Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, October 23, 2016

The White House is reiterating its intention to let the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire as scheduled, setting up another summer battle with Congressional Republicans.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “President Obama has been clear about his position and it has not changed. We should not extend and he will not extend the … Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of the American people.”

Along the same lines, White House National Economic Council director Gene Sperling told the Economic Club of New York that the Obama administration is only open to a “grand comprimise” to reduce the national debt if it is “balanced” to include tax revenues along with spending cuts.

The tax cuts are due to expire at the end of this year, raising taxes on households that earn over $250,000 a year from the current 35 percent rate to the pre-Bush rate of 39.6 percent. Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell claim that the 4 percent rise would cripple the economy, and House Republicans plan to hold a vote on extending the cuts before Congress goes on recess in August.

“It’s pretty obvious that the economy needs the certainty of the extension of the current tax rates for at least a year,” McConnell told Reuters.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, while allowing the tax cuts to expire could hurt the economy, it would be preferable to the “much bleaker” alternative of extending the current tax cuts and spending rates.

If the battle over the tax cuts escalates, President Obama is well positioned politically. According to an April New York Times/CBS poll, 56 percent preferred increasing spending and raising taxes on the wealthy compared to just 37 percent who favored cutting taxes and spending. Furthermore, 57 percent said that upper middle income people pay “less than their fair share” in taxes.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The National Memo
  • EXCELLENT!!!! Keep up the pressure on this LAME DUCK CONGRESS, they are PATHETIC to say the least!

    • this is not a lame duck congress. tho it acts like one when all the gop ducks are sheading the american economy off their back like water off a ducks back.

  • montanabill

    The man hasn’t proposed any tax cuts. He also knows that without proposing any real cuts, Republicans will never agree to any tax increases and that will save him from doing one more thing that will damage the economy just to placate his far left base. Besides, it gives him one more place to point at as the reason for his failures. Hard to compromise with a gas bag.

    • ObozoMustGo

      Hey montana! Speaking of gas bags……………..


    • we know all about how hard it is to compromise with you gas bags. It is not only hard but impossible. When the lite of reason has disappeared from your make up

      • montanabill

        So give me the facts about where I was wrong. I can be reasoned with, with facts.

    • actually Obama has created tax cuts for the middle class. he just does not believe the rich need more since they don’t pay anyway and send the jobs and money off shore to avoid them like “R money does.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Furry… one of these days, us proletariat are going to get those bourgeois, aren’t we? I just know it! Soon, everyone will hate those rich guys for stealing all of the money from the poor people who had no money, right?

        Have a nice day!

        • metrognome3830

          There is some historical evidence that could happen. I hope not. We need some token bourgeois to blame for everything. They need the proletarians to have somebody to blame their troubles on. What if everyone was perfect? We’d have nothing to write about.

          I thought you were part of the bourgeoisie, OMG.

          I can’t make out what your icon says. Is it “One Big Ass Mistake, Ameerica?

          Have a nice day, from your proletarian friend.

          • ObozoMustGo

            metro… yes. You are reading that avatar correctly. hehehehehehehe

            I probably would be considered the bourgeois, even though I come from proletariat upbringing.

            Not everyone is perfect, metro. Just me! hehehehehehe 🙂 Yes the world woudl be a boring place if we were all the same.

            Have a wonderful day, from your bourgeois buddy! 😉

      • montanabill

        Eliminating part of your payments to Social Security is NOT a tax cut.

    • scareygary

      Most of the CUTs have been in the tax rates of millionaires and billionaires, beginning with Reagan and continuing through Bush. Check some FACTS, even through the conservative website American Taxpayer’s Union. You’ll have to read it, though, and check the history, they won’t TELL you your rates are lower now than ever. The rich, especially, are paying the lowest tax rates in decades right now, and what’s it got you except millions in corporate money being shoved into super PACs for the party that promises yet MORE, or extended, tax CUTs! It’s nuts! They’ve got so much cash now that it’s insane, but they’d rather spend it for political BUYING, tax attorneys and lobbying for even more. They could AFFORD to pay a little more in taxes for the good of the nation, and debt reduction, but seem content in watching the JOBS of teachers, cops and firefighters go away (while blaming unions), watching roads and bridges crumble while telling you they are ‘job creators’. What a joke. The rich folks have ‘bought’ your opinion, Man….and it’s based on cute 2 word claims “job creators”, “tax and spend liberals”, and other hokum not borne out with facts…..or by HISTORY.

      The dudes in the top 1% are doing great while the rest of us are doing the sacrificing. What’s been asked of the wealthiest? Absolutely nothing, and they are sitting on tons of cash. If any of it is ‘trickling down’, it’s not stopping in MY neighborhood, but Communist China is doing pretty well…… Do you LIKE that?

      • montanabill

        The top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes. The top 10% pay 71% of the income taxes. Those are higher percentages than 2000. I’m sure they could afford to pay more, but to what purpose, even more people on the dole? So far, Obama has pledged to use higher taxes on the rich for every new spending program he can imagine, none of which would reduce the deficit or help you.
        Individual rich and corporate money are apples and oranges.

        • awakenaustin

          Ignoring the distribution of wealth in the nation again are we?
          Is the only source of funding for the U.S. from income taxes?
          Who owns corporations?
          Who runs corporations?
          If corporations save money by moving operations out of the U.S., where do those savings go?
          If they don’t save money, why are they moving operations out of the U.S.?
          If jobs are moved out of the U.S. to other countries does that lower the number of jobs available in the U.S.?
          Please identify the jobs created by the tax cuts in place now for almost a decade?
          Please describe the areas of economic growth resulting from the tax cuts?
          (Try to avoid the arguments which start out ‘everyone knows’ or ‘its a proven fact’!)

          Your statistics simply show that the poor are getting poorer and the wealthy are getting wealthier. It certainly is not a phenomenon of tax increases since 2000, since there haven’t been any.

          More people chasing fewer jobs means more people in need of assistance. I guess starvation, malnutrition, illness, homelessness are options and ways of dealing with the problem. Personally, I’m not likely to fall into that category so ‘what me worry.’

          You tell us the solution. What is the market solution for the shrinking middle class and the shrinking middle income? Since the central operating principle and virtue of markets is greed, how does increasing the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands increase incomes in the middle? Inquiring minds want to know. (Try to avoid resorting to slogans and talking points.)

          I have a side bet that you and OMG are really the same person and your existence allows him to congratulate himself for his statements. Can you settle that for us?

          • montanabill

            You lose the bet. I have no idea who OMG is.
            Who owns corporations? Most of us. If you have investments of any kind, you likely own many corporations.
            Who runs corporations? The executives selected by the Board of Directors elected by you, the shareholders.
            Those savings go to pay dividends to shareholders, you.
            Moving jobs out of the country does reduce the number of jobs. If we want those jobs, we have to be competitive. If we don’t wish to be competitive for those jobs, we need to invent industries that require the talents our people possess. If we don’t possess extraordinary talents, then we will be jobless.
            How about I use a personal example for areas where tax cuts result in economic growth? I built several companies. We employ U.S. workers and expand using our own resources. Since my companies are privately held, I personally pay the taxes on income earned by those companies. When the government taxes me more, that is less money I have to expand. When I can’t expand, that is fewer employees hired. It is fewer luxury items I buy. It is less travel I do. Multiply me by tens of thousands. Got it?
            Your handle indicates you might be attending or have attended UT. I certainly hope you simply missed the opportunity to take economics classes and your lack of education in is this arena is not because of bad professors.
            The poor are not getting poorer. They are doing well at the government teat.
            The rich will always do well, because they usually keep doing the things that got them rich in the first place. Incidently, the ‘rich’ is not a static group. People move into that group and out of that group continuously.
            The solution for a shrinking middle class is to get the economy moving again. The middle class shrank because of the massive impact of the housing bubble bursting. Contractors, their employees, their suppliers all were suddenly out of work which rippled through the whole economy. It was a very large segment of our economy. A lot of companies are poised to commit to growth. They won’t do it with the uncertainty that hangs over us because of potential tax increases, Obamacare and an administration that, as the book says, is a bunch of amateurs.
            Just what makes you think wealth is accumulating into fewer and fewer hands? Do you have any idea how many millionaires and billionaires there are in this country? New billionaires and millionaires are created all the time. I will point to the Facebook IPO as the most recent example. The developers did quite well. Unfortunately, too many people didn’t do their homework and bought into the hype.

    • joyscarbo

      Where is Murphy when we need him? He debunked your backwards economic speak and you couldn’t back your own beliefs up with anything!

  • taxi cab drivers in nyc make more than 250k, in california waitress’ make more. bo is so out of touch. watch out here comes another recession. you asked for hope and change. change ment what you will have in your pocket, along with lint. hope? well hopeless is more like it. independents will decide the next election in november. we rule

  • Ed

    Most economists disagree with the president. But if McConnel disagrees I have to believe that perhaps, just perhaps….

    • actually MOST ECONOMISTS AGREE with the POTUS. except the ones FOXnot news produces

    • Ed, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this. Most of the economists’ comments that I’ve read agree with Obama. They believe we need to spend a lot more than we have in order to get the economy really moving. A large federal deficit is a problem only when our long-term interest rates are high & right now America’s long-term interest rates are the lowest they’ve been in history. They say that when the economy is slack, every dollar of increase in federal spending adds 3-4 dollars to our gross national product. I think the deficit-mongering by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh & Fox “News” has gotten a lot of people scared by the federal deficit. I think Americans just need someone to explain to them when a federal deficit is bad, and when it is not.

  • ObozoMustGo

    Boy… if we just take more money from the productive members of America, we’ll all be wealthy, wont we? And if we just take more money from those evil “rich people” that make over $200K, the politicians will magically become fiscally responsible and will stop spending us into oblivion in a death march to become like Greece. Yeah… that’ll happen… yeah, right. Sure, sure.

    Obozo is an idiot and he will be crushed in November as he should be. Jimmy Carter can relax now that he will no longer be the worst president in modern history.

    Have a nice day!

    • takes and idiot to know an idiot i guess. Your post is lacking in facts AND intelligence

      • ObozoMustGo

        Hello Furry! What an angry old women you are!!! And most likely stupid. You can’t detect sarcasm when you read it? That was the first part of my post. The second part about Obozo and Jimmy Carter was just truth. Get over it!

        Have a nice day!

    • Landsende

      George W. Bush has been bestowed the honor of being the worst president in history by lying to get us to invade Iraq while also fighting a war in Afghanistan and not raising taxes to pay for them. Allowing the financial institutions to follow risky practices that caused the financial collapse for which he authorized a bailout. High unemployment started under his watch. President Clinton left office with a healthy economy, low unemployment, and no wars. Bush destroyed the country.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Land… I suppose our agreement ends with meat glue, eh? 🙂 🙂

        Listen, you cannot say that Bush was bad and in the same thought believe that Obozo can be blamed for nothing after 4 years. Bush was fiscally bad, but the numbers dont lie. Obozo is trying to lie, but the numbers are the numbers. Bush added a little more than $4T in debt in 8 years. That’s bad. Obozo has added a little less than $6T in debt in only 3.5 years. And his own budget office projects it to be over $20T in just a few more years. Come on Land… be honest and objective. Obozo is a bigger disaster than Bush.

        And for all you leftist nutjobs to continue harping the democRAT party lie about Bush getting us into war based on lies, let me slap you back with some facts about your own people:

        1) “Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

        State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
        Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
        October 2, 2002

        2) “I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is, is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly, and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that.”

        Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
        During an interview on “Chicago Tonight” with Elizabeth Brackett
        April 5, 2004

        3) “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”

        Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
        During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
        September 13, 2001

        4) “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

        It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

        This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

        Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
        Addressing the US Senate
        October 10, 2002

        5) “In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

        If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

        President Clinton
        Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
        February 17, 1998

        6) America is threatened by an “unholy axis”:

        “We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

        We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information… And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

        Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”

        President Clinton
        State of the Union address
        January 27, 1998

        7) “The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

        The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

        President Clinton
        Oval Office Address to the American People
        December 16, 1998

        Land, do you want me to continue this? I could give you hundreds of statements by the DemocRATS showing that they knew Saddam had WMD and that he was a threat to America and that they supported the war. You guys on the left have been fooled yet again by the masters of history revision on the left and their accomplices in the media that let them get away with it without challenging them.

        Have a nice day!

        • Landsende

          Bozo, the comments you quoted left out one very important fact. They all said Saddam was evil and was suspected of having weapons of mass destruction but until they had definitive proof they proposed other solutions than war. GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already made plans to invade Iraq before 9-11. They used that as an excuse by saying they had proof of weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell tried to dissuade them by saying “if you break it, you own it”. We all know what happened, we invaded Iraq with a terrible cost of lives and injuries to our troops and still no weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 not Saddam and instead of pursuing him from the beginning we ended up in a costly war which we are still paying for since GWB was the first president in history to not raise taxes to pay for it.
          Have a nice day!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Hi Land… keep telling yourself that, but just about every quote I gave you has a corresponding YouTube video to go with it. I am telling you that I have probably 100 or more.

            No matter how you try to rewrite history from you own mind, I’m going to shine the light of truth on that myth that Bush lied. At that time and in the years leading up to 9/11, on this issue we were not Rs or Ds, but Americans. You’re party changed that when they found rooting for America’s failure to be politically valuable.

            TRUTH–> The DemocRATS during Clinton years and through the early Bush years almost unanimously agreed that Saddam had WMDs and that he probably should be removed. 9/11 cemented that concept in 99% of every politicians’ minds and nearly the same % in the minds of the American people.

            The DemocRATS started changing their stories and going into reverse leading up to the election vs. Kerry and then stomped on the gas pedal with the car in full reverse after Bush beat him. It was clear, the war was popular and Bush was doing a good job. For the DemocRATS to take congress, they had to attack him on his strengths day after day, year after year. With a complicit and willing leftist media, they were successful in 2006.

            Here are some more for you to chew on:

            “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

            Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
            Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
            December 16, 1998

            “Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

            Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
            During an interview on “Meet The Press”
            November 17, 2002

            “I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

            Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
            Addressing the US House of Representatives
            October 10, 2002
            Congressional Record, p. H7777

            “Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

            Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
            Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
            February 18, 1998

            “Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

            Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor
            Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
            February 18, 1998

            “No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.”

            Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
            Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
            February 18, 1998

            Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

            “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

            Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
            105th Congress, 2nd Session
            September 29, 1998

            The Guardian
            February 6, 1999
            Saddam link to Bin Laden
            By Julian Borger

            Saddam Hussein’s regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

            The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad’s ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam’s most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

            News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. “There’s a threat, and it’s real,” Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons “are being considered for use.”

            Have a nice day

          • Landsende

            Bozo, your still missing the point. In all of the statements you quote not one of them said let’s invade Iraq. GWB did. Before going to war you have to weigh all the options and consequences. If we were attacked like we were by Japan then you go to war. Our troops did not have the proper equipment to protect them from roadside bombs which is why we had so many casualties and lost limbs. Rumsfeld made the comment “you go to war with what you have not with what you need”. Small comfort to those killed or injured. Saddam was a tyrant who murdered his own people, but so are a lot of other countries leaders like Syria. We can’t afford to take on all the tyrants of the world.
            Have a nice day!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Land… That’s true that all of them had the same info and supported the war effort. Do you need me to send you the votes in congress to prove it? Your efforts to say that bush just wanted to go to war for wars sake are false and nothing more than political hyperbole. But it’s not the facts as they are historically documented by the very statements I have provided you. I know you want to Parse words but facts are facts. Sorry

            Have a great weekend my lefty friend!

          • awakenaustin

            Give up. As with President Bush he is psychologically incapable admitting a mistake or acknowledging a fact contrary to his opinion.

        • awakenaustin

          You really do just make up numbers. Maybe some source for them? Please pretty please with sugar on it?

          Whoever said Democrats couldn’t be dumb asses? Frankly, I am not aware of anyone other than you suggesting that Democrats have taken the position they never supported or advocated that war with exception of two or three who actually did vote against it. You just make up history and then makeup fusses about it being revised. Everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed or a fool. There you are the lone voice of reason crying in the wilderness. Issuing insults as you try to win the hearts and the minds of us lesser mortals.

          Is your defense of getting into the war, Democrats should have been smarter and not gone along? If so, I concur.
          If it is that they share blame for that stupid endeavor, I agree.

          Even if every single solitary Democrat in this country supported the war it still would not mean that President Bush did not lie about the existence of WMDs. But lying is such a harsh word. I prefer to think he was just ignorant rather than mendacious.

          Question: Where did all those WMDs everyone knew existed go?

          Are you required to try to spread the blame around because it’s hard for you to justify having voted for him twice?

          But tit for tat, if President Obama must shoulder all the blame for all that goes wrong when he is in office, then former President Bush gets all the blame for the war. It was his idea afterall.

          Love and kisses, sweetie.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Awake… You don’t have to like the truth for it to be the truth. I know this bothers you but all the dems supported the war every bit as my h as the Repubs. The record is there for All to see. You can disagree with the war and that is fine. But you cannot perpetuate the lie that it was all Bush’s fault The facts and the dems own statements prove you wrong yet again.

            By the way, keep the love and kisses coming. I like them.

            Have a nice day! Love and kisses to you also! Enjoy your weekend.

    • metrognome3830

      Only “rich people” are productive members of America? I don’t think even most “rich people” believe that, OMG. They might say they do, but they would have to be pretty stupid to really believe it. I don’t believe all “rich people” are non-productive dweebs. There are still a few that produce something and earned their own money. I stand with you on your view of our politicians, but aren’t many of them “rich people?” Didn’t some of them become “rich people” by using their political position? Not all of us have that option, but I don’t believe that we are all non-productive. As long as we continue to blame each other for our financial problems, instead of the politicians, nobody is going to produce a solution. Therefore we all become non-productive. The majority of people I know and knew throughout life were productive people whether they were rich or not.

      Have a great day.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Hey metro! FYI… my comment was pure sarcasm. Of course anyone that is working is productive. The problem I have is that the definition of what is “rich” continues to come down, and the definition of what is “poor” continues to come up.

        Regarding politicians becoming rich by being politicians? Disgusting, isnt it? How does someone that has been in Congress for 4o years and has never had a real job in their life come to be wealthy with considerable assets? Witness Charlie Wrangle. How does that work? I really have no idea other than legal insider trading they do and kickback sweetheart deals for expensive properties that were let go on the cheap. I suppose that’s what they do. I support term limits for this reason.

        Have a nice day!

        • metrognome3830

          Well, there you go! We have found some common ground. By the way, I commend you on your comment on the steelworker story. Very thoughtful.

          Haave a great day!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Thanks metro. I have a great deal of respect for anyone that works and an appreciation for a man that takes care of his own, regardless of what work it is that he does. There is tremendous dignity and honor in work……… of all types. You will never find me begrudging a person for their work, regardless of what they do or how much money they make. I wish it went both ways for all people.

            Gotta run. Conference calls for the next 2 hours.

            Hope to see you on here this weekend, metro! If not, have a great weekend and take that wonderful bride of yours out for some sliders and duck fat fries.

  • It has been proven over and over again that tax cuts for the rich DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Reagan found this out after he started his trickle down economics in 1981 after that he raised taxes at least 6 times when he was President. Clinton raised taxes and we had great economic growth, Bush 2 cut taxes then started 2 wars without the money to finance either and borrowed money from China to have money for these 2 wars(which he never included in his budgets and the national debt which is why the national debt is so high now President Obama and the Democrats did add the cost of the wars to the debt total) which is one of the reasons the Country went into a depression. Bush2 tax cuts and the unregulated financial industry are the main reasons we had a depression and the Republicans are the reason we can’t recover more quickly from the Bush and Republican Depression. No matter how mustgo and montanabill word their posts the truth is the truth and the truth is TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. I was a victim of Reagan ‘s trickle down economics and got laid off, it took me nine months to find another job and cost me all my savings( in 1981 you drew 26 weeks of unemployment if you were lucky) then along comes Bush2 with his 2 taxcuts for the rich and once again I am laid off. This time I was unable to find a job, used my savings once again and finally reached the age of retirement so I did what I had not intended to do until I was 70 that was to start drawing my Social Security and at an age when I should be above the poverty line, I am not thanks to the Republicans and their insistence on tax cuts for the rich(which many members in not all Republicans in Congress are) and corporate welfare for corporations that don’t need it like the big oil companies (Koch Brothers). One last statement, My Social Security Payments are not an entitlement, I paid into the fund for over 50 years and thanks to Reagan raising SS taxes on the middle class when he gave the rich their tax cuts from the time I went back to work to the time I got laid off again I not only was paying for the people collecting SS at the time but also paying toward my own retirement with the hike in Social Security Taxes, the amount I was paying to SS was 2/3 more than I and other baby boomers should have been paying.

    • montanabill

      Unfortunately your post is woefully short on reality. The Reagan tax cuts did create jobs and the economic growth during the Clinton years was the result of both taxes, spending cuts and a balanced budget. W. had the country recovering from the shock of 9/11, until the Democrats gained control of Congress. His mistake was that he didn’t use his veto pen on new spending. The Democrats also approved of Bush’s entry into two conflicts.
      You can shout that the rich don’t create jobs til you are blue in the face. When you are tired of that, go get a job from one of your poor friends.
      And if you want to know who is responsible for your economic position in life, go ask the guy in the mirror if all of his decisions were good ones.

      • If the rich create jobs, then why was the economy so strong in the 1960s & 1970s when the top 2% of the wealthiest people in America only owned 8% of all the wealth? Today the top 2% of the wealthiest people in America own a whopping 40% of all the wealth. If Romney and the rest of the Republicans have their way the top 2% of the wealthiest people in America will own 95% of the wealth and the rest of us will live like 3rd world refugees. Romney and his ilk are only for rich white men, not women, not the middle class, not the working poor, not the diabled, not even poor children.

        Plus, the Democrats did not exactly gain control of Congress. The Democrats had a 60 senator ‘super majority’ but they were still 7 short of the 2/3 you need to pass an amendment. That’s the reason why so little work has gotten done in Congress. The Republicans override everything that the Democrats or Obama propose, yet the Republicans have nothing to offer other than a record number of filibusters.

        • montanabill

          I don’t know where you got your numbers, but my research shows that the top 1% had 34% of the wealth in 1965. The lowest was 19.9% in 1976 when Gerald Ford was President. Today it is around 25% simply because of the recession. The rich depend on financial markets, which have improved, while the rest of America depends on jobs and homes for wealth. These remain in a slump.
          I’m not sure why you are concerned with the Senate passing amendments. A super majority is all you need to pass legislation. FYI, the Republicans in the House have had plenty to offer. At least 34 measures are bottled up by Harry Reid who will not even allow debate for fear some Democrats might be so bold as to compromise.

        • Economics aside, I used to think that one of the problems of such extreme wealth consolidation was that the wealthy and powerful could go into small, third-world nations and completely take that nation over.

          During the recent primaries, we saw “Big Tobacco,” through an intensive campaign, change the minds of two-thirds of California’s electorate in regard to Proposition 29, a tobacco tax increase. At the same time, we saw Wisconsin’s Walker benefit from seven- or eight-to-one spending in his recall campaign.

          I guess my worry, then, is not about those small, third-world nations, but rather the future of the United States. Our most crying need is for election reform and, yes, wealth distribution.

      • I have to disagree with you on why the Clinton years were so good. He produced a government surplus at the end of his 2nd term and he eliminated the deficit completely — but it was not by cutting spending — it was because the economy had grown enough to reach full employment.

        Running a large deficit relative to GDP is the kind of stimulus we need in this country today, given the unemployment rates. This will raise the deficit-to-GDP number initially, but as people go back to work and unemployment declines, the GDP rises faster. When the economy slacks, every dollar of increase in federal spending adds 3-4 dollars to our gross national product. The newly employed now pay taxes, so government revenues increase. Spending in the form of unemployment comp. welfare, disability payments, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., all drop as people go back to work. And the deficit automatically shrinks relative to the GDP. This is how Clinton did it. And this is what we need to do now — dramatically increase Federal spending — expecially since our long-term interest rates are low — and right now they are the lowest in history. A large federal deficit is only a problem when long-term interest rates are high.

        • montanabill

          With that wonderful plan, one has to wonder why the 3/4 of trillion Barack spent on stimulus didn’t put $3 trillion back into the economy. I know that is the Keynesian model, but it has been proven time and again that it simply does not work. Clinton did not do it that way. He did cut spending and he cut entitlements.
          Our debt costs rose 13.2% last year alone. The CBO projects that interest costs will skyrocket because of anticipated higher rates and the issuance of new debt. You simply can’t grow an economy on too much borrowed money any more than you can live endlessly like a millionaire using a credit card.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        Montana Bill…Where did the Reagan tax cuts create jobs? Surely no where in the most industrialized areas of the US…the northeast. As I recall, by 1978, Reagan’s 2nd term saw another predictable Republican recession. When do you Republican bois stop the lies? I worked for a personnel recruiter the last 3 years of Reagan’s administration…no jobs…Big Oil is not the only industry in this country. And now that my state is moving along briskly with solar energy, the Big Oil Bois better get ready for the end of their too long Black Gold Rush. Build those rigs in your backyards. Not ours.

        • montanabill

          History is what it is, not what you would like to think it is. If your state is doing well with solar energy, you have better notify the President. His investments in that area have not been doing too well lately. There’s also a lot of newly unemployed solar power workers looking for jobs that would like to know which state that is.

  • Eisenhauer worned about the Military Complex years ago.. seems he may have been talking about the 2 wars Bush put us in and ” didn`t pay for..” Since the Repubs have so much Pac money to spend.. maybe they should pay some of the Money those wars cost this country, Back to Goverment !I know its a Crazy thought and I`m sure your all thinking I`m a Dem.. sorry not true tho.. I`m Independent

  • Landsende

    Can anyone list even one piece of legislation congress has passed to help the economy and the American taxpayer besides trying to give more tax breaks to big corporations and keep President Obama from being reelected?

    • Precisely, I’ve commented before on the comments boards, Romney is going to be elected as the Republican Party candidate for the presidency with still and yet to date, no clear renumerated platform to “fix” what he deems the current presidency has messed up. Everytime Romney is featured in a news article or video his two-fold agenda is, Obama is a failure, 2) take back the White House. No one man can create jobs. The jobs that Americans need have been mostly replaced by the computer/technology era. Even commercials on television have people saying that former jobs weren’t cutting it until they went to a computer school or enhanced their education with further studies and degrees which enabled them to enter the work force that has clearly become computer savvy. Call any of your businesses, companies, etc. they all have subscribed to computer answering services where you can hardly reach a human voice. I’ve called places that handle all of your business, start to finish without ever hearing a human voice. That used to be a person’s job. Unfortunately, many will succumb to this computer age. Even job’s creation will depend upon each individual’s knowledge of the now technology. Bookstores have folded due to the Kindles and Nooks. That was someone’s job, cashiering, stocking books etc. Photo shops and developing are a thing of the past. Even the USPS is suffering as a result of email and PDF. We not only have to create jobs with the new technology, but have to educate people to become employable in this technological age.

    • DurdyDawg

      Nope.. Nary a one.

  • He shouldn’t extend the tax cuts. After 10 pulus years of Bush “tax cuts” for the wealthiest, I haven’t exactly sween a hoorendous increase in jobs it was supposed to bring—Oh excuse me….there were jobs created—all in overseas investments. (China, Phillipines, Malaysia, Central and South America–everywhere but here). AND, those jobs that those lucky devils in those countries got to work at are probably in underpaid, sweatshop conditions. Maybe we can Americanize them with some unions!

  • joyscarbo

    “Successful business experience is the central rationale for former Gov. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. To support Romney one must, at a basic level, believe that being good at business either generates experience or hones qualities that are likely to produce successful presidential leadership at a reasonably high rate. One assumes that the validity of this proposition is testable against the historical record. If Romney is correct, presidents with significant business experience should outperform those without—and this fact should be reflected in the presidential rankings that have been compiled by a bipartisan group of historians since 1948. If Romney is wrong, if business leaders perform as well or less well than the average, then business success is at best immaterial and may actually be detrimental to presidential leadership. In that case a core tenet of Romney’s presidential candidacy evaporates.

    We have had 20 presidents in the modern era (i.e., since 1900). Five of those had significant business careers before entering politics. Unfortunately for Romney, the results are not good for the businessmen.

    None of the great or near-great presidents—Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson—was a businessman. Truman was a failed businessman (a haberdasher) before entering politics, but that hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Romney’s claim for private sector ascendency.

    For that matter, none of the better-than-average presidents was a businessman either. In this category think of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.

    Probably the most successful president with real business experience (and success) was George H.W. Bush. Before going into politics he founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil. Bush 41 ended up a one-term president unable to kick-start an economy in a recession and seemingly out of touch with the problems of the common man. Sound familiar?

    It gets worse from here. Jimmy Carter, another one-term president beset with economic woes, was a success in agribusiness (peanut farming) before getting into politics. He generally falls into the lower half of the historians’ rankings.

    And then we get the big three—the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team). Bush 43 even went to Harvard business school, like Romney, and like Romney promised to bring business principles to the Oval Office.

    With this kind of track record, maybe voters should apply some market principles to the core Romney Rationale and choose a different brand of dog food.”

    -From US News and World Report by Peter Allen

  • scareygary

    Bill. The 1% OWN about 90% of the WEALTH in the country. They SHOULD be paying 90% of the taxes! Not to put more people on the ‘dole’, but to pay for decent roads (PRIVATE contractors?), give some back to the states to rehire TEACHERS, firefighters, cops, who’ve lost jobs, homes and more, and to keep some Park Rangers working in national parks, to keep workers clearing roads of snow and summer growth, and a thousand other things (Coast Guard to keep water ways safe?) that some of you take for granted evidently. It takes money to run a CIVILIZED country, but some people are too cheap to want to pay for anything that might benefit others. I do NOT feel the LEAST over-taxed (12.9%) was MY rate this year, and it’s a BARGAIN. Romney paid 13.9% on his 22+ MILLION (that’s almost 2 mil per MONTH). I think he and his ilk could spare a percentage that’s higher than I TIP a waitress. And GE? () % in 2010, Amazon, about 4%, Big OIL, just a few percent, and some years ZIP while getting money BACK in tax breaks. I guess that’s what you can get if you have millions to give to lobbyists to buy congress members who write the tax code!

    Our tax rates are so LOW (compared to any decade since the we cut them to low levels just BEFORE the Great Depression. You won’t have to look very hard to check that fact. I can show you where if you need.

    You seem to hate WELFARE, but you are ignoring corporate welfare that costs this country SO much more… the billions…. The Sam Waltons of this country are just LAUGHING at you! (and me, too). We’ve not had a DISPARITY in income like this in this country since the roaring 20s. You seem to like it since you are defending the party that promotes this thinking: Greedy Ones Protected. Are you a multi-millionaire???

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Look. Strip away all of the rhetoric about wealth and what do you see? People who had a huge amount of help from others…consumers, employees and taxpayers to achieve their wealth. These wealthy people owe. It’s called “reciprocity”. People who take with no thought of giving back to those who helped them create their wealth are extortionists and swindlers.

    Wealthy Americans today want to be totally tax free. If that happened, the Middle Class and working poor would bear the biggest burden of taxes. Wealthy Americans believe because they earn more, they owe less to the government from which they derive huge benefits and remaining Americans who helped them continue to remain wealthy.

    Well? Guess what? The wealthy got all their tax breaks, cuts, exemptions and by 2008? 8 million out of work. Face facts. The wealthy Americans today live as if life has no obligations, limitations or consequences. That’s because all of us have been enablers of this kind of mentality. If we must learn to live within our means, so must they. If we must pay taxes, so must they. They play stupid and it’s all shock and awe when it’s time to pay their fair share. They knew going in, the more they earned, the higher their taxes would be. What’s with the sudden synthetic ignorance?

  • employment comes from the private sector or from the governments. The private sector must be doing well judging from the stock market quotations,so it must be it does not want to employ rather than cannot… Jobs do not come out of Genesis by some sort of Fatwa or Creation, they have to do with profits, gains or losses which the stock market reflects.