Looks to me like Obama is embellishing on other's words once again.

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

Buffett Says ‘Buffett Rule’ Should Apply Only to ‘Ultra-Rich’:

Sep 30, 2011

Billionaire investment tycoon Warren Buffett, who has become the unwitting mascot of President Obama’s deficit reduction plan, is less than thrilled with one of the plan’s main provisions: the millionaires’ tax, or as it’s come to be known, the ”Buffett Rule.”

In an interview with Bloomberg Television today, Buffett said he did not support the president’s plan to increase taxes on people who earn more than $1 million per year.

“It isn’t [my idea] to have the rich pay more taxes. It’s to have the ultra-rich pay more,” he said, according to The Hill. “What I’m talking about would probably apply to 50,000 people in the country.”

Later on CNBC Buffett said if it were up to him, people earning $50 million would not see any tax increases, only people who “make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me.” Buffett did not put on a number on what he considers a “very high income.”

The Buffett Rule, as President Obama has taken to calling it, is part of the plan Obama submitted to the super-committee for deficit reduction. The rule would increase the tax rate for millionaires to ensure that high income earners do not pay a lower tax rate than middle- or low-income earners. Obama dubbed this provision the Buffett Rule after the billionaire investor said there should be “shared sacrifice” in reducing the deficit.

In a New York Times op-ed last August, Buffett complained that he and his “mega-rich” friends have been “coddled” by a “billionaire-friendly Congress” because he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

“While the poor and middle-class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,” Buffett wrote in the op-ed.

The day after Buffett’s piece ran in the Sunday paper, Obama cited it as proof that a “balanced” approach was necessary in deficit reduction. Less than a month later, Obama introduced hisplan deficit reduction plan which included the so-called Buffett Rule.

Buffett said today he has not “looked at all the details” of the president’s plan, but said “there is no question there will be parts I disagree with.”

91% of those polled agreed with Obama's comments in the SOTU address. The Buffett rule is quite modest, really. History says so, and so does the response of 9 of 10 Americans, a mixed bag of political views still yielding near universal agreement on this.

The vast majority of people do not even consider pimping out a child to make easy money, even if they’re losing everything because they can’t find honest work. In tough times there’s only negligibly more mugging for money. Most people would go hungry and homeless and still not resort to easy ways of making money that harm others or are simply wrong.

When someone like Mitt Romney says we should not resent the rich, but should just do what rich people do to become rich, and just stop complaining, he is ignoring that the vast majority of people do not have the brain defect that allows sociopathic behavior, and so this majority of people push brooms and are pissed at some of the rich, not for being rich, but for profiting so royally from inexcusable behavior. It turns morality and decency on their heads, and yet still the majority CANNOT bring themselves to be evil for money.

When someone develops a good product, and gets rich from it, people don’t resent him. If he naively hands over management to a CEO who profits more from treating workers shabbily than he would from treating them decently, people resent this CEO. It’s behavior that people care about. It’s decency and fairness and empathy and all the mushy things that sociopaths never know and can so easily sneer at. It’s the sociopath who can speak so glibly about having the stomach to do what supposedly needs to be done, and who has no trouble at all being unimaginably ruthless. It’s the sociopath who says thank God for people like himself who can push the envelope of cruelty ever farther in pursuit of profit over people, ideology over people, power over people.

So, no, Mitt, we CANNOT be rich like you. Not because we’re stupid or lazy or feel entitled to a handout, but because we’re not defective, we’re still fully human. Not corporation-human.

And the fully human have just about had it with our rules of civilized behavior being used against us. Because we care, we’re at a disadvantage against those who don’t, who can so casually go to inhuman extremes to accomplish unworthy goals. Because our laws are written for the mentally competent, and not for the psychotic or brain-damaged, these atypical are lawless, and we can seem impotent against their unrestrained predations; they’re untouchable, they know it, and they mock us, to boot.

Like you, Mitt, they look human, but they’re not. Only corporations are less human. It would be silly to scold the piece of paper that is the corporation. It’s considered uncivilized to punish the insane.

But we don’t have to give the insane person the keys to the car.

"91% of those polled agreed with Obama's comments in the SOTU address"


Mike there is nothing in the reports of the SOTU Instant Polls to indicate how anyone felt specifically about the Obama version of the Buffet Rule which even Buffet doesn't agree with. Anyway these CBS findings don't agree with many other polls taken. Regardless we know after a full three years that what Obama says bears very little resemblance to what Obama does. This speech was chock full of assorted rah! rah! rah! for the country on whole which is what the State of the Union Speech is supposed to contain so why wouldn't the masses say they liked what they heard? The qualifier though is that everyone knows that they are just words and little else coming from Obama. I now suppose you believe that Obama will win the presidency with Republicans only attaining 9% of the electorate?
Please keep thinking in those terms.

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

SOTU Instant Polls Show Success For Obama:
91% of those polled agreed with Obama's comments in the SOTU address

January 26, 2011

"....It’s important to note, of course, that these instant polls are limited to people who actually watched the address and, historically, it’s more likely for someone who supports the President to watch the speech than someone who doesn't. Therefore, they aren’t at all indicative of how the speech will be received by the public at large or how it might impact the President’s job approval numbers.....

The rich should pay their fair share of taxes. The laws were passed by congress to build into the tax code favoring the rich and now these laws should be repealed so they pay a equal perecentage as the rest of taxpayers. Thw middle class is only looking for equality and not favoritism for the rich. Most taxpayers do not begrudge the amount of money they make. The republican party is all paid up by the wealthy and will do anything to prevent a increase in their fair share. The reason the rich do not pay their fair shair is due to capital gain and dividends. There should be a cap on the dollar amount that is allowed for these items. This is the reason warren buffett and rommney pay a lower rate.If they would reduce the amount they can claim that would equalize the amount they pay as compared to a person who just pays on earned income.

"The rich should pay their fair share of taxes."


In all seriousness, do you really understand Obama's sneaky shuffle in his totally misleading charge stating that the rich are paying lower taxes than the middle class? His entire example is about the lower rates for dividend income, which we all benefit from as well. The rich have already paid much higher income taxes than the middle class based on tax tables and then they are taking that same money after it has been taxed and investing it in dividend paying investments. These investments, under present tax law are taxed at a much lower rate. So what? This is income that has already been taxes.The DNC talking points, that Obama has memorized word by word never explains this and the uneducated Democratic base, that the Democrats routinely take advantage of, fall for these unfortunate tricks every time.....thinking that the rich are paying lower taxes than the average Joe on their initial income. Its immoral for the government to tax bank interest and dividend income in the first place for all of us and that goes for the rich as well.

This has nothing to do with obamas sneaky shuffle in his total misleading charge that the rich are paying lower taxes than the middle class. It has everything to do with a millionaire who is paying only on earned income. For example a baseball player who earns 1 million in salary as opposed to a millionaire who does not work and receives capital gains and dividends only on his investments.The baseball player pays a higher rate You say so what amd I say it is unfair. It is the same way a small business owner who hires a accountant to do his taxes will pay a higher rate than a corporation that has a slew of accountants that can pay a much lower rate because they knosw the in a outs of the tax code and the corporation can pay either no taxes or a much lower rate. You are living in a fantasy world if you think the rich should not pay there fair shair. Another example is the bush tax cuts for the rich. no requirements for obtaining that tax cut such as proving it was used for job creation and not personal investments. However,when the middle class tax code was introduced the gop wants all kinds of hoops and restristions to oppose this legislation. The tax code should be revised but the way the gop wants to do it is to give a lower tax rate to the rich and do away with the corporate tax. These are not tricks as you put it but are facts. Tax rates should be progressive and breaks should be for everyone not just for the wealthy who buy the elected representatives who go out and lie to the general public. The gop is mainly the ones who included these tax breaks and the reason it is unfair and outdated. To revise the code it would have to be done by a special board comprised of business leaders members of congress from both parties,bankers and financial institutions and labore reps. There findings would have to be presented to congress and the tax code revised over several years. You know anyone who does not represent your stupid comments are either uneducated or some other type of stupid cliches that you present or a copy of some viewpoint written by fox news or some of their think tanks which sounds great but not factual.

"The Buffett rule is quite modest, really. History says so, and so does the response of 9 of 10 Americans, a mixed bag of political views still yielding near universal agreement on this." Q

Mike, that is mis-leading and so was Obama's comments. Because there is no doubt that 9 out of 10 people would agree that a billionaire should pay much more then a secretory and that everyone should pay their fair share. However, I don't care for the way our president makes his point, pitting one class against another in order to gain some dramatic shock value.

The truth is, there are some rich that don't pay enough and should pay more. That is because a lot of their incomes are from investments which are taxed at a lower rate. Once you increase Capital
gains tax you also hurt the small investors which are in the middle-class. The best way to resolve this issue is not with the Buffett rule but a simple flat tax where those who make less like a secretary, pay less. And those who make more like Buffett pay more. If Obama is really concerned about "fair share" and not more "government share and involvement" then he would be proposing a flat tax instead.

Billionaire Buffett with his "tax me more" is a favorite example of Obama and other big government types on the left. Why? Because he provides a good example of a wealthy investor also believing and wanting to invest more in government regardless of waste. Yet, my understanding is when he dies he is leaving almost his entire fortune to private charity and NOT to government. When it comes to revealing truth, action always speaks louder then words.

Mike G for the dididend and capital gains hurting the small investor there could be a dollar cap put on the amount they can claim like deducting for medical expenses. You made a good point on a simple flat tax as long as it is progressive in nature. I do not like pitting one class against another and as I have tried to explain in a previous comment the tax rate is unfair to a baseball player who receives earned income of 1 million as opposed to a millionaire who receives only capital gains and dividends. There should be caution in revising the tax code. That is why I believe it should be done by interested parties and not just left to congress. In the past every time the code is revised it is longer and more complex and getting to the point where only cpa can figure it out. Last year they are revising the cost basis for stock bond and mutual funds for lifo average cost and selected . If a person sells their share in 2011 they will have to fill out a new form 8949 in addition to schedule D. for share sold the preparer will have to select a cost basis. In addition the cost basis will for shares in 21011 and the new shares for 2012. It is just another example where the preparer has difficutly in filling out their form. It is the same way for a small business who has 1 preparer as opposed to a auditing team for large corporate interests who know the new revisions in the tax code as opposed to the 1 preparer for small business. But over the years that is what happened they keep revising the code and adding new regulations that only benefit a few and not the general taxpayers. But no one can blame Rommney from paying 15% because he is doing it legally. But that is why the tax code should be revised in a equitable manner. Good comment on the flat tax

'For example a baseball player who earns 1 million in salary as opposed to a millionaire who does not work and receives capital gains and dividends only on his investments.'-peter

LMAO!

Peter received a doctorate from the MikeQ school of economics.

"You made a good point on a simple flat tax as long as it is progressive in nature." Peter

Peter, we have common ground and agreement with the ideal that nobody should have some unfair advantage in the system that allows them to pay less, especially at the expense of others. Which is the exact reason I am not agreeing with the progressive part of your statement. It goes beyond the fairness of the same percentage for everyone and has government telling us what they think is fair. For example, with a 15% flat tax, a person grossing a million pays the government a true $150,000, with no loopholes, while a person grossing $50,000 pays the government $7,500. That is true fairness. But some in government want to meddle with the concept of fairness and change it to more economic equality, which is not what our founders meant by being created equal. If a civilized society wants to protect and care for the poor and middle-class then allow us benefits and credits like medicare, SS, welfare, etc. that the rich are not entitled to but redistribution of wealth to try and make things fairer is just not right, IMO.

Raising the minimum wage is a conspiracy between the NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT, the legislatures and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect more taxes for the next budget fiasco.

HOW ABOUT LOWERING THE SALARIES and benefits OF PART-TIME LEGISLATURES, instead of raising the minimum wage? Stupid? The average guy is struggling to make ends meet working 2 jobs in the real world. Does this make sense? Average guy doesn't get any vacation, while legislatures or Congress work what? 77 days a year? They work 77 days a year! $175,000 average salary with benefits, pension, you name it! PLUSSS per diems for doing nothing except hanging around in town covering hotels, meals and transportation.

IS THE AVERAGE GUY REIMBURSED FOR HIS COMMUTATION FARE ON THE RAILROADS, CARFARE, WHATEVER? NO. IT COMES OUT OF HIS PAYCHECK! NOW, THEY WANT TO RAISE THE TOLLS ON BRIDGES, ETC.


Raising the minimum wage is a conspiracy between GOVERNMENT and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE for more taxes for the next budget fiasco LOWER THE SALARIES and benefits OF PART-TIME LEGISLATURES Stupid? Average guy is struggling working 2 jobs! .Does this make sense?

"You are living in a fantasy world if you think the rich should not pay there fair shair......"


The rich are paying their fair share and I just demonstrated that to you, but you want them to pay much more and an unfair share so that you can punish them for being more affluent than you and lighten your load as well. Buffet was talking about the super rich making $50,000,000 and more...his name is being used in vain by Obama and company. Obama wants to start at $1,000,000 yearly income which encompases much of the small businesses in the middle of economic enemia. How stupid is that??? Besides, how many individuals at the lower income level really understand this? They'll believe anything the DNC tells them, when the DNC says its for their benefit. The missrepresentation from the liberals and thus parrated by the president regarding laws of economics and the present tax laws is criminal. Unprecendented! This entire issue only exists for Democratic political gain and not to help the middle class or the poor because the added income is meaningless compared to many other cuts that could be made.

Bill F : The rich are not paying their fair share and what you demostrated is a figment of your imagination. With the tax breaks in the tax code their % of taxes is much lower for the rich that have unearned income as opposed to the rich earning a salary.Also large corporations get a lower tax rate than a small business because they do not have a army of aiditors. I did not mention buffett but all you want to do is to knock Obama and ACCORDING TO YOU his socialist tendencies. If Obama was such a socialist he would have raised taxes on the wealthy to 83% when the democrats had control of both houses of congress. Instead he tried to compromise with the gop and was turned down on every ocassion. I have spoken to middle class republicans and independents and both agree the tax code is unfair. You can look at recent polls and 72$ of americans feel the same way. Again all you want to do is rant against obama and the democrats and not try to find a solution. I spoke 2 months ago to a CPA who also has a law degree and he stated he shutters everytime they revise the tax code and it always become more complicated. That is why I suggested a panel consisted of all interested parties and not leave it excuslively to congress. Mike G has proposed a flat tax and that could be a starting point to revise the code . Qit listening to the talking points from the gop propoganda and read or listen to other viewpoints not necessarily the democrats

Fred From the MQ school of ecocnomics.You did not read the whold comment. The phrase was only used as a example the baseball player who only earned a salary would pay a higher percentage than a millionaire who received only captital gains and dividends. It is not fair to the salaried individual. If that don t clarify it for you we might have a opening in the school.

"With the tax breaks in the tax code their % of taxes is much lower for the rich that have unearned income as opposed to the rich earning a salary"


I believe you mean earned income vs unearned income......fine..... the problem is that Obama and his merry band of Democrats isn't making a discinction and advertising that the rich aren't paying income taxes which is damn lie, but you'd be surprised how many clueless are falling for the ommission! You saying that you did not mention Buffet is your problem because the board you are posting on is supposed to be about Buffet and Buffet's
Rule. Of course everyone knows that the tax code needs revamping but probably not for the reasons you'd like. The Republicans have been the champions on campaigning for revamping the tax code since I can remember with the resistance always being on the Democratic side.....so what are you talking about? Obama was tied up with creating his monster, Obamacare or else he would have raised taxes on the wealthy and everyone else, as the Democrats are famous for.

There you go with that crap from fox news that tells a lie and keep repeating it and finally everyone believes it is the truth. I am glad it finally sunk in your brain that I was writing about earned and unearned income after 4 comments I wrote about.The rich are not paying their fair share because of the tax breaks afforded to them in the tax code. That is the reason rommney is only paying 15%. There should be a cap on unearned income in order to alleviate this problem. If the republicans are so much the champions of the tax code they would welcome it now that Obama has brought it up. There idea of revision is to cut corporate tax code to zero and give bigger breaks to the wealthy. The Bush tax giveaway to the rich is one of the problems the deficit si so high, I get a kick out you neocons when they speak about the deficit. Mitch Daniels when he was budget director un der bush was spouting cheney tune that deficits do not matter when they were passing bills for 2 unfunded wars medicare part d and bush tax cuts. Some senators and rep such as coburn cantor boehmer are decrying the deficit but all voted for the above items. Again I did not mention buffettd. I saw some of your comments where they asked a question about the economy and you rattled off one of your six paragraaphs about Iran. So do not be a hyprocrite. You speak of democrats raising taxes but nothing of the tax credits for the wealthy and taxing the middle class which the republicans are famous for. In regards to obamacare what do we have in its place. The health insurers can go ahead and raise premiums 40 to 50% during a depression and still deny for pre existing conditions. The gop offers no solution to the problem only bowing to the health insurers who contribute to their campaigns. If you know the tax code should be revises why do you blabber on about obama and realize their are other views except that warped views sprouted by the gop in their con game to fool the public. It is ubelievable that most americans would like to see a simplified and fair tax code while you spit out that poison that fox news and the thinking tanks of the gop spit out every day.

MG: A flat tax means that everybody pays the same rate. In order for those earning, say $20k per year to be able to pay any tax, the rate would have to be very, very low. For someone earning $150k to pay that low, low rate, and someone earning $15m to pay such a rate, you would have to forget about having sufficient revenue for much more than a basic military and little else. The flat tax idea is hardest on those already struggling, and is most beneficial to the wealthiest. Same thing with a pure consumption tax idea. In order to have significant revenue, tax rates have to be progressive.

"I don't care for the way our president makes his point, pitting one class against another in order."-MG

It would be dishonest and quite evil to deny the criminal war of the 1% against everybody else, like Ahmadinijad denying the Holocaust, or by turning everything around and saying that the true aggressor in the real war is the victim of- ooh! harmless verbal- attacks by the truthtellers. This class war sound bite is so long past its freshness date that it's covered with slime and mold.

"This is income that has already been taxed."-Bill

The working class family with a modest bank account pays taxes on the interest on this already-taxed income, so the wealthy are not facing some horrible extra penalty, as the apologists try to make it sound.

"the added income (if the rich were taxed at, say, Clinton-era rates) is meaningless compared to many other cuts that could be made."-Bill

That's the same kind of argument that says that wind and solar are useless because they won't instantly replace fossil-fuel and nuclear. Every gigawatt of wind power means a gigawatt less that fossil fuel plants have to produce, so how can wind power be useless? If raising tax rates to more normal levels won't totally erase the deficit, we should scrap the idea? Maybe lower taxes for millionaires as an apology? More normal levels of revenue do help, just as prudent cuts can help. All or nothing "solutions", or too-simple ideas such as a flat tax or consumption tax are not solutions, but are battle cries in the ongoing war.

But thanks, Bill, for speaking for yourself for a change. It made interesting reading.

"If you know the tax code should be revises why do you blabber on about obama and realize their are other views except that warped views sprouted by the gop in their con game to fool the public."


I knew exactly where you were coming from Pete and are fully aware of your totally left leaning politics. All I have to do is read your last few posts to know that you approve of MSNBC's, DNC's and Obama's - now you see it and now you don't shell game regarding the rich. In Nazi Germany it was the Jews who were blamed for everything, and now its just the rich. How convenient of you and your Democratic friends. Don't you realize you are being played for a fool in Obama's play book to getting re-elected and nothing else? Do you realize that the top 5 percent of all payers do pay more than half the income tax. They pay about 59.2 percent of all individual income tax, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan institute run jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The tax code is unfair, but not the way you are presenting it....pretty much the opposite and I'm speaking for the middle class because that is where I sit. Besides, some 40% don'y pay taxes at all yet share in tax credits. UNFAIR!




Its got nothing to do with FOX News. Double taxation is wrong for the Rich, wrong for the middle class and wrong for the MSNBC

I get a kick out of you neocons. If somebody disagrees with your nonsense they are leaning left liberals. In comparing the perscution of jews in Nazi Germany the same as the rich is ridicilious and racist. There is no comparison you dummy. One was in the time of war and had nothing to do with taxation of the rich. In the last 10 years the income of the rich has increased over 295% and the middle class has lost ground. This had nothing to do with obama. You leave the tax breaks to the rich in the tax code and the legistlation by bush and the republicans that gave welfare to the wealthy for job creators. What a joke. There are no reguirements to create jobs but can use the break for personal investment or go on vacation. You do not speak for the middle class because there are a majority of middle class republicans and independents that think the tax codes favor the rich and should be revised. The only way you want to to revise the tax code is to give more monies to the rich. While on the subject of welfare you could include corporate welfare in research and subsidies that are outdated. The tax breaks should be eliminated so the rich pay their fair share. Our tax code should be based on a progressive rate not on feeding the rich as you advocate. If you can not understand this fact it will never filter through your thick head. Mike G brought up the idea of a flat tax and that is why I proposed a board of interested parties to draw up a simplified and fair tax code for all taxpayers. But all you want to do is to blurt out that proproganda they everyone who believes the rich should pay their fair share are liberal and uneducated. This propoganda is nothing but garbage.The revision of the tax code should be fair to every class of americans

"..flat tax as long as it is progressive in nature....a flat tax and that could be a starting point." -Peter

Peter, It's words like these that Conservatives and Independents like myself have trouble with. When it comes to progressive government there never seems to be enough. A flat tax by itself is fair and if it's not enough, then we have to find a way to cut spending not increase taxes some other way. There is a difference between fairness, as to who should pay more and an ever expanding government with no limits.

Mike G I agree with you that spending has to be cut. What I meant by a starting point is not to increase taxes but make it fair to all classes by removing some of those tax breaks that favor one group over another. But it should not be done by congress but interested parties and then presented to congress to vote on. You know if it was left to congress the gop would be passing more tax breaks to the rich and the democrats would be expanding government like you stated in your comments. But there has to be a starting point not the continuation of the present 1040. Everytime congress tries to simplify the tax code it means more forms and becomes more complicated. But something has to be done in the last 5 years. When you have ridicilious comments where he compares the perscution of jews with the rich only a fool or idiot would believe that. That is like comparing apples with oranges. If you were comparing the tax code of germany with the united states that would make sense. These comments were made by bill F who is one of the neo cons who should never be appointed to revise the tax code. Likewise no one should ever appoint nancy pelosi to overhaul the code. But thanks again Mike g for your comments. At least they are logical and not outrageous

"an ever expanding government with no limits."-MG

Aw, Mike, Mike. Unless America starts shrinking, government has to keep up with it. If we can have the lowest tax rates in decades, after declining for such a long time, and also are plunged nearly into a depression, and still have a smaller deficit as a percent of GDP than we had after WWII, we can't very well have some rampantly over-spending government, as you say.

"A flat tax by itself is fair and if it's not enough, then we have to find a way to cut spending."-MG

Forcing a poverty-level family to give up some percent of its minimal income, when it desperately needs every penny of that income to just stay alive, while a do-nothing billionaire heir pays the same percent, some dollar amount that he casually blows on a whim every Tuesday,-that cannot be deemed fair. It's the kind of argument that only superficially sounds like it's reasonable, but which can't stand up to analysis. It's the dollar amount of taxes that matters to the taxed, not the rate. A dollar is precious to the poor, while that same dollar is pocket lint to a billionaire. Please, let's get real.

"The flat tax idea is hardest on those already struggling, and is most beneficial to the wealthiest. Same thing with a pure consumption tax idea. In order to have significant revenue, tax rates have to be progressive." - MQ

So then what is it really about? Is it about FAIRNESS that the rich don't pay their fair share OR is it about acquiring "significant revenue" from WHOEVER is able to pay relatively speaking, in order to keep expanding the balloon?

There has to be limits on government spending or there will never be enough and that balloon will eventually burst. Then, when government is unable to care for the majority who are dirt poor, you better find a way to get blood from a stone because feeding the government machine is what seems to be the only objective regardless of what it takes to feed it. Yes, we need government to a point but not to the point that they supply our every need.

"It's the dollar amount of taxes that matters to the taxed, not the rate."

To clarify: It's the impact that losing that dollar amount has that matters. The poverty level family is threatened by losing, say, 10% of its $20k ($2k), while the billionaire's 10% of $2b ($20m) is not worth his accountant bothering to tell him about. Fairness is not abstract numbers without context; it's how people are affected that is the measure of fairness.

"that balloon will eventually burst."-MG

? Probably when the federal budget was a million or so, it must have seemed that a budget of billions was impossible. Then that a budget of trillions was impossible. As long as our economy grows, spending can grow without harm. As long as our economy grows, spending NEEDS to grow to keep the economy-supporting agencies and insitutions and infrastructure able to support as they need to.

Again, the "We can't afford what we had yesterday, much less what we want for tomorrow" talk is straight from those who feel above it all, and so don't want to pay into anything.

Wow we got a posting storm here but I gotta make this the final tonight..

"Forcing a poverty-level family to give up some percent of its minimal income, when it desperately needs every penny of that income to just stay alive, while a do-nothing billionaire heir pays the same percent, some dollar amount that he casually blows on a whim every Tuesday,-that cannot be deemed fair." MQ

Mike I have two problems with your statement.

First, you take the worse of all possible extremes to make you point and not the norm. And even in this extreme case the really poor have programs and credits that are not even available to the middle-class to help them in their struggles.

Second, a percentage makes it fair because the more one makes the more one pays. Beyond that it is for the individual to decide what is morally right when it comes to their own hard earned money. Although, You and I may actually agree that it is not morally right for one person to have excess while another struggles. I believe that it is not right for government to make that decision or take on that role of who deserves more or less but that choice is up to the individual. And so we disagree.

"What I meant by a starting point is not to increase taxes but make it fair to all classes by removing some of those tax breaks that favor one group over another." Peter

Peter, thanks I understand and agree!

Finish my reply from last night..

"As long as our economy grows, spending NEEDS to grow to keep the economy-supporting agencies and insitutions and infrastructure able to support as they need to.Again, the "We can't afford what we had yesterday, much less what we want for tomorrow" talk is straight from those who feel above it all, and so don't want to pay into anything." MQ


Mike, the ones who need and rely on government the most are the ones that pay the least into it. While that may be necessary, that principle can never be considered fair, especially to the ones that are paying. The goal should be that any able body should not have to rely on government in order to get by but be successful on their own. Our efforts as a society should be to help them to advance and be self sufficient. That is the way EVERYBODY contributes. Then government can be less expensive and grow ONLY where it NEEDS to grow. We are trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. We cannot generate enough taxes even from the rich, to get us out of debt and maintain this uncontrollable beast. Therefore, I think we cannot have a legitimate discussion about paying MORE taxes without also talking about ways to CUT the growing size of government.

"When you have ridicilious comments where he compares the perscution of jews with the rich only a fool or idiot would believe that."


Are you actually that clueless Pete?
Only a fool and an idiot (to coin your words) would not understand a simple analogy. At the time, the Jews in Germany were blamed for all the economic hardships in that country. It was easy for Hitler to create false ghosts or scapegoats and center them on one particular group in order to take the spotlight off his own failures and short comings. Likewise Obama, administration and loyal followers , eager to hide three years of economic ruin which they refuse to negotiate on their failed policies in place, instead have opted to create a diversion through a created scapegoat. This diversion and scapegoat centers on a handful of wealthy individuals and on the taxes that they pay. The ridicules inference is that all the economic ills of the day are the fault of these individuals. In support of this scheme the president, his administration,the DNC and all obedient leftists backed by the liberal press are attempting to incite the masses in revolt, unaware of the master plan that controls them, to take to the streets in protest and make their disdain of the wealthy known to everyone. The ironic truth of all of this is even if the Democrats were free to change all of what they are campaigning for, including the tax code, it would have no positive affect on the massive economic woes at hand, in fact would worsen job growth and add more drag to the economy. This is all a diversion to cutting entitlements and dealing with the deficit head on.

Obama’s next bailout:

Proposed settlement hides payoff to banks worth hundreds of billions

January 27, 2012

On Jan. 23, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan met in Chicago with several Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) in an attempt to strong-arm them into signing up for an administration-backed agreement to settle the “robo-signing” scandal. Wall Street would pay what sounds like a large fine ($25 billion), and in exchange, the state AGs would relieve the bankers of all legal liabilities related to the fraudulent mortgage-lending practices that led directly to the 2008 financial meltdown and a 30 percent drop in U.S. home prices.

Sadly, this is nothing more than another bank bailout, in addition to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the $7 trillion in loans to the banks from the Federal Reserve; and the Fed’s zero-interest-rate policy, which allows banks to borrow from the Fed at zero percent while investing in U.S. Treasury bonds at 4 percent.

The fraudulent practices of the mortgage servicers have injected an untold number of forged documents into the legal system, jeopardizing the clean titles to millions of homes around the country. The costs of cleaning up this legal mess will most likely be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet this settlement would let Wall Street settle up with the state AGs for just $25 billion. Worse yet, most of this money would come from the pockets of investors who now own the mortgages, not from the perpetrators of fraud, and the rest would come out of the pockets of bank shareholders rather than from the miscreants who perpetrated the fraud.

I will stand by my statement that only a idiot or fool would compare the persecution of jewish people with the rich in america. You are stupid ignorant and if you spewing that garbage about obama you should seek mental health. The jewish people did suffer under the germans and is a black mark on the human race but to compare it to obama policies and the democrats is sick sick sick. There are 72& of american people composed of democrats republicans and independents who believe the tax code should be changed. When obama came into office he was handed a 12 trillion dollar debt a unemployment rate of 700000 per month. This has stabilized and is growing slowly. The rest of the world is still in depression and coming back slowly. Just look at the battle over the euro. The wealth of the richd in america has in increased 295% and I do not know of any rich person perscuted in that stupid comment you made. By revising the tax code all classes would be paying more. In regards to cutting entitlements, medicare and social security are earned benefits and benefeciaries paid into this system and continue after they retire They did not cause the collaspe of the financial system. This is my final comment because you are a complete moron believing that crap you write abot. I have never heard even the most conservative republican write about such idiotic nonsense.

one additional point ; if obama was a dictator against the rich he would have raised taxes on the rich by 90% and would have not signed into law the extension of the bush tax cuts. This is my final statement to your insane statements.

I just caught this guy Peter Schweizer speaking at the Heritage Foundation about the Prostitutes in Congress.

Prostitutes is my word.

The first Republican I agreed with in a very long time.

His new book is titled ( Throw Them All Out )!

"I will stand by my statement that only a idiot or fool would compare the persecution of jewish people with the rich in america. You are stupid ignorant....."


Your crooked english can only be surpassed by your lack of intelligence regarding a verbal representation of how a scapegoat scenario works. The horror of what happened to the Jews had nothing to do with my example as any half wit should have been able to ascertain. The uneducated I referred to in an earlier post initially had nothing to do with you but I have now changed my mind as you have more than earned it, as name calling seems to be the only way you can express yourself.
I am now convinced that you must spend most of your days on the streets of wall street in protest.

"you take the worst of all possible extremes to make you point and not the norm."-MG

If you're to have a true flat tax rate, you have to tailor it to the poorest taxpayer, or else you guarantee he'll go under. If you start tweaking the rates to allow the poorest taxpayer to squeak by, then you no longer have a flat tax, but some form of progressive rate system.

"And even in this extreme case the really poor have programs and credits that are not even available to the middle-class to help them in their struggles."

If we're talking about taxpayers, that by and large means no help from programs. Remember the old supposed gotcha that says that 48% or so of American adults pay no income tax? It's because they make too little to tax. They're the ones that get aid. Unfair? As for credits, are you referring to current credits or what would exist in your new system? There's little benefit to a flat tax system if there are all sorts of credits and exceptions and deductions and so forth.

"a percentage makes it fair because the more one makes the more one pays."

Let me just repeat my comment: Fairness is not abstract numbers without context; it's how people are affected that is the measure of fairness. The $2k paid by the $20k earner is a devastating loss, while the $2m paid by the $20m earner still leaves him with many times more money than most people will earn throughout an entire lifetime of hard, honest labor and dedication. A decent government will not squeeze the poor for what they cannot spare, and say that it's only fair that the already blessed not feel the same panic about how to feed the family.

"While that may be necessary, that principle can never be considered fair, especially to the ones that are paying."

I guess this encapsulates the difference between "bleeding heart liberals" and "compassionate conservatives." The liberal doesn't have to see any of the variants of The Prince and the Pauper to question the supposed intrinsic difference in value of the people from different classes, and that therefore there's no intrinsic rightness or legitimacy to some people having millions while others have almost nothing. The conservative, meanwhile, figures out how to make contrived arguments that defend the inherent rights of royalty to keep all of their benefits to themselves. (Ouch! Sorry, but it had to be said.)

"Fairness is not abstract numbers without context; it's how people are affected that is the measure of fairness." MQ

Well then, if fairness is measured by how people are affected and not abstract numbers then why base tax breaks on how much or how little a person makes? Base it on how well someone took advantage of opportunities, how hard they worked, how much they sacrificed, the risks they took, the time they put in, how they managed their resources and so on.

"The liberal doesn't have to see any of the variants of The Prince and the Pauper to question the supposed intrinsic difference in value of the people from different classes, and that therefore there's no intrinsic rightness or legitimacy to some people having millions while others have almost nothing.The conservative, meanwhile, figures out how to make contrived arguments that defend the inherent rights of royalty to keep all of their benefits to themselves.(Ouch! Sorry, but it had to be said.)" MQ

Well not exactly. The Liberal in general, does care about classes. He cares about who has too little and who has too much. He tries to balance the inequity by using government to take from those that have and give to those that don't. He cares more about the wealth of others and how others can contribute more, then worrying about what he can do himself. On the other hand, in general, the Conservative does not value class but strives to be self sufficient,looking for less government help. The Conservative does not care if his neighbor is a millionaire while he himself is struggling because his neighbors money is not his money. Because of his self motivated, independent nature, he does not like government or others telling him how to be fair with his money. He believes in the right to make that choice on his own.

Yet Mike, I know you still think the only reason Conservatives want control of their money is so "they keep all the benefits themselves". Well my friend, I hate to tell you this but it is not the Conservatives you have to worry about ( careful the truth may sting a bit..lol):


"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"Who gives to charity?"
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity

Bill F If you want to see ignorant and uneducated go look in the mirror.You are indicating the rich in america are being demonized as the jewish people in germany. In this hitler regime jews of all classes were being persecuted. like I mentioned obama did not demonize the rich because he did not raise taxes and signed a extension of the bush taxz cuts for the rich. The majority of americans including most intelligent republicans want the tax code revised. President Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency and was a great president. In addition in the reformed tax act of 1980 he lowered the percentage rate to 39% on earned income while championing taxing capital gains and unearned income as ordinary income. So take your stupid outrageous statements about obama demonizing the rich as compared to the jews in germany and go back to the dump with the rest of the garbage. You do not want to see the tax code revised as most americans with a brain do. Another of your stupid statements :"I am convinced that you spend most of your days on wall street protesting" Again your are stupid and a complete moron. I have never protested on the streets for any cause. I have produced facts not outrageous statements. If you call that name calling so be it. I have never heard a republican come out with such lies about the democrats like you do in your commments.

Peter Said:"This is my final statement to your insane statements."


Don't make statements that you cannot live by Peter. I said I want the tax code revised as most Republicans do
but certainly most Republicans don't share in your reasons for revision otherwise they'd be called Democrats.
---------------------------------------

Obama Calls It Fairness. The GOP Calls It Class Warfare. Scripture Calls It Envy:

1/29/2012


Obama, in his State of the Union address and during his initial five-state, multi-million dollar taxpayer funded re-election jaunt has stated repeatedly that his platform and policies are not about class warfare, which means, of course, that his ticket is all about class warfare—or “fairness,” as he likes to call it … or as the Scripture labels it, envy.

You don’t hear much about envy anymore, do you? We hear a lot about greed being bad, but in Obamaland envy is no longer a rank vice but a right and a virtue. However, historically speaking, envy has always been seen as a high-ranking sin. Envy, matter of fact, is second on the Seven Deadly Sins list as it lags behind pride a wee bit in being the nastiest and most common vice.

Ancient in its poison, envy forms a big chunk of the foul compost heap that stimulates the growth of human stupidity. Envy is an extremely toxic sin that doesn’t get the verbal hailstorm that other sins receive in our current entitlement culture with its totemic view of vice. Someone who has been saddled by the envy monkey will probably not make the evening news like a politician who has been caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman or who keeps his freezer stuffed with cash.

No, envy is not that sexy and doesn’t have the buzz that zings around a greedy Goldman Sachs exec. Because this sin doesn’t get MSNBC’s attention like the more juicy transgressions, we tend to see it as less naughty. But be not deceived, my brethren: This sin is disastrous once it sticks its talons into a person, party, religion, or nation.

Another distinguishing feature of the funk of envy is that it is no fun. All vices sport a momentary spice. All of them, that is, except for envy. Envy is the one sin the sinner will never like or admit. You’ll never see someone who is envious chilling out, laughing his butt off, or relaxing with his friends while this demon rules the roost. The more envy grows, the more it drives its impenitent coddler nuts.

So, what is envy? Well … let’s start with what it is not. It’s not admiring what someone else has and wanting some good stuff also. This desire will make you get off your butt in the morning and get busy. It is good to crave; a man’s appetite will make him work. Where envy differs from admiration/emulation is that envy is “sorrow at another’s good” (said Thomas Aquinas). Someone who is centered can watch another person, party, or nation prosper and not grow hateful because of it.

The whacked, petty, envious dolt, however, sees someone else excel and is slapped in the face with the reality that he just got dogged. So, instead of sucking it up and working harder and smarter, the unwise envious freak allows his pride to fuel his wounded little spirit. This sets the dejected perp down a path of disparagement of the prosperous that eventually morphs into the desire to destroy the person, party or nation that has just trumped this sad little person.

Os Guinness, best-selling author and renowned lecturer, states that the sin of envy has several common characteristics:

1. Envy is the vice of proximity. We are always prone to envy people close to us in temperament, gifts or position.

2. Envy is highly subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. It is not the objective difference between people that feeds envy, but the subjective perception. As a Russian proverb says, “envy looks at a juniper bush and sees a pine forest.”

3. Envy doesn’t lessen with age. It gets worse as we run into more and more people of happiness and success, offering more fodder for envy.

4. Envy is often petty but always insatiable and all consuming. However small the occasion that gives rise to it, envy becomes central to the envier’s whole being. The envier “stews in his juice.” Envy begins with pride and then plunges the person into hatred.

5. Envy is always self-destructive. What the envier cannot enjoy, no one should enjoy, and thus the envier loses every enjoyment. The envier’s motto is “if not I, then no one.” As an eighth-century Jewish teacher put it, “the one who envies gains nothing for himself and deprives the one he envies of nothing. He only loses thereby.”

Y’know, there are many forces tearing at this land and many nations that would like to level our nation. That said, I believe this envious entitlement funk that’s speedily weaving its way into the fabric of our national life will destroy it faster than al-Qaeda could ever al-Hope to.

The gop idea of fairness is to reduce the taxes for the wealthy and corporations. When some of their favorite tax breaks are removed from the code they may have to pay more. These breaks were specifically put in the code in favor of the rich and now it should be corrected. The middle class may have to pay more like deducting mortgage interest and higher interest on capital gains and dividends. The wealthy has conducted class warfare against the middle class since bush was elected. That is why their income has incrased 295% No one is envious of the rich as you babble on in 4 paragraphs only they pay their fair share. The dominant myth in this country is that we are all equal even when some of us are more clearly equal than others. Just before the Iowa caucuses Rommney told a audience that obama aims to substitute envy for ambition and poison the american spirit by pitting one american against another and engaging in class warfare. All the ambition is not going to help when you are out of work or struggling to pay your mortgage. The idea is great but it is hart to take a former wall street person like rommney . If deregulation and low corporate taxes result in the rest of us fighting over crumbs according to the gop thats the result of the free market. But when the rest of us start wondering why corporations are not paying their fair share welthat is gettin g dowright divisive

Obama economic policies saved capitialism. Thee was enough panic in the air he could have nationalixed the banks like they did in europe iceland and great britian but he did not do it.Likewise he could have made the stimulus 3 times large and raised the tax rate on the wealthy but he did not do it Obama is a old fashioned reaganite neo liberal Rommney has a 6.6 trillion dollar tax plan which would save the middle class $1400 a year and the 1% $171000. But the plan would add 615 billion to the deficit in 2015 and the middle class would be stuck with that. No one is talking about raising the % rate for the rich only correcting the inequities in the tax code. The middle class my have to pay more but action must be taken within the next several years. Oh rommney plan was studied by the nonpartisian tax center

Obama economic policies saved capitialism. Thee was enough panic in the air he could have nationalixed the banks like they did in europe iceland and great britian but he did not do it.Likewise he could have made the stimulus 3 times large and raised the tax rate on the wealthy but he did not do it Obama is a old fashioned reaganite neo liberal Rommney has a 6.6 trillion dollar tax plan which would save the middle class $1400 a year and the 1% $171000. But the plan would add 615 billion to the deficit in 2015 and the middle class would be stuck with that. No one is talking about raising the % rate for the rich only correcting the inequities in the tax code. The middle class my have to pay more but action must be taken within the next several years. Oh rommney plan was studied by the nonpartisian tax center

Obama economic policies saved capitialism. Thee was enough panic in the air he could have nationalixed the banks like they did in europe iceland and great britian but he did not do it.Likewise he could have made the stimulus 3 times large and raised the tax rate on the wealthy but he did not do it Obama is a old fashioned reaganite neo liberal Rommney has a 6.6 trillion dollar tax plan which would save the middle class $1400 a year and the 1% $171000. But the plan would add 615 billion to the deficit in 2015 and the middle class would be stuck with that. No one is talking about raising the % rate for the rich only correcting the inequities in the tax code. The middle class my have to pay more but action must be taken within the next several years. Oh rommney plan was studied by the nonpartisian tax center

The middle class is composed of republicans democrats and independents. Even middle class republicans do not envy the rich but think it is unfair when they see rommney getting special tax breaks and corporations like Ge not paying but also receiving a refund from the federal government. It is the same way on the disparity on one receiving earned income as opposed to unearned income. I used a simple example of a ballplayer but you could apply that to a writer who may receive royalties and would pay a higher tax without unearned income. In addition he or she may have to pay a self memployment tax. When combined with federal state and local taxes it would be a very high rate. No one is envious of rommney for taking advantage of the tax breaks only that it unfair that one class gets the breaks. I seiously doubt the tax code will be revise because you have such partisan hate on a federal level between the dem and gop. That is why on a federal level congreas gets only a 9% approval rate. On the state and local level they manage to get along most of the time and not that bitter fighing on the federal level. But that is why I suggested a board consisting of interested parties.not congress to study the situation and present it to congress for a up or down vote. If it was left to congess to simplify it the result the code would be more complicated and thousands of lobbyists would be thee to put the special breaks back in the code

U.S. Dividend Taxes Too High:

1/28/2012

The release of Mitt Romney’s tax returns is generating debate about the federal tax rates on capital gains and dividends of 15 percent. Great, let’s have a debate about why it’s both fair and good policy that these rates were cut in 2003.

Romney’s effective income tax rate in 2010 was 14 percent because most of his income was in the form of capital gains and dividends. Let’s focus on dividends, which were $4.9 million of his 2010 income of $21.7 million.

While Romney paid a 15 percent federal personal rate on his dividend income, the total tax rate on the stream of corporate profits that ended up in Mitt’s pocket was a huge 52 percent. That figure is from the OECD, and it includes the corporate-level burden on the underlying profits and the state-level corporate and personal taxes on dividends. So the total tax burden on Romney’s dividends is high not low, despite the dividend tax cut in 2003.

Just about every industrial country provides relief for the double taxation of corporate equity, either by having a lower personal rate on dividends, a personal tax credit for dividends, or a lower corporate-level tax. Despite the 2003 dividend tax cut, the overall U.S. rate on dividends at 52 percent is still the fourth-highest among the 34 high-income nations of the OECD.

Many people don’t seem to understand is that globalization has vastly changed the reality for capital income. Every major nation has cut tax rates on capital income in recent decades. The chart shows the average top dividend tax rate in the 34 OECD countries since 2000(for chart click on URL) . The U.S. cut its rate, but so did other countries. Liberals say they want to bring back Clinton’s higher tax rates, but the world has changed since then. And we’ve got more cutting to do: Our dividend rate is still 11 points higher than the average of the 34 high-income nations.

Bill Moyers talks with former Citigroup chairman John Reed and former Senator Byron Dorgan to explore how our political and financial class shift economic benefits to the very top.

"why base tax breaks on how much or how little a person makes? Base it on how well someone took advantage of opportunities, how hard they worked, how much they sacrificed, the risks they took, the time they put in, how they managed their resources and so on."-MG

What sort of vast, intrusive, judgmental bureaucracy would determine, on a case by case basis, how each individual satisfied these criteria? And so clearly these criteria are the classic description of the conservative's hero, the "self-made man." And so the poorer are not given "tax breaks", and get poorer still, while the wealthy get generous breaks, and get wealthier without doing any more work? Besides, the rich already get tax breaks precisely because they're rich, while it's full steam ahead to deprive the strugglung of anything except smug and useless platitudes about opportunity and such crap. Saying that opportunities exist, and that anyone who doesn't use them and prosper has only himself to blame is a necessary trope for the conservative. There are quite a few million people out there who have cross trained in hot career possibilities, using the last of their savings, and still can't find work, who would find this trope offensive and totally out of touch with reality.

"the Conservative does not value class but strives to be self sufficient."

This is close to the claim of blindness to race, which is more accurately blindness to racism, a whole different kettle of fish. The liberal sees disparities that goes beyond natural "bell curve" differences in members of a population, and to artificially induced extremes that go beyond cruel to the criminal. That's what we're seeing now.

"'But the idea that liberals give more is a myth.'"

Strawman. It's liberals who believe in shared benefits from shared input. They do not believe in spotty, unreliable, ego-tripping charity. The conservative's need to feel autonomous, and separate from those he might give to, make an organized, obligatory chipping-in to a public pool unpleasant.

Refer again to Wilson and Pickett's THE SPIRIT LEVEL for proof of the damage the perception of extreme disparity has on entire populations (rich included). This is not Fox News' "class warfare", or Bill's mere "envy". It's the social animal's genetic heritage reminding us that social animals DO look out for each other and correct or ostracise the deviant individualist.

"There are quite a few million people out there who have cross trained in hot career possibilities, using the last of their savings, and still can't find work, who would find this trope offensive and totally out of touch with reality." MQ

Well Mike, if a person is out of work with no income due to lack of opportunity then how could they be expected to pay any taxes on income? Of course, it had nothing at all to do with my statement that an across the board flat tax is fair base on numbers and not how people are affected. Because if we base it on how people are affected then it is governments responsibility to the taxpayer to understand why they are in the position they are in. Yet, if we even question why, then somehow we are insensitive to those who are struggling to find work in this bad economy? That had nothing to do with are discussion. An obvious spin tactic used to divert from the truth. Kind of like,"The Republicans are against the health care bill because they don't care if people die."

"It's the social animal's genetic heritage reminding us that social animals DO look out for each other and correct or ostracise the deviant individualist." MQ

Exactly, and there are no politicians or government in the animal kingdom to tell them to do so. They look out for each other and correct each other naturally, by their own instinct and their own will. People give to charities because they want to. People give to government because they have to. Too much government destroys the natural order of things and actually creates distention. You just refuse to accept the fact that caring, helping and loving each other has nothing at all to do with believing in government.

MikeG: You have been beating that "why me" and "charities" argument into the ground and won't gain any sympathy from anyone in the 99%-ile. So what's the use?
If charities worked, then why is Haiti still mired in it's catastrophic condition with over 90% of the moneys collected still allowed to be tucked away in their organizational offshore taxhaven coffers? SHHH! WE DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR TO THIS ABOMINATION AFTER ALL THAT WAS SACRIFICED- DO WE?

Since we've already beaten that why me argument to death let's only consider this.
The "middled" class, which is the only class that is mired in the 35% tax bracket has already lost a full 17% of the families formerly within its classification.
Many to most are struggling to keep their heads and finances above water. Gone are their home equities, pensions and 401k's.
With inflation scheduled and projected to fluctuate and increase the cost of basic necessities by still another 2.7-3.5% on top of what we have already witnessed, on top of last years sticker shock food, gas and energy re-pricings... What recourse is left, under present conditions, for the lower to mid-middle class to turn these weekly/annual losses, into just a break even situation?
Especially, when "savings" with these ludicris interest rates of 0.75% (as the banksta's and this ponzi scheming Fed, are surely gloating happily, wringing their greedy hands in sanctimonious delight) leaves the dwindling middle class losing still another full 2-3% from their total earnings per year through 2014.
(*Simply put and calculated this 3% inflation thats been approved and therefore levied against the 99%'s earnings and buying potential since 2008
that must run until 2014 will end up costing- the 99% a full 18% in buying potential, that will be compounded further by any devaluation of the dollar that is caused and accelerated by the Goldman Sach Feds printing press)

Hmmmmmmmmm! Let's look at that for the moment.
.001% BILLIONAIRES GET TAXED AT 15%.
1.0% MILLIONAIRES RECEIVE AN ANNUAL $171,000 "WELFARE PAYMENT" COURTESY OF THE 35% PAYING MIDDLE CLASS.
99%- MIDDLE CLASS/POOR WILL SEE AN 18% DECREASE IN PURCHASE POWER.
Yeah! That works. Explain how the deficit gets reduced again, and why those at the top can laugh it all off and avoid paying anywhere near their "fair share" merely by playing the blame game.
THIS ISN'T CLASS WARFARE- IT'S COMMON SENSE ARITHMATIC.
NUMBERS AND FIGURES HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT- THEY ARE ABSOLUTE, CLEARLY DEFINED BY SIMPLE ADDITION, SUBTRACTIONS, MULTIPLICATIONS AND DIVISIONS THAT CAN BE DISCERNED BY ANY ASTUTE BUSINESSMAN.
=======================


The poor live day to day in subsistance.

Now, what earthly benefit would a 15% flat tax on every purchase "at this time" do to stop the hemmorraging?
Get real, you are as far off the reservation as Romney.

Taxbreaks of the past decade topped off at $2,400 for the middle class. That too, didn't even come close to covering the 15% per annum increases in tuition costs, daycare etc; that had to be doled out- while, your jaded 1% averaged a $171,000 in a full decades worth of welfare payments off the backs of those taxed the full 35%.

Try to justify that. Nothing more.

*Be reminded that $171,000 x 10= 1,710,000 per individual while adding $2.3trillion dollars to the deficit. A deficit caused by the CARELESS CALCULATIONS & MANIPULATIONS OF THE 1% whether they be governmental or private sector figures it doesn;t matter they all enjoyed and shared the $2.3trillionWELFARE TAXBREAK PACKAGE, which you still claim must be offset only by the middle class with further job losses not increases which further shrinks the tax pool.
IS THIS WHAT WE CAN ASSUME TO BE YOUR FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH TOWARD MAKING OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE STRONGER?
YES, WE HEARD AND GET "ALL" THE PIOUS AND SYMPATHETIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THAT YOU'VE ATTRIBUTED- AS DO WE, TO BE THE SOLE PRODUCT OF A HANDFUL OF GLUTTONS, "NOT YOU" WHILE SILENTLY POCKETING THE MILLION PLUS FOR DOING NOTHING AND PLACING IT ON THE MIDDLE CLASSES CREDIT CARD. Still, you seem to want more of the same for the 1% without considering dipping into their own deepened pockets?
Go figure!

This is not an attack! You just have to think up a better solution that "profits everyone" or raises expectations of immediate job growth w/ adequate living wages provided by the private sector if you want the rest of us to believe in the "job creators" schtick that's been shoved up our asse"t"s, yanked from our clutches with callous deliberate intent to gamble "as they alone saw fit" from every side of the casino gambling globalist equation,([offshore tax havens, unpaid wars, taxbreaks, deregulation, DERIVATIVES, CDS,] and flushed OUR SAVINGS ONLY down the toilets, as they alone the 1% GOT BAILED OUT and still keeps loaning itself more and more toward it's own unsustainable mirage and deficit spending GLOBALISM which even they can't afford to pay the interest on. SEE: Dubai, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, the Fed, the Euro...

WHERE ARE THE JOB CREATORS? WHAT'S THE PLAN? WHY SHOULD WE THE PEOPLE PAY MORE THAN THE LIP SERVICE TOWARDS A DEFICXIT THAT WE DIDN'T INCUR, THAN THE 1% IS WILLING TO PAY THEMSELVES? IF YOU HAVE RESERVATIONS, ...THEN, WHY SHOULDN'T WE?

"If charities worked, then why is Haiti still mired in it's catastrophic condition with over 90% of the moneys collected still allowed to be tucked away in their organizational offshore taxhaven coffers?" John

And if government worked then why are we 14 TRILLION in debt and GROWING with plenty of poor GROWING poorer? Whether government, charity or individual the requirement is honesty, responsibility and competency to equal money well spent.

"Now, what earthly benefit would a 15% flat tax on every purchase "at this time" do to stop the hemmorraging?" -John

Ok John, you tuned in late again and did not get the complete story. I'll summarize:

The 15% flat tax was just an arbitrary number. My ascertain is that a flat tax on income, (not every purchase) is fair based on percentage. The more you make the more you pay. No, it does not account for the sins of the past and who owes us what and so on, you can take that up your way.

So Q, is concerned with the poor, saying a flat tax is not fair to them it should be based on how people are affected. Peter, thinks it is a good starting point but also mentions raising capital gains tax, which I don't agree with because that hurts the middle-class investor. And as usual Q and I get into the government mis-managing money and that we don't have to grow government bigger in order to help each other.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-take-care-of-me-society-is-wrecking-the-usa-2012-1

Excellent Fred! You found it! What the far Left just does not seem to get.

"You start to wonder, Why am I paying the freight for those who have been reckless and irresponsible, whether it’s on Wall Street or in Washington or anywhere else in the community? I think we’re becoming a very different nation.”

Read more: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/28/The-Take-Care-of-Me-Society-is-Wrecking-the-USA

MikeQ: Right you are about a bought and sold governments lack of ethics and dedication to the people they represent. Still, I haven't heard a single peep from you that shows or supports your insistance that the private sector has the immediate ability or spontaneous willingness that puts together a strategic plan lower underemployment here in the good ole USA.
Until then, ... ???
...America can't wait any longer while doling out your 1%'s welfare checks.Ya think? We've been waiting a whole decade for the private sector to create jobs. what we see is the newest poll numbers that now states 27% of our nations people are either unemployed or underemployed.
What a trade off 10yrs of taxbreaks to the JOB CREATORS has sent 21% of our people into the poor house. Sent our major bread producing industries overseas. And has sent $2.1trillion taxfree welfare dollars to the rich sitting in offshored tax havens.

Say what you will about the minutia of misunderstanding the vaguaries of "sentence structures" and "intent". What can you do to employ an out of work American. Giving to charity certainly does as little as food stamps toward affording a "job" that enables self sufficiency.

,

MikeG: Sykes was on Dylan Ratigans show today and he retracted from his position that the 99% was to be held responcible for their present day situation. They consaumed as they were told, and bought the pie in the sky ponzi schemes as promoted by those who knew better and who used leveraged positions to undermine them.
Nice trry!

MIKEG: Why am "I" paying the freight for those who have been reckless and irresponsible, whether it’s on Wall Street or in Washington or anywhere else in the community? "I" think we’re becoming a very different nation.” DUH! YEAH, REALLY??? YOU GOT IT!
27% -UNDEREMPLOYERD
45% -ADMIT LIVING JUST ABOVE WATER
2% -OF THE RICHEST PEOPLE ON EARTH RECEIVING "WELFARE" ...AND PROUD OF IT!
NOW, WHO IS IT THAT HAS BEEN QUOTED AS SAYING THAT "WE" HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST DEFENSE CUTS TO INSURE PROPER PROTECTION.
... "I" think we’re becoming a very different nation.” YOU BETCHA', EINSTEIN.
Wow! You get it?

"It is government's responsibility to the taxpayer to understand why they are in the position they are in."-MG

The government and everybody else knows why people are out of work, and why when they are working they're not making enough. But the government and everybody else can't say why without being called socialists and dismissed as cranks.

"They look out for each other and correct each other naturally, by their own instinct and their own will."

But human societies realized they could no longer do this after the invention of economic theories and the organized perversion of natural behavior that resulted. So we assigned government to be the arbiter of the general good.

"You just refuse to accept the fact that caring, helping and loving each other has nothing at all to do with believing in government."

Government is a tool, like a screwdriver. I don't "believe" in a screwdriver, but I know it works better than my fingernails. I'm perfectly aware of the corruption in the legislatures and the incessant wars of ideologies that seesaw us back and forth from one extreme vision to another. But EXPLAIN HOW 7 BILLION PEOPLE FUNCTION IN A POST-EDEN WORLD WITHOUT SOME KIND OF CENTRAL ORGANIZATION, because otherwise essentially dismissing government is useless whining.

"Still, I haven't heard a single peep from you that shows or supports your insistance that the private sector has the immediate ability or spontaneous willingness that puts together a strategic plan lower underemployment here in the good ole USA." -John

The reason you haven't heard anything is because demanding anything from the private sector is futile. They are not obligated to create jobs here. It would be like demanding a thief not rob us while the Police standby watching, telling the thief its ok. And since we pay the Law to protect us and their role is to serve us, then they would be worse then the thief. So the problem as well as the cure is government.

"Government is a tool, like a screwdriver. I don't "believe" in a screwdriver, but I know it works better than my fingernails." MQ

Maybe, unless it is worn rusted and broken. Then we limit it's use and try to find other ways to get the job done. We don't keep trying in vain to use it. I am willing to invest in any tool that makes the job easier and all our lives better but we can't just ignore it when it does not work. Salvage the parts we can use and make it better don't act as though we have no choice because we do.

"What can you do to employ an out of work American?"-John

The former steel industry in the US pales in comparison to the green energy industry. Building and erecting and maintaining millions of windmills and building a new, smart electrical grid would employ a few million people for a lifetime in jobs that cannot be moved offshore, no matter how determined the crooks and greedheads are. Because of this, the crooks and greedheads scream that green jobs are a hoax and keep trying to shout down proponents with ridicule. Because of this, the crooks and greedheads sneer that green energy can't possibly become significant in our lifetimes, and so we should give up on such foolishness.

That's one way to get Americans working again, and at worthwhile jobs, too, that benefit the environment we live in (yes, even the isolates in gated communities).

Another way is to reimagine jobs. It seems that most college graduates assume that work in the financial sector is the definition of a job, and they can't seem to conceive of other kinds of work. Pouring concrete in a bridge column cannot possibly be outsourced to Taiwan, it's honest, productive work, it doesn't hurt people or rob from them or divide them into castes, but who thinks of doing such work? The intense concentration on one or two fields of work creates a false job shortage that drives down wages as fast as destroying unions does. Show respect for carpenters and electricians and plumbers and stone masons and tile setters and jacks of all trades and gardeners and cooks and musicians and sculptors and masseurs and...-and unemployment will drop. Despite MG thinking I believe the government should just support us all, I don't see any particular function for government here beyond the bought legislators stopping their support of the sorts of narratives that perpetuate the artificial cutthroat competition that serves their bank accounts so well.

"Despite MG thinking I believe the government should just support us all, I don't see any particular function for government here beyond the bought legislators stopping their support" MQ

LOL..You are living the dream my friend, we are certainly headed in that direction. Be careful what you wish for.

Caspian; That was a good interview by bill with john reed and bryan dorgan and thanks for posting it in your comment. It indicates how both parties were fooled into defeat of glass steagell and resulted in nearly the downfall of the financial markets. In addition it indicated the disparity of income with the wealthiest receiving over 256% and the middle class was stagnant. The head of the federal reserve Mr Greenspan should have been aware of the consequences and he must shoulder most of the blame. It was pure greed and now the candidates are wanting to repeal the dodd-frank act and the volker rule so wall street can start the process again. With these super pacs passed by the ruling on citizens united the United Statss democracy will go to the highest bidder. Both parties are to blams for defeat of glass-steagell.

It was pure greed and now the candidates are wanting to repeal the dodd-frank act and the volker rule so wall street can start the process again. peter

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

Yes peter you have it right but Wall Street can do it again because Dodd/Frank did not go far enough.

Remember Dodd was the King of the Banks in the Senate.

So Wall Street wins again with Dodd/Frank or without Dodd/Frank.

Wall Street preference is to repeal Dodd/Frank but they can certainly live with it.

peter: Greenspan knew. Larry Summers knew, and they along with others in government and their lobbyists worked to block CFTC Chair Brooksley Born from any proceeding with any regulatory powers over "derivatives" which she knew to be totally out of control. ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN THE MID 1990'S AND WAS CULMINATED IN 1998.

As head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], Brooksley Born became alarmed by the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar over-the-counter derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives ran into fierce resistance from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who prevailed upon Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Aug. 28, 2009

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html#ixzz1l3r4LX9A

Excerpt: We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players in the marketplace were participants and counterparties to one another's contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notional value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was the peak.
And that is an enormous market. ---> *That's more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries in the world. DODD/FRANK LOCKS AND SECURES THIS "PSEUDO-ASSET" DERIVATIVE MARKET FIRMLY IN PLACE WITH NO ONE HOLDING 100% STOCK OWNERSHIP OF ANY ASSET THAT CAN BE EITHER SOLD OR LIQUIDATED. LAST CHECKED IN EARLY 2009 THE DERIVATIVES MARKET IF COLLAPSED HELD LIABILITIES OF 721TRILLION DOLLARS.THIS IS WHY YOU HEAR ME LAUGH WHEN OUR IDIOT GOVERNMENT TALKING HEADS CALL UPON US TO COUGH UP MORE OF OUR EARNINGS, HOMES, ASSETS TO PAY FOR THEIR CASINO "PONZI SCHEME". *NOTE- THAT THE $680TRILLION DOLLAR FIGURE HAD ALREADY EXCEEDED THE GNP OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BY 10X IN 2008. So what's a measly $16trillion going to do toward balancing the books. Nothing. This is all a giant hoax. A way to keep us without the things we need while our tax money is gambled away on the make believe nothingness called futures. Enjoy!

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html#ixzz1l3sWQix8

peter, caspian, MikeG, MikeQ, fred, BillF:

Watch and learn! Forget about paying off the deficit once and for all, and force this Goldman Sach Casino aka/ the Federal Reserve to release or return our tax money directly from the coffers of the banksta's etal. who orchestrated this magilla without the publics knowledge or consent.

Then read many other astute comments from those who viewed this PBS interview w/ Brookley Born.

NOW, WHO STILL WANTS TO GIVE A RATZ AZZ, ANOTHER THOUGHT, OR A SINGLE PENNY TO THE GOLDMAN SACH FEDERAL RESERVE TOWARDS *ITS' DEFICIT?

Caspian: You and BillF will remember the Brooksley Born reference way back when I was going ballistic about GWB's dismissal of Wm Donaldson the Securities and Exchange Commissioner who was blowing the whistle on fraud and "inadequate reserves" balances in 2004-2005. the Donaldson dismassal ushered in "deregulation" which Bush needed to prop up his already "dead in the waters", no jobs creating, "GoBust" Economy.
What was said about, the gangsta' Phil Gramm, Cox and Paulson? Were you not warned in August2007, of the crash that was never announced to the public- until 2008? Osama to be a special ops project? Bush ally Khadafy to be found out?
Were simple solutions and remedies offered long before any of these events transpired or were allowed to occur?

Bill F: ???? Do you remember?

MikeG & fred: No need for government regulation? Isn't Brooksley Born a living example of why responcible government can work?
=========
Truth seekers have no axe to grind, we just believe and act upon the sensory perceptions with full trust and belief as endowed by our Creator. There can be a better world, with prayer and a willingness to step outside our own conditions, in the hope of being a benefit to others. Believe!

A BETTER DAY IS COMING!!!