and @!$%# happens, it could happen to me tomorrow. That said, our benevolent government has made it way to easy for people to live off those of us who are working and paying taxes. I KNOW millions of people are abusing the system to every ones determent, especially their own. It must stop.

Republicans have been redistributing wealth upwards since Reagan, time for some balancing.

@hardtostarboard -- Good - an honest discussion. While my response may not be academically correct - I am trying to explain in understandable terms.

The economy is the only source of wealth - money backed by real or tangible value. New wealth (new money backed by real value) - growth - does not magically appear - that new wealth is generated within the economy.

New wealth (new money backed by real value) is only generated by work - by applying labor to a resource to create something of greater value. A carpenter applies labor to assemble lumber into a house. An inventor applies intellectual labor to produce knowledge beyond prior knowledge. The only generator of new money - growth - in the economy is by doing work.

Investing uses wealth created in the past (old money) to obtain a portion of new wealth. Existing wealth (old money) does not create new wealth (growth) - only work creates new wealth. A return on investment requires redistributing new wealth created from work from those doing the the work to those that invested the wealth created in the past. Investing redistributes new wealth (new money backed by real value) from workers to the investor.

An investor does not contribute to creation of new wealth - only work generates new wealth. That work (and new wealth) can be created without an investor. An investor cannot capture a share of that new wealth without a worker.

Right now our economy is not creating new wealth (money backed by real value) to support itself. That is why we have high levels of both public and private debt. Our economy is creating new money based on debt - not new wealth (money backed by real value).

In order to heal itself, our economy needs to be producing more new wealth - more real value - and less new money based on debt. The only way our economy can do that is with more workers and fewer investors.

We know there is demand in the economy - that is why we still have a large trade deficit for manufactured goods. We need to be supplying that demand with real values produced in our economy. Supplying that demand from our own economy means we will need more workers.

Right now our government policy is to reward investors more than workers with tax preferences, regulatory preferences, and trade preferences. Until the government changes those policy preferences toward work and away from investing - our economy is not going to heal itself.

That is reason behind the tax the rich, regulate banks and finance, tax Wall Street - to change the government policy incentives away from investors and toward work.

@hardtostarboard -- Over the last 30 years, our government has instituted policy preferences that are 'business friendly' - rewarding investors and ignoring workers..

Does any of this sound familiar?

- lower taxes for the wealthy to free up capital for investment
- reduce regulations to spur investment
- end unions - lower business cost - lower wages and increase productivity
- deregulate banks to encourage private sector borrowing to create artificial demand

Does this look familiar?

more capital (money) = speculative investing = inflation = debt = more money (capital)

Rinse, spin, repeat.

That is why our public and private debt has increased dramatically over the last 30 years. Our monetary system has been devalued by investing and debt. Our economy has been creating money instead of wealth.

So Prez O was "forced" to cut a deal with the powerful health insurance industry. Does ANYONE KNOW what the ceo of United HealthCare took Home for 2008 Salary? Hold onto your hats: $128,000,000 *C A S H* WHILE, Mind You, their paid policyHolders were denied and DIED. The fact that America HAS NO Universal HealthCare System like the other countries, which take care of their citizens, instead of fattening the wallets of the EVIL Rich and paying for THEIR Unending Wars, IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE... Yeah, A lot of US are mad at Prez O, he let the $4.00+Gas and oil go by without a nod. AND that shaking hands with karzai of afghan after what he said????? "thanks sucker taxpayers..." NONEtheless has anybody got an idea what republicanCrimeCartelSoldierRommel will do to US and ANY economic progress made?? He will GUT US LIKE A FLAPPIN' FISH ON THE DOCK.....You're gonna' see Unemployment up to 30% and NO Social Security..Gotta Pay for New Wars And NO MEDICAL CARE AND "healthcare" policies cost SKYROCKET out of control. Don't fall for the republicanCrimeCartelPropaganda and just say NO!!! to MittTaxPittanceRommel.

Here's the rundown on Mitt Romney's devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital, a tenure marked by bankruptcies, bailouts, and mass layoffs — all while Romney and his partners raked in Billions of Dollars in profits for the firm and Romney himself amassed a Quarter-Billion Dollar Fortune.
Romney's Bain Capital Caused Mass Layoffs, Sent Jobs Overseas
Thousands of Americans were laid off by Bain Capital at companies it purchased, managed, and, at least a quarter of the time, drove into bankruptcy, ruining Lives, Destroying Careers and Families including Many Many Suicides While stuffing his pockets, Keeping his Darling son OUT of service to his country with the line "My son is Fulfilling his Patriotic Duty by helping me get elected"...Got that one?? and, Of Course, installing the InHouse car elevator for his "darling little boy's $180,000Ferrari....Listen Up People...This guy IS Count Dracula Incarnate.....Hope you are following this WitlessRunner..........

TO: dont mess with texsas who wrote:

"obama is a crooked thief...just look what he did in chicago"

Uh, what did he do in Chicago?

Whatever you THINK he did, Illinois went to Obama, not just once but twice, so that tells me whatever he did was pretty darn good.

Illinois voted Obama in as Senator, then again as President of the United States, and Illinois is going to Obama again come November.

Obama/Biden 2012

"Fair" is rapidly becoming the latest addition to the long list of 4-letter words in our national vocabulary. Liberals need to get over it: life ain't fair and never will be. All any of us can do is make our way as best we can without depending on Uncle Sugar to provide everything for us.

If you can't start a business on your own or perpetuate what someone else has started, then dig ditches, work in a warehouse, etc, whatever it takes to support yourself and your family. I haven't heard such a bunch of whining and crying over "fairness" since I sat on the ground as a three year old and told my daddy it wasn't fair.

Apparently Obama is still trying to turn us into a nation of whiners and criers instead of a nation of doers. Remeber, doers do, whiners whine.

Nope. All Democrats want is to support the American Dream. The idea that anyone who works hard and earns success can achieve it. Thanks to the corporate and billionaire controlled government, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Someone who is born into a poor family has almost no chance of achieving success, even if he/ she does everything right and plays by the rules. Obviously, the rich want to keep the money in their own hands. Read Charles Dickens, especially "Great Expectations", for a reminder of the 19th century, when only the wealthy could become educated.

President Obama is actually representative of what the American Dream can be. He started his life poor, with a single mother on food stamps. By working hard, he put himself through top colleges and law school, and became President of the United States. By contrast, Republicans want to keep the royal families like the Bushes and Romneys in control. The Democratic Party is trying to return the government to the people, as in "by the people and for the people."

Right Bob, life isn't fair. All this jibberish regarding a "Fair playing field" points only to Communism, and more Government control. Consider me a DOER, where I have worked hard, made wise decisions, and never asked from the Government. Yes, life is rough, but I was lucky enough to have close family and friends to lean on.

Advantages are taken, not handed out, in a Republic. I for one am a believer in true freedom. Thats a message to the Liberal/Communist Left that think I'm not smart enough to spend my own money the way I see fit. I'm angry about a lot of things, none more than Pro-Government bottom feeders telling me where my hard earned money should go.

Clotho....that all sounds great, but JUST KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY WALLET to achieve your utopian dream where some monolithic entity is going to save everyone. Some of us want NO PART of more Government Intervention into our personal lives.

You know what, the real problem is not what is "fair". The real problem is the socialization of losses (bail;outs, government "aid" because companies are too big to fail) and the privatization of profits (keep your hands off of my profit, in the way of taxes) but stand ready to help me when I make a stupid decision that costs me money!

You can't have it both ways! But the Republicans are convinced that this is the only way!

Okay EEngineer - who signed the 2009 Budget?

JUST KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY WALLET

Why don't YOU keep YOUR party out of our vaginas? Why don't you stop your party from limiting MY freedoms? Your party says 'freedom and liberty' but don't miss a beat when your party tries to limit the rights of others.

By the way, taxes are lower than ever and government spending is well under ALL republican presidents over the last 30 plus years. The republican lies are about to crumble.

DB Akron #3.6: GW Bush.

Rage on, but the truth is your wallet is most likely empty. None of you would have a rat's chance of investing in Bain, even if you had anything to invest. Bain is only for the big boys, and us big boys know that profit for investors and benefit for the country's economy are not connected. Yeah, life isn't fair, and we are so glad that there are so many people out there, that, even though the ways things are hurt them, support us. That's how we survive (and why we rich Republicans argue against investment in education).

Self employed - - I couldn't agree with you more. Bang on. I am so sick of this fairness crap I could die. I just pray that enough people come to their senses in November and we get this clod and his clan out of Washington.

Mac you would be WRONG!

Barak Obama did because Bush refused to sign the bill becuase the spending exceeded what he had sent congress. The Democrats did not have the votes to override a Bush Veto, so they waited until Obama could sign. There was also an Omnibus bill of $56 Billion, not included in the budget numbers that Bush also had vetoed that the democrats sent to Obama that Obama also signed.

http://www.nchv.org/news_article.cfm?id=506

right-on SELF!!

"with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because the end will still come at the appointed time." Daniel 11:27b NIV

@D B Akron #3.11: Actually DB they both signed it. Bush signed off through either July or August, and Obama picked it up in September. Bush did sign off on the defense budget for the whole fiscal year.

selfemployed-1951031

Enough of the "fairness" crap from Obama. Life is not fair. Too bad. The government can't make it fair.

Life was never fair. But it was a hell of a lot closer to fair before we started giving tax breaks to the companies and the wealthy while neglecting social services to the middle and working classes, like education. And actually, the government made it unfair with trickle-down economics, so in theory it can make things fairer by returning to the more successful Keynesian (demand-side) economics.

He has been the biggest dividing president in history. Constantly trying to create a war on this or that. Whatever the libs can come up with.

Hmm, how about the GOP engaging on a war on women by trying to use government-mandated vaginal probes, limiting the ability of women to get abortions, and attacking their reproductive rights??? What about the uncompromising nature of the GOP??? What about how the GOP plotted Obama's demise on the day of his inauguration??? The GOP is the real divider, so I would advise you to shut up.

Obviously he and his minions are getting desperate and will stop at nothing to try to get another term. The worst president ever. Horrible policies, endless lawsuits, unconstitutional agendas, one made up crisis after another. It will be a relief to get him out of office.

Not really. His policies have actually helped create 4.25 million jobs, reversed the recession, has actually decreased government spending, and has introduced real and effective health reform. Sorry for you right-wing bastards, but you're just gonna have to deal with Obama until 2016...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TO: selfemployed-1951031 who wrote:

"Enough of the "fairness" crap from Obama. Life is not fair..."

I think American Workers deserve to be treated "fairly" and not be taken advantage of, and apparently Ronald Reagan thought so too because Reagan was the one who forced businesses to invest in profit sharing so that when businesses became so big, Reagan forced them to share their profits with their employees who are the ones who help businesses become successful.

I don't believe it's "out of line" for American Workers to be concerned with "quality of life" issues, or for American Workers to be paid a fair wage.

It's probably your kind of thinking that forced President Obama to create Obamacare, because businesses were NOT treating their employees fairly when it came to health care benefits.

Obama/Biden 2012

GoJoBiden

Whatsamatta....Joe Biden is "chopped liver" now?

looks like someone is in love with Joe Bidden...Joe Biden this, Joe Biden that....

LosMan

Seems to me that Obama promised a lot and all we got was the second Clinton administration. He has failed in his hope and change. He has really FAILED in his "bringing us all together". So exactly what specifics of Obama's were you impressed with? Everything that he was specific about that helped him get elected was BS. GITMO is still around and one war has been escalated.

And if you got your Pell grant and learned all you needed to learn to get a good job, great. But I question how the heck you did it in just a couple of years. You must be a very fast learner.

bayllie - Joe Biden is like my pet, stupid, but you gotta love him. I certainly wouldn't want him to run my house or this great country.

bayllie - Joe Biden is like my pet, stupid, but you gotta love him. I certainly wouldn't want him to run my house or this great country.

JH, as stupid as you claim Biden is, he still did not bankrupt 2 companies and a country like whats-his-name president- the one that Republicans stay away from like an illegitimate gay child.

baylLIE

You need to more specific. Who bankrupted two companies and a country? The only person I can think of is Obama. Except the number of bankruptcy's under Obama's reign is far greater than two.

And just exactly what is wrong with a gay child? Are you some kind of homophobe?

I think bayllie is saying that Republicans would shy from a child who is gay and born out of wedlock. Ironically, they would also be forcing the mother to have the child.

And who's paying for that Pell Grant, Los Man? I am. (Just to note: I have a teenager heading to college next year so while I think the costs are outrageous, I'm not asking my fellow taxpayers to ante up the money for it).

Re-distribution on wealth? Get off your a** and save the money to pay for it yourself.

JH-479998

You need to more specific. Who bankrupted two companies and a country? The only person I can think of is Obama.

Nope, wrong: George W. Bush is your man.

You need to more specific. Who bankrupted two companies and a country? The only person I can think of is Obama.

Are you nuts?? George W. Bush bankrupted every company he was a part of:

1. Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
2. Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
3. Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
   • A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.
4. In his book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, John W. Dean explains that his family name and his father's prominence were significant factors in George W. Bush's business "success", or, were significant factors in repeated saves from serious business and financial failures. Both Arbusto/Bush Exploration and Spectrum 7 failed with Bush as chairman and CEO. At Harken, Mr. Bush was relieved of day-to-day management responsibilities but still served on the board of directors.

As far as Obama goes:

...the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.

April 2012 marks the 26th straight month of gains in private-sector employment, for a total of 4.2 million private-sector jobs.

DJIA Dec 1, 2008 = 8149

DJIA May 19, 2012 = 12369

Dec 29, 2008 U.S. corporate earnings probably fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.

May 11, 2012 Fortune magazine released its ranking of the 500 biggest US corporations Monday, which showed that they received a record-breaking $824 billion in combined profits in 2011, up 16 percent from 2010.

You know what, I don't consider any part of that a failure! What planet are you from?

EEngineer

George W. Bush bankrupted every company he was a part of:

If you said every Oil company he was a part of, you'd be correct. He as part owner of the Texas Rangers not only turned around a team with a recent history of losing, but also restored them to profitablilty.

He was the first 2 term Governor in 40 year in Texas and he left that state in the black.

So what happened in DC?

The answer lies in many places, but the final straw is who signed the Fiscal 2009 Budget, or was one even passed in congress.

I have some issues with your post.

1. April 2012 marks the 26th straight month of gains in private-sector employment, for a total of 4.2 million private-sector jobs.

Now for us to have 26 straight months of job growth wouldn't we have 26 straight months of MORE people being employed? So right off the bat your fact is bogus.

From the BLS.

March 2012----142,034,000

April 2012------141,865,000

Now that is a DECREASE of 169,000. Doesn't GROWTH mean INCREASE?? I challenge you to list the 26 straight months of INCREASED numbers of EMPLOYED people.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Click on Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS12000000
Scroll to bottom and click Retrieve Data for the Chart.

2. Dec 29, 2008 U.S. corporate earnings probably fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.

Now what is with the word "PROBABLY"? Either they fell for a sixth straight quarter or they didn't. WHICH IS IT?

3.DJIA Dec 1, 2008 = 8149

DJIA May 19, 2012 = 12369

Where do you think the $2.35 Trillion in QE1 and QE2 funds go?? Here is a graph that will show the correlation of the QE's and the Stock Market.

http://blog.kerntrends.com/the-effects-of-qe1-qe2

Now that is the reason for the Stock Market raising.

4. May 11, 2012 Fortune magazine released its ranking of the 500 biggest US corporations Monday, which showed that they received a record-breaking $824 billion in combined profits in 2011, up 16 percent from 2010.

Just how much of that record profit came from OVER SEAS? Since our Economy is in the tank they had to make most their money OUTSIDE the US.

Now it is your turn. Please show sources for your statements.

bayllie @ 4.4: "JH, as stupid as you claim Biden is, he still did not bankrupt 2 companies and a country like whats-his-name president- the one that Republicans stay away from like an illegitimate gay child."

It certainly looks like Ms. bailie is a homophobe. You believe an illegitimate gay child is funny? I thought you Democrats were the tolerant ones, the politically correct ones, the fair ones.

Eeingineer - you're wasting your time

- these neaderthals were hiding in there caves to spew their rasicism

Just read another idiot who said Obama killed Jews!

Why not? He's responsible for global warming - and let's go further he impregnated your daughter while she screamed for help

And your wife ran off with another man because you beat her - Obama's fault

Grow up - you uneducated - lilly white beer bellys are going to be a thing of the past - why because you screwed around and didn't make or keep babies

Welcome to the 21st Century when you will be the minority - let's see how they treat you

Someone once said what goes around comes around!

BAJ is such an obvious hater. No she's not a racist. LOL True hate lives on the left. No doubt about that. Don't like white people ? Want retribution ? Good luck. You are going to be the endangered species. You, and everybody who thinks like you.

If you are letting a politician Democrat or Republican "create" a job for you or "destroy your life" you are an idiot. Go stake your own claim in life and don't let political rhetoric keep you from achieving your goals...

He created over 125,000 between 4 companies. If you don't understand "capital" and/or how private investments work then you shouldn't be commenting. If it wasn't for private investors, hundreds of companies would be out of business and our unemployment rate would be much, much higher.

Lukewarm,

I'm afraid that it is you who does not understand the role of private investment firms. Their whole reason for existence is to increase the wealth of their investors, not to create jobs. In point of fact, job destruction is more likely to be the strategy most often used by such firms because they lower costs and increase profits. To the extent that jobs may be added in a specific case, they are incidental and not the main goal. Now, there is nothing wrong with that per se. It is o.k. for any of us to seek increased profits, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with job creation, or that being a good investment banker qualifies you to become president. The other issue that gets ignored is the relative value of the jobs created. Mr. Romney brags about the creation of jobs at Staples and Sports Authority. most of which are for sales clerks and service personnel. Without belittling those folks, who are engaged in honest work, we can certainly appreciate that they don't have get the same pay and benefit as the manufacturing jobs that have been shipped offshore by venture capitalists in the pursuit of profits.

Pmack

While at Bain, there were about 100,000 jobs created from their ventures. Bain's real forte is in saving companies that are about to close their doors because they were losing big money. 80% of Bain invested companies have grown or survived.

The biggest failure Bain experienced was the steel company. Bain invested 100 million in the Missouri steel company. Within 2 years the company had a huge profit and Bain then took aobut $160 million of the profits. But the story doesn't end their. Competition caused the profits to shrink over the next 2 years, so Bain Bought a North Carolina Steel company for millions to improve efficiency and also re-invested millions of Bain capital PLUS $250 million from the fed to modernize the plants to regain efficiency and profitablility.

Unfair competition plus the defection of a key steel executive from the North Carolina plant, the company fell into a losing spiral was clearly not going to Recover.

The steel companies closed with a $500 million in unpaid debt including the federal improvement loan.

Obama's is making a bigger mistake than Gingrich made against Romney in the Florida debate where Gingrich WRONGLY tried to tie Romney as an active investor in Freddie and Fannie, when Romney's investing has been done for years by a blind trustee who choses where to invest Romney's money.

This attack is a collassal mistake. Obama blaming Romney for the Steel company failure when Romney had not been at Bain for over two years when the steel company collapsed. Worse yet One of Obama's bundlers is a current Bain partner, who ordered and oversaw the closing of the steel plants.

Romney must be a lot cleaner than I ever thought. Obama needs to run on his record or this will be a landslide for Romney. And really, even if Obama runs on his record, Romney may still win by a landslide.

CAL USA

Their whole reason for existence is to increase the wealth of their investors, not to create jobs.

your understanding is even weaker. There are almost no Edward Lewis's and Philip Stuckey's in the world. Venture capitalists sell their stock to investors on their record of making businesses profitable or their cunning for investing in companies that will expand and be profitable. To buy something to tear it apart means you are going to drop in value, because scrap and re-use brings a maximum of 50 cents on the dollar invested. By the time venture capitalists get involved in many of these companies that are failing, those companies have already tapped the company pension plans.

The only real way to increase wealth is to pay someone to produce that wealth.

Lukewarm - It is not that Willard did not create jobs they were low paying jobs and it was the callousness and the indifference that he displayed when jobs were lost

Ed Rendel - gave a telling statement today - Bain made $100 Million dollars on one deal - and he said would it have hurt them to make $80 Million to insure people were taken care of?

And the narrow minded Scarborough on today's show said - "We might have you back here again"

Yuk to Scarborough and Yuk to Mica who only "rolls her eyes" because she sold her soul to get the almighty dollar

Her father said this idiot "JOE" is a lightweight and yet she's there - why - money honey

You asked for it, here it is: a straight gross income tax on ALL sources of income. First $25K tax free, above 25K to $250K, 15% tax rate, above $250K to $750K, 30% tax rate, and all income over $750K, 45% tax rate. Absolutely NO deductions, credits, or any other means (including tax shelters, etc.) of reducing that taxable income. Congress must then budget ALL expenditures based upon that taxable source of income. All other federal taxes, except the FICA "tax" which is really a savings account payment towards future retirement/medical care, would be eliminated. All caps on FICA would also be removed, and ALL income would be subject to the same FICA tax. That is the one tax that anyone holding any kind of job or earned income (non-pension/SS income) would have to pay, even if their annual income is below the $25K tax-free threshold.

Anti Trust -

An outstanding answer to a reasonable question. I personally might question the percentages you mention, and perhaps the income levels you mention, but other than that I would agree with you entirely.

I agree with you completely about FICA.

Thank you for the one good answer that I have received to that question in a very long time of asking it. We might not agree about everything, in fact I suspect we do not, but I can certainly respect a thoughtful and well constructed answer.

Perhaps there is indeed some hope left for negotiations between people that might disagree, but are willing to at least attempt a communication and exchange of ideas.

Here's your fair - Bush's business history:

Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.

In his book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, John W. Dean explains that his family name and his father's prominence were significant factors in George W. Bush's business "success", or, were significant factors in repeated saves from serious business and financial failures. Both Arbusto/Bush Exploration and Spectrum 7 failed with Bush as chairman and CEO. At Harken, Mr. Bush was relieved of day-to-day management responsibilities but still served on the board of directors.

And then we come to Romney:

The story of Ampad, a company acquired by Bain Capital in 1992 that later went bankrupt, was used successfully by Democrats 18 years ago to help derail Mitt Romney’s run for a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts.

“Good paying job with good benefits. I loved the people I worked with. I thought I was settled in for life,” says worker Jerry Rayburn who lost his job after Bain came in.

Ampad went bankrupt in 2000, shedding a total of 1,500 jobs, according to the film. Bain profited $100 million from the deal.

Yep! These are the people we want in charge of this country during these troubled times!

Here is what Bain Capital says about Ampad.

Throughout Bain Capital’s 28-year history, we have been focused on growing businesses and improving their operations. We acquired Ampad from Mead Corp. in 1992, and grew the overall business during the four years we controlled the company. The Marion plant was a challenging situation in a business that was performing well overall, growing revenues and adding jobs. Our control of Ampad ended in 1996, fully four years before it encountered financial difficulties due to overwhelming pressure from ‘big box”’ retailers, declines in paper demand, and intense foreign price pressures. Despite political attacks that emphasize the few companies that have struggled, the facts are that during Bain Capital’s ownership, revenues grew in 80 percent of the more than 350 companies in which we have invested.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/bain-capital-ampad-wasnt-our-fault

Notice that Bain got control of Ampad in 1992 and kept it for FOUR YEARS ending in 1996. When did Ampad go Bankrupt? IN 2000!! FOURS YEARS AFTER BAIN SOLD THEIR INTEREST. So just how is it Romney's fault that Ampad went bankrupt AFTER he left Bain and AFTER Bain sold it's interests?

Not particularly in favor of this model but I like its simplicity as a basis for discussion. Some people think that seeking fairness is somehow an argument for the nanny state. Seems to me the revolutionary war was fought because of UNFAIRNESS by the Crown. Thus our entire country was created to ensure FAIRNESS.........Things That Make You Say Hmmm!!

Fairness meant government - keep your nose out unless there is a dispute.

People who look up the nuts and bolts of our financial will almost always find a meddling government, causing them to act in a way that causes greater failures than government tried to keep from being a problem in the first place.

"FAIR" would be a requirement that each and every Washing DC politician have posted upon themselves and in public view at all times...THEIR PRICE TAG!

Your question is a fair one. We need to define fairness rather than simply saying "this is unfair" or "that is unfair". OK, here goes:

Fairness is when the benefits that each person receives from society roughly approximate the efforts that they put into it.

Now this can be quite difficult to measure at both ends. However, when we reach extremes, it isn't too hard to recognize unfairness:

• When corporations receive unrestrictive use of federal lands for timber and mining, or below-market oil leases allow them to plunder our nations waterways for profit.
• When executives of companies that sell goods and services to the government are hired as high-level executives within the very agencies that their companies sold to.
• When companies take over public schools and earn profits by delivering sub-standard education, and then insist that public schools be held accountable to standards that are not used in their company schools.
• When giant agricultural firms successfully lobby Congress and receive billions of dollars earmarked for "struggling farmers".
• When health insurers bleed subscribers dry by preventing free markets from operating, engaging in anti-competitive practices such as formation of preferred networks, and hiding their operations from rate-payers.

Grown fat beyond meaure at the federal feeding trough, the great corporate welfare state dwarfs anything that LBJ tried to provide to the poor. In terms of unfairness, the most indigent welfare recipient, while unfairly bilking hard-working taxpayers, doesn't hold a candle to the executives of so many companies.

SitBackandCHuckle -

Perhaps you misunderstood my question.

I was asking about fairness, and how you would define it, rather than for a list of things that are unfair.

It is apparent that you favor greater control of business, presumably by the government, from the list of unfair things that you mention.

While I can see your point there, and can even respect the thought that is seemingly behind it, it is not what I was asking about.

So, let me try again - how would you define fair, in terms of current social and fiscal policy? You mentioned schools, so how would you make them "fair"? At what point, in your opinion, would tax rates be fair, and how would you go about getting them to that point?

And please, let us try to do this without blaming the other side, which is counterproductive at best, and frankly, I am pretty sure that we all know all of the talking points from both sides on blaming the other side.

However, thanks for the answer, and the reasonable tone in which it was offered.

OldGrumpy -

Obtaining a basis for discussion was actually my goal, if it was possible - from there, just maybe a reasonable discussion can be had.

While perhaps a touch simplistic in his answer, Anti Trust was responding in concise, general terms, which I think was what led to the impression of simplicity.

Sitbackandchuckle: What is fair? Who determines what is fair is the real problem...is it up to the government to determine what fairness is? and then when they determine what it is, is it fair for them to make choices how they will apply fairness to everyone?

Is it fair that I live in a 4 bedroom house but only use 1 bedroom unless I have guests staying? In this world of government controlled fairness, would I have to some day open up my home to a homeless family because I have room and this family has no place to stay?

Personally, I don't want our government having that much control over my life...government does not exist to solve everyone's problems.

What's not fair is while CEO pay goes up, workers pay goes down. How come since the year of my birth CEO from 25 times the average worker to 255 times the average. The disparity is mind boggling, yet you complain about grades!

Furthermore, most of the wealthy people in this country inherited their wealth so a person working hard, studying hard and starting their own business will never surpass these people.

Furthermore, most of the wealthy people in this country inherited their wealth so a person working hard, studying hard and starting their own business will never surpass these people.

Boy do you buy a lot of BS, here's the support for the myth-busting.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

Not even close to true. Get a clue. The highest majority of millionares are 1st generation.

business exists for the benefit of society not the other way around.

Absolutely and unequivocally untrue. Business exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to make the largest profit possible for its owners/shareholders. A continued Liberal failure to understand this, is why our economy is failing and and the Health Care Industry cannot provide quality for a decent price. Continued Liberal interference in the marketplace causes increased costs for business and the steady hemorrhaging of quality jobs to other countries. I'll say it again, Liberalism is based on Emotion not Brains.

A perfect example of this is tthe continued intent of some folks to vote for a man who has never met a payroll or created a job in the private sector, with the expectation that he will somehow assemble and lead the right team to fix our economy.

Mike - You assume we liberals don't understand this - I can say I understand this I worked in a major Tax Division for twenty years with a degree from the University of Chicago - actually listening to Friedman - on his theories

I also listened to the Catholic Church for 16 years - see no difference

The Meek shall not inherit the earth unless they fight tooth and nail for it

Back to Corporations - in the 80's Peurto Rico was giving tax benefits for businesses to go there - with the codicile that they must invest in Peurto Rico

Pharmaceuticals fled there and they made a ton of money- my company in particular had $700,000 million dollars sitting there - where bound by there agreement - however - clever attorneys found a loophole to get the money out -

Voila! Started a bank in Europe where they could move there money- Peurto Rico - good bye suckers

you obviously where dumb enough not to compete with our bright attorneys

Guess what- all the Pharmaceuticals followed the lead - why? Because it's a good old boys club and if one company got challenged all would have to be and the Peurto Ricans got screwed

Capitalism at it's finest

By the way those so called "banks" never lent a dime to anyone

GrammaKnows -

Workers have wages so low they must be subsidized by the taxpayers? Are you seriously suggesting that the national minimum wage is the result of the business model that "Romney so dearly loves"? Or could it be that the rise of the entitlement mode of thinking has led to lifestyles that the folks who earn minimum wage can not afford, so they need government help to live that lifestyle?

Relocated to lower labor cost areas? It is apparent from that that you don't understand that what businesses do at the end of the day is make money. Of course they relocate to lower labor cost areas - that makes good business sense, if nothing else. Try viewing this from the perspective of someone who is responsible for making a profit - if your company is local and small, and you dont make a profit, you go out of business, and thus join the rolls of those who need to be "subsidized by the taxpayers". If your company is large enough to have investors, or a board of directors, then you lose your job for not making profits - again, taxpayer subsidized, and soon.

Bankrupted and liquidated? I suggest that you take a look at Romneys record at Bain, and do the research that will tell you that more jobs were gained than lost, and that by a large factor he saved companies rather than collapsed and "liquidated" them. Well, I should not say he - it was his company, not him personally, but still.

You are right in this much - profit is what is left over after the cost of doing business. However, the cost of doing business has nothing to do with ensuring that your employees dont require taxpayer subsidies, as you call them. If your business can afford it, then it is a good thing to do to pay them well, but, tha tis not always the case, even for good businesses.

The cost of doing business is exactly this - keep your doors open for business, and with services/products available for consumption by the consumer. It has never been the fault of businesses that pay low wages that some people earn low wages, and never will be. Look at fast food places, gas stations,grocery stores, etc.

The vast majority of people on food stamps are children of working parents? I happen to work in an industry that gets a lot of traffic from folks that are on food stamps, and I know you are incorrect about this, but I will give you a chance to proove me wrong - just show me the proof - should be an easy google search for you.

Finally - you want to BILL employers and businesses for people that receive government assistance? In other words, you want to kill off via further regulation even more small businesses, making it even harder for low income folks to make any kind of a living at all? Or alternatively, you want the small businesses to increase their prices to afford the increased wages that get them off of that assistance, thus making a living wage even higher, making another increase in wages necessary, and so on?

I appreciate the sentiment - things should maybe be fair. But that is not how the real world works, at least not the business world.

Why is it that you lefties "link" to a POLITICAL site instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Department of Labor? Why is it when you think you are "proving" something that the "link" you provide is always to some liberal, left wing, or Democrat "dot com" site instead of linking to the GOVERNMENT?

Obama didn't "create" any jobs whatsoever. In fact his massive borrowing, "mandates", demands for higher taxes, and new regulations have STIFLED the creation of millions of jobs.

Obama's had the highest unemployment numbers for the longest period of time since the Depression itself (another Democrat controlled period of time by the way). You going to blame that on Bush, almost FOUR years after he's left and after the TWO YEARS that Democrats completely controlled Washington and could pass ANY and EVERY "recovery" bill they wanted to?

As a matter of fact, Obama will be the FIRST President since Roosevelt that will have a NET JOB LOSS at the end of his first term. In other words, since that incompetent "history maker" took office, more people have LOST their jobs then have actually been hired. But I'm sure that's "Bush's fault" too.

The unemployment rate has "dropped" not because of jobs "created", but because MILLIONS of Americans have either just stopped looking for work, or their unemployment benefits ran out, so they are NOT counted as "unemployed". You going to blame that on "Bush"?

HP is cutting 25,000 from the company. You going to blame that on "Bush" too? OVER 225,000 people were let go in "mass layoffs" in the first quarter of this year, not even counting hundreds of thousands all over the country that the small businesses have laid off people. You going to blame that on "Bush"?

Gas is OVER $4 a gallon in most areas of this nation. You going to blame that on "Bush"? Food and commidity prices are up all over the nation because of those increased energy costs. You going to blame that on "Bush"?

Our debt has gone up higher in the shortest amount of time in our HISTORY, you going to blame that on "Bush"?

Is there ANYTHING bad at all going on in this country that you on the libs don't scream "Bush" about?

The link is to the bureau of labor statistics data. It has been formated so that even the most ignorant can understand it.

I guess they failed.

Bush lost 900,000 private sector jobs in his first term.

Or just maybe it was written by someone who finally said out loud that fair is a nice concept, but is not the way things ever were, or are currnently.

A nice pipe dream, but hopelessly unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? Because corporations prefer profit over people??? That seems to be the reality of it all proven by the enormous raise in the income of the wealthy versus the stagnation of the middle class.

"Obviously, Obama has failed and is increasing the debt to our kids.... and their kids...and so on, and so forth."

Listening to you right wing types one could get the idea that President Obama is the only president who ever created a deficit. Remember -- George W. Bush and his Republican Congress were handed the largest surplus in history. In less than 3 years they managed to turn that into the largest deficit in history and -- they didn't include most of the costs of two wars in the calculations. Where was all this screeching about massive deficits from 2001 to 2009?

Charlie, Obama is the ONLY President that raised out debt by over 5 TRILLION dollars in less than three years, while people like you and Obama screamed about Bush doing it in EIGHT years, and Obama called it "unpatriotic". Obama is the ONLY President to have OVER Trillion dollar deficit spending, and he's done it FOUR years in a row now. Obama is the ONLY President in history to say he'd cut the deficit in half and then DOUBLE it. Obama is the ONLY President that actually signed a law that said "buy this or we'll fine you". Obama is the ONLY President that had spread the worst class warfare filth in history, after "promising" to unite the nation.

Cheryl,

Here is a break down of the 5 trillion in debt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

I think it's time to let someone in the door that has the ability to see the flow of business....cause and effect. It's not just numbers that has made Romney liquid.

Nawww, what made Romney liquid was his Daddy's trust fund. If you start with several $million it is tough to lose money. Romney didn't have a job until he was 25; face it, he didn't need one! How does that compare with most of America?

Sorry - Don't waste your time Cheryl is either brain dead or a drop out of education

It's like spinning your wheels in a car caught in mud - no hope until he or she gets pushed out

I've listened to people like her it's useless

The tires keep going round and round

Bush inherited Clintons "record" economy, unfortunately the dotcom bubble happened just before taking office, then the tragedy of 9/11, after those horrific economic events the Bush tax cuts of 2003 grew the economy at a "record" pace resulting in 5% unemployment. I'll take Bush's economy over Obama's any day!

Charlie, do you have ANY idea how stupid it sounds when you libs keep bringing up "Bush", when it was a Democrat controlled Congress that was in charge of spending, and the bills passed in Congress for TWO years before Bush ever left office?

That is was Democrat passed garbage like CRA, and the protection by Democrats of the fraud committed by Fannie and Freddie that actually CAUSED the recession that we are in? That it was Frank that pushed "sub-prime" with the banks because after all, "every American has a right to own a home".

Find something ORIGINAL please. After three and a half YEARS of you libs squealing "Bush" like little babies, it's time to get off that bottle and actually grow up!!

Charlie, do you have ANY idea how stupid it sounds when you libs keep bringing up "Bush", when it was a Democrat controlled Congress that was in charge of spending, and the bills passed in Congress for TWO years before Bush ever left office?

Hey moron -- it was Bush and the Republican congress who turned the largest surplus of all times into the largest deficit of all times without including most of the costs of the two wars into the calculations. And you do know that this recession started in 2005 BEFORE the congress switched form Republican to Democrat?? So try this -- how about you name me one bill passed by congress between 2007 and 2009 that caused the worst economic decline since the depression? Can you do that?

Charlie soRry old man but your date for the Start of the Recession is WRONG!!

The NBER declared that the recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009. The 18-month recession represents the longest since the end of WWII.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/226401-the-great-recession-is-over-long-live-the-great-deleveraging

At least get your facts straight before you do your ranting.

Also, if you check HISTORY, that was with a Republican controlled Congress that passed laws and bills that FORCED a balanced budget, which was actually against the wishes of Bill Clinton, who shut down the government rather than sign a balanced budget amendment. A shutdown that the liberal media and the left blamed on Republicans by the way.

You are posting FACTS here Cheryl? How dare you.

Also since you pointed out that Clinton has dragged kicking and screaming to sign the balanced budget that Gingrich passed in Congress that makes Obama look even more inept on the economy.

cheryl- so in your world when something positive happens it is the congress, under a Democrat President, but when something negative happens it is the Presidents fault? HUH? You can't have it both ways!

Why don't you CHECK hummbird?

I'll take Bush's tax cuts that LOWERED unemployment and created RECORD income taxes collected over the lies from the left any day.

What good is RECORD income taxes collected if the deficit still grew? Kind of didn't think about that did you slick? So lowering taxes actually do raise the debt... idiot.

james-1172335

Lower tax rates produce higher revenues.

No, the Bush tax cuts remain the second largest producer of our deficit, with the recession just ahead.

Fairness is subjective.

Fairness is CRUCIAL. Our Founding Fathers fought against unfairness. So now we should just throw in the towel just because the people who are being unfair are the wealthy??? @!$%# that. America is all about fairness. So is democracy. If we abandon economic fairness, we should just toilet the American Dream and elect the Koch brothers as co-emperors. Economic inequality is at an ALL TIME HIGH. ENOUGH OF ECONOMIC UNFAIRNESS. ENOUGH OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS. ENOUGH WITH THE 1%.

Killing Bin Laden was a no-brainer, to continue to trumpet the worlds easiest decision shows you have very little to run on.

No it wasn't. You try sending Navy Seals into a foreign nation with nuclear weapons to conduct a mission that has a 50-50 chance. You are only saying that because it was successful. Carter did the same thing to rescue the hostages in Tehran and failed; several Americans died in the operation. Had Obama failed, you righties would be all over that. Romney himself opposed scouring the Earth for bin Laden. Stop lying jim; we can all see that your pants are on fire.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

NO TO REPUBLICAN PLUTOCRACY 2012

I was thinking maybe a large dose of xanax, but epsom salts might work - lets start with that!

Make it an enema for old Harry Reid.

Wow, did you actually get that off of mediamatters or DailyKos dal?

People like you actually think that just because a company exists that it's the government's responsibility to keep them in business, even if they LOSE MONEY.

Why don't you take a look at Staples, which actually didn't cost ANYTHING to bailout and created tens of thousands of jobs? Why don't you take a look at Sports Authority, which didn't cost ANYTHING to bailout and created tens of thousands of jobs?

Nope, can't do that. It might actually make Romney look like a SUCCESSFUL businessman, right? Instead, let's instead talk about companies that went out of business AFTER Romney actually left the company, alright?

That sure does make all of you propoganda repeating drones look "intelligent" when you do it too.

You are fool CherylLM. The fact is the fact. I could care less if Nit Wit Romney is a MILLIONAIRE if he did it on our backs while destroying jobs. Listen you lemming it is his tainted ethics that is a stake. If he wants to be a evil millionaire he can do that as a citizen not President.

dal - i assume from your previous post about 44 million dollars cost to the taxpayers from romneys business and this post that you dont like romney.

Fair enough.

Youi dont like Mormons, obviously - fair enough.

But, unfortunately, the point here is that Obama is after "fairness" for all - without bothering to define it, other than endlessly repeating that "the rich should pay thier fair share" without defining fair, and that Romney, despite your hate and ignorance, does actually have a successful record in what we all agree we need - JOBS.

Be careful when qouting religious texts - I will guess here that you are christian...dont make me qoute the bible at you to make you look foolish for qouting the Mormon text.

Hey david, why don't you actually check your HISTORY?

After the tax cuts uneployment went DOWN and there were record income taxes collected. But don't let the TRUTH get in the way of your propoganda.

It was ONLY after the fraud committed by Fannie and Freddie, and the FORCED loans by CRA, that the economy collapsed.

But I guess it doesn't matter that Fannie and Freddie sold toxic mortgages as "securities" to banks all over the world, or that Frank pushed "sub-prime" at the banks, or that CRA had banks giving loans based on applications instead of actual CREDIT CHECKS!

Hey Cherly: Bush was president then....as you GOP say, "everything is President Obama's fault"....well guess what....what happened on Bush's watch, including 9/11 was his fault....right...you can't blame President Obama for everything, and then deflect blame from Bush..right?

Bush as a president did not veto ANYTHING....he signed every single law that was given to him.

CherylM your right wing nutty spin does not make sense with THE FACTS.

After the tax cuts uneployment went DOWN and there were record income taxes collected.

And after Clinton increased taxes unemployment went DOWN and there were record income taxes collected. After Reagan increased taxes unemployment went DOWN and there were record income taxes collected. tax rates and employment have little to do with each other.

Hey Dave. Can you tell me why the president continues to ignore the CBO ? They work for him you know. Maybe because they're analysis doesn't support his policies. Hmm... CBO says letting the Bush tax cuts expire will push the country over the financial cliff. Are they partisan ? I don't think so. They just analyze raw data.

What CBO report are you talking about Tom? The CBO put forth debt estimates for the coming decade. 10 trillion, however, letting Shrub Jr.s tax cuts expire, 3 trillion. Gee 7 trillion in debt from the tax cuts. Shrub doubled the national debt and left a structural deficit for as long as his giveaway to the wealthy exists. Add two wars even his own party chastised him for putting them on the countries credit card and the huge defense welfare, I mean spending. Three trillion,hmmm, didn't Boehner turn down 4 trillion. Reagan would not recognize or be elected in todays right wing Willard world.

Cheryl, where to begin, well lets start with your statement that Freddie, or selling houses to poor people who couldn't afford them caused the worst financial crisis since Hoover. Horses..t. The total value of defaulted loans has not exceeded 200 billion yet. The lie you spout is the BS put out by republicans for Wall Street. Just as in 29 they screwed the pooch, gambling tens of trillions on derivatives and CDF's. 200 billion is a mouse fart in our economy. Tens of trillions disappearing overnight yeah that could do it.

After the tax cuts uneployment went DOWN and there were record income taxes collected. But don't let the TRUTH get in the way of your propoganda.

No. The Bush tax cuts didn't help the economy one bit; check the Tax Policy Center. Unemployment actually INCREASED after Clinton, and stayed relatively high for a good economy until the recession. And by the way, tax cuts don't raise revenues to become deficit-neutral. Ask any economist.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012