Enough tax breaks for the wealthy. We all know that "trickle down" economics doesn't work and led to the financial crisis and recession. Yet Republicans want to continue these policies.

Go ahead Republicans, once again, try and say this would raise taxes on the middle class which it won't.

Republicans love to reward the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Eric....They dont call it trickle down anymore. For the middle class its been "tinkle on" for years.

Guy ...

For the middle class its been "tinkle on" for years.

From my perspective, it's an awful lot more than a "tinkle!"

Eric....They dont call it trickle down anymore. For the middle class its been "trickle up poverty" for 3 years.

You do realize Mr. Romney no longer works for Bain?

This move by the President is more politically symbolic. If you really want to bring in more tax dollars, you need to lower that 250K number.

Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center,Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

I guess Bain put these guys out of business too.

But then Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 39% and paid for it by eliminating the credit card interest deduction and put caps on medical and charitable deductions all mostly middle class tax breaks. Romney wants to follow in Reagans path lowering the rate from 39% to 25% and eliminate the home mortgage deduction and employer health care exemption that would cost the average middle class tax payer several thousand a year. Romney isn't against raising taxes just raising his own. The home mortgage and employer heath care exemption are loopholes because they benefit the middle class all his are legitimate tax breaks.

Falcon... Tax cuts for the wealthy have done nothing but put more strain on the federal government. Tell me how many jobs were created by the Bush tax cuts? Did the loss of revenue for the US gov't get reimbursed due to growth stimulated by these tax cuts (as the Bush administration said)? The wealthiest got the lion's share of the benefits from the tax cuts while the HEART of the US economy, THE MIDDLE and WORKING CLASSES got screwed.

A quote from that LIBERAL (tongue in cheek) bastion of information the Wall Street Journal. "Corporate profits now account for the largest share of gross domestic product since 1950 — 12.6%. Wages and salaries account for the smallest share of GDP since 1955 — 54.9%." If you need more proof then do the leg work on your own because knowledge is earned not given.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-07-29/commentary/30699039_1_profits-gdp-wages-and-salaries
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-wageless-profitable-recovery/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/364681-a-golden-age-for-corporate-profits

Amen tax cuts for the wealthy HURT THE DEFICIT

The eternal optimist: Interesting someone would mention Bains aquisition of burger king. I just read an article this morning of how they aquired it with 2 other private equity firms in 2002. Then looted almost 1 billion dollars from the company leaving it mostly a cadaver. Now they've taken it public again but it's struggling. The author of the article surmised using the 1 billion dollars to expand like McDonalds instead of looting it then it would probably be in better shape.

We really need to stop having this used as a political strategy. Problem in the U.S. Treasury is in trouble because so many people are either not working or under-working. When you have so many people who don't have jobs or who have bad-paying jobs, you have a lot of people who aren't paying taxes. Of course, the upper strata are doing fine, but there aren't enough of them who pay taxes in any substantial amount to replenish the treasury. They know how not to pay taxes.

These people need to get serious abut resolving problems like, for example, simplifying the tax code. It's unfair to ask the workers to carry the country and also to do all the sacrificing.

What kind of strategy is it to fire all the workers, reduce their pay, pensions, benefits and ask them to pay more while the upper strata get to pay less?

Thank you MSNBC!! I have been saying that for years. It is NOT "Bush Tax Cuts" it is the "Current Tax Rates". So why do the Democrats want to call it the Bush Tax Cuts? Because then they can describe it as "return of the regular tax rates". That is a play on words. This is a tax increase. When you take the CURRENT tax rates and increase then it is a TAX INCREASE!! Anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip knows this is a tax increase.

So quit calling it the "Bush Tax Cuts". These have been the existing tax rates for going on 10 years. If Obama wants to raise taxes then that is his choice and the voters will decide if they feel it is appropriate. But when I is purposefully MISLEADING the public then that is not a leader.

BTW, let's even assume he gets these tax increases. Assuming there is not a negative effect to the economy (which there will be) the most it will bring in additional taxes is about $75 Billion. But our deficit is $1.5 Trillion? In other words it is symbolic. If government does not cut spending then the ONLY thing to do is raise taxes (that's right - TAX INCREASE!!) on EVERYBODY!! There are not enough "wealthy" to cover this bloated government spending. So just wait until 2013 (AFTER THE ELECTION!!) and EVERYBODY will be paying much higher taxes. All we need is just a small percentage of Democrats who are smart enough to realize what this president is doing and realize THEY will be totally screwed too AFTER the election. Can just a FEW Democrats have just enough intelligence to actually think for themselves??

Soon they will be talking about the Obama tax increase vs. the Bush tax cuts...And it won't be for the 1%.... Healthcare reform will not be cheap...

From MSNBC (the Obama reelection forum):

Falling prices may be sign of trouble ahead

The slowing global economy is putting downward pressure on costs for businesses and consumers alike. It makes goods cheaper, but it’s also squeezing profits and incomes.

So, to address this let's tax people more.....

Imagine if the 50% that pay nothing pay their fair share.

Well, taxes are calculated on income...at least for most of us. If you're unemployed or working a low-paying job, you're not going to pay a lot in taxes.

But, as we know, corporations and the very wealthy know how not to pay their taxes, so, yes, if they actually paid their taxes, we would be better off.

This is what Bain Capital does for business:

Burger King is Loaded with Debt

About the only thing 3G Capital appears to have done during its short tenure as private owner is borrow $2.3 billion in order to pay itself a huge dividend of $3,931 per share in 2011 (see pages 37-38 of prospectus). I’m not impressed by the company’s new summer menu, and don’t get me started on the disgusting bacon sundae which has been called a “monstrosity” and an “abomination.” Early promises by 3G Capital to spend $500,000 per store revamping Burger King restaurants have been all but abandoned.

Cutting costs to the bone for a short-term earnings spike and loading up on debt in order to pay special dividends before going public are common practices among private-equity backed IPOs. In fact, Burger King itself has played this game more than once, each time going public at a higher valuation on IPO hype despite sagging fundamentals and then taken private again after disappointing performance causes the stock price to decline below the IPO price.

If they want to rewind the tax code to days gone by how about going back to the original one page form: 3% of your income and no deductions. Everyone pays income tax, including the 47% that pay nothing now, and no loopholes for the so-called rich. Works for me!

No matter what your opinions are on this tax issue, they don't matter, because it is simply an attempt by Obama to divert media attention from the most important issue, the absolutely god-awful employment figures released last week....and to quote a famous Democrat "It's the economy, stupid">.

The Democrat scare machine is prone to say that the country cannot afford to return to the failed policies of the past, but they leave out the part or stay with the failed Obama policies of the present. Funny how Obama blames the Bush era tax cuts for getting us into a recession, but has since he has been in office kept them in place to get us out of the recession. Or as the current tax battle is being waged, left in place solely for political gain.

As if a few percentage points is going to impact the massive annual deficit Obama has run up. Especially when almost half of all working Americans pay no federal income tax. That tax pie can only be so big and sliced so thin. We need comprehensive tax reform, top to bottom like Washington promises right before every election. We need spending cuts, can't get the job done on taxes alone. But for the purpose of the campaign, lets talk about taxing the wealthy, and everyone else a year later.

@kelly.... You are misquoting Romney. He said he likes to fire those who do not provide the service expected. Do you keep paying someone who does not do the work?

The problem is the stupid spending on crap. I do not want to pay one more dime until they stop the frivilous spending, subsidizing big sugar, buying ships the military does not want, foodstamps fraud, Medicare fraud (does every elderly person need a hover round chair?)

And we need more efficiency in government. My own experience with dealing with Social Security for elderly family members shows how lacking in knowledge and skills they are.
Where have we come that so many people think the federal government better spends the money and that successful people should be demonized?

Without getting snarky in the reply (if one surfaces) would one of you liberals please explain how increasing the taxes on businesses or the rich won't filter down in some way to the poor and working classes? I'll give you a simple business scenario and maybe you can explain how it doesn't occur this way, and keep in mind that some of those the president aims to increase tax rates on are businesses...

You own a firm and make a net $250k per year. Whatever the tax rate is, it goes up, and without any macroeconomic changes let's say your net income after taxes becomes $225k. I don't care what you think about fairness or fair share in this scenario so please don't go there. With $25k less per year you have choices to make, obviously, if you had planned on a $250k income instead. You could raise prices. You could reduce your employees wages and/or benefits (or not increase them by as much as you would have otherwise). You could reduce quality or quantity. These things depend, at least in part, on what consumers and competitors in the market allow. You could also suck up the loss yourself, or distribute it among shareholders.

In each of these cases, regardless of the income you began at or ended at, something gives. So if you pay your employees less, do they continue their accustomed lifestyle without change? If you raise prices, do your customers (assuming again no macroeconomic changes occur) have the same purchasing power as before? If you alter quantity or quality is the unit value of your product or service the same? And if you take the loss yourself, or distribute it to shareholders, do you continue your lifestyle without any changes?

We could make this more complex but there really isn't any reason to. All the answers remain the same no matter how complex or specific you want to make the scenario. All I'm interested in is how you, as a liberal person, think that tax increases will benefit our economy. By the way, the argument made by the left today that we should just go back to the rates we had when Mr. Clinton was president sounds great, but do you want that level of spending again, and can you create that international market again, and would you want to rebuild the economy again on two bubbles that grew (one popped) while Mr. Clinton was president?

So Republicans make the simple argument that taking money away from the wealthy means they have less money to create jobs. Democrats rejoin with the simple argument that giving more to the wealthy has not actually created jobs in reality. We are at an impasse.

Would republicans and democrats agree to a compromise, in which the 'job creators' get tax breaks for actually creating American jobs?

screw the whiner babies and let ALL the tax cuts expire to 2000 levels,

That includes resetting AMT tax which needs to go. Put Capital Gains tax back to 20% on everyone and every account 401K IRA ALLLL of them!!

Stop the spending DEMs and let the REP balance the budget like the 1990s.

This pill is big enough to swallow but soon it will be too large

$15.88 Trillion and counting

Short form tax reform....End all business taxes. Eliminate all credits and deductions (with the possible exception of a deduction for having earned income) for individuals. No joint filings. Flat tax rate (let the liberals pick the rate if they want, it would be temporary anyhow). Treat all income as normal with the exception that income derived from long term investments should be deflated for tax purposes. Pay the bottom line.

This gets rid of the facade the left uses that firms are ripping us off blind. This eliminates the problem that so many people pay nothing, though some still would pay nothing depending on how large the individual deduction would be. This also eliminates the ability of the feds to guide behavior and so create bubbles, like they did with the RE market, but doesn't punish anyone for having invested their money for the long term. But the best thing of all is that it is so simple that every voter, liberal or conservative or in between, ought to be able to know with precision what they pay to finance the government. If you think it's a good deal then you might want more government, but my suspicion is that most voters will realize that giving more money to the feds hasn't really worked out. Which is why whatever rate the liberals would set is temporary. Once voters say no to so much spending, the reason for a high rate will evaporate.

Obama is not doing anything to solve our tax problem, he complaint that the rich do not pay enough taxes but his pal from GE outsource jobs and his company pay zero taxes. Obama is just playing politics as always. Obama and Democrats in congress never lay down a plan, or bring a bill to fix our tax code and close the loopholes from where the Treasury could get much more revenue, the fact of the mater he prefer his rhetoric of rich versus poor for political gain. How can be fair to set a limit of 200 k for single and 250 k for join income tax fillers, he is penalizing married couples , why not 400 k for couples , what is is intention behind those numbers, is simple Obama don't care about families. Obama need the class warfare to win elections because this is what bring more attention even so, we know he willl extend the Bush taxes.

Romney still makes money from his Bain Capital investments. Romney is protecting those investments by insuring he pays lower or no taxes on those investments. So while he's not on the payroll... where those earnings would be taxed like the rest of us working people... he is earning investment money which is taxed at a much lower rate because of the "risks" involved. These "risks" do not include getting laid-off when an investment capitalist decides China, India or Mexico is a better place for American jobs so it will improve Bain or Bain-like earnings.

Really not interested in raising taxes... Conservatives would just spend it on some war, weapons program or subsidizing an price gouging oil company... But would like to see fairness. Earnings are earnings. No loopholes, special deals, subsidies for sending jobs overseas, investments difference, penalties on 401Ks. Fairness.

Hey snakebone,

No, no I wouldn't agree to that kind of compromise. But the reason is that we should stop using the tax code to try to manipulate markets. It has FAILED, and badly, and this isn't the first time. We should tax people in order to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to get people to make economic choices they otherwise would not have made.

Let the damn thing expire and the taxes increase. We got to start paying for what we get.

Why tax the rich? Because the poor don't have anything.

Rich - so what purpose does it serve to end all business taxes, as you advocate above?

My business depends on the discretionary income of people that make more than $250k per year. If taxes are increased on that group, the Federal Govt will essentially be competing with my business for that money. If they have to give it to Washington, they won't be spending it with me. If my revenue goes down anymore, I will have to lay off another crew of three. There is a not so pretty flip side to Obama's plans.

Class warfare has convinced the poor that the weathy owe them something...that mentallity is coming from our government....don't work we got your welfare for you.

It that what Rush says now??

“There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war and we’re winning.”
― Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett On Class Warfare: ‘If This Is A War, My Side Has The Nuclear Bomb’.

It is not a taxation problem is a spending problem. If a business or a houshold ran like the federal government did it would be broke just like the feds are. So keep screaming we need to raise taxes on the rich. The rich knows how to get around tax codes as they are now. Just ask Goerge Kiasar who was involved with Solyndra, he is a billionaire who does not pay taxes. The only way to make sure everyone pays taxes is with the fair tax act. No one can escape paying taxes the fair tax act. And get rid of all the bloated Federal government agencies not need - Agriculture, Energy, Education and Commerce departments. it can all be handled on the state level. Including Health care.

My business depends on the discretionary income of people that make more than $250k per year. If taxes are increased on that group, the Federal Govt will essentially be competing with my business for that money. If they have to give it to Washington, they won't be spending it with me. If my revenue goes down anymore, I will have to lay off another crew of three. There is a not so pretty flip side to Obama's plans.

Only about 2% of American households take in more than $250,000 a year in taxable income.

Try opening a business that caters to other segments of society....I hear Dollar Stores are doing GREAT!

BTW:

Nobody does anguish like the rich.

Nobody does wailing and gnashing nearly as well as these selfish self-absorbed people. But society has been very generous to them, beyond the reasonable expectations of anyone. The primary objective of a person in the $250K+ income should be to help the poor and to improve the lot of those less fortunate than themselves. That they instead pen policies lamenting their own hardship displays the moral paucity of so many of them.

Hey snakebone,

I went about it by imferrence, but the reason we should eliminate the business tax (at least at the federal level, what your state or my state might want to do is another story) is because businesses don't pay taxes. They collect them. How they collect them varies. It could be from employees, or owners, or customers, or a combination. But the point is that no firm anyone can name has ever paid a tax to the government where it didn't get the money from another source.

You could argue that, well, it's the same for individuals too. And you'd be right. But that misses the point that firms don't get to cast ballots, only individuals do. So make all taxes more direct and more clear, and all other things equal you should produce wiser voters. But eliminating the business tax for all businesses is in no way the same incentive as offering a tax credit to only those firms willing to hire a new employee.

All I will say is when these cuts were made all of them were meant to expire...not just the ones on the wealthy...so either keep them all or let them all expire as was intended.

Snakebone,

His point is that all business taxes are passed on to the consumer via higher priced products and so all taxes are eventually borne by people who consume their product. So why tax businesses at all? If you eliminate taxes on businesses then the free market forces will cause the price of products to fall.

Hey Rob Scan,

It's obvious to me, you too I suppose, that Kelley doesn't comprehend business at all. But what I was curious about what this, and you may not know the answer...Do your employees understand the market in which your firm operates and what happens to them if your customer base is asked to pay a far larger share of the tax burden? A corrollary to that...Do your employees favor one party over the other, or one ideology over the other?

Oh let the MSNBC Obama spin machine continue its false hopes pretense... Larger government means larger taxes, both direct consumer taxes and indirect consumer taxes...

When will folks stop and think versus drink the Obama cool aide - please folks think!!!

"A major tax increase on people with incomes over $200,000 is going to take effect on New Year’s Day, as part of the Affordable Care Act: raising $20 billion in 2013, increasing to nearly $40 billion by 2019."

So Obama already has a tax increase of about $300 Billion over 10 years on the 'rich', but he still wants more. He doesn't care if that huge tax increase causes a big drop in the economy - just as long as he gets reelected.

Taking more money out of consumer's pockets and giving it to the government to spend is NEVER a good idea for the economy during a recession. Even Obama's far-left Liberal economists would admit that.

The article neglects to mention that the Bush tax rates are still in place due to repeated extensions, because the current rates were passed under reconciliation. These rates had to be passed in the temporary way because Republicans could not get enough votes for passage, even though they had control of congress at the time. The second round passed in 2003, which were tax cuts for the rich only during time of war, required Cheney's vote as a tie breaker. So anyone who tries to argue that the current tax rates are the norm--last time extended because of GOP/TP blackmail--is spinning.

We need to end this atrocity now, and return to higher rates for the richest 5%. Furthermore, we need to end a lot of tax credits that are highly discriminatory redistribution of wealth such as for mortgages (discriminating against those who rent) and the credit for children (discriminating against those without children).

We should make the corporate tax rate competitive to the global market, but then eliminate tax credits for capital gains. All these measures would make the tax code more fair and raise more revenue at the same time.

KelleyB

Somebody has to fight the tax-and-spend Republicans. Our President is doing it.

Agreed, except the Republicans are worse than tax-and-spend -- they are don't tax and spend, spend, spend especially on WAR. Take Paul Ryan's plan for example, which includes the cuts to Medicare BTW, and cuts in discretionary spending and on programs for the 99%, and then shifts that revenue to larger spending on defense!

Falcon-3594871 – It's way past time to burst your bubble. There is NO such thing as free market—never has been, and never will be—even fair trade is elusive. There are only two economists, maybe, who still promote supply-side voodoo economics. Also, the US has always been a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. The "sometimes you win sometimes you lose," and other BS is just pathetic cynicism.

Hey Mark,

And no one from the left seems to want to touch the question. If that means that liberals, too, understand that all business taxes are pass-throughs then it's a start. But what it inevitably means as well is that by wanting higher business taxes liberals actually mean they want higher taxes on individuals, but they are too cowardly to admit it.

dslodge

All I will say is when these cuts were made all of them were meant to expire...not just the ones on the wealthy...so either keep them all or let them all expire as was intended.

That is completely illogical, fallacious argumentation. The Bush tax cuts are an old ploy used by the oligarchy (the rich who control congress, in particular the GOP). They always use tiny cuts for the 98% as a way to get big cuts for the richest 2%. And then they fear monger with scary "tax hikes" to keep taxes from ever being raised. By this logic (or lack thereof) we can only cut taxes, theoretically until there is zero taxation. Tell us how any government can operate in this way? It's illogical.

All you rightwingers need to take a look at charts showing percentage of wealth held by various segments in our society. There is the ideal, in which it is somewhat evenly distributed, then what we think it actually is favoring the richest 1%, and then what in fact it really is -- It is almost all concentrated in the richest 1%. The gap is growing dangerously fast and wide. This is bad not just economically, but for democracy and other things we supposedly value.

A plutocrat like Romney is the worst possible candidate a person could vote for in this time and conditions. We need to over-correct big time right now to rebuild the middle class, and most of all upward mobility. The US ranks way down per many indices, but upward mobility and wages have been stagnant and decreasing over the last 30-40 years -- Because of Republican voodoo economics such as the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

If you love this country, stop enabling this extreme inequality. Worse case scenario is to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire -- NO more breaks for the rich, even if it means hurting the middle class.

KellyB: "Nobody does anguish like the rich.

Nobody does wailing and gnashing nearly as well as these selfish self-absorbed people. But society has been very generous to them, beyond the reasonable expectations of anyone. The primary objective of a person in the $250K+ income should be to help the poor and to improve the lot of those less fortunate than themselves. That they instead pen policies lamenting their own hardship displays the moral paucity of so many of them."

Seriously? Selfish and self-absorbed? The primary objective shoujld be to help the poor, etc?

The moral paucity is yours KellyB, thinking that you should benefit from the hard work and labor of others, that you are entitled to the rewards from the labor of others. Shame on you, shame!

Don't forget the story of The Little Red Hen who sowed the crop, tended to the wheat, cut the wheat, and baked the bread. No one wanted to help until the bread was made. No bread for you KellyB, no bread for you!

Rob Scan -- That's BS. The rich are so friggin' rich by historical standards, that a return to the highest rate during Clinton won't make a dent. In fact, it could be way higher and not make a dent. History shows this to be the case, and shows that it is the middle class that drives everything particularly demand. When the middle class does well, everyone does well including businesses and the rich.

A woman who had been married three times walked into a bridal shop one day and told the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding.

"Of course, madam," replied the sales clerk, "exactly what type and color dress are you looking for?"

The bride to be said, "A long frilly white dress with a veil."

The sales clerk hesitated a bit, then said, "Please don't take this the wrong way, but gowns of that nature are considered more appropriate for brides who are being married the first time - for those who are a bit more innocent, if you know what I mean? Perhaps ivory or sky blue would be nice?"

"Well," replied the customer, a little peeved at the clerk's directness, "I can assure you that a white gown would be quite appropriate. Believe it or not, despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as a first-time bride. You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding, he died as we were checking into our honey moon hotel. My second husband and I got into such a terrible fight in the limo on our way to our honeymoon hotel that we had that wedding annulled immediately and never spoke to each other again."

"What about your third husband?" asked the sales clerk.

"That one was a Republican," said the woman, "and every night for four years, he just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be, but nothing ever happened."

Thanks Mark, for clarifying - I was getting just a little lost in Rich's argument there.

Republicans say they want to create jobs by lowering taxes on the job creators. When Rich says that taxes should not be used to manipulate markets for the purpose of creating jobs, then he stands at odds with the republican party. This is fine, independent thinking from Rich, but it is irrelevant to the actual argument going on today in Washington, and invites esoteric discussion about tax policy generally and the efficacy of unrestrained, free market capitalism. These subjects have been debated endlessly and are so broad as to be practically worthless.

The compromise I threw out for consideration is one which has been brought up recently by some centrist democrats. It is that we keep low tax rates (or even lower them further) for the 'job creators' who actually create jobs in America, which fulfills the republican goal of low tax rates and the democrat goal of support for the middle class, and everyone's goal of more jobs.

But this only satisfies republican goals if they mean what they say, or if their members actually support what their leaders say they want. So far, I'd have to say the answer is 'no.'

Democrats: Does tax cut translate to Job Creation or Increase GDP? In my opinion, it is impossible to say to one group, that tax cut has not translated to Job creation. And yet agree that tax cut to the middle class is justified for Job creation. The sword cuts both ways. I am a Progressive. What Presdent proposed is simply buying our votes, because we vote though our pockets. We have got to call it as we see it. However, is it fair??? I sure as heck believe it is FAIR. The tax break provided to the 1% over the past 8 years has costed our nation more than plenty. Because tax has not provided the jobs then it should be stopped.

Republicans: If you stop the tax cut for the 1% then it is only fair to stop the tax incentives for the middle and lower class, because it is about equality. BS arguement. Income tax is a progressvie tax, which means it is different for eaners at multiple levels. Since 1980, the governement has shifted the tax burden from the rich to that of middle class. Has it work? Have we maintained our world position in military? in education? in Economy? in Standard of Living ? Elimination of sickness? Reduciton of Poverty? If we have not been able to maintain our status from that of 50s, 60s and 70s status, then should we not examine our philosophy toward burden? Of course there are many things changed during the 80s, but tax burden and government policies were the major changes...

not pointing fingers, but we need to have solutions, not pointing fingers. President Obama is buying votes, but the Republicans don't have a plan (at least one that proven to work), and both parties are unwilling to blink first to change poltiical policies to get $ out of the campaigns.

@jollyoldsoul1

It's true Romney no longer work for BAIN, but he is still one of its biggest shareholder. Guess what shareholder can do to a company, they can still get profits, still have lots of power and can pressure the company to steer in the direction they want.

Most of Romney's wealth is from BAIN, that is a FACT.

@thturd

Unlike your conspiracy, here is some real FACT about what GOP has done with their battle cry of "JOBS, JOBS and JOBS".

To date, the 112th Congressional Republicans have introduced;

46 Bills on Abortion

113 Bills on Religion

73 Bills on Family Relationships

36 Bill on Marriage

72 Bills on Firearms

604 Bills on Taxation

467 Bills on Government Investigation

And BLOCKED the American Jobs Act.

@yosolo, SHAME ON YOU FOR SPREADING WHITE LIES!!!

Denise Rich divorced her ex-husband in 1996 (over 15 years ago) and has literally not contributed beyond $2,000 since year 2000. Her ex-husband's pardon by President Bill Clinton was definitely questionable. It should be noted that she is currently in trouble with IRS as well.

@CuongDNguyen, huh?

Sorry, that was supposed for yosolo somehow I got your name, lol.

Hey snakebone,

I'm not sure how I could have lost you except that I didn't play to the stereotype you expected. But you mentioned something else I would like to discuss, this was about the goals of each side and of all sides. I think republicans generally believe (correctly) that higher tax rates, all otehr things being equal, does not lead to job creation and so they oppose higher rates. But they also oppose them for another, more political, reason (or reasons)...voters tend not to want higher taxes and republicans are generally not happy with the public/private ratio of GDP. So it's not simply about wanting low taxes for the sake of low taxes.

Democrats, you claim, want tax credits for new hiring because you think they want to help the middle class. But there is a fundamental fallacy of the idea of using tax credits, or even deductions, to influence economic activity. It's the same problem associated with penalizing certain behavior or subsidizing alternative behavior too: Individuals and firms make decisions at the margins and begin to alter their economic lives in ways they had rejected absent the incentive. Why is it so hard for us as people to accept that behavior (or lack of same) in simply an indication that people are responding to market forces, and so if not enough (or too much) of a particular behavior is occurring then the problem is the lack of a subsidy, but that the market will punish that action?

Bottom line is that we should fix the fundamentals, provide broad and clear rules for the markets to operate within, and then allow people to make the best choices for themselves. By subsidizing any given activity we are incentivizing people to operate at a lower rate of efficiency than is possible. Which means, in short form, we all become less wealthy as a nation as a result.

In my opinion Income Tax serves 2 major purposes: (1) Revenue (2) Prevent US Dollars moving out of capitalization of US market.

(1) Revenue - this should be very clear, revenue => spenditures

(2) Capitalization - I believe this is the part that the Republicans (or Reganomics or those preceeded President Hoover) resisted. The high tax percentage for extreme high bracket earners forced them to keep their investments within the market or their businesses or even start new businesses. With such high income tax, it was not worthwhile to remove the business or investment profit from their portfolios. It was simply not smart. Hence it is smarter to keep the businesses going and profit re-invested. In fact, it was smarter to keep your employees well (income and health), because it was a smarter write off and investments. It was a beautiful cycle, except for those business owners and investors.

With the start of 80s.. as with the roaring 20s, the movement toward lower income tax to free up those investments gather steam and become fuition. Because of lower income tax and multiple foreign shelters, we see a large amount of capitalization $ move out of our own economy... That is why the rich is now enjoying the GREATEST tax rate SINCE the the 1940s... or the GREAT DEPRESSION. Apparantly we Americans don't seem to learn from our history and pissed away our wealth earned since 40s to the 80s... To blame this on one president, the democratic party or the Union is simply BS... We only have ourselves to blame for continuing to buy into the BS, and not willing to ask what we can do for our country as a one.

“There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war and we’re winning.”
― Warren Buffett

Kelley.

Warren Buffet is an hypocrite , if he wants to pay more taxes , nothing stop him to do so. Moreover, he fought against IRS for tax evasion.

As NewsBusters reported Monday, American media almost completely ignored a report that Warren "Raise My Taxes" Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting with the IRS for almost a decade over taxes it owes.

On Tuesday, the organization digging into Berkshire Hathaway's numbers, Americans for Limited Government, estimated the total could be as much as $1 billion:

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.

According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/warren-raise-my-taxes-buffetts-company-may-owe-irs-1-billion#ixzz20Avg1Fxm

This is Warren Buffet Obama's friend who claim he pay less than her secretary in taxes, of course he is a tax cheater like most Obamas friends.

Rich, I believe it is not correct in regards to what the Republicans believe. The basis of the Republican economics since 1980s is TRICKLE DOWN THEORY. If the the top earner is paid more then it is then more likely for the top earner to spend more money to help spur the next level of earners and so on. The Democrats have been about having a stronger middle class so that it will support the rich and the poor end of the spectrum.

So I highly disagree with your suggestion that the Republican DOES NOT believe that higher tax rate does not lead to greater job creation, because A => B and B=>C does not mean A=C. In another words, I believe Republicans believe LOWER TAX will result in MORE JOBS. Hence, I believe your arguement starts on the wrong foot, because that is not the foundation of the Republican arguement. That is exactly why during this economic cycle, Democrats insists that TAX reduction for the rich has not generated more jobs for the inconomy. That is exactly why President Obama insisted on the STIMULUS, and at the same time altered many of the 2nd half TARP program (requiring the banks to change or to become more responsive the the borrowers' needs. That is also why so many banks chose not to accept the later TARP $).

Personally, TAX reduction has its place. Unfortunately, right now is not the place nor the time. There is no $ in capitalization, because there is far too much incentive and regulations to migrate them out of circulation. It is not that hard to see, this is the reason why we don't have mfg, this is why our companies don't have the latest equipment, this is why our workers choose to work elsewhere, and this is why we are no longer the #1 destination for workers. This is where we are after 30 years of gambling...

Rich - saying that business collect tax confused me a bit, but I got what you were saying when Mark clarified. Also I would not want to speak for dems about what they 'want', but I've heard the idea floated by dems.

If other republican think as you, then the bottom line is that they don't want jobs, a middle class, or even economic recovery per se; what they want is self-governing markets, and what we then get is what the market dictates. So when they say they want a strong middle class, they mean they hope for it as an after-effect of getting what they really want, not that they will do anything directly to actually get it.

If that is so, then the voters need to know that all this republican talk about jobs and recovery is really just a statement of their optimism about the potential benefits of their economic theories.

cuong, it's not the house blocking the american jobs act, that bill failed in the senate.

Bill Clinton says now is not the time to raise rates on a tetering economy. BO also said the same thing throughout 2009 and we are pretty much the same now, so why the change?

Even if rates are raised ...

1. The money will be a tiny fragment of our deficit and won't have much effect at all on it

2. Assume you give the govt another 10, 50 or 100 billion in taxes is there anyone here that

thinks the govt will do a better job of spending that money than we as a people can?

3. How will taking extra money out of the hands of businesses, and there will be a LOT in

this category, help to grow the economy?

BigATC' wrote:

"....How will taking extra money out of the hands of businesses, and there will be a LOT in

this category, help to grow the economy?"

American businesses are already "just sitting on" almost $2 Trillion in cash and liquid capital (yes, that's 2 Trillion, with a "T" = 2,000 Billion dollars) which they are not putting to work "creating jobs." The market needs consumers to lift the economy; but the middle class is going broke!

How can Republican's, with a straight face, continue to make the totally bogus connection between tax cuts for the wealthy = jobs creation when all empirical evidence refutes that argument and has for the past 31 years since the first round of Reagan Tax Cuts?

Unless of course they mean creating jobs in other countries, rather than here the USA.

Looking at these messages, you can see how easy it is to for Obama to gain supporters based on his tax the rich agenda. Obama knows it's all about enabling the slugs to keep their money in their pockets. This country was supposedly founded on treating all citizens the same. I'm not against raising taxes, but they need to be raised across the board,. Even thiose on welfare should have to pay a percentage in taxes. It'll give them some skin in this game and they may actually start voting for what's good for the country instead of what's good for them. If the question was shall we raise taxes on you or your Mama, I'm willing to bet money the slugs here would say "tax my Mama".

@1.10 -- Eternal Optimist, that's interesting that you would mention Aspen Education Group as one of the companies bought by Bain. Aspen runs a number of behavior modification facilities that incarcerate problem teens for parents who can't deal with them and hire someone else to "fix" them.

Aspen has large operations in Utah, where such behavior modification lockdown facilities have been popular since the 80s. There are minimal government regulations, no requirements for trained professional staff or medical personnel, and no requirement to provide external communication or representation for the young inmates.

Over the years, over 100 kids have died in behavior modification facilities, including deaths in Aspen facilities. Romney's Mormon buddies have made a fortune trying to "fix" America's wayward youth -- the fees at these places run anywhere from a few thousand to over fifteen thousand dollars a month. Money well spent, I guess, if pyschological torture, malnourishment, isolation and physical abuse help your kid stop listening to heavy metal or smoking weed.

Great example of a Bain Capital "achievement", saving the torturers at Aspen Education from a well-deserved bankruptcy.

Azdad: surely you jest with your ridiculous attack on private capital and Gov. Romney. And I suppose the drug companies, because people die from drug reactions, etc. are run by evil-doers, as well? Or the automakers, including GM, are run by malevolent people because cars were made that malfunctioned and people died? Is that what you are really saying?

You might as well blame the president for a postal worker in CA that goes "postal" and kills someone, or a police officer who was paid by the last stimulus for shooting someone.

Do you really believe what you posted or, please tell me this is the case, was it sarcasm?

I'd be fine with raising the tax rates to Clinton era levels... IF AND ONLY IF we also reduce government spending back down to Clinton era levels at the same time.

Go ahead and raise the tax rates another 18%.

But spending needs to be cut by about 55% to match it.

I think they should just let all the Bush tax cuts expire. Then if Obama wins another term he can fight to have tax cuts for the just the middle class. The repugs arent going to do anything he wants right now anyway, so just let them all expire. That will have their saint Grover all over them. If I was Obama I would make a call to the repug leaders and tell them you either give me this extension or they can just all expire and you can deal with your saint Grover how you all raised taxes. Its time to let the repugs know they only control one arm of the congress and dont have the upper hand on this one. Because no matter who is elected in November it will be Obama sitting in office when these expire and once they are gone it will be so much harder to get them back if Romney wins.

@probusiness, yes we do. Perhaps you would better if it were called the Bush Tax Cuts with the Obama Extension. You've had these Tax Cuts for so long that removing them would seam like a tax increase. Romney has a 59 point plan(?) to do what out side of lining his and his friends pocket more. He hasn't released any details but I sure can figure them out. 2 things I know

1. He wants to reduce income taxes to the really rich.

2. He says he save his rich friends 1 trill a year by reducing their property taxes (taxes due the government). He also hasn't released where he will make up this monitary difference. Probably on my property.

No wonder he is making his Beach Mansion House into a richmans monument. He thinks I'm going to pay for it. When I say "I", I mean you to. I don't think many people really understand that this Election is more than Party lines. It for the Fate of this COUNTRY.

Take a good look around you, like all your pocessions, If Romney gets in all you have will be gone.

kelly B

Romney has had no imput with Bain Capital since 2001. His successor is the one who is closing the plant in Illinois and his successor is the Bain Capital campaing donation bundler for Obama.

First thought – you just saddled companies with all the healthcare requirements and now you want to raise their taxes? You think that’s a wise call? Really? They only have so much free cash, if you keep trying to squeeze more out of them, you leave them little choice but to bail. The ones who are able will move their jobs to a climate where they can survive. The remainder will stay open until they can no longer afford to do so. Yes, you could start your own business, but remember – you’ll have tons of taxes to pay, not to mention meeting the new healthcare requirements. Good luck with that.

Personally – I don’t think tax hikes or cuts are the solution. Cutting the size of government down to the bare necessities (the real bare necessities, not the liberal “let’s take care of everyone” version), looking for efficiencies within what’s left and tossing the federal governments “merit” system of employment and adjusting salaries as needed seems far more prudent. A requirement for a balanced budget would be wonderful – just as many states have.

When we're paying illegal aliens $4 Billion a year in refundable tax credits in what almost certainly is a scam, I think we need to revisit our tax code, not to mention increasing the deportation of these criminals.

Read all about it in the WTHR report from Indianapolis. Funny that MSNBC hasn't run a single article on this, but they've run dozens of stories on George Zimmerman

http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions

NOBAMA 2012!

.

Hey snakebone,

Two quick things....don't you think every ideology bases its economic theories on what it hopes will result? My point is that as a conservative I prefer liberty to not liberty, and the more we have controlled markets the less liberty we have had. We can't argue for decades that incomes and wealth are growing at too slow a pace AND claim that we need more of what we have been doing to cause this without massive delusion.

Hey thturd,

Um, huh? Lower tax burdens would increase employment, all other things equal. Mr. Obama says this, though I'm not sure he sincerely believes it. That said, some level of taxation is necessary in order to fund the proper functions of government. Unless you think the government is better at spending and investing your money than you (and wouldn't it be amazingly arrogant for anyone to think that the government is not better than they are, but IS better than successful and accomplished people are?) then giving more money to it, from whatever source, if the purpose is to do something beyond what the constitution allows, then it must mean that we are no further ahead at best, and instead are likely further behind.

The simple reason is that government slows down the velocity of money while at the same time spending it less efficiently. Both together, or each individually, means that more to the government translates into a lower rate of GDP growth. What it becomes instead is a trade off--less GDP but more income redistribution, read "fairness" or "social justice". I think this is a bad way to run a government, and you think it's a good way. I want more GDP than you, and you want more social justice than me.

We've been seeking more social justice through tax code manipulation now for over 80 years. I don't think it has worked as its advocates predicted, whether that means the benefits have never been as great as promised or the cost has been far higher than predicted, but my bigger problem is that each of us has become smaller as our government has become larger.

Obama is the worst president EVER! The only leadership he demonstrates is his path to the golf course and vacations. His lies and slimy politics are a disgrace to the office and he's already demolished any respect for that office held by foreign leaders and the US population. Dump the dirtbag in November. Our country can't withstand another 4 years of disingenuous promises and p poor leadership!

Falcon-3594871

Kelley B, you are quite mistaken. Gov. Romney's record in the private sector is about free-market economics. Sometimes the average worker wins, sometimes he loses. That is the nature of risk and investment. People like you and Mr. Obama ONLY care about the worker; you don't care about freedom in the markets. You would have the government subsidize every failure of a business just to keep its people employed, instead of having them find new jobs and build new companies that sell products that THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WILL BUY.

Fair enough. The economy is not built for the employee, but for the customer. But then again, isn't the customer an employee??? Food for thought. Now, on to Romney's record. Where is your proof that Bain outsourced jobs only after Romney left??? And liberals like me do care about freedom in the markets; but we think that there is too much freedom. It was the "freedom" that allowed Wall Street to make the bets that tanked the economy. It was the "freedom" that enabled corporations and organizations of wealthy Americans disguising themselves as people concerned about America's economic future who lobbied our government to cut taxes for wealthy Americans while giving stupid subsidies to corporations that don't even need them. It was the "freedom" that has grown the wealth gap between rich and poor. You want to talk about freedom??? We liberals will give a fine debate about it.

I am constantly perplexed and a little bit entertained by the average liberal's inability to understand this single principle: NO ECONOMY IS BUILT TO FAVOR THE EMPLOYEE- RATHER, EVERY ECONOMY IS BUILT TO FAVOR THE CUSTOMER. The reason businesses fail is because the PEOPLE WOULDN'T BUY THE PRODUCT, not because some money-hording boss is stealing it. Employers have just as much, if not more, interest in keeping their businesses afloat as their employees do. Occasionally, that does mean they must make cuts in their budgets and even lay off some of their workers.

Personally, I'll agree to that. But there are a few cases in which Bain skipped out on the workers, leveraging some companies with debt and leaving them bankrupt. In one case, I believe, Bain required a government bailout of about $44 million to pay for employee pensions that they skipped out on. I'm not saying that this is all they done, but we have to admit that Bain's record is not as squeaky clean as some people would want it to be.

In those cases, the workers should stop blaming the executives and instead find new jobs or even start their own businesses, so that they actually CONTRIBUTE to the economy, instead of dragging it down.

So, you think the WORKERS are dragging down this economy??? Let me ask you a question: where were you during the past 30 years??? Manufacturing has drained out of America, leaving many laid-off blue collar workers jobless. Many don't have the skills to start their own business, and even if they do many couldn't afford to. Do you think that the unemployed WANT to be taking a government check??? Do you never think of the PSYCHOLOGICAL effect of being laid off??? It makes people feel useless or even powerless, and when they have to receive help to sustain their families or themselves it makes them feel like a failure. Maybe you could ease up the pressure on them by laying off the anti-welfare kool aid.

People need to stop blaming Romney. First, he was not outsourcing jobs at Bain. In fact, Bain SAVED numerous businesses and countless jobs from bankruptcy. Bain started outsourcing AFTER Romney was no longer fulfilling a management position there, and again, that is just part of living in a free market economy.

Once again, show your proof. And let's just compromise by saying that Romney's record was mixed, with many successful ventures that saved jobs but some that cost jobs.

Your ambiguous claim that corporations are recording record profits needs a fact-check. Some of them may be, but most are struggling in this economy. Obama has done nothing to help any of them, in fact, he has purposefully sought after policies meant to suck them dry.

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/04/08/corporate-profits-reached-record-high-in-2011/

And by the way, corporate profits are about 10% of GDP and 20% above pre-recession levels. I think taking a few billion dollars in extra taxes and some environmental and efficiency regulations won't hurt these companies' bottom lines, do you??

The Bush tax cuts should be renewed. The House is already proposing that. The Senate is mostly supporting it. Obama is not. What he has done here is say, "look at me! look at me! I'm trying to extend cuts for the middle class!" When what he is really doing is simply accepting those cuts while rejecting the rest of them. He makes it seem like he is proactive towards acheiving something, when he is only proactive towards rejecting something.

Why should the Bush tax cuts be renewed??? They cost us trillions of dollars and have done NOTHING to help the economy. I don't care if they start another recession; they ought to be REPEALED. It will fix the deficit, and then we can focus on REAL job-creating measures, like infrastructure projects. And by the way, the GOP knows that they cannot pass the tax cuts for the wealthy alone. So they are gluing them together with the middle class tax cuts (which I oppose) so they can get them through. Think about that...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

ProBusiness

Thank you MSNBC!! I have been saying that for years. It is NOT "Bush Tax Cuts" it is the "Current Tax Rates". So why do the Democrats want to call it the Bush Tax Cuts? Because then they can describe it as "return of the regular tax rates". That is a play on words. This is a tax increase. When you take the CURRENT tax rates and increase then it is a TAX INCREASE!! Anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip knows this is a tax increase.

Technically, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts would be both a tax increase AND a return to previous rates. The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent: they were set to expire in 2010. Raising taxes, even to previous rates, is technically a tax increase, but it is also a return to previous rates, at least if the tax cuts were not meant to be permanent.

So quit calling it the "Bush Tax Cuts". These have been the existing tax rates for going on 10 years. If Obama wants to raise taxes then that is his choice and the voters will decide if they feel it is appropriate. But when I is purposefully MISLEADING the public then that is not a leader.

They are still the Bush tax cuts even if they have been the existing tax rates for nearly a decade. We still call the Reagan tax cuts the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy tax cuts the Kennedy tax cuts, so technically there is no problem with the name itself. Hell, even the Republicans, from time to time, call it the Bush tax cuts.

BTW, let's even assume he gets these tax increases. Assuming there is not a negative effect to the economy (which there will be) the most it will bring in additional taxes is about $75 Billion. But our deficit is $1.5 Trillion? In other words it is symbolic. If government does not cut spending then the ONLY thing to do is raise taxes (that's right - TAX INCREASE!!) on EVERYBODY!! There are not enough "wealthy" to cover this bloated government spending. So just wait until 2013 (AFTER THE ELECTION!!) and EVERYBODY will be paying much higher taxes. All we need is just a small percentage of Democrats who are smart enough to realize what this president is doing and realize THEY will be totally screwed too AFTER the election. Can just a FEW Democrats have just enough intelligence to actually think for themselves??

First of all, Probusiness, the fallacy I see in your argument is that you look at the effects of the expiration not overall but from year to year. That makes it seem like the effect is small. However, assuming that the deficit over the next decade is $7 trillion (from the CBO) and that repealing the cuts from the top rates totals to around $900 billion over the next decade, the effect is around 12%, certainly not a huge reduction but a significant one nonetheless. Of course there will be a negative effect on the economy, but that is only in the short-term. In the long-term, it will help the economy by reducing deficits and debt. Personally, I say let the whole damn thing expire in 2013, along with the rest of the fiscal cliff. That way, we reduce the deficit to around $2 trillion over the next decade, enabling us to focus on more productive recovery measures like infrastructure projects.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Under the Reagan tax cuts, this country went from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. This was despite Reagan cutting the size of the Fed.

Under the Bush tax cuts, this nation went from a balanced budget to a 9 trillion deficit. This was during a time of wealth and growth.

Anybody see a problem with the glorious Reagan/Bush tax cuts? And Romney proposes more cuts?

We keep hearing the same 'reasoning' about the benefits of tax cuts and the horrors of an increase. Well, under Clinton, taxes increased and the budget was reined in. Result: balanced budget and economic stability.

By the way, under Bush tax cuts our (family) taxes went up because of eliminated deductions and exemptions so how about stopping the BS about how it helped everyone.

Rich- perhaps in some technical way your argument regarding economic theories could be made, although it is a flimsy justification for lying to the public about your goals. The dems are not hiding an economic theory which they are secretly referring to when they say they want to create jobs; they are looking for ways to directly bring about recovery, jobs and a strong middle class. Apparently they are unable to make headway because the other side does not actually share those goals directly.

I much prefer liberty also, but it can never be unrestrained, if it is to be 'liberty for all'. I want people to have liberty to do what they want inside their home, for instance, but the liberty to behead your wife when you discover her cheating on you is only liberty for you, not liberty for her. As a liberal, I think the mitigating factor to liberty has to be fairness. I don't want a greedy person to be able to erase someone else's lifetime of hard work for their own gain, which in our own history they have proven they will do over and over again, when given the liberty to do so.

By the way, Mitt Romney himself took a lot of my money with his liberty in the '90's. I invested heavily in Stage Stores, which Bain took over, drove into bankruptcy, and got a bankruptcy judge to change the rules in the middle of the game, dissolving all ownership contracts and allowing them to issue new shares for funding and keep right on going. I don't mind losing money on a bad bet, but in this case the bet was good, and yet Mitt simply put my hard-earned money in his pocket, and for all I know stashed it in the Caymans so he wouldn't pay taxes on his ill-gotten gains. I can think of no better person to carry the banner of liberty for the republican party.

@Rich,

As to your problem that each of us is getting smaller while the government is getting larger, I understand. The difference between you and I is that I don't see that being a problem. US population is constantly growing and the governing body must grow larger to help protect the population. This is why I don't think the generational interpretation of size is as wide as generation gap. However, my problem is the goal of our governing system. It is there to protect the population. As the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, those are negative rights documents preventing what can not be taken from the individuals by our governing body.

As to your question who is a better investor? The inherent problem with that question is that our government should not be investing. There is right or wrong investment, because our governing body is simply there for governing. Given our government's size and its purchasing size, it can be the customer of last resort (as often taught in Economic classes). It is absolutely true. The purchases and contracts made by our government can make or break businesses. Hence it is critical that our goverment do not look to invest in businesses.

By the same token, I don't believe businesses should pass on their cost of operation onto taxpayers. Look at the health insurance industry... As insurers age, the profit margin for the healthcare insurers go way down as the aging poplation require care more often. Or if the coal miners become stricken with "black lung" desease at later stages of their lives. At which point their insurance premium become so large that it is desgned to purge the unprofitable ones... It is not such that those can not be covered by the healthier populations' premium, but it is about keeping a HIGHER PROFIT MARGIN so that mgmnt and exces can hit their bonuses... But what happen to those patients who are not uninsured? Do they die and wither away in the dard? NO, we are human, and we strive to survive... Therefore those will become the burden of the tax payers...

Now, please explain why do the tax payers should be help to subsidize these already profitable corporations in a round about way? BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD LOBBYSTS? You notice, it is not the small or the medium size businesses that the tax payers subsidize. It is almost too often those of large and influencial corporations/industries.

That to me are the problems.... So should we go along and regulate each individual business or industry??? OR IS IT BETTER GETTING RELITIONS AND BUSINESS OUT OF OUR POLITICIANS or more simply get $ out of our poltical campaigns and offices. It is not what we believe, but how we choose to operate.

Um, huh? Lower tax burdens would increase employment, all other things equal. Mr. Obama says this, though I'm not sure he sincerely believes it. That said, some level of taxation is necessary in order to fund the proper functions of government. Unless you think the government is better at spending and investing your money than you (and wouldn't it be amazingly arrogant for anyone to think that the government is not better than they are, but IS better than successful and accomplished people are?) then giving more money to it, from whatever source, if the purpose is to do something beyond what the constitution allows, then it must mean that we are no further ahead at best, and instead are likely further behind.

The simple reason is that government slows down the velocity of money while at the same time spending it less efficiently. Both together, or each individually, means that more to the government translates into a lower rate of GDP growth. What it becomes instead is a trade off--less GDP but more income redistribution, read "fairness" or "social justice". I think this is a bad way to run a government, and you think it's a good way. I want more GDP than you, and you want more social justice than me.

We've been seeking more social justice through tax code manipulation now for over 80 years. I don't think it has worked as its advocates predicted, whether that means the benefits have never been as great as promised or the cost has been far higher than predicted, but my bigger problem is that each of us has become smaller as our government has become larger.

Yosolo/We are not suggesting That the richest members of our nation should be taxed on their political preference , so I think you are playing the game of misdirection.The requests of those who wish to stop the disgusting evasion of their true taxes and receiving of business so called expenses and encouragements should be discontinued. Except for your post I recall no--one else advocating taxing the super rich on their bribes to a particular political party.