Obama seems to be forgetting the 48% of Americans that did not vote for him.

Patricia,

You don't have to accept it, but it IS going to happen. I take it that you are intelligent enough to know what the demographics are in this. Unless the republican party drops the hate, the social warfare, and the religious extremists, you are screwed, and that's a fact. Either move toward the center or you will cease to be relevant. Asking the rich to pay a little more is not going to kill this country. Entitlements will have to be reformed as will the tax code. Both sides are going to have to compromise, and compromise is not a dirty word. Unless you and your party change course, you are going to get shellacked in the mid terms.

If our President was actually talking about millionaires and billionaires he might get some cooperation. But the lying man is talking about everyone making over $200,000. BIG DIFFERENCE. And he really should listen to the economists that he cites, it will have the "least positive impact on our economy". What doesn't he understand about LEAST IMPACT??? It ain't going to help, he must stop spending.

Our congress is never going to agree on anything...they are to busy hating one another and pushing party before the American people.

Both sides are GUILTY of OVER SPENDING.

Feeling sour grapes- You may not have voted for him- but there has to be a compromise on both sides of the isle--

@Patricia Paulson-A Mom

And you wonder why conservative are portrayed as being so damn mean and negative? Read your post.

@CoRavensFan

I doubt the majority of the 48% who didn't vote for him are going to suffer much if the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% is let to lapse.

Patricia ...

Excuse me Miss Piggy but who says we conservatives have to change to fit your ideologies? Screw you and your commie president

Wow! It is that type of conservative thinking that got us where we are today and will continue to keep this country stagnant.

What are we cutting from spending? Great we raise taxes, but how are we getting our debt down? How are we fixing our economy? 4 years and 7 trillion more debt, with another 4 years and not paying down debt how will that help?

I'd suggest putting a horse's head in McConnell’s bed, but it's already occupied by a horse's ass.

I still think taxes need to be raised across the board. That little pittance that comes from the rich folks ain't gonna do nothin'.

Patricia Paulson-A Mom has a very limited vocabulary! Her mommeyness is on full display!

We should raise it but you have to fix the whole problem, not just raising taxes but the over spending too.

Yup! He's got it! People earning $5,000 or more a week need to pay more than 14% in taxes. Cuts are needed but increased revenue is a must. Tax loopholes would amount to only .5% of the deficit cuts.!

PatriciaP AMom has regurgitated every steriotyping welfare queen dog whistle blown by the right since Reagan gave them the whistles to blow. Nothing like teaching those A-Mom children how to be selfish and hate at the same time. Good job, PatriciaP, be proud of yourself for proving to thousands of silent FR readers that you are what you post.

Lurch...go ahead and find those programs and then tell me which president began those programs, only to later have the mentally defective buy into the false rumors that it was our current president. Of course, when most of you are completely, utterly, and hopelessly incapable of understanding anything but what you're spoonfed, you get a society of people like you who just yells into the wind.

Not only did this election allow you to show what whiney ass bastards you all are it also, somehow, made you dumber. I wouldn't have thought it possible.

And for the record, I'm with Malcontented. We ALL need to be paying more taxes. As a middle class earner on the lowest side of that scale, I'm glad to pay my taxes...I love my country and at least some of the people in it. I'm glad to pay for roads, schools, etc. What I'm tired of is the wealthy using my tax money to become wealthier and, although they're a much smaller percentage than what the morons on the right would have you think, those who abuse the system and live as well as I do without having to work.

Wyo2,

Remember that was going to be decided by Congress! Da, where the heck have you been? Watching too much FOX?

Cut and raise!

Over the last several weeks, I’ve traveled to so many countries, and EVERYWHERE it seems, the US presidential election is big news. Even when I was in Myanmar ten days ago, local pundits were engaged in the Obamney debate. Chile. Spain. Germany. Finland. Hong Kong. Thailand. Singapore. It was inescapable.

The entire world seems fixated on this belief that it actually matters who becomes the President of the United States anymore… or that one of these two guys is going to ‘fix’ things.

Fact is, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. And I’ll show you mathematically:

1) When the US federal government spends money, expenses are officially categorized in three different ways.

Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government– the US military, Air Force One, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents who sexually assault passengers, etc.

Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid.

The final category is interest on the debt. It is non-negotiable.

Mandatory spending and debt interest go out the door automatically. It’s like having your mortgage payment autodrafted from your bank account– Congress doesn’t even see the money, it’s automatically deducted.

2) With the rise of baby boomer entitlements and steady increase in overall debt levels, mandatory spending and interest payments have exploded in recent years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicted in 2010 that the US government’s TOTAL revenue would be exceeded by mandatory spending and interest expense within 15-years.

That’s a scary thought. Except it happened the very next year.

3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.

In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

4) Raising taxes won’t help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.

During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

5) GDP growth prospects are tepid at best. Facing so many headwinds like quickening inflation, an enormous debt load, and debilitating regulatory burdens, the US economy is barely keeping pace with population growth.

6) The only thing registering any meaningful growth in the US is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (from $15 trillion to $16 trillion).

Last month alone, the first full month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debt– 20% of the way to a fresh trillion in just 31 days.

7) Not to mention, the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue rising.

8) Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.

9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

This is not a political problem, it’s a mathematical one. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be. Today’s election is merely a choice of who is going to captain the sinking Titanic.

No we are just fed up with the lying and cheating you Socialists do. Class warfare will get you just this. I have 2 degrees and if they take much more Obama and Calif. I to will start taking and work part time at a job I like. With free health care, food stamps and rent subsdies I can just work say 16 hours a week at Home Depot tool Dept. and do just fine.

This is humorous ! BEFORE the election all of Obama's rhetoric was aimed at the 1% (class warfare at its finest) although his slated increases began at income levels above $200k/$250k respectively, and NOW ... he has changed his rhetoric to 2% after huddling up with his SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP that "OWNS" Obama ... the Unions !

So Bam-Bam pulls one out the a$$, aided by the lamestream media's reluctance to ask any meaningful questions and aided by scandals swept under the rug, and NOW we are going to see the REAL Obama who wants to tax and redistribute !

I can't wait to see what's next .... now that Obama will have "more flexibility" after the elections !!! Cap and Tax is next ! We need to raise our energy costs !!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

Talking points are great but the real problem is that taxing these people (the evil 1%) at higher rates won't fix the problem. It'll make you feel good but it still doesn't actually FIX anything. You can see by the posts here what the problem is, every one wants to bitch and moan about everyone else, but not address the hard issues.

Obama won, good for you. But be honest with yourselves, Pelosi and Reid are just as guilty as Bohner and McConnell. If you can't admit that, then you are part of the problem(and as crazy as miss piggy and feisty). Everyone is going to lose on this one. And yes, that means everyone, not just the 1%. Think your payroll taxes aren't going up? Good luck with that.

Patricia... Who is YOUR president? Are you no longer part of the USA? Cite ONE instance of an illegal alien who had law school paid for by the taxpayers.
Lurch... Do you realize that the conspiracy theories you mentioned (Obama phones, etc.) have been COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY debunked?
JH... Raising taxes on people who make 250K/yr (not 200K) by 3% is going to cause the end of US growth? Really? Is that what happened under Clinton's 8yrs? The tax rate would be raised BACK to Clinton tax rates... aka a time of growth and surplus.

Some of you need to learn more about the "fiscal cliff" before spewing the BS Faux talking points. The expiration of the OBAMA payroll tax cut is considered by MOST economists to be the most severe danger to the US economy NOT, I repeat, NOT the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts which inordinately benefits the wealthy. Read and critically think before making completely facile arguments and inane comments.

How does declaring a mandate and sniping at Republicans equate to charm? How does asking someone else pay more lower my taxes? He and the democratic party passed the buck until after the election. These are now their tax cuts their tax rates. They "extended" passed them with a majority in both houses. THEY HAD THE POWER TO DO IT! Why did they wait if it is so vital?

Those of you buying the class warfare propaganda ask yourself; really ask yourself; why wait until now and not do it when they had the power? Seriously, ask yourself. Let me help you just in case. It's a talking point. It's a message. Keep on drinking.

Layton - "Wow! It is that type of conservative thinking that got us where we are today and will continue to keep this country stagnant."

wasn't progressive/liberal thinking that got us to were we are now. We are required by law to spend more than we take in. and you somehow think that is a conservative idea?

The federal government is suppose to protect the citizens from outside sources, which means defense spending is mandatory, does it have to be 800 billion? or course not, but guess what happens when you cut defense? Federal Union employees lose jobs, is that what the libs want?

Hey I am all for at minimum freezing defense spending, but guess what, Federal Union employees are going to take the blunt of that, is that what libs want?

I keep hearing the wealthy to pay their fair share. So a wealthy person abides by the laws and pays taxes every year what is not fair about that. tell me what is fair about some people that pay no taxes? i thought it was about being fair. You want fair make every one pay the same tax on every dollar he or she has then it is fair. OBAMA HAS NO PLAN , BLAMING OTHERS IS NOT A WAY TO GET JOBS BACK IN THIS COUNTRY, I WANY ANY PIECE of CHIT libby to tell me Obamas plan that will entice comapnys back the USA. 2 yeahs Obama passed everything he wanted and no jobs. If you think we ar doing good and in recovery wait aonter 2 years and i will ask you then , you voted for who.

Whoomp, there it is!

The danger
to America is not Barack
Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the
Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama
presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a
depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem
is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
what ails America .
Blaming the
prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools
that made him their prince.
The
Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less
likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their
president."

was posted in a foriegn newspaper.

pretty much sums it up.

Enjoy your fiscal cliff.

Patricia .... really ,,,, you really believe what you posted ? Nothing but bitterness and ignorance .... seriously, you need to turn fox news off ... and whether Obama won by 1% or 20%, the FACT is OBAMA WON ! Deal with it ! Be an American and support your AMERICAN President selected by AMERICAN VOTERS.

Lurch ... get a job .... remember red states get all the welfare and handouts .... check it out ... EDUCATE YOURSELF ...

Not - "NOT the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts which inordinately benefits the wealthy. Read and critically think before making completely facile arguments and inane comments."

Do you think letting all the Bush tax cuts expire are going to hurt the poor & middle class less than the "Rich".

I know very few poor and middle class that have any money left at the end of a month or year to pay more taxes.

Do you know that the child tax credit costs the government more than the 3% drop to the highest tax bracket?

Ignorance is not bliss! - should we go on calling your Forest Gump?

blue - or should I say hypocrite.

"the FACT is OBAMA WON !", you weren't saying the same thing after the 2010 election!

Tom-Plymouth ...

My post was directed to Patricia ... so in essence YOUR response was a defense of her rant ...

I will never accept being FORCED to support lazy, no good SOBs who popped babies very 9 months or ILLEGAL aliens who lie and sneak to into MY country to get on welfare, to get free medical treatment, and free schooling, up to and including LAW SCHOOL. Start a charity if you want to take care of these bums, leave my wallet alone.

If progressive/liberal thinking got us to where we are now, well define your now, please. My definition of the NOW is that yes, we pay for schools, roads, infrastructure, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. It looks like Patricia wants to make sure that she does NOT pay into those programs and by your endorsement of her post, you must as well.

I sure didn't see anything in her post about defense spending. But since you went there, yes, it does need to be looked at as our country spends more on it that the 21 countries below us on the spending scale. I'm well aware of the benefits offered to both civilian and military government employees. I seriously think all of the contractors need to be looked at.

Have fun with Patricia.

Ninja Code Man @1.4 - Bye bye!!!! Love it. You have to remember this is the politics wing of The Vine and Tyler and Sally don't put up with rants and insults like you posted above unlike the First Read side of it. See you in your next rereg!

CLWYD - I don't watch Fox, but maybe I should. The President is doing the usual - find money, throw it at problems, hope it goes away - if not borrow money, throw it at problem, hope it goes away - if not blame bush. Obama needs a seminar on "How to be a Strong Leader" and not just "Leader of the Clowns in his Administration"

After the bluster and the partisan rhetoric, my rate will go up...a whopping 3%
Lordy! How will we rich'uns survive this ONSLAUGHT?

Actually, I did pretty good under those Clinton era tax rates, come to think of it, so did almost everyone else...

I'm really not sure why democrats are still complaining about Congress. A couple of weeks ago you voted Obama into office but failed to put more democrats into Congress. Why?? So that you would have a scapegoat for more failures from your President?

Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.

Unfortunately, that's the way it will always be...everyone is concerned about the debt, but no one wants any of the cuts to come from "their" programs.

I say cut all programs and discretionary spending across the board...everyone has to sacrifice a little if we are ever going to have a chance to reign in our $16 trillion in debt.

This is not a RIGHT or LEFT problem, this is a problem facing all of us and our children and grandchildren....at some point, spending needs to be cut...there's no way out of the whole without cutting spending and raising taxes and unfortunately there are going to be people unhappy.

My very conservative friend posted this today. Though I am a moderate, I think it is intelligent and well-thought out. Not sure if it is his, or if it is a copy of something, but after reading it, and watching the news conference, I am VERY worried about things to come. I know my healthcare is going up to $1100 per month for my family of 2 adults, 2 children. I have already starting stockpiling what seems to be a worthless form of legal tender, and have started making sure that my children are safe and secure. Shame.

However, I want to know why Ninjacodeman hasn't been deleted. That wasn't necessary but obviously, reason doesn't reign supreme on boards, now does it? Enjoy the read below:

The Bush-era income tax rates will expire at year end. That is only one of a number of financially significant –some say cataclysmic– deadlines that occur around year end: the payroll tax holiday ends, the alternative minimum tax patch will expire, $36 billion in Obamacare taxes will take effect, tax extenders will expire, the (minimal) 2009 “stimulus” tax cuts will run out, the inheritance tax will increase, 100% expensing for business investment will expire, $109 billion in sequestration begins. Also, several spending reductions will go into effect: extended unemployment insurance benefits will expire, and Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians will decline; and, on top of all of that, the U.S. will hit its debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion in the coming weeks.

All of the above issues will be in play in negotiations between the Obama administration and Congressional Republicans over the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Obama has said that his one absolute, non negotiable marker is that taxes on the "wealthy" must increase.

Now, the large majority of the Bush tax cuts went to people who are not, by any definition, "wealthy." They benefited average, middle class Americans. But, for a decade Democrats have been telling voters that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the "wealthy" –”tax cuts for the rich!”– and that Republicans don’t want to rescind the Bush tax cuts because they are holding out for billionaires.

Fine; if the Bush tax cuts only benefited the "wealthy", then Democrats can have no objection to doing away with all of them, and returning marginal income tax rates to what they were before. So, Republicans should call Obama’s bluff, and accept his offer by agreeing to let all of the Bush-era tax rates expire. Taxes on the “rich” will go back to what they were during the Clinton administration. But so, under this proposal, will taxes on everyone else. What would this mean? The 35% bracket would go to 39.6%; the 33 percent bracket would go to 36 percent; the 28 percent bracket would increase to 31%; the 25% bracket would go up to 28 percent; and the 10% bracket would be eliminated, with 15% being the lowest rate.

The pain felt by every American, and the resulting outcry, would force Democrats to admit that the large majority of the Bush tax cuts went to people who are not, by any definition, "wealthy." Obama would not allow this happen, and would slow his purposeful bankrupting of nation.

"Will the Republicans play hardball to try and save our nation?" I don't know. Why are you asking me?
Enjoy :)

Tom - Plymouth

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. If people understood the problems and stopped being so Pig Headed maybe the problems could get fixed. Sadly, I don't think they will. Good post and you didn't even call anyone a bad name.

Cracks me up... He get's 51% of the vote, and the majority of the people who voted for him pay zero federal taxes! And this is a mandate? This man is delusional!

So a wealthy person abides by the laws and pays taxes every year what is not fair about that. tell me what is fair about some people that pay no taxes?

The problem is, the most wealthy people get away with paying almost NOTHING in taxes (see: Mitt Romney, Donald Trump) especially compared to what most middle class Americans pay. You Republicans bitch about "entitled welfare bums", completely writing off an entire socioeconomic class as lazy and useless (which is an old, tired, untrue stereotype that I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing) but you somehow think it's OK that the incredibly wealthy get away with paying nothing?! Talk about hypocritical, as usual. I guess your answer is to tax the poor & middle class, squeeze the last few pennies out of them, and let the rich get away with paying nothing and hoarding their money. GREAT PLAN GUYS.

No we are just fed up with the lying and cheating you Socialists do. Class warfare will get you just this. I have 2 degrees and if they take much more Obama and Calif. I to will start taking and work part time at a job I like. With free health care, food stamps and rent subsdies I can just work say 16 hours a week at Home Depot tool Dept. and do just fine.

And what exactly is your problem here? Obama is trying to keep your taxes constant, whereas the Republicans are holding it hostage to the tax cut of the richest. And your problem is with "cheating Socialists?"

The Republicans were elected to the House and THAT was a mandate to make sure taxes did not increase. If you want to speak about "mandates" it was the Republicans elected to the House to protect the country against further demise by the failed Obama economic policies.

Cracks me up... He get's 51% of the vote, and the majority of the people who voted for him pay zero federal taxes! And this is a mandate?

Most of the people who voted for Romney also pay 0 federal taxes, but as far as that goes, the people who voted for Obama pay more taxes than the people who voted against him. It is well-known that Romney won the white vote. What is less well-known is that Obama won the educated white vote. Here's something you will never find on Fox News. Proof that the more educated one is, the higher the tendency to vote in favor of liberal views: http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/03/more-college-graduates-more-democratic-voters/

This man is delusional!

Try again.

Patricia Paulson-A Mom

... ILLEGAL aliens who lie and sneak to into MY country to get on welfare...

Please see http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/AILAcampaignmyths01-08.pdf regarding the illegal aliens on welfare myth.

it was the Republicans elected to the House to protect the country against further demise by the failed Obama economic policies

By "failed economic policies", do you mean the reduced deficit under Obama? Or record profits for American companies under Obama? Or continually dropping unemployment under Obama?

If these are "failed economic policies", the country is in desperate need of more of them. If you want to see real failed economic policies, examine what happened under President Bush.

it must be tough to be a republican and know that a majority of america disagree with your policies. you lost the whitehouse, you lost 2 more seats in the senate and if not for redistricting you would have lost the house too.

on November 6 the american people walked into the voting boooth and decided to raise taxes on the rich. time to get over it

your only other option is to head to canada, but wait they are socialist there.lol

maybe head south, but wait, you hate mexicans

well maybe you can go find an island somewhere and you and grover can elect mitt as you leader and live happily ever after

to Tom-Plymouth (your post was well-written and nicely put, by the way)...I was in France during there elections. I got the view point of many French citizens concerning and comparing America to European countries. They basically said that we are all laughing stocks and should be ashamed that we don't take better care of our citizens...well, most people told me that. They are also the ones who support the Socialist party. I befriended a lovely couple, originally from the U.S. (he from Brazil), who worked their 32 hour work weeks, had free healthcare (due to their higher-end jobs, their care is a bit better than others below them), and voted socialist. Now, they are complaining because he raised their taxes sky-high to cover a mounting debt in France caused by people not contributing their fair share, i.e. the "lessers" of society, meaning the beggars, the thieves, and the people who have not contributed to the funding. Sounds an awful lot like Americans griping, huh?

I say this simply: I am not against helping my fellow man. I am against making it mandatory to take from the haves to give to the will-nots. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it...my French friends are now regretting it, big time. You can vote in someone who might sound pretty, or be what you want them to be, because they might surprise you...this goes for both Democrats and Republicans. You put a crook in a position, face facts- he's gonna take what you lay out for him or her.

Can some of the brilliant libs please explain to those of us who don't know, just what is 'fair share'? Who decides/determines 'fair share'?

Until you can define it, don't show your ignorance by saying it.

I will compromise as long as you do what I want...

@bruce, you're right. There were so many things wrong with the republican platform that we couldn't possibly be sure that 51% of the voters support raising taxes on wealthy Americans.

But it seems I remember W. saying "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it" after an even narrower victory over John Kerry. What was he talking about?

In 2008 Barack Obama made it clear that he would enact health care reform and throughout the 2012 campaign he made it perfectly clear that he would seek to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. Winning a second term with that profound of a proclamation would seem to be a mandate.

The deal the Teabaggers/GOP wanted and agreed to is the expiration of the tax cuts. They are getting what they wanted. Suck it up! You asked for it.

Get out of Afghanistan and cut military spending. Entitlements were paid for by the people who are set to receive them. You can split hairs all you want, but, to deliver less than what was promised and paid for is not reform, it's theft.

Patricia---and I suggest we start by cutting your social security and medicare and any veterans benefits you or anyone in your family is getting because I am serious about reducing the deficit. Then, if you are making over $250,000 I suggest we raise your tax rate to 50%. This will clearly balance the budget and cut entitlements.

*their* elections

Well, we have learned your president is a chronic habitual lair.

Obama- If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Obama- “For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs.”

Obama- “Preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody.”

Obama- “Thirty million Americans, including a lot of people in Florida, are going to be able to get healthcare next year because of that law.”

Obama- “I made a bunch of these promises during the campaign. … We’ve got about 60 percent done in three years.”

Obama Admin.- Under President Barack Obama, the United States has “doubled our exports.”

Obama Admin.- The president’s proposed budget “will help reduce the deficit by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.”

Obama- Under the White House’s budget proposal, “we will not be adding more to the national debt” by the middle of the decade.

Obama- Twelve judges have thrown out legal challenges to the health care law because they rejected “the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional.”

Obama- “I didn’t raise taxes once.”

Obama- When President Franklin D. Roosevelt started Social Security, “it only affected widows and orphans,” and when Medicare began, “it was a small program.”

Obama- The Bush administration had been “giving (auto companies) billions of dollars and just asking nothing in return.”

Obama- “The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.”

Obama- “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

Obama- When Obama was interviewed by American reporters in Asia, “Not one of them asked me about Asia. Not one of them asked me about the economy.”

Obama- Insurers delayed an Illinois man’s treatment, “and he died because of it.”

Obama- Health reform will “give every American the same opportunity” to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.

Obama- Preventive care “saves money.”

Obama- (No earmarks in spending bill)

Barack Obama has been proven by more than one fact checking organization to be a habitual liar.

Lies During Third Year

I will walk on that picket line with you, if workers are denied the right to bargain.

In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama said that American oil production is the

I’ve done more for Israel’s security than any President ever

Obama aided Islamic Extremists take over of Egypt/ Libya – Weapons pour into Gaza

“Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.”

Like Raising taxes?

Obama met highly qualified out of work teacher Robert Baroz, he wasn’t out of work and Obama never met him.

GOP Responsible for Obama Jobs Bill Not Passing, Dems Rejected Jobs Bill

You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem: Gallup Poll: Only 69%

These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. Congress has run up the credit card, and we now have an obligation to pay our bills; Looks like it’s been incurred mostly in the years of Obama

Jobs Bill Paid for; Seems not so much Paid for

Then you’ve got their(GOP)which is dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance; Barack Obama, campaiging in Asheville, NC, 10/17/11

I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.

USA producing more oil than ever before

Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”; Department of Homeland Security says 5%

Rich doesn’t pay their fair share; National Taxpayers Union

Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children

Wyo 2, it won't help, but we'll feel good for a while. That's what all this crap is about...feeling good. Not one economist anywhere says anything positive about this direction. The man has four years of dismal numbers (except Excutive orders, good numbers there) but his rhetoric makes us feel good.

And don't forget to blame the other guy: rich-poor, men-women, white-black-latino, straight-gay, Republican-Democrat. According to this president, if you're not happy, it's not your fault, the guy in the other group is the problem.

Like someone else has already posted, I don't care who is in the White House but stop the BS. And compromise doesn't mean one side or the other gets their way so that group can get all puffed up on the eveing news. The irresponsible, incompetent clowns in DC, ALL of them, have lead us to the miserable situation we're in now and until we hold ALL if them accountable and demand better it won't change.

And now I feel better, actually I feel good. So,see, it must be working.

Byron - Or continually dropping unemployment under Obama?

Wait we have more people not working today than the day of his first election.

How is it is unemployment is down, but of course you mean the unemployment rate, which hasn't really moved much lately has it?

Byron - I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but unemployment is about the same as when Obama took office, the deficit has grown, and although businesses are making record profits, we still have a bad economy. This is a bad sign. If companies were making record profits, I would expect that to only be good if the economy was also doing great. Otherwise, it's probably from cutting jobs, etc. and where are those records going? main street or wall street?

So it appears that the rich will have a month and a half to pass their money into non-taxable forms. Corporations will have to distribute $800 Billion in dividends (made since 2008) rather than face that tax. People have been pulling out of the market all week (quite a day today, huh?)... and Outsourcing will now increase exponentially. Nice work, you jackasses. People aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are... otherwise they'd be poor, like you and me.

wyo2,

Flushing $4,000,000,000,000 down the drain for bush's lost wars isn't throwing money away. That is 1/4th of the national debt. Add the bush tax cuts and you can account for more than 1/2 of the money thrown away.

Tom,

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

Wrong. Taking capital gains from 14% to the current income rate for companies, 35%, would produce about 500 billion in revenue. Almost all of the huge earners, the top of the 1%, are people that make money from money; in other words people that are investors and hedge funds and the like. Closing down the charity deduction is morally the right thing to do as well and will produce an increase in tax monies as well.

Since no one donates to get a tax break, as people like ProBusiness have said in the past, we do not need this deduction and it is creating unneeded losses in revenues.

We could easily raise one trillion in taxes by raising corporate income and cap. gains to 39% and then closing off some deductions and loopholes used by big businesses. Next raise taxes on individuals making 200,000 a year and couples at 250,000 a year by 5%.

Essentially reinstate Clinton era rates plus a bit more bite with closing a few loop hold and ending some deductions. Of course we do need to cut spending. The first place it should happen is in the paychecks of Congress members. They do not need that much money for just sitting around, arguing, and not compromising or doing what is best for the country. Drop their salaries by 25% and then add a constitutional amendment so that pay raises happen under national vote so they cannot arbitrarily give themselves raises.

Next cut the military budget by 25% to 35% and close down many of our international bases. Set the retirement age to 70 and then add legislation that automatically increases the retirement age by one year every decade. Place a cap on how much you can draw from SS, in other words you cannot take out more than you have put in, and allow the SS recipient to take out as much or as little a month as they want as long as it is under 10% of their total holdings.

Changes to Medicare also are needed. Do all of this and we will be in better shape and can start paying down the debt.

The biggest obstacle to tax reform? You are

If Congress and the White House would just fix the tax code - by getting rid of decades of deductions, exemptions and other giveaways – they could lower tax rates and balance the federal budget.

It sounds like a great idea - until the loophole that's closed is the one that puts money in your pocket.

That’s one big reason Congress and the White House have been unable to agree on broad-based tax reform for decades.

“Everybody loves to talk about it: ‘All we have to do is broaden the tax base, cut all the loopholes and lower tax rates,' ” said Nick Kasprak, an analyst at the Tax Foundation. “It sounds nice when you don’t get specific about it. But as soon as you start taking about specifics, whatever interest group is behind that tax break is going to fight tooth and nail to keep it.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/biggest-obstacle-tax-reform-you-are-1C7038051

This is going to be fun to watch!!!

51%, or approximately so, constitutes a mandate? Geez, this guy knows as little about statistics as he does about economics!

Unfortunately, even the small increase in taxes on the wealthy will not result in any of them paying their "fair share". They will continue to pay a smaller percentage than middle income families.

THAT is the real wealth redistribution. Middle class families losing more of their hard earned money so that the wealthy get to keep more of their own. And a small 3% tax increase will not change that.

Romney pays less than 14% in taxes. If we were to give him the full increase, that is only 17% . . . still below a middle class family. In reality, deductions will be used to reduce that increase to probably 1%, so he MIGHT pay 15% total. How is that fair? It's not.

And if we remove deductions, Republicans will want them removed across the board, which will hit middle income families harder than the wealthy. So that is not an option.

I would like to see any capital gains in excess of $200k be taxed at regular income rates. Remove the mortgage deductions on 2nd homes, NOT primary residence homes. And tax churches so that they can not be used as tax shelters (the way Romney has used it).

Then keep the current tax rates (DO NOT CUT THEM), cut spending in wasteful areas (including the military), relax some regulations slightly (DO NOT REMOVE THEM). Finally, give businesses a tax incentive to keep jobs here with decent pay and benefits.

I can dream, can't I?

hmmm......so he has a mandate for taxes, and this will probably lead to higher taxes on the top 2%, they can afford it, doesn't seem like the Kelley's are doing to well. I guess they could have lived within their means. Now I wonder if this can be extrapolated down through the classes!?

Geowil...in the past, when that method has been tried, investors head for the hills and businesses close shop. You get a big chunk of revenue in the beginning, but shortly down the road the overall tax revenue base crashes. Where, exactly, do you suppose we should get the money then?

Printing money like crazy deflated the value of the dollar and my retirement savings. So now I have to save even more to make up for it. That takes money out of the economy. Now they want to raise my taxes, so I'll have even less discretionary income to spend.

Tell me again how that's going to help grow the economy "trickle-up" style?

Indeo - although I usually disagree with you, I am with you on taxes. I personally am against the huge benefits of qualified divends and LTCG.

I am against using $250,000 per year as a magical cutoff, but that's a different topic.

Also, it is not fair to lump Mitt Romney and, say, Warren Buffet into the same mix of people who DO pay the highest tax rates. Preaching that the highest earners don't "pay their fair share" is not entirely correct, and spreads the idea that rich people mostly pay lower tax rates, which is not correct.

If it was me I would not vote for any tax increases and no raising of the debt ceiling. If I can't live within my means I don't go to my boss and say give me more.

Of course more people will vote to tax the top 2% more, but that doesn't make it fair. It just screams of make anyone pay but me. Heck we could probably get a good number of votes to sell the bottom 1% into slavery in China if it meant they wouldn't have to pay more in taxes and the price of gas was going to drop back down to $1.50 a gallon.

In a nut shell the far right wants to delegitimize the fact that President Obama is indeed the twice elected President of the United States.

So America has woken up and we aren't listening to these far right extremist, who do nothing but spread their hate, intolerance and in many cases racism.

The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to Center of Responsive Politics. Nearly half the members of Congress are millionaires.

How do you think Congress will vote on this "Tax The Rich"?

Askaboutet I don't know where you get YOUR numbers but if the participation rate was the same today as the very day Obama was sworn in the UE rate would be at 10.8-11%. From February 2008 to July 2010 we lost 8.8 million jobs. According to the administration we have "created" (still love that terminology as it should be recovered) 5.5 million. That tells me that we are still short 3.3 million from the height of employment numbers in the country. Now I will grant you the whole baby boomers retiring mumbo jumbo but, the fact remains even though 7.8 is the same percentage as January 2009, we are NOWHERE close to being "about even".

What needs to be CUT is the cost of GOVERNMENT! Each politician has a budget, staff and lots more to cut. They should be on Medicare and Social Security like the rest of us, and not their own programs. Most people elected are millionaires and don't need the hand-outs anyway.

@guy, they already agreed to and signed off on allowing the Bush tax cuts to permanently end in January. That's how it will start, but remember, Barack Obama is much more adept at negotiation than his congressional counter weight. It would seem that by banking on a second term win, he played their ego against them and they took the bait.

Damn Patricia Paulson-A Mom I feel sorry for your kids having to have such a hate filled mother. Hopefully at 21 they will seek the therapy to get over you.

As for this country, you Reich-wingers are always saying of the US "Love it or leave it." Well the country spoke, and guess what, it isn't the hateful racist stupid place you all want it to be, so if you aren't going to help move the US forward, get the hell out! Yesterday's Pew research pole found 53% of people in the US blame the GOP 100% for the fiscal mess. Six out of every ten exit poll respondents on election day said they want to see taxes raised so everyone pays a fair share. Even Fox Noise said so, and they lie 99.9999999999999% of the time, but on this one they couldn't. So love it, or leave it, and I am hoping you and others here do leave it, as the US will be better off without the hate and greed.

My wife and I do very well, and we don't mind paying our taxes. It is the price one pays for living in a civil society. Even Jesus said when asked about taxes "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto god what is his", so if you are Christian, any of you, you are ignoring your Lord (not to mention ignoring his teachings on treating the poor, the ill, the dregs of society he ministered to. He didn't go to the wealthy or the greedy, he said of them, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for them to get into heaven". Guess we know where you GOPers are headed...

Just read an article indicating Grover Norquist is going the way of Donald Trump - irrelevant! Many of the new Republican House members refused to sign his oath and others that have are now saying - too bad, it doesn't mean anything to them. Apparently the shine has worn off dear Grover.

The President knows that 63% of Americans have no problem with increasing taxes on those making $250,000 as well as making cuts to some programs. We are all in this together and those making more don't get a free pass.

Oh, to the individual who went on and on about "Obamaphones" - do a little homework. The free program started in 1996 - it's a program handled by the FCC - always has been!

Job1 - honestly, I think it's posts like that that actually spread the hate and racism.

I actually voted or Obama in 2008, and then honestly came of the opinion that it was the liberals who were more "hateful" and for lack of a better word, ignorant, I guess? By no means am I saying most or all liberals are either of these, but I was surprised to find out that (in my humble opinion) I found more people like that on the liberal side, than the conservative side.

Talk to the hand - sorry - you might have misunderstood what my point was. I am completely on your side in terms of how employment is doing. I was simply responding to someone who said the unemployment rate has gone down throughout Obama's presidency. I was just trying to prove him wrong, saying "oficially" it's at/around the same level as when he started, which obviously means it couldn't have gone down the whole time.

I am on board with you re: the real unemployment rate, population % employed, workforce, etc. I was jsut trying to make a quick point re: what that person said.

Obama states "that voters have given me a mandate to raise someone else's taxes. Just not theirs."

Sorry ask, I didn't read Byron's post who you were disputing with and thought it was on the other side of the argument. : )

If you can't look around and SEE examples of failed economic policies by Obama then I can't help you. Things like:

1) 7.9% Unemployment Rate - HIGHER than when Obama took office

2) 2% GDP growing slower than last year which is slower than the previous year

3) 40% increase of people on Food Stamps

4) 1 in 6 in Poverty

5) Labor-Participation Rate lowest in the last 40 years

6) Highest percent of unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression

7) Countless companies clearly telling the country (and world) that increased regulations, ObamaCare, and now a desire to raise taxes will force them to layoff a large number of employees

8) A stock market getting ready to go into freefall

How so many unintelligent people voted for Obama AGAIN is beyond me. When Obama's campaign is "it is STILL about HOPE, it is STILL about CHANGE" you KNOW the next four years are going to be catastrophic - and it all starts with continued anti-business divisive rhetoric from an incompetent president.

You people do realize that trump, romney, kerry, the kennedys, rangel....they won't be affected by this right? They will just get smarter in hiding their money and legally evading taxes. You know who this is going to hit? People like my 84 yr. old inlaws, that worked all their lives, saved, scrimped, sacrificed so they could invest in their retirement. They are just barely 1%ers, this close to it [], and now their have to pay for people who don't want to make the same sacrifices that they made to be comfortable in their old age. Shame on all you greedy bastards that thought trump and romney would pay.

Geowil, good luck with those ideas. and by the way no matter the tax rates, we always collect the same taxes at about 17.7% of GDP.

cutting defense by 25 -35% layoffs off how many Americans?

Numbers might not be your thing, but they do count.

Obama is a socialist commie pig. Oink, oink!

Time to SECEDE!!

We no longer have a government "for the people and by the people". The Constitution has been used as toilet paper and a government based on "states rights" has been ruined by a bloated federal government with departments of energy, education, transportation, etc. that mandate what states must do. In other words states rights have been removed.

The founding fathers were smart. They had seen what damage a powerful federal government could do. So the wrote the Constitution giving limited power to the federal government and the states then decided what they wanted to do. Want a liberal state? Have at it - then I move to a conservative state. Think your state is too conservative? Then move to a state that is more liberal. Then these bickering arguments are mute points. But when a federal government mandates the people are split. 50% is always unhappy after an election and the other 50% are complaining that they can't get something done with their "mandate".

So the solution is to start over. Several states secede. Conservatives will be happy because the new country can do what the founding fathers wanted - to limit the new federal government. Liberals should be happy because the dastardly and "hateful" Republicans will not be around any longer to block your progression towards a Socialist economy. Then the people have a choice: Stay in the United Socialist States of America or relocate to the new country founded on the same principles as our founding fathers.

Enough beating around the bush and denying the inevitable discussion. The only solution is for several states to secede and we have two countries with one founded on Conservative values of limited government and spending within your means and the other a Socialist country destined for bankruptcy.

Why would anybody not agree? Wouldn't that make BOTH sides happy? One country with no Liberals in the way of progress and the other country with no Conservatives in the way of their "progress"?

Secession is the only long-term solution.

askaboutet

I will agree that $250,000 is completely different than the Romney's and Buffet's of the world. So maybe that is not the right cut off. A million would be a better choice . . . but again, it won't do much without revamping the loopholes and deductions.

askaboutet - either you're reading comprehension skills are lacking or you just aren't reading anything that is posted on most sites. I have never in my life seen the hatred and total ignorance posted by Republicans that I have seen over the past year. There is the absolute stupidity about his birth certificate; his college transcripts; horrible names for him and genuine hatred of a man who is a good person. If you believe liberals show ignorance and mean-spiritedness then you clearly aren't reading posts of the far right - or you're not telling the truth.

If we need a TRILLION dollars just to be even and not have to borrow, how the hell is taxing the "rich" even gonna begin to help??? CUT SPENDING YOU FVCKING IDIOT!!!!!!

Hmmmmm, 48% say no, and 52% say yes. Who wins?

It sucks to be a Republican.

Pro Business

Better sell your stock fast. Your guy lost the election because our economy is doing much better now than it was when Obama took office.

You claim to teach an economics course, so unless you are lying about that, you know that the momentum of a recession creates job losses even after the recession is ended.

The fed gov't took in $1.40T in income tax revenue this year. If Obama is successful in raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans (term used loosely) for the sake of easy math let's say 10%. Revenue figure looks something like $1.54T. Great. Our debt is $16T. Ok maybe I'm bad at math, but someone please explain how this "mandate" (which nearly half the country disagrees with) is anything more than a drop in a very large bucket?

If adding $140b per year in revenue is Obama's master plan to save our economy, you have all been duped by worse math than the Romney campaign.

ProBusiness

If you can't look around and SEE examples of failed economic policies by Obama then I can't help you. Things like:

1) 7.9% Unemployment Rate - HIGHER than when Obama took office

Are you really assigning blame to him in Jan, Feb and March of 2009? He was in office 3 months - which consequently were the pinnacle of job losses nationally. Unemployment when he took office was 8.3%. Is math hard for you?

6) Highest percent of unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression

Didint we just come out of the worse economic meltdown since the depression?

7) Countless companies clearly telling the country (and world) that increased regulations, ObamaCare, and now a desire to raise taxes will force them to layoff a large number of employees

Who cares? We are not governed by companies. Maybe if companies took better care of their workers this wouldnt have happened.

8) A stock market getting ready to go into freefall

ROFL! Must say I am laughing at your lame post by now. What was the DOW when Obama took office? What is it now? Yes - clearly he is tanking the DOW. And the DOW tanks if someone farts cross ways.

How so many unintelligent people voted for Obama AGAIN is beyond me. When Obama's campaign is "it is STILL about HOPE, it is STILL about CHANGE" you KNOW the next four years are going to be catastrophic - and it all starts with continued anti-business divisive rhetoric from an incompetent president.

ROFL! If he is all of those things - what does that say about your guy? Face it - the majority of Americans dont agree with you or your ass backwards political philosophy and hypocrisy. Run up deficits - then bitch about em when the black guy gets elected. Start 2 wars and then bitch because we are running deficits each year. Decrease revenues and ramp up spending - then assign the entire debt blame to the next guy. LOL! You people are clowns. COme here and let me honk your red nose!

so, we increase the tax on the top 1%. in turn, that 1% which i'm sure own businesses, will in turn raise the price of their products 3 to 4%. which the middle class purchase, which in turn, makes it a middle class tax hike. CASE CLOSED !!!

@JH-479998

President Obama said $250,000 to be taxes 3.8% more not people making $200,000

And 95 percent of the country do not make $200,000 a year you clown. That is the reason you lost you can't even add correctly. WTF are you calculating Mittwitts plan again? That's never going to happen.

Either you agree with the 48% and get rolled over or you agree with the majority of the united states and help your fellow American out.

The days of I got mind and you are on your own are over. Get use to it. And I make way more than what requirement is.

Face facts you lost. Win won we get to choose you have chosen long enough for us. NO MORE

the money i have is MY MONEY! not yours, not the governments. the government has not provided me with anything that was not paid for by me or other tax payers in my family so in return i will not be giving the government any of my money until they can learn to budget OUR MONEY. government has a spending problem only. you have no right to my money through social programs.

tax cuts, breaks ,subsidies or w/e you want DO NOT COST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONE DIME!!! its not their money to begin with so how can they show a loss? there are no deficits from giving people their money back. im so sick of hearing about how such n such tax cuts add to government debt, it just simply aint true.

Article. IV.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened),against domestic Violence.

what part of REPUBLIC do any of you not get? we cannot be a democracy and as such in current form we are and in violation of the US constitution. as an american citizen i do not have to recognize a government that has so blatantly disregarded the US constitution. i dont need a judge to tell me whats wrong.

I never thought i would go to the place i am at but, here's my logic. A few years back when the entire country was polled regarding Same sex marriage, the MAJORITY voted against allowing it. Then, the government pandered by stating that this issue was not something that could be decided by a majority and somehow shape shifted it into a civil rights issue, allowing a MINORITY to gain the right that most people abhor. So, in keeping with that strictly democratic method, President Obama is the president to only about 51% of the lemmings in this country. He is not the president, nor does he earn the right of respect from the 49% he intends to drive a bus over with his socialist policies. I have respect for and will only commiserate with the 49% who saw this fraudster for what he is. The rest of you 51% can just go die under a rock.

SeekingSanity - sorry. I did not mean to make light of the ignorant, racist comments people have posted re: Obama. But, I do stand by what I was saying, which was more meant towards the general liberal population, and their ideas/thoughts of *general* republicans and republican ideas.

Solutions

"President Obama said $250,000 to be taxes 3.8% more not people making $200,000"

It is 200K for individuals and 250K for families, did you miss the memo?

Also - "Face facts you lost. Win won we get to choose you have chosen long enough for us."

Were you saying the same thing after the 2010 election? or were you whinning like a 4 year about the obstructionist?

Would you like the definition of hypocrite?

askaboutet - we'll continue to disagree. I have never seen the ignorant hatred I've seen spewed by the right wingers. Liberals don't hold a candle to their mean-spiritedness and general hatred - not only of the President but also of the poor. It's a sad state of affairs when people have to put those less fortunate down to feel good about themselves.

ProBusiness,

See ya, good luck with that!

Do you know what a Libertarian is? Ans a person who's political party was beaten in the last election.

So no one's going to "moderate" NinjaCodeMan for the "Patricia...You have proven that you are worthless... You just went on ignore you worthless b!tch.."

Is it because NinjaCodeMan is obviously politically aligned with liberals and that's how we roll here on NBC? I got suspended for calling a collective group of unnamed people stupid once. Maybe we have a new found freedom of speech now? Just wondering, you know because of the foul language directed at someone specific.

Mandate my butt. Assuming that Romney's 47% voted for Obama he got 5% of the vote from people who actually pay taxes.

If you asked 52 wolves and 48 sheep what to have for dinner they're going to vote lamb chops every time

Shaak: Did you actually SAY the economy is doing better? This economy has not improved in the four years Obama has been in office and it is getting worse by the day. Yes I DO teach Economics and I told you FOUR YEARS AGO what today was going to look like and it is EXACTLY what I said. Business and Consumer uncertainty, divisive, a declining economy, higher unemployment, significant increase in entitlements (disability, food stamps, etc.), and a downgrade of our credit.

I was on this site stating these things weekly and they came true. NOT because I am a prognosticator but because I understand and teach Economics. What I said would happen is what EVERY college Economics textbook in the country says will happen when you reduce the incentives in the private sector. Maybe if you actually TOOK an Economics class you would have also easily been able to project what our economy would now look like.

All I can say is prepare wisely for the next four years - it won't be pretty. I know you don't care how I am preparing but I will offer it anyway: I have been buying precious metals for the last 4 years (silver, copper, etc.), increasing my ammunition, have a survival stash of freeze dried food with a 25 year life, and have water purification tablets. I started building up assuming I would NEVER need it but have it "just in case". All I can say is NOW I am glad I have been building that stash. You want to know what the NEXT four years could potentially bring? Sorry, I will leave that to your imagination. But just remember what the Greece riots look like because we are not that far behind.

Tom & Solutions - the greatest part about the $250,000 is this:

In 2007 (latest info I could quickly find) the 400 top earners in the U.S. reported an average of $344,000,000 of income in 2007. That means, if you had a football field, with the 0 yard line be people making $0, and the opposite endzone representing the people making the most ($344,000,000), EVERY SINGLE TAX BRACKET would be within the 1 yard line. Seem weird?!?! what about this:

someone making $200/yr makes a greater percentage of someone making $250,000/yr, than the person making $250,000/yr does of someone making the most. However, the $250,000 and the person making $344,000,000 are in the same tax bracket. Obama's tax code would distinguish people making $150,000/yr and $250,000/yr but not distinguish people making $250,000/yr from people making $250,000,000/yr.

mendy07 - clearly you make asinine assumptions. Most of us who voted for President Obama work and pay taxes. You DO know the red states receive more in federal "handouts" right?

Mike: Seems to me you are just giving excuses for the failures of the last four years but that doesn't surprise me - when we have a president that cannot do anything but give excuses why shouldn't his lemmings do the same.

Seeking Sanity - fair enough. deal.

I don't support that idiot you call a president and I never will .. you can think what you want

Honest question for the Dems,

How are we going to pay for the debt and mandatory spending, plus discretionary spending?

3 I will give you:

1. let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire for those making over 200k/250k

2. and cutting military by 10%

3. Ending the war in Afghan.

now we we have saved 200 billion (rounding WAY, WAY, WAY up)

we are about 1 trillion or so dollars short.

What say you?

If this is going to be Obama's approach for his second term, I predict 4 more years of gridlock.

Obama needs to look at what Reagan and Clinton did to work with the "other party" when they were in power. They used the bully pulpit at times, but they didn't start out that way.

Ahh well...so much for my friends that expected Obama to become another Clinton moderate in his second term...

SeekingSanity

askaboutet - we'll continue to disagree. I have never seen the ignorant hatred I've seen spewed by the right wingers. Liberals don't hold a candle to their mean-spiritedness and general hatred - not only of the President but also of the poor. It's a sad state of affairs when people have to put those less fortunate down to feel good about themselves.

sorry guy but you are a complete LIAR!!! you are nothing but a partisan hack who is brainwashed by others. ill be glad to be your friend and work through our problems but someone like you always blames the opposition for everything under the sun because that is what you are told. do you ever read your own posts or the posts of your fellow party hacks? i guess im asking too much from someone who is blinded.

please take of those blinders and see the ruin all around, your party is just as corrupt as the next so no need to lie for them, just look at the typical posts from people like you.

i dont even know why i waste my time posting lol guess im bored and looking for a good fight lol i have more than enough ammo from these garbage posts to fight for decades to come. the 8 years of bush bashing was enough but the continuing childish behavior is all to funny for me.

if any one is a fan of historical political writings and predictions then they would find it humorous that we are running to the end of our predicted downfall as fast as we can but then again that too was also predicted. ill be waiting.....

The issue for the GOP is not whether or not the tax rates will go up for those making $200,000/$250,000, they will, the question is whether they will also go up for those making less than that amount and if everyone will blame them if they do go up.

The GOP has resigned itself to a tax increase. Its going to happen. Obama won on campaigning for a tax increase. If he GOP controlled Congress does nothing, which they are very good at, taxes go up. The laws were written so that if the people decide they want to keep only the GOP policies of cut spending, cut taxes; they can vote for the GOP president and we move backward.

However, the people voted to move forward so the GOP must cooperate or they lose what little leverage they have.

Mike: One other note - I said the unemployment rate is HIGHER now than when Obama took office.

Facts (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000):

October 2012: Latest report shows 7.9%

January 2009: When Obama took office 7.8%

(And in November 2008 when Obama was elected it was 6.8%. THAT is relevant because unemployment is a function of expectations so you SEE what the businesses expected with an Obama win)

I don't know what they teach YOU in public schools nowadays but LAST time I checked 7.9% is HIGHER than 7.8%. When you can't get something THAT EASY right why should anybody believe anything else you say?

What's going to happen: the Republicans, sticking to their pledge to Grover Norquist about not raising taxes, won't budge on raising taxes for the top 2% -- which the public favors by as much as two to one http://www.people-press.org/2012/07/16/raising-taxes-on-rich-seen-as-good-for-economy-fairness/ -- as has been the case for many years now. Sure, there will be some progress, like closing loopholes (maybe) and eliminating deductions (which will affect everyone), but Republicans will not allow tax hikes for the very wealthy (who pay an effective tax rate of around 13%, like Mitt Romney, while most Americans pay around 30%); they can't, because that's who lines their pockets. So we'll go off the "fiscal cliff", everyone's taxes will go up, then two weeks later Congress will pass a middle class tax cut, back to the current rates. Taxes for the wealthy will stay up, and the Republicans will be able to honor their pledge to Norquist by not raising taxes. That takes away his clout (thankfully!) and he becomes a footnote in history.

Some will say that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is akin to raising taxes. Wrong. They were originally supposed to expire at the end of 2010, but the Republicans forced a deal in order for Obama to get unemployment extended, amongst other things. The Republicans put the 2010 provision in the bill! This time I don't think Obama will back down...and he shouldn't. The public at large will blame Republicans if we go off the cliff http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/study-majority-of-americans-to-blame-gop-if-fiscal-cliff-not-avoided/.

Then again, the wealthy will just ship more money to the Cayman Islands. They love blaming the poor for not paying taxes...but it's OK for them to put their money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. There's a difference between not making enough in income and stashing millions in other countries to avoid taxes. Those wealthy people who complain about the poor not paying taxes are the very definition of hypocrites...

dirp,

Regardless of whether or not it's a smart move politically, I think Obama is miscalculating if he thinks the GOP will back down if he threatens to end all of the Bush tax cuts if he isn't allowed to only end the cuts for the upper 1 or 2%. If he draws the line in the sand (like he appears to be doing), he'll either have to cave again, or we'll all see our taxes go up.

dirp, Please answer my above question, what is your solution to borrowing money?

FYI - If the House is considered "does nothing" how do you define the senate that hasn't passed a budget in how many years?

askaboutet - read Swagganaut's post. Need I say more?

Not only are the far right a totally mean-spirited group - they are clearly lacking enough intelligence to have a true discussion without ranting.

Hey, where is that line for the handouts...? This working for a living sucks. I want you all to take care of me!

@notliborcon, somewhere... way the hell back there ....

Because Obama HAS ALREADY RAISED TAXES ON THE WEALTHY through Obamacare, "returning" those pre-"Bush Tax Cut" rates to the Clinton-era rates ..... will actually mean a HIGHER TOP RATE of taxation under Obama than Clinton ! But don't let "reality" get in the way of your flawed "logic".

"You'll have to read the bill (Obamacare) to see what's in it".

Tom - it's almost like talking to a wall! (walls) I can't say it enough on here, but reading these posts has actually made me more republican than democrat, and I voted for Obama in 2008!

The amount of times I've seen ant-Obama try to pose a discussion/argument to someone super in favor, and the person never answers is nuts!

DW - while most Americans pay around 30%.

This is by far and away the most ignorant Statement every typed on this board.

Do you even know that married or single you have to make 178,650 to be in a tax bracket above 30%.

I would hope people on the left would be embarrassed by your ignorant comment.

DG: Let me help you with something very simple: If tax rates are now 35% and they go to 39.5% THAT is a tax rate increase. What BIZARO WORLD do you live in when you say going from 35% to 39.5% is NOT an increase because it was planned? That is like saying a person is driving 60 mph but they just raised the speed limit to 65 mph but that is not a speed increase because it was planned. Sorry, anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip understands that going from a current 35% to 39.5% IS a tax increase and to say otherwise is, well, less than 10 points IQ above a turnip?

Lets see, If I am considered rich, above $250K income, then taxes will be raised by between 4% and 8%. So 6% is the middle (hope we agree on that) so that's $15,000 additional tax I would pay.

Lets go for an income of $500K and that would be an additional $30,000 tax revenue. Not very many Americans earn 500K but lets use that figure for the "rich" average.

2% of the working force, or roughly 3 million, people/small busines earns that $500K. 3 million people paying an additional $30K in tax money = $90 billion.

According to the white house http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals the US spends 10.4 billion a day. So taxing the rich more gives us 8 days of spending.

Obama needs to look at what Reagan and Clinton did to work with the "other party" when they were in power.

Remind me again...?

Did Reagan & Clinton have those on the losing team sit down the night of the inauguration to plot for the failure of the President?

Did Reagan & Clinton have the Senate minority leader loudly & proudly proclaim on the floor of the Senate, their ONLY agenda was to ensure President Obama served one term?

Did Reagan & Clinton have a house member yell, YOU LIE while the President was delivering the SOTU address?

Give me a break with the false equivalency!

Imagine where we would be now if these treasonous right wing bastards actually put the COUNTRY first, like they scream about while wrapped in a flag & carrying a cross...

haha Jim - also, people don't want to return to the Clinton tax levels. they only want a super small minority of people to return to those higher rates. Seriously - I think using the Clinton tax rates as an example of a time when things were better is silly, but if that IS someone's argument, then arguing that it should only apply to people making over $250,000 ISN'T returning to the tax policies under Clinton. Totally nuts.

SeekingSanity - fair enough, but the end of your post re: having to "put people down" that are less fortunate than them is actually exactly what I am talking about.

DG_W

What's going to happen: the Republicans, sticking to their pledge to Grover Norquist about not raising taxes, won't budge on raising taxes for the top 2%

The Republicans offered to achieve the same revenue goals by removing loopholes in the tax code. Why can't we pursue that approach and see if it will work? I don't understand why the Democrats insist on the tax rate increase. Part of compromising is being open to other ideas on how to achieve results.

If the tax loophole removal approach doesn't work, then we can look at tax rate increases.

SeekingSanity

askaboutet - read Swagganaut's post. Need I say more?

Not only are the far right a totally mean-spirited group - they are clearly lacking enough intelligence to have a true discussion without ranting.

read any of seekingsanitys post. need i say more? all you do is rant against the right lol OMG!!!! all you do is call them names, all you do is glorify your side, all you do is belittle your opponents, all you do is rant against the right!!!

im am as far from right as i am as far from left and equally as far from middle but you wear your party loyalty on your sleeve. i have never mentioned my loyalty to any politician or party as public servants deserve no loyalty.

you again insult other posters like a true partisan.

SeekingSanity - actually, Feisty Redhead is exactly what I am talking about. And unfortunately, she's a ridiculously high post count-er

Hussein apparently didn't recognize that the body that initiates tax laws was overwhelmingly filled with Republicans, so his view of a mandate is entirely wrong. It may be true that there are a lot of voters that want my taxes to be increased so their life of subsidy can continue, but someday that will implode, which may be his goal (see the Cloward-Piven Strategy).

Bigmarine,

You more or less said that the Republican party needed to come to the middle and compromise. I think it needs to be both ways. But reading everyone's posts the "Hate" you also mentioned is not one sided it flows form both sides with venom.

The Democratic party is better at the "Hate" part from the post that I am reading and until we get it under control this country is lost. And until we can come together as people not as these preconceived notions of Republican, who don't care for any one but the wealthy and they want to gut the forests or Democrats, who want the government to take care of everything down to wiping their a$$...thanks to the Internet and some talk radio... talk to a Republican or a Democrat and find out what is important to them....you may be surprised...The problem is we tend to see the extreme or in some cases READ THE EXTREME.

ProBusiness

Mike: One other note - I said the unemployment rate is HIGHER now than when Obama took office.

Facts (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000):

October 2012: Latest report shows 7.9%

January 2009: When Obama took office 7.8%

(And in November 2008 when Obama was elected it was 6.8%. THAT is relevant because unemployment is a function of expectations so you SEE what the businesses expected with an Obama win)

I don't know what they teach YOU in public schools nowadays but LAST time I checked 7.9% is HIGHER than 7.8%. When you can't get something THAT EASY right why should anybody believe anything else you say?

Thats because it was still climbing genius. In January it was 7.8 - in Feb it was 8.3 OH NOES!!. You now argue semantics as if the following 2 months of continued job hemorrhaging caused by Bush was Obama's fault. You might be able to convince people with itty bitty minds of your stupidity but anyone with brains knows you are full of it.

And I will go degree for degree and IQ for IQ with you any day of the week my friend. Used to be able to do differential equations in my head. Lets dance.

Those poor kids you teach are really being robbed of their education if you are an actual teacher.

Feisty,

Clinton and Reagan also didn't do things like publicly say they were not interested in suggestions from the other party, or tell them to "go to the back of the bus".

In this instance, the Republicans offered an olive branch (revenue increases via tax loophole removals), and Obama basically attacked them. That is not how to build the trust and relationships needed to find solutions that are acceptable to both parties.

It would be one thing if only Republicans said they find it very hard to work with Obama, but I've heard the same complaints from plenty of Democrats. Even Bob Woodward wasn't very complimentary of Obama in his book.

Mike416 - whoa! throwing out the big guns! degrees and IQ challenges! Let me ask you something - have you actually had your IQ tested?

Also, I agree totally that Obama inherrited ahumongous rising unemployment rate. But what are your thoughts on the amoutn of money spent to get out of it vs the results, and what are your thoughts on the possibility that it might actually not have been Bush's administration's fault for the crisis that occured during his administration, just like it's not Obama's fault for the one that happened during his?

I love it when reps start talking about welfare people wanting help with their gas and water bills.

90% of the welfare in this country is paid to corporations! Almost as much is paid out in tax deductions to wealthy people hiding their money rather than re-investing it in American jobs! If businesses want to leave the largest market in the world - let them go. They will be crying to be re-admitted the next day.

As somebody who weekly works to help people with their gas, water and electricity. I can tell you - there is less help coming from the government than there was 10 years ago. People who complain about welfare for poor people have no idea what they are talking about.

Mike: I guess I need to explain it to you AGAIN!!

I said the unemployment rate is HIGHER now than when Obama took office and you told me I was wrong. So I sent you this link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and summarized the following:

Obama took office in January 2009 when the unemployment rate was 7.8%. His failed policies increased that and stayed at or above 9% for about 2.5 MORE years and last month, October 2012, the unemployment rate was at 7.9% which is MORE than the 7.8% when he took office.

It is really straightforward, logical, and factual so I don't understand how you can be arguing that? I made a factual statement and you said I was wrong. I showed you I was right and spoke about how anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip can easily see this. I really hope and pray that you can see this? PLEASE tell me you can see this!!

The view of mandate is " my way or the highway". I'm open to receive suggestions from Republicans...just leave it in the "suggestions box" outside the White House, make sure you agree with my view.High taxes for the millionaires and billionaires who make over $ 250,000. However Obama is not calling to close loopholes that allow GE, whose CEO sleep in the White House, GE pay zero, nada in taxes even GE outsource jobs to China.But GE gave Obama millions for his reelection in exchange for more "green for green energy projects"

notliborcon - it is funny that you talk about going back to the surplus days of Clinton, but remember that yes he did have a surplus but the dept of the country was not decreased (actually increased) because not one penny of the surplus was used to buy down the dept.

Fiscal
Year
Year
Ending
National Debt
Deficit

FY1993
09/30/1993
$4.411488 trillion

FY1994
09/30/1994
$4.692749 trillion
$281.26 billion

FY1995
09/29/1995
$4.973982 trillion
$281.23 billion

FY1996
09/30/1996
$5.224810 trillion
$250.83 billion

FY1997
09/30/1997
$5.413146 trillion
$188.34 billion

FY1998
09/30/1998
$5.526193 trillion
$113.05 billion

FY1999
09/30/1999
$5.656270 trillion
$130.08 billion

FY2000
09/29/2000
$5.674178 trillion
$17.91 billion

FY2001
09/28/2001
$5.807463 trillion
$133.29 billion

Clinton and Reagan also didn't do things like publicly say they were not interested in suggestions from the other party, or tell them to "go to the back of the bus".

He NEVER said that as proven by the President actual comments here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xHo5h2cpKH0

In this instance, the Republicans offered an olive branch (revenue increases via tax loophole removals), and Obama basically attacked them.

Source(s) please, not only for precisely which loopholes they have offered up but also for the President "attacking" them.

but I've heard the same complaints from plenty of Democrats

Again, please provide a couple of names from "plenty" of Democrats.

I don't understand how you think being disingenuous is going to earn you any credibility...

PS: Also noticed, you couldn't dispute one thing I commented on and instead chose to deflect! lmao

As always, you are entitled to your own opinion, however, they don't pass the *sniff* test when it comes to FACTS!

Go after Susan Rice?

I loved the smack down President Obama gave when the GOP in that "Clownish Keystone Cops" Police Car started interrogation on that Benghazi Susan Rice witch hunt blah blah. The President said you "Go after Susan Rice? “Then they've got a problem with me?"

Obama Pushes Back On McCain, Graham On Benghazi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki6uwCFWoSQ

This 2 bitter clowns should go sit down some where to think about working with our President and what's in store for them. Lindsey Graham with that flippant attitude will be a very, very, sad man. The Senate does not have the votes to deny Susan Rice confirmation; first of all!!!

McCain can't say anything about making a mistake for choices since he picked Sarah Palin.

All the GOP is proving is... why President Obama is more popular now than he was before. In addition to that, with the mandate people will stand with our President in 2014 to flush out the recalcitrant GOP/Tea Potty.

Love it!

askaboutet

Mike416 - whoa! throwing out the big guns! degrees and IQ challenges! Let me ask you something - have you actually had your IQ tested?

Yes. Penn State 2002. Psychology majors wanted to run tests to see which discipline of engineering had the brightest students. It was electrical, mechanical and plastics (Im an elec eng). They tallied the results with the plastics engineers having the highest average IQ. They would not share the results with us until I bribed one of the students with a case of canadian imported beer. They used the stanford binet criteria in calculating.

Any other snide comments?

The Liberal/Progressive envy train just keeps on chugging along.

This "mandate" has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or fixing the economy. This has everything to do with the ongoing class-warfare meme that Barrack Hussein is pulling over on the useful idiots who worship the seat he just sat on.

This is how statists indoctrinate the unwashed masses into the belief that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and the government will take care of them from the womb to the tomb. This is just a continuation of the "Life of Julia" cartoon that Liberlas/Progressives not only accept, they believe it.

Statists always appeal to the lowest common denominator. Barrack Husseins incessant demonizing of the rich to help the poor and middle class is strictly by design and to pander more votes. The reason is because it's easier to promise mediocrity than success. Elitists have never created wealth so their concept of commerce and prosperity only extends to the simple minded.

Have you ever heard Barrack Hussein promote the American dream as becoming rich?

Of course not.

Statists don't believe anyone but the Bourgeoisie should attain wealth and prosperity. This was plainly evident yesterday as he met with leaders of the criminal union cabal and the far left Liberal/Progressive elitists who espouse his ideology. I guarantee you none of their discussion was to promote the wealth, prosperity, standard of living and success we have become accustomed to being able to achieve.

Once again we're being lied to about Barrack Hussein "focusing like a laser" on the economy and jobs.

This pathetic attempt at appearing engaged in correcting the economy should be an embarrassment to any real American. This "symbolic" raising of taxes on the rich means absolutely nothing other than it is "symbolic". This is estimated to generate about $85 billion dollars a year. This will pay for about 8.5 days, as we spend about $10 billion a day. How will we pay for the other 356.5 days?

The OMB estimates that revenues as a percentage of GDP will be about 17.8% in 2013 and 18.7% in 2014. This is at historic averages. Obviously for the uninformed and illiterate unwashed masses this means nothing. Their only concern is to punish the mean, nasty, rich, fat-cats who they have been indoctrinated into believing are the bogeyman.

Liberals/Progressives have no concept of broadening the tax base, decreasing spending and massive waste or balancing the budget. Hell, they haven't passed a budget for 1,295 days. Only in the convoluted Liberal/Progressive mind does not having a meaningful budget to run the biggest economy in the history of man make sense.

If we simply return to the 2000 spending levels we would be well on our way to a balanced budget. Of course Liberals/Progressives don't care about that as long as their sacrosanct entitlements and social programs are preserved so they don't have to work too hard. Redistribution is much more important than sound fiscal policy.

It's amusing listening to the Liberals/Progressives demonizing the rich mean fat-cats but when their unsustainable entitlements and social programs are collapsing the first people they go after to continue to fund them is, the rich.

There is no plan to reform our criminal public education system, our dysfunctional progressive tax system, regulations, foreign monetary manipulations, monetary malfeasance, union corruption, an all-the-above energy policy. Instead the plan is to just tweak a few tax rates, fiddle with some "loopholes" and the illiterate electorate will be convinced everything is OK.

In the meantime the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Barrack Husseins program would raise accumulated red ink over the next decade from $3 trillion to an astonishing $6.4 trillion.

But not to worry, all that matters is that we make it look like we're doing something against the mean rich bogeyman.

That's all Liberals care about.

ProBusiness

Mike: I guess I need to explain it to you AGAIN!!

I said the unemployment rate is HIGHER now than when Obama took office and you told me I was wrong. So I sent you this link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and summarized the following:

I saw exactly what you said. The inflection of your post was that the economy is somehow worse off now with higher unemployment than it was 4 years ago.

You can really stop trying to BS me. I called you out on your ridiculous post and you are back peddling. I aint mad atcha.

askaboutet

Also, I agree totally that Obama inherrited ahumongous rising unemployment rate. But what are your thoughts on the amoutn of money spent to get out of it vs the results, and what are your thoughts on the possibility that it might actually not have been Bush's administration's fault for the crisis that occured during his administration, just like it's not Obama's fault for the one that happened during his?

And since I have a few minutes to pass...

The causes of the crisis were relaxing banking regulations. Period. Once savings banks were permitted to utilize that money in an investment capacity - the ethics went right out the window. That deregulation happened under Clinton and a republican house and senate.

Bush further relaxed banking requirements by increasing leverage limits on banks allowing them to bring on more risk with less cash on hand. Yes - repub pres / congress.

Couple that with banks trying new crap (mortgage backed bundled securities) that were (and are) completely unregulated and you have what we saw in 2008. Contrary to what most "informed republicans" (oxymoron?) think- the CRA did not cause this mess. Go look up what it actually was. It was a tool to enforce FDIC insured banks to lend proportionally to minorities as they were represented in their communities. Thats it.

MSNBC-NBC NEWS lost it's satellite signal - TV, at 4:45 PM East Coast, what's up with that ?????????????

Mike: You might have an engineering degree but having a real difficult time trying to understand what I said. I said that the unemployment rate is HIGHER now than when Obama took office. You can speak "inflection" all you want. You can brag on engineering degrees all you want. You can spew your nonsense all you want.

But the fact of the matter is I said the unemployment rate today is higher than when Obama took office.

The unemployment rate today is 7.9%

The unemployment rate in Jan 2009 when Obama took office was 7.8%

So you are aware those little "dots" are called "decimal points" and are considered "tenths". So what those numbers mean is 7.9 is "seven and nine tenths" and the 7.8 is "seven and 8 tenths". Subtracting decimals are very simple: Put the 7.9 on top and put 7.8 below it. Then subtract the 8 from the 9 and put a "1" there. Then bring down the dot (also called a "decimal point"). Then subtract the 7 from the 7 which gives you a zero. So the answer of 7.9% minus 7.8% is equal to 0.1%. That means the 7.9% is one-tenth HIGHER than the 7.8%.

Solution: unemployment rate today is HIGHER than when Obama took office January 2009. Hopefully that helps you better understand that 7.9% is HIGHER than 7.8%?

Mike - just making a joke.

Also, after you got your high IQ score - did you tell them that a random small sample of the current students at the university, the major of whom was presumably greatly influenced by factors other than strictly ending up in an engineering discipline based on IQ, probably didn't prove much? haha just kidding.

Also, I wasn't trying to be snide. I assume most people on here haven't had their IQ test, including the person you said that to, so it would be a tough challenge to accept.

Mike - I actually agree with what you just wrote re: Clinton/Bush. However, the quote I was orignally responding to is "job hemorrhaging caused by Bush." Are you saying Bush literally caused it? Or just didn't stop it? And so did Clinton? Why not mention Clinton as a cause?

And if it helps, I'm in MENSA, so we can get along.

NOTE: To the GOP TeaBagHate Party, President OBAMA "RULES" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The American people "Spoke" the teahaters "BLACKMAIL" will come to and abrupt End !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter what Mr. Obama does. The end result will be that EVERYONE pays more taxes, or we all go down. What the President is currently proposing cannot possibly pay for his lofty programs, let alone pay down the deficit. Where does that leave us? Well since the poor pay no taxes, that leaves MORE taxes on the top 2% and MORE taxes on the middle class. This president, like every other Republican or Democrat, has no interest in reducing the size or scope of government. This will end when all of our debt is purchased by a country with more buying power......better start purchasing language lessons in Mandarin. Remember....the goal of government is to expand both in power and size. The goal of each American citizen should be to temper the government's control. We have not done so and now we will pay the price.

ProBusiness

Solution: unemployment rate today is HIGHER than when Obama took office January 2009. Hopefully that helps you better understand that 7.9% is HIGHER than 7.8%?

But not higher than it was 1 month later. The tone of your post in trying to paint a picture that we are worse off now than 4 years ago. In an attempt to sensationalize this and turn it into another dumfux news talking point. You aint that good.

So--4 years later and we're still blaming Bush, we're still name calling--BTW, calling patricia a b*tch and then claiming she's a hateful bigot is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, but oops am I being racist by saying that? You liberals are absolutely, without a doubt, the most hateful people in this country. You've pushed and shoved and cussed and bullied everybody that's tried to make a valid point. And OMG--the economy is BETTER??? What planet are you living on??? Almost 50% of the people in this country do NOT agree with the current administration so I don't know why you act like this was a landslide election. He's a con artist and he knows how to play the game. And you liberals just suck it in like a sponge. We'll survive the next 4 years--maybe--if he doesn't push us over the cliff.

And after I post this and leave, I'm sure you will spew your venom on me. It IS like trying to talk to a brick wall. You see one point of view. You don't see the big picture. You don't engage in MEANINGFUL debate.

God help this country. It's more divided than ever and nobody even TRIES to see another point of view or even have civil conversation.

askaboutet

Mike - I actually agree with what you just wrote re: Clinton/Bush. However, the quote I was orignally responding to is "job hemorrhaging caused by Bush." Are you saying Bush literally caused it? Or just didn't stop it? And so did Clinton? Why not mention Clinton as a cause?

I hold Clinton responsible to an extent. The number of people who voted to repeal G&S in both the senate and house could have bounced it right back to him if he would have vetoed it forcing it into law anyways. Now he COULD have vetoed it... but he didnt. SO yes - he is partially to blame. And so are all of the congress people and senators.

But Bush I view more as complacent than anything. Just like everything else he did barring starting wars to ouster Sadam liberate Iraq. Bush really thought the economy was motoring along with no issues. But Bush did fall into that repub de-reg mantra so I suspect he knew more than he let on.

Patricia Paulson-A Mom Comment collapsed by the community

Excuse me Miss Piggy but who says we conservatives have to change to fit your ideologies? Screw you and your commie president. I will never accept being FORCED to support lazy, no good SOBs who popped babies very 9 months or ILLEGAL aliens who lie and sneak to into MY country to get on welfare, to get free medical treatment, and free schooling, up to and including LAW SCHOOL. Start a charity if you want to take care of these bums, leave my wallet alone.

Ya know the funny part is that Patrica's parents and daughters will be collecting welfare at some point in their lives.... Patricia Paulson-A Mom we don't really care about your support because you will do hat the government proclaims just like the rest of us.... Obama is part of that 2% which will be taxed at a higher rate and still he moves foward with his idea (which is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong) in the coming.... Patricia Paulson-A Mom These people who get loans for education have to repay it or face serious consequences for repayment (which is garnishment of wages) by the government.... The seriously rich in this country are the ones who gets free money in truth.... Ya know ya didn't be so rude to Pigotry so excuse me for feeling the need to put you in your place.... And we are so sorry that 10,000 people applied for job but didn't get the position.... =]

And she got 200 votes up.... Now that somes up America today.... Even though welfare is easier to get started it is harder to keep it today....

You don't engage in MEANINGFUL debate.

Pssst... Marge, this is your idea of a meaningful debate? lol

You liberals are absolutely, without a doubt, the most hateful people in this country. You've pushed and shoved and cussed and bullied everybody that's tried to make a valid point. And OMG--the economy is BETTER??? What planet are you living on??? Almost 50% of the people in this country do NOT agree with the current administration so I don't know why you act like this was a landslide election. He's a con artist and he knows how to play the game. And you liberals just suck it in like a sponge.

Thanks, but if it's all the same to you, I'll take a pass on what your idea of a civil discussion is...

You do know how to win friends and influence people... though!

Keep up the great work, says more about the modern day GOP than we ever could! ;o)

PS: Anyone seen my buddy Ron?

Still waiting for some sources to back up his claims...

Why is this so difficult? lol

Marge-1323260So--4 years later and we're still blaming Bush, we're still name calling--BTW, calling patricia a b*tch and then claiming she's a hateful bigot is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, but oops am I being racist by saying that? You liberals are absolutely, without a doubt, the most hateful people in this country.

Your local neighborhood tea bagger takes that award. Sorry.

You've pushed and shoved and cussed and bullied everybody that's tried to make a valid point. And OMG--the economy is BETTER??? What planet are you living on??? Almost 50% of the people in this country do NOT agree with the current administration so I don't know why you act like this was a landslide election.

Obama won by 126 electoral votes. That is significant. That is of Clinton/Dole proportions. Remember the 90's?

warthog213-984171

Excuse me Miss Piggy but who says we conservatives have to change to fit your ideologies? Screw you and your commie president.

Because you lost senate seats, lost house seats and got beat in the bid for presidency?

And Obama is a commie now? Commie? Really? Are you like a 100?

Let the tax cuts expire so all Americans can do their fair share. Then.... Let the I trillion in cuts take effect. There is nothing needed to be done. All these clowns on both sides want to do is play with the numbers. They just need to shut up and close our borders and fix that mess. If they made 10 million IAs legal that would be even more tax revenue at the Clinton rates. I just don't feel good knowing that the last 3 generations are going to stick their credit car bills to my grand kids. (someday)

The 47% should really be 30%.

Just last friday I was in the local mini mart and watched the lady in front of me buy a lotto ticket, knee high and a pack of smokes with her EBT card. She could surly make do with 10 bucks less a month.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

not one time in any of your postings have you engaged in civil discussion with posters of differing views. you are the first to call people names and the first to use rhetoric. you are the equivalent of holding your ears closed and screaming 'lalalalala' till the others just give up.

the left does not want discussion, they want it their way as evident by their 'we won, you lost' attitude ONCE AGAIN. how can anything be civil when you gloat about things like that? leaders dont look down, they look towards.

our predicted end is soon near as the USA will fall by its own citizens.

our predicted end is soon near as the USA will fall by its own citizens.

Sorry Pal,

You can engage in the chicken little scenario and "fall", while I will STILL be STANDING!

Like I said, America will move FORWARD with or without the "hens" screaming the sky is falling....

not one time in any of your postings have you engaged in civil discussion with posters of differing views

Don't get out much... eh? lol

leaders dont look down, they look towards.

Which is precisely why President Obama shellacked the right wing @!$%#s last week!

PS: I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year... although I understand they also have a *gasp* black leader...

PPS: Don't think your personal attacks let you off the hook! Not YOU or any other member of the GNOP have been able to PROVE the Fox Noise talking points...

Polly want a cracker?

OBAMA: All that babblin' still don't make you right.

Lets look who voted for Obama:

95% of the blacks. 50% of them didn't graduate high school.

Latinos a bit more than 50% graduated high school.

Children of people on welfare, which number 49.7 million less than 50% graduated from high school.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA.

Since the total of the black vote, welfare vote and Latino vote exceeded the vote for Romney, we know who and why they voted for Obama. They are uneducated, did not know or investigated the issues and demanded handouts that they are getting now.

The Latinos want the illegals legalized. The blacks who represent 1 out of 3 prison inmates want more handouts and the welfare still want to be on welfare.

The urgent need to get the illegals out of the United States and put legal residents to work is too much for the average unintellectual to understand.

After living abroad for many years and seeing dictators frequently quote vote totals for themselves of 95%, it is not hard to understand the blacks line up and vote by skin color rather than analyzing the positions and needs of the country.

And truly the dumbest one is Obama, right off picking a fight with the Republicans. He actually believes that getting into a political fight is going to get him something. Remember that in 2009-2011 Obama had both houses of congress democrat and couldn't do sh*t.

Go back through the last 53 years and you will find out that most of the years, congress was democratic and they passed the huge spending bills that got the U.S. in trouble.

Obama is wrong we are not on a fiscal cliff. We fell over many years ago. Now it is every man for himself. Obama admits he knows nothing about economics. He is a political stooge. A no nothing. Look carefully at the groups who put him in the white house. Hard to find any who are intelligent about economics and politics who can get this country back on its feet.

Check out how many democrats are millionaires and multimillionaires. They worked the system hard to steal all that money that should be in the government coffers. First thing that the politicians should do is take a 50% salary cut for during such a terrible job. Then cut, cut, cut. The debt is well ove 16,000,000,000 dollars and the first thing the budget has to do is pay the interest on the debt and that is over $600,000,000,000 every year.

"Republicans offered an olive branch (revenue increases via tax loophole removals), and Obama basically attacked them..."

I think that's a good idea.

I also like the idea of increasing taxes on luxury items such as yachts, mega-millionaire-mansions, and multi-million dollar diamond jewelry, etc.

I like the idea of raising taxes on the top 2% wealthiest because I think $250,000 cuts too close to small businesses.

What I DON'T like is the part where Republicans think if the starve the poor that will be all they need to pay back the trillions of dollars Republicans borrowed to finance that Lie Called the War in Iraq.

If Republicans had their way, there would be soup lines and bread lines so long you could see them from Space.

My dad who passed away several years ago had an idea that I would like to bring up and get your thoughts. To help fix social security and medicare, $ 2.00 for each professional sports ticket sold in the U.S. $ 1.00 would go into each fund. If a person doesn't want to pay the $ 2.00, then they don't have to buy a ticket. A person pays how much for a hotdog, pop, etc. How many people attend just one super bowl? How much money just that 1 game alone would that generate for the two funds? What do you think?

ofcourse1 ....

Lets look who voted for Obama:

95% of the blacks. 50% of them didn't graduate high school.

Latinos a bit more than 50% graduated high school.

Children of people on welfare, which number 49.7 million less than 50% graduated from high school.

And you got your "stats" from where exactly? Would so love a source. You're not a credible one. Looked you up and nothing is published under your name.

I voted for President Obama. Why don't you tell me oh, great and wise seer of all which category I fit in?

American Girl-724855

What I DON'T like is the part where Republicans think if the starve the poor that's all they need to pay back the trillions of dollars for the Lie Called the War in Iraq.

If Republicans had their way, there would be soup lines so long you could see them from the Space Station.

Hmmmmm, correct me if I’m wrong but I imagine you still believe the governments “war on poverty”, which is just spending more money, is the solution to the plight of the poor. Right?

Since 1965, when good ole boy LBJ decided to declare war on the poverty state, we have spent over $17 TRILLION (estimates range btween $15 trillion and $19 trillion) and our poverty level has gone up. The recent poverty rate of 15.1% is skewed due to the current recession, which by the way we have allegedly been out of since June of 2009, it is actually about 14.3%.

So, for 47 years we have spent more than our current National Debt and our poverty rate has gone up.

This year the Federal government will spend a more than $668 BILLION on at least 126 different programs created to fight poverty. States and local governments add about $284 BILLION annually to fight poverty. Almost $1 TRILLION dollars is spent on poverty every year. This amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per family of three. To put this in perspective our defense budget, including Iraq and Afghanistan is only $685%2

Mike: STILL having trouble understanding the concept of "higher". Yes it was higher the month AFTER he took office. And higher the month after that. And higher the month after that. Even further proof of the Obama incompetence because the unemployment rate continued to get higher and higher with every failed policy of the Obama administration.

However, I said the unemployment rate today is HIGHER than when Obama took office. No matter how you want to spin it that is still true.

Now, what I am surprised about is your inability to just admit that you made an error. I know in these threads making an error, and someone catching it, is embarrassing. I admit it has happened to me. But when it does I simply say "I stand corrected and you are right". Sometimes I take a "ribbing" but I ignore the ridicule. If you had simply said "I stand corrected" I would have had a great deal of respect for you and I, personally, would not have said anything further.

But your inability to simply say "you are right - I stand corrected" is exactly what this president does so I wouldn't expect anything different from his followers. Very frustrating when a person cannot simply say "I made a mistake - sorry about that" but STILL tries to defend the indefensible. Very sad.

American Girl-724855

(Please disregard my post at #1.177. I have no idea what the hell happened to it.)

What I DON'T like is the part where Republicans think if the starve the poor that's all they need to pay back the trillions of dollars for the Lie Called the War in Iraq.

If Republicans had their way, there would be soup lines so long you could see them from the Space Station.

Hmmmmm, correct me if I’m wrong but I imagine you still believe the “war on poverty”, which is just spending more money, is the solution to the plight of the poor.

Since 1965, when good ole boy LBJ decided to declare war on the poverty state, we have spent over $17 TRILLION (estimates range btween $15 trillion and $19 trillion) and our poverty level has gone up. The recent poverty rate of 15.1% is skewed due to the current recession, which by the way we have allegedly been out of since June of 2009, it is actually about 14.3%.

So, for 47 years we have spent more than our current National Debt and our poverty rate has gone up.

This year the Federal government will spend a more than $668 BILLION on at least 126 different programs created to fight poverty. States and local governments add about $284 BILLION annually to fight poverty. Almost $1 TRILLION dollars is spent on poverty every year. This amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per family of three. To put this in perspective our defense budget, including Iraq and Afghanistan is only $685 billion.

Welfare spending increased under G.W. Bush and has since exploded under Barrack Hussein. Since 2009 federal welfare spending has increased by 41%, more than $190 BILLION a year.

So, less than a 1% increase in poverty, yet we have increased spending by 41% and we still have more than 46 million Americans living in poverty. A 47 year long war and we’re losing it horribly.

Obviously this approach hasn’t, isn’t and won’t solve the problem. Throwing TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS has neither reduced poverty levels nor made the poor self-sufficient. The biggest problem is our government. Seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies administer at least ONE anti-poverty program.

When you consider that a recent 5-year study by government auditors showed that 22 percent of all federal programs–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve, the reason is obvious. I recommend you reread this study. Interestingly this oversight program, started during the Bush administration, was mysteriously eliminated by the Barrack Hussein administration.

Our government, time and time again, has shown that it is incapable of running ANY entitlement or social program efficiently or effectively, let alone affordably.

It’s time to reevaluate how we deal with poverty. Obviously the current Liberal ideology of just throwing more good money after bad is NOT working. We need to focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

Instead of concentrating our anti-poverty efforts on giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care and so forth we need to reform our criminal Public Education system, stop unwanted pregnancies and get a job, any job, and stick with it.

High school dropouts are 3 ½ times more likely to end up in poverty than those who simply complete a high school education. Wages for high school dropouts have declined over 17% in the past 30 years. The days of an illiterate, unskilled, untrained worker earning a decent wage is gone, forever. Globalization, innovation, automation and decentralization has taken that level of productivity out of the equation.

Children growing up in single parent homes are 4 times more likely to be poor than in two parent homes. About 63% of all poor children live in single parent homes. Unwed pregnancy is a major source of social chaos in our society. The evidence is overwhelming that children raised in households headed by a single parent are much more prone to sexual abuse, drug abuse, crime, and divorce, for instance. Their health is poorer their academic achievement is poorer; their economic well-being is less than that of children who are raised in two-parent households. In every way, children raised in single parent households seem to have many more strikes against them as they try to get through life.

Only about 2.5% of full time workers are poor. Only 1.5% of part-time workers are poor as compared to almost 24 % of adults who don’t work. A major problem facing today’s workforce is that although six in 10 jobs lost during the Great Recession paid mid-level wages, the majority of new jobs created in the Barrack Hussein recovery, positions such as store clerks, laborers and home healthcare aides, pay much less, according to a new study by the National Employment Law Project.

The study covered jobs created from the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2012. Lower-paying jobs, with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for just 21% of the job losses during the recession. But they've made up about 58% of the job growth from the end of the recession in late 2009 through early 2012. Those jobs have been concentrated in three industries: food services, retail and employment services, such as office clerks and customer service representatives, the study found. In contrast, mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13 -- jobs such as construction workers, real estate brokers, and data entry clerks -- have accounted for just 22% of the new jobs in the recovery after making up 60% of the job losses in the recession.

One other significant part of our culture that must change is to help eliminate poverty is to promote savings and the accumulation of wealth. Studies have shown that the path out of poverty is not through consumption but through savings, frugality and accumulation.

This is easier said than done. We have, over the past 50 years become a convoluted consumption/service-sector economy. Our greatest wealth, prosperity and improved standard of living was created when we had a balance of manufacturing and service. Today manufacturing accounts for about 10% of our economy.

As much as we want our economy to go back to what it was in the past, even before the 2008 collapse, it’s doubtful that will happen. In the past 50 years we have added 4 billion people to the worlds population that stands at 7 billion today. These people and their countries will create massive competition for jobs, but it also offers a tremendous consumer base.

Most importantly however is our education system. Not college or university, although important, but our K-12 system which has turned into an absolute embarrassment. The recent chaos in Chicago is a perfect example of how dysfunctional our system is. Students barely able to read or write and the teachers and unions are demanding more money and less work. This must end.

Poverty is the challenge our nation must address, our government needs to lead in some cases and it needs to get the hell out of the way in most other cases. Our wealth, prosperity and standard of living were built on the shoulders of industry, not government.

Contrary to Liberal/Progressive delusions conservatives do NOT want dirty air, dirty water, nuclear waste under your child’s bed, women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, more soup kitchens or a military base next to each Starbucks. What we DO want is Constitutionally limited government, a fiscally responsible representation, free-markets to determine winners and losers in commerce and less taxes so each American can prosper, save, invest and achieve the American Dream. America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

ProBusiness

Time to SECEDE!!

Really??? Now you're a secessionist?? Good for you. Tell all those Red states that they'll have to leech off of Texas for their welfare money.

We no longer have a government "for the people and by the people". The Constitution has been used as toilet paper and a government based on "states rights" has been ruined by a bloated federal government with departments of energy, education, transportation, etc. that mandate what states must do. In other words states rights have been removed.

The United States was never meant to have a government based on "state's rights." Our very Constitution was an 18th century version of a compromise between regional and national interests. State's rights was dominant in our nation until the 1830s, when President Andrew Jackson told South Carolina to hold its tongue or face hell with the Nullification Crisis. It then took a fatal stab during the Civil War, where the federalist Union defeated the states' rights Confederates, and has declined ever since. States' rights makes no sense; the United States would essentially turn into a banana republic if any state could hold up the entire political process. Just about every society based on regional interests instead of national demands (Holy Roman Empire, feudal Europe, Confederate States of America, etc) has either failed or existed only in the most unstable form. You might be an economics professor, my good man, but I reign here in history and political institutions.

The founding fathers were smart. They had seen what damage a powerful federal government could do. So the wrote the Constitution giving limited power to the federal government and the states then decided what they wanted to do. Want a liberal state? Have at it - then I move to a conservative state. Think your state is too conservative? Then move to a state that is more liberal. Then these bickering arguments are mute points. But when a federal government mandates the people are split. 50% is always unhappy after an election and the other 50% are complaining that they can't get something done with their "mandate".

No; the founding fathers were practical. They realized that a nation divided entirely by states and with no national unity would fail, thanks to their chaotic experience with the Articles of Confederation. But they also opposed a national empire where the states were essentially provinces who were led by federal cronies. That's why they created a compromise political system via the Constitution. Lately, the federal government has expanded its powers, in part due to growing constraints and America's rise in the world economically and politically. But the states have their responsibilities, like the preservation of their state parks, the administration of their services and public functions as a government, and the management of certain functions, like education and local infrastructure. States' rights had its chance during the Civil War with the Confederacy; unless you were sleeping in US History 101, you and every other states' rightist should know that it failed that test.

So the solution is to start over. Several states secede. Conservatives will be happy because the new country can do what the founding fathers wanted - to limit the new federal government. Liberals should be happy because the dastardly and "hateful" Republicans will not be around any longer to block your progression towards a Socialist economy. Then the people have a choice: Stay in the United Socialist States of America or relocate to the new country founded on the same principles as our founding fathers.

Are you kidding me??? Conservatives won't be happy because eventually liberals are going to branch off and beat them down the road, and they will have to rely on themselves for welfare money instead of the rest of the nation. Liberals aren't going to stand for the dissolution of the Union, and we'll have another Civil War. If it takes a civil war to establish that Obama is the President and that we are a united nation, then by God bring it on.

Enough beating around the bush and denying the inevitable discussion. The only solution is for several states to secede and we have two countries with one founded on Conservative values of limited government and spending within your means and the other a Socialist country destined for bankruptcy.

Why would anybody not agree? Wouldn't that make BOTH sides happy? One country with no Liberals in the way of progress and the other country with no Conservatives in the way of their "progress"?

Secession is the only long-term solution.

Apparently, conservatives are cowards and sore losers. They couldn't stand to get whipped by the Democrat they hated the most since Bill Clinton and can't stand to see him take all the credit for the nation recovering from the Great Recession. And so they're about to do what those slave-holding idiots did in the 1860s and secede. Well, at least they are going to have their asses handed to them. It won't be short, and it sure as hell won't be clean and pretty, but this nation shall be preserved as one.

JimSpence

The Liberal/Progressive envy train just keeps on chugging along.

This "mandate" has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or fixing the economy. This has everything to do with the ongoing class-warfare meme that Barrack Hussein is pulling over on the useful idiots who worship the seat he just sat on.

If there has been class warfare in America, it's been waged by 30 years of idiotic supply-siders, deregulators, and Ayn Rand fanatics who think the wealthy ought to be the social class of power, instead of the middle class as envisioned by Aristotle.

This is how statists indoctrinate the unwashed masses into the belief that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and the government will take care of them from the womb to the tomb. This is just a continuation of the "Life of Julia" cartoon that Liberlas/Progressives not only accept, they believe it.

Since when is the government helping people do things that they themselves can't do statist??? Since when is telling people that "you're on your own" while the wealthiest Americans leech off of the national economy an American ideal??? You bastards need to realize that the government has a role in our society and that scapegoating Washington D.C. won't solve all our problems.

Statists always appeal to the lowest common denominator. Barrack Husseins incessant demonizing of the rich to help the poor and middle class is strictly by design and to pander more votes. The reason is because it's easier to promise mediocrity than success. Elitists have never created wealth so their concept of commerce and prosperity only extends to the simple minded.

The rich have benefited from 30 years of laissez faire economy while everyone else has gotten the shaft. Should we demonize the rich?? No; we should demonize whoever thinks feeding the wealthy tax cuts and legal loopholes is best for the nation.

Have you ever heard Barrack Hussein promote the American dream as becoming rich?

Of course not.

This one is just bogus. The American Dream is not to become rich; only the most egocentric @!$%# would think so. The American Dream is to live in a place where you are valued not by skin color or physical attributes but by what you can contribute to this great nation and where you can be free to live your life without somebody else looking over your shoulder. THAT is the American Dream, unless you are a materialistic Ayn Rand fanatic.

Statists don't believe anyone but the Bourgeoisie should attain wealth and prosperity. This was plainly evident yesterday as he met with leaders of the criminal union cabal and the far left Liberal/Progressive elitists who espouse his ideology. I guarantee you none of their discussion was to promote the wealth, prosperity, standard of living and success we have become accustomed to being able to achieve.

We are not a prosperous nation; we haven't been prosperous since the 1960s. Ever since the 1980s, after the stagflating 70s, only the wealthiest Americans have become wealthier and prospered, while everyone else has either had their income and wealth stagnate or fall under. We may have had a prosperous time in the 90s, but that was a mere respite from the cold winter of the 1980s and the oncoming blizzard of the Lost decade under Bush 43. In order to achieve prosperity, we need to expand equality of opportunity, not shrink it. We need to allow poor and middle class Americans to have upward mobility, not determine social status via that of your parents. We need to have all Americans, rich and poor, old and young, to have equal rights and the same opportunity to prosper and succeed in society, not stacking the deck for the rich via tax cuts and deregulation and then bribing the rest of us with credit cards and demonizing us as moochers and socialists.

This pathetic attempt at appearing engaged in correcting the economy should be an embarrassment to any real American. This "symbolic" raising of taxes on the rich means absolutely nothing other than it is "symbolic". This is estimated to generate about $85 billion dollars a year. This will pay for about 8.5 days, as we spend about $10 billion a day. How will we pay for the other 356.5 days?

In case you haven't noticed, we won't have trillion dollar deficits forever. We have a cumulative deficit of around $7-8 trillion over the next decade, and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% will shave off 10-15% of that debt, which is a considerable sum. I say repeal the tax cuts for EVERYONE, so we can cut the deficit in half and then have a sustainable revenue source, and then we can talk about spending cuts and entitlements. But until we restore revenues to a historic average of 18-19%, spending cuts will not do a damn thing and are off the table, period.

The OMB estimates that revenues as a percentage of GDP will be about 17.8% in 2013 and 18.7% in 2014. This is at historic averages. Obviously for the uninformed and illiterate unwashed masses this means nothing. Their only concern is to punish the mean, nasty, rich, fat-cats who they have been indoctrinated into believing are the bogeyman.

No; being at 17% is below the historic average. Historic averages aren't necessarily a ceiling for revenues; hell, we could easily raise revenues to 22%, as I would advocate, by repealing the Bush tax cuts, fixing the AMT, and eliminating major deductions and loopholes.

Liberals/Progressives have no concept of broadening the tax base, decreasing spending and massive waste or balancing the budget. Hell, they haven't passed a budget for 1,295 days. Only in the convoluted Liberal/Progressive mind does not having a meaningful budget to run the biggest economy in the history of man make sense.

Broadening the tax base WOULD raise taxes on the wealthy; and by the way, I have advocating for eliminating major deductions and thus broadening the base, along with spending cuts and balancing the budget. Hell, the last man to balance the budget was the liberal Bill Clinton, who raised taxes in the process. The last Republican to balance the budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who modern Republicans would denounce as a socialist.

If we simply return to the 2000 spending levels we would be well on our way to a balanced budget. Of course Liberals/Progressives don't care about that as long as their sacrosanct entitlements and social programs are preserved so they don't have to work too hard. Redistribution is much more important than sound fiscal policy.

Then we'd need to reduce the economy and the population to 2000 levels and freeze spending indefinitely. We'd also have to raise revenues considerably, up to 23% of GDP, in fact. I'm willing to fix entitlements and cut spending, but all that will do nothing without higher revenues. Just moving revenues to 21% will do a lot, and we could trim spending accordingly. And by the way, EVER tax code redistributes wealth, even your precious flat tax.

There is no plan to reform our criminal public education system, our dysfunctional progressive tax system, regulations, foreign monetary manipulations, monetary malfeasance, union corruption, an all-the-above energy policy. Instead the plan is to just tweak a few tax rates, fiddle with some "loopholes" and the illiterate electorate will be convinced everything is OK.

Actually, I have a reform plan for ALL of those, and I'm a "redistributionist Keynesian." I've actually put out a plan; where the hell is yours??? You demand reform; go ahead and tell us your plan. And by the way, demonizing Progressives and going to a flat tax doesn't count.

In the meantime the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Barrack Husseins program would raise accumulated red ink over the next decade from $3 trillion to an astonishing $6.4 trillion.

I'd like to see the proof for that. It also says that extending the Bush tax cuts will cost another $3 trillion over the next decade and that we need to cut spending AND raise revenues to balance the budget.

Jim, one of these days you ought to cut the crap and start proposing a plan of your own. A COMPREHENSIVE plan. I've done it more times than I can count; haven't seen ANYTHING from you. Until you tell ALL of us redistributionist Keynesians and Stalin-inspired pinkos what your damn plan is for fixing this country, you ought to just shut your mouth.

Freshiee, if you don't mind ...

Jim, one of these days you ought to cut the crap and start proposing a plan of your own. A COMPREHENSIVE plan. I've done it more times than I can count; haven't seen ANYTHING from you. Until you tell ALL of us redistributionist Keynesians and Stalin-inspired pinkos what your damn plan is for fixing this country, you ought to just shut your mouth.

Just had to pull that one out because it was so well-worded and true. I'd like to see a lot more facts from people like Jim rather than half-baked truths founded on the daily FOX points.

ProBuisness -- You claim to teach economics (BS) yet you seem to not understand why the unemployment rate went up. Here's a piece from the WSJ explaining it:

The increase in the main unemployment rate was driven by positive factors. In previous months, the rate has fallen because more Americans were no longer looking for work. This month the rate increased because the opposite trend was occurring. For the second month in a row, the labor force increased, as more people were seeking jobs. That could be a sign of confidence in the state of the labor market.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/11/02/good-news-the-unemployment-rate-rose/

Then there is these reports you should read:

Two years later, major economies have only just begun deleveraging. In only three of the largest mature economies—the United States, Australia, and South Korea—has the ratio of total debt relative to GDP fallen. The private sector leads in debt reduction, and government debt has continued to rise, due to recession. However, history shows that, under the right conditions, private-sector deleveraging leads to renewed economic growth and then public-sector debt reduction.http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/11/02/good-news-the-unemployment-rate-rose/

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/financial_markets/uneven_progress_on_

the_path_to_growth

Part of the confusion may be attributed to a failure to distinguish systemic financial crises from more minor ones and from regular business cycles. A systemic financial crisis affects a large share of a country's financial system. Such occurrences are quite distinct from events that clearly fall short of a full-blown systemic meltdown, and are referred to in the academic literature as "borderline" crises.

The distinction between a systemic and a borderline event is well established by widely accepted criteria long used by many scholars, and detailed in our 2009 book.

Indeed, in our initial published study on this topic, in 2008, we showed that systemic financial crises across advanced economies had far more serious economic consequences than borderline ones. Our paper, written nine months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008, showed that by 2007, the U.S. already displayed many of the crucial recurring precursors of a systemic financial crisis: a real estate bubble, high levels of debt, chronically large current-account deficits and signs of slowing economic activity.

Today, there can be little doubt that the U.S. has experienced a systemic crisis -- in fact, its first since the Great Depression. Before that, notable systemic post-Civil War financial crises occurred in 1873, 1893 and 1907.

Defining Success

It is also important to define how a recovery is measured, and how success is defined. The recent op-eds focus on GDP growth immediately after the trough (usually four quarters). For a normal recession, the restoration of positive growth is typically a signal event. In a V-shaped recovery, the old peak level of GDP is quickly reached, and the economy returns to trend within a year or two.

Our book examined both levels and rates of change of per capita GDP; recovery is defined by the time it takes for per capita GDP to return to its pre-crisis peak level.For post- World War II systemic crises, it took about four and a half years to regain lost ground; in 14 Great Depression episodes around the world (including the U.S.) it took 10 years on average. A focus on levels, rather than percentages, is a more robust way to capture the trajectory of an economy where the recovery is more U- or L-shaped than V-shaped.

It also is a way to avoid exaggerating the strength of the recovery when a deep recession is followed by a large cumulative decline in the level GDP. An 8 percent decline followed by an 8 percent increase doesn't bring the economy back to its starting point.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html

Colorado-Man . . .

Hussein apparently didn't recognize that the body that initiates tax laws was overwhelmingly filled with Republicans,

Oh, I'm pretty sure the President of the United States knows that the body that initiates the majority of tax laws is Republican. Funny, they always want less government but totally fight tooth and nail to impose tax laws on all.

Pro,

Hate to burst your bubble, actually no I do not, but you cannot legally secede from the country. There is no constitutional right to do so, in fact it is quite the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. In other words you either have to commit an armed revolt against the Federal Government or you have to have the blessing of all other 49 states.

All you idiots should just get over your inflated ego's. Many Democrats thought Bush was the worst thing ever but you did not see them raising the kind of crap you babies are. Suck it up, grow a pair, and evolve with the times.

Not sure why people are upset over taxes going up on the rich. Obama already gave the middle class the largest tax increase in history through Obamacare...most liberals are just too stupid to realize the shell game where he pulled it off.

They think they got something for free...nope....Tax and spend liberals...nothing ever changes. With all these tax increases they're pushing through, the debt will not reduce 1 penny. Good job liberals.

ProBusiness

Your assessment of our economy is just plain wrong. Microeconomic analysis really does not work for the economy as a whole. That is why there is macroeconomics.

The economy Obama inherited was declining at -8.5% in 4th quarter 2008 (initial figure was -3.5%, later revised upward to the -8.5% figure). We were losing jobs at 750,000 to 800,000 per month in 4th quarter 2008. These job losses continued through April 2009 and declined thereafter until the economy was losing less than 100,000 jobs per month in the 4th quarter 2009.

All of these 2009 job losses are attributable to the Great Recession of 2008-2009 which began in Jan 2008. You like to blame them on Obama, and this is where I question your credentials. You may teach economics, but you obviously choose to lie or do not understand macroeconomics.

As to your prediction on direction of economy 4 years ago. Did you anticipate the stimulus, the blocking of the 2nd round of stimulus in 2011, the Greek debt crisis? I think you just guessed.

Patricia Paulson - though your words are not the most construction, you're message is spot on. Kudos for speaking up on a message board that is rife with hate from some of the loudest liberal supporters. I'm sorry you got suspended for the day - though, again...you could have found a less hateful way of getting your message across. Glad NinjaCodeMan was suspended, and I honestly don't know how Fiesty isn't suspended indefinitely for some of the hatred she/he spews here regularly (calling Ann Romney all kinds of nasty names on a previous article).

Back to the topic at hand - there is no mandate on taxes or anything else for that matter when barely 50% of the voters wanted to see Obama have a second term. All politicians need to get off their high horses and get to work on entitlement reform, tax reform, and get this economy and country back where it belongs.