This all started with your post that read "taxes don't count as payment" in reference to my post about undocumented workers paying taxes. "Goods and services" had nothing to do with it. Go back and read the initial post I responded to of yours, and the subsequent posts, and perhaps take a stab at telling me what the fuck you're talking about.

I know of at least two people who have changed their minds about several things as a result of the discussion in this thread. I am not at liberty to say who they are, but perhaps they will see this and post.

And Jen, your posts have me seriously rethinking which NHL team to root for. ;)

While we're talking about "fair taxes" and giving grief to the poor who don't have an income tax liability...It looks like some millionaires don't pay any income tax either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...ec1_lnk2|83802

7/30/11
8/6/11
And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

There are a great many more reasons for the financial mess that your country has caused to the rest of world than what S&P or Moody's had done or not done. One can start with social engineering and end with financial greed as the complete range of reasons.

S&P is being completely irresponsible with this rating. It will just make the financial situation worse.
Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy.
It makes one wonder who runs S&P, are they part of the group determined to make the economy look terrible before the next election in order to get Obama out of office?

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

The $2 trillion error not withstanding, S&P noted that we did not make the $4 trillion in cuts that they were looking for, and that much of the cuts we did plan on making were to come years from now under different presidents and different congresses. They have understandably lost faith that our idiots in washington can get things done and carry it out. When the president & congress promises cuts over 6 years from now, does anyone seriously thing they will happen?

Error or not, after August 2nd the dow dropped like 700 pts. People knew this was coming.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

I guess S&P should be calling the shots for the U.S. economy, rather than the real working people who pay real taxes. Of course, the chance that Republocrats actually represent real taxpayers as opposed to the financial barons of whom the S&P leadership is part is, of course, a fiction.

Tracy Coxx, why don't we just let S&P run the country directly? Wouldn't it cut out all the political shenanigans in Washington and make people who think like you happy?

Randolph, you are getting close to the truth. If you can just realize that this is not about Obama, per se, but about the two parties that are controlled by big business and the wealthy. They disagree only in how to screw us. The Democrats want to do it on behalf of their benefactors somewhat benignly, recognizing that pushing too hard causes social turmoil. The Republicans are more honest in coming right out and telling people whose interests they represent. The fact that anyone, anyone, who works for a living (as opposed to those who live off the exploitation in our system) supports the latter is beyond me, when it is so obvious that they represent those who would exploit them even more. The fact that anyone who works for a living supports the former is a reflection of how well the Democrats have convinced people, falsely, that they are the party of the working class.

Teabagging Repbulicans In Seeps Clothing Or The Fascist Right Take Your Pick
 

Gee wasn't TARP a Bush plan ? didn't Reagan spend shitloads of money while being in a peacetime economy ? just before 911 Ronald Dumbsfeld I mean Donald Rumsfeld annomced the two that right two TRILLION was missing from the PENTAGON BUDGET ???? Believe me the Republicans are the biggest spenders an could give a shit about you or I we could have had a NADER but we got a SELECTION INSTEAD OF A ELECTION IN 2000 . CASE CLOSED.

It's not just in your country. It seems that politicians everywhere are more interested in ganining and retaining power rather than looking after their respective countries.

We have to give the politicians and their corporate masters credit for being masters of deception. The Tea Party people have legitimate grassroots concerns about the massive debt and the direction of the country. This honest patriotic concern is being manipulated and distorted to create a poisoness paranoid atmosphere. Obama is being characterized as an evil power mad socialist bent on destroying the country. Social programs are evil, energy saving light bulbs are evil, family planning is evil. The Kock Bros, the Heritage Foundation and the other conservative "think" tanks that are supported by wealthy corporate interests feed the Tea Party with this irrational crap. The shocking thing is that a lot of people buy it and as demonstrated in Washington last week, it is working. Obama and Congress caved big time.
Certainly the debt is of concern but of greater concern is the economy. The stimulus saved the banks and big business but it is the thousands of small businesses in this country that provide the jobs that are so desperately needed yet they are getting little help from Washingtom.

She looks like she wants to suck my soul through her eyes. Whilst she cuts funding for education. Those wily teachers and their gold plated pensions...

H & C
 

When does this become Obama's economic record?
You can keep the Change and Hope went south today.

The Repubs. and their basement buddies are doing everything possible to get Ayn Rand to be the next president. If the American public doesn't wake up, we can look forward to increased racism, persecution of homosexuals and transsexuals, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare and the establishment of a national religion.
Taliban sharia here we come.

Looks like a lot of Republicans are becoming independent. I suspect moderate Republicans are being put of by all the radical super conservatives yapping away on the media.

looks like everyone must still be hung over from Rick Perry throwing his ten gallon hat of GOP BS in to the ring
I can see why a lot of the GOP love this guy for one he makes W look like a five beta cappa
oh and this champion of the common man after leaving the air force he returned to his daddy's cotton farm then entered poltics a man who never worked a day in his life says he can create jobs
Most of the jobs he created were thanks to the stim package which he is bitching about and the rest are min wage jobs with no bennies
WHOOO-HOOO another champion of the working man from Texas
I believe we already seen this picture before
And this one is worse then the first
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

For sure, in college he was a "C" student specializing in "Fs" and "Ds". His claim to fame in college? He was a yell leader!
He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The debates between Bachmen and Perry should be quite entertaining.

Been reading other forums of R's that have an unfavorable take on Perry.
He is everything that those supporting conservative traits would oppose.

With close to a dozen in the pack, I don't see a leader yet.
Of all , I see Gingritch as capable but still very un-electable.

Oh no, please not Newt! He can't even hold together his campaign team! :rolleyes:

Rumor has it the Obama is not going to run and Hillary if going to take over.
That should get the Repubs. stirred up. :yes:

A Rick Perry quote that requires no comment:

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times ? and I think we?re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don?t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it?s slavery." (May 5, 2011, on the James Robison TV show "Life Today")

The governor of Texas! It's Howdy Dudy time. :blush:

I stated a few years ago that Hillary should have been the Democratic candidate in the last US presidential election. She's got skill, knowledge, and backbone.

He is a slightly less nerve racking Republican candidate for President as compared to the few others. But any President that uses religion to interfere with his duties as a leader in a secular nation is a scary person when in power.

I also heard that rumor on a political forum. :rolleyes:

(not typed in Magenta at the request of dauls )

And that is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it out of the primaries, the hardcore GOP voters want a hardcore nut job like Perry or Bachman
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Not going to happen, if this was true i'd be working inher campaign HQ here in Jersey like i did in 08 :yes:

The Dems and indies will bitch about Obama caving in and always letting the GOP get there way but in the end they'll revote him back in office
why you ask, you look at who his replacement will be Perry or Bachman or Rom not much of a choice is it?
of course i do hear that some hardliners want to dig up the corspe of Ronald and run him for a third term
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

A leftist version of this could probably be said about Hillary for prez in '08.

At least the corpse of Ron would have more backbone than your current president.

"Hardliners"? I believe there are those in the Republican Party who would like to do as you say, but what are today "hardliners" in that party would be confronted with a choice they don't want to make: keep using Reagan as the touchstone of conservatism (in the way Sarah Palin does, nearly drooling at the mention of his name), or acknowledge that Reagan -- who, for instance, appealed quite eloquently for an increase in the debt ceiling (you can find the quote in an earlier post of mine) -- would not pass muster in the Tea Party world.

This is true... :lol: :respect:

This is a quote from Tickerspy regarding Warren Buffets investment in Bank of America.

I guess that's why he is so rich. He is very smart!

While the GOP wannabe Presidents are doing a Mexican hat dance about zero job for Aug and after they finished high fiven each other they started running there mouth and if you listen you will find one pattron to there load of crap
They all claim they will create jobs
How will they do this feet you ask?
For the most part they are not telling but what they do tell is the same old GOP BS about cutting taxes :lol:
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the :censored: are the jobs
in fact in 2010 the GOP ran for the house claiming they will make jobs there number one duty so to the GOP controled house i ask where are the jobs?
The GOP BS about cutting taxes has never worked and never will
And before Tracy chimes in here's a fact for her to chew on when there belove W was in the white house we were in a neg 2000 jobs a month in the hole
The GOP answer is keep the Bush failed policies active and trople down on a loosing hand of failed policies which got us in to this mess to start with
and remember they cry :coupling: the poor
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Since Republicans are so for low taxes, why are they not in favor of extending the 2% payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year? Is it because they don't care if middle class tax rates increase so long as the wealthy don't have to pay more? Could it have anything to do with not wanting to help the economy so as to decrease Obama's chance of reelection?

In February 2009, after signing the stimulus bill, Obama pledged to cut the deficit to half by the end of his first term in office. I'd like to see it gone of course, but it's still going to be impressive to see him get the deficit down to $530 billion next fiscal year. Go for it Obama... only $770 billion left to go!

A stupid pledge to have made, since it would require the assent of the very people you support ... and they won't do it, either. But (broken record time) you already know that, Tracy Coxx.

I find the thing most disturbing about the GOP debate last night was that no one challenged Perry on his outrageous statements about social security. He is flat out wrong about social security. It is fully funded well into the future. Working young people today who are contributing to social security will get a retirement of about $35,000 per year at time of retirement.
Perry's comments are just another example of the rhetorical bullshit emanating from the far right.

I think that's more debatable than the science that Perry completely blasts. If you add in comments he's made elsewhere it's pretty clear he has no respect for any field of science and I find that rather disturbing.

It's amazing that he brags about getting high tech companies to come to Texas while he dismisses all the scientific evidence for evolution and climate change.

Yeah, he's also a big supporter of manned space exploration, which I was just as surprised about as I was with Bush, the other anti-science guy.

I find it mystifying that these bible thumping "religious" types can deny and reject some science and embrace other aspects of scientific endeavor. I suspect a lot of it is cynical pandering to a religious base in order to gain political power. That certainly appeared to be the case with Bush.
With Bachman and Palin and some of the others they seem to really believe in the literal bible. How they reconcile that with reality is a mystery.
Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, a moderate one however and he did not try to impose his religious beliefs onto the American public as President. Some of the current candidates want to impose their conservative beliefs on the American public. This is a very bad trend. The founding fathers were well aware of the deleterious effects of blending religion into government. They carefully crafted the Constitution to keep religion out of the government.

Oh I believe Bush (and Perry) are more religious than they even allow people to see. I think Bush's support of manned space exploration was for other than scientific reasons. Like the spanish - for god, gold and glory.

After talking with people like them, they seem to think reality is a deception and that you must remain steadfast and keep your eye on what the bible tells you :innocent: I tell them nature is the literal word of god, not the bible.

I agree.

I think God may be getting fed up with all this "support" business.
I think Bush also claimed God was on his side.

"Texas governor Rick Perry said God is calling on him to run for President. But Michele Bachmann said that god is calling on her to run for President. You know, if God is that indecisive, he's probably for Mitt Romney." ?Jay Leno :lol:

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

Sounds pretty desperate.

Oh My! Now Obama is resorting to this God nonsense. Perry just gave a speech to Liberty University (Fallwell's) bragging about his lousy grades and how he flunked out of vet school. Also got loud cheers when the host said Perry got an A+ from the arms lobby.
"Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"
I guess if Jesus finally returns, he can run for president.:rolleyes:

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

Tracy is simply commenting on current news, I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable. :eek:

I used "ridiculous" to characterize Obama's statement, NOT Tracy's post. My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

Whether it is "ridiculous" or not, what politicians say is supposed to mean what they mean. What they are saying at any given moment to be lies or bullshit is usually determined in the future. Obama promised a new era of government and it was welcomed by the populace after the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Is he failing because of BS or lying or the inability to control Congress, probably all of the above. As bystanders on the political process we are limited as to understanding the driving forces in Washington. Conservatives believe their analysis is sound, liberals believe their analysis is sound. Is my analysis sound? Damned if I know. I know Paul Krugman is a very smart guy, mush smarter than me, but is he always right, damned if I know.

With all due respect, Randolph, it does no good to conflate Obama's throwaway comment in Tracy's post with "what politicians say" about policy or issues. What he said is no different than what politicians of all stripes, in campaign mode, say as they jump on stage and asking for "love" or any other similar statement.

Keep in mind that Obama's very animated speech to an audience of young students drew wild cheering and applause. I suspect the whole performance was aimed at a wider audiences, however. When he started going on about "love", that was it, way over the top.
How do we develop a perception of a candidates character and their potential ability to govern. Obama had excellent credentials, Harvard, professor, congressman. Yet, he seems to lack the essential ability to stand up and exert political power. Perhaps in this day and age we need a President who can kick ass.

For the second time since he has taken office Obama has broken an international trade treaty. Again it is the NAFTA agreement with his 'buy American" provision. It's typical that the US feels free to break every agreement that they ever sign and in between breaking agreements the US government and businesses sue other countries and businesses for unfair trade practices. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

I thought it sounded pretty funny when he said it, and sometimes you just gotta laugh at him and NOT take him seriously.

I fear that you're right. The two parties are getting so far apart. But they are also based on a weird pair of mutually exclusive ideologies:

government is the solution/secular
vs
government is the problem/religious

Why are these two pairs of mutually exclusive ideologies paired this way? I don't know. This is guaranteeing that neither party will satisfy a large portion of the population.

The substance of their actions and proposals have certainly been missing in campaigns. There was zero substance of Obama's message last campaign season. But I also think when Obama says "If you love me, help me pass this bill", that's an interesting view into his persona.

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

Why is that, GRH?

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here. :censored:

Anything else randolph?

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

Which is what?

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor. :censored:

I agree that these agreements are bullshit. The bullshit is on the part of the US which negotiated them thinking that they could take advantage of other countries. That is why the US keeps taking other countries to court, but when times get tough the whining starts and never stops.

You are right, randolph. These agreements were designed to take advantage of other countries, but it didn't work out that way in the long run.

Do you really think that in the case of the FTA and NAFTA that Canada was bribed with military hardware? Canada, the country where the standard of living is higher and the purchasing power of our currency is greater than the US had to be bribed. Get serious.

The US tried to take advantage of other countries thinking that the rest of the world is such a bunch of dumb rubes. The US sought to abrogate labour contracts and not any other country in NAFTA or the FTA.

The US keeps running off to WTO, crying its eyes out, whenever another country wins a frivolous lawsuit brought by the US. It's time to grow up and actually play like adults.

The only thing the US exports from these free trade agreements is US jobs
Notice how all our jobs are going to India and China and the US middle class will soon be an endangered species while China's and India's middle class is growing
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Enoch Root, there's this thing called the "Google machine" that I think has recently made its way even to a remote outpost of the world called Puerto Rico. I hear that you can type in words and it directs you to information about what you typed in. Wow, like you don't have to go to the library or anything.

These kids with their newfangled technologies. :lol:

Wow, did I really miss making my point that badly?! :blush:

I was talking about U.S. workers.

Make no mistake: these agreements are designed as much to harm U.S. workers as much as anyone else.

Kudos for the correct use of the word "abrogate" -- something I don't see every day, or month, or year for that matter. :respect:

It's a part of my personality. I prefer to learn through discussion with people rather than googling everything. Yes, I am stubborn that way. And maybe just a tad of a luddite.

You are correct, Jen, but it would be wrong to blame Indian and Chinese workers (mostly peasants who are finally ascending out of abject poverty) for unemployment in the United States. It is U.S. capital that is responsible.

For instance, it's fine that China is the main manufacturer of solar panels. The problem in the United States is that absent a national policy and the will to convert to this renewable energy source, the United States doesn't create the tens of thousands of jobs INSTALLING those panels. Our unemployment is a demand issue, not a supply issue.

Telling you what the ILO Conventions are isn't a "discussion." Looking them up yourself and then asking questions about them, or positing an opinion about what you read, could become a discussion.

(Sorry, I just got home from school and I haven't shifted gears yet. ;) )

Sorry doc. Discussion is indeed not the word. Perhaps conversation is the word that will appease you?

IlaI wasn't referring to Canada or other "wealthy" countries. I meant Mexico and central American countries where poor farmers lost their livelihood.

The FTA was an agreement between Canada and the US. NAFTA was an agreement among Canada, the US, and Mexico. Therefore the only possible countries that could be referred to as being bribed by the US are Canada and Mexico. Canada wasn't bribed and neither was Mexico.

I agreed with your point regarding American labor, I just took off on another aspect of the issue.
After WWII the unions were strong and the working class was able to join the middle class, buy a house, a car and have a family. Big business resented the power of unions and the Taft Hartley bill was passed and then came more "right to work" bills further weakening the unions. Since the 1970s the working class part of the middle class has just been treading water and going deeper into debt. The unions strongly supported the Democratic party and congressmen thereby providing a counter balance to the Repubs. This is gone now and both parties are beholden to corporate America.
I find it mystifying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it. :frown:

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

Corporate America makes its money primarily in the capital markets (paper/fictitious money, but it works for them at least for now), not by selling goods to consumers.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to destroy the middle class, it's that we don't have the protection in Congress that we used to have. Consequently, the upper classes have the power to bleed us of wealth we used to have.
Also, the middle class was sold on the idea that buying a house was an excellent way to invest for the future. Extremely easy credit was used to lure people into buying overpriced properties with the assurance that prices would continue to go up. What a con job! Most homeowners with these big mortgages are now underwater and will stay that way for years to come. What a horrible feelling that you paid $500,000 for a house that is now worth $250,000 and you owe $400,000. Are people in that situation going out and spending lots of money? Without consumer demand, the companies are not going to hire more workers.
The greedy banks and financial houses in cahoots with the federal government (Greenspan) have thoroughly fucked up our middle class economy, while the rich are sitting pretty. :censored:

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income. Yes, that would mean I would have to pay more taxes.

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

Hey you lucky SOB why are you concerned about my comments when you are off with a couple of hotties. Damn!!! ;)

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

1- Debt is debt, regardless of who owns it. Government is different in being able to print money and inflate it's way out of debt, which is devastating to people on fixed incomes.
2- Social spending, ie. social security, medicare, etc, must be based on long term sustainable government income(taxes). Otherwise it contributes to inflation.
WPA and CCC were temporary measures to relieve human suffering during a severe depression. They did little to get us out of the depression, however.
The massive Keynesian spending during WWII (for manufacturing war materials) got us out of the depression. That created a huge amount of debt but it was resolved by economic expansion after the war.

I may sound Teapartyish here, but I am not. I am a progressive in that government must play a role in human services. That role must be based on sound economic policy, however.

Buffett Says He Stands By 'Buffett Rule'
"Warren Buffett says he's absolutely "fine" with President Obama calling the new plan to establish a minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year the "Buffett Rule."

Buffett has long argued that the wealthiest Americans tend to pay a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than middle-income earners because some millionaires and billionaires often get much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than basic wages.

Buffett has argued that the "billionaire-friendly Congress" has coddled the wealthy and that that practice should end."

In other news:
Warren Buffett Arrested For Tax Evasion
"In a surprising development, Warren Buffett was reportedly arrested this morning at his Berkshire Hathaway offices in Omaha. Allegedly, he has not only paid less than his secretary in taxes, he hasn?t paid ANY taxes in last ten years. Or maybe it was just an IRS error. It?s not clear.

The IRS has supposedly been going over Bufftett?s tax returns with extra care because President Obama is about to present the the nation with ?the Buffett tax?, which raises taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

What they reportedly found was that Buffett?s company has been paying taxes but it?s Chariman, Warren B., has not filed taxes in ten years and before that he was only paying taxes on a rate of 7%, thanks to some very creative accounting and some help from the IRS."

:lol: At least these democrats are entertaining :lol:

Some fun with Warren

:lol:

This is insane and the administration is an embarrassment to this country. Buffett and Obama are pushing for higher taxes for the rich while Buffet pays little, if any tax. Not because of the tax rate for his tax bracket, but because he chooses to take advantage of loopholes at best, and at worst, perhaps just doesn't even pay the taxes (while saying the government should raise taxes). When Buffett is arrested for tax evasion Obama, who complains that the rich pay too little in taxes - PARDONS HIM?

What kind of example does this set? How are we to view Obama's proposal as anything other than politics and pandering to his base. His proposal is deal on arrival.

And about the evil rich, barring people like Warren Buffet who simply don't pay their taxes...
From the AP:
So let's cut the crap. To tell the segment of the population that not only drives the country's economy, but funds 70% of the government's income that they need to pay more is an insult. If Obama had any interest in really attacking the problem, he'd have the IRS go after tax dodgers like Warren Buffett and collect.

Then there's the Solyndra thing. BO props up this train-wreck of a company with a half billion $, everyone who knew the company knew it wasn't viable. Naturally it goes bankrupt and the half billion $ is gone. The company will be investigated... by Obama's goon Eric Holder. Solyndra has been advised to plead the 5th. The injustice department will ensure that congress never sees that data. I think Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other non-viable companies have been propped up by Obama's stimulus packages?

This coming presidential race is the republican's to loose. Not that that's encouraging to me...

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration. The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Had the shenanigans been otherwise, the rating would have stayed the same. S&P expected adult behavior, not necessarily a total solution.

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Agreed

Yes, I realize that. But the original context of my statement about the massive deficit, which was a bit longer, still holds.

And I'm glad we can agree on something. ;)

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

During the 1950s and 1960s taxes on the wealthy were up around 70%. The economy was thriving and so was the middle class. In the early days, Henry Ford understood economics, he paid his workers well so they could afford to buy his cars. Corporation business men now days don't seem to understand that principle. Turn the workers into slaves and they aren't going to buy anything.

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

Yes that chart does look suspicious. Here is some explanation.

From NY Times
Gulp!