More rasist agist sexist intolerance from the left fringe.

Coming from the politician that insists we put a base on the moon? Those are the guys RAF gets behind, because thats where your head is.
Poobah hits a nerve with the old white men, because its A) True and B) you are one.

In case you missed Newt on Leno... "Obama would be in trouble if journalists started asking questions"

Red are you one of those people that thank the govt when your boss gives you a .09 raise, thanking them for your money?

"old white men"
-
More intolerance from the left with the same tired racist, sexist, and ageist remarks.

In case you missed Newt on Leno... [ http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/vide... ]

It will be interesting to watch committee assignments in the new Congress to see if the Republican party is serious about being something other than a party for old white men.

I think we can all agree that the U.S. economic system is complex RAF, but please don't feel obligated to continuously prove your inability to grasp even simple economic principles.

Only in the socialist left brain can it be mathematically figured allowing people to keep their own money takes money away (costs) government, and equals redistribution.

WalterReuther: wish you were correct but that assumes government will Freeze or Decrease spending to use the additional tax revenue to pay down the national debt. We have a government for decades that has never seen a dollar they did not spend even when they did not have the dollar. Reduced spending in Washington speak is reducing the amount of the projected increase ... not reducing the base amount. Both parties equally guilty. Regardless of who had won in November, both were looking at 20 trillion + deficit by 2016. Now how is that paying down the debt? National Debt is similiar to credit cards ... The higher the debt, the greater amount of revenue used just to pay the interest and the principal never gets paid. Hence the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) group of loosely linked Republicans, Democrats, and Independents until the movement was hijacked by a far right wing of the Republican party.

To those who say they don't want to pay taxes, but would be willing to give to a charity of their choosing. FIRST you "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." These are the so-called "charities:"

A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study. The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined. The Price of Offshore Revisited was written by J. Henry, a former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, for the Tax Justice Network. Mr. Henry said his $21tn is actually a conservative figure and the true scale could be $32tn. A trillion is 1,000 billion. His study deals only with financial wealth deposited in bank and investment accounts, and not other assets such as property and yachts.
Mr. Henry said that the super-rich move money around the globe through an "industrious bevy of professional enablers in private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries. "The lost tax revenues implied by our estimates is huge. It is large enough to make a significant difference to the finances of many countries.

In 1969, CEOs earned 14x average worker pay; today they pay themselves 400x average worker pay. YouTube the home of Marilyn Monroe to see how much wealth Hollywood stars had back then. Today, they own numerous Mega-mansions. This is the result of a huge transfer of wealth from the poor and former middle class to the few at the top. Reagan started the agenda of stealing from the poor with his lie about a Chicago welfare queen:
"During Reagan’s stump speeches while dutifully promising to roll back welfare, Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist. The imagery of “welfare cheats” that persists to this day helped lay the groundwork for the 1996 welfare reform law, pushed by Republicans and signed by President Clinton."
The irony is that Reagan claimed to be a Christian, even though the Bible warns of evil men who will steal from the widows, orphans and the poor.

And you're NOT a political hack, RAF? You really are delusional!
-
Maynard, allowing the tax cuts to expire only on the top 1-2% of the richest Americans is no more wealth distribution than the way Bush's original tax cuts redistributed more wealth to the rich. Check out this link to see how much wealth has been transferred from the middle-class to the wealthy via the Bush tax cuts. http://costoftaxcuts.com/
-
The average worker has had their wages DECREASE (accounting for inflation) over the past 40 years. In the meantime, over the same 40 years CEO pay has increased from approx 50 times to, in many cases, more than 300 TIMES the pay of the average worker. Now THAT'S a redistribution of wealth!

RAF=Ron Swanson:)

Gandalf: It was not confusion or simplistic thinking ... it was veiled sarcasm. BTW, I think the rich people that are saying they could and would pay more taxes if only the government changed the law and forced them to are HYPOCRYTES. Any individual has the right to send in a check to pay down the national debt, rich or poor. They also have the right to redistribute their wealth by giving to charity instead of waiting for the government to be the middleman. Just more political posturing IMO. Did not see that Romney had a problem last year donating 29.6% of his income to charity in addition to the 14% in capital gains taxes he paid. While the reports show that the current vice president upped his charity contribution to 1.5 % of income. And he is from the party that wants more of our money to redistribute. I think they are all a bunch of hypocrytes. I will gladly help the truly needy but let me redistribute my own income to charities of my choice instead of letting the government play the middle man. Neither party currently have room for me under their tent with their far left and far right agenda. I am an Independent and vote accordingly when I can find someone I can stomach enough to even vote for. Getting harder and harder to do. Frankly I think they should let all the taxes revert on January 1st and then work in earnest to simplify the tax system and give help where it is needed. Then both sides could claim that they supported tax reductions. IMO

RAF:
It's FAR worse then that. The tax increases would run the government without deficit financing for all of 8 days. You could confiscate all the wealth of every single evil rich bastard capitalist in the country, and you'd still have a massive deficit. People do not even realize how staggering this yearly deficit and accumulated debt really is. To truly balance the budget at this point is beyond laughable. NO ONE from either side will EVER want to make the tough choices to balance a budget, let alone ever start paying off the $15+ trillion in debt. If you cut anyone's government handouts nowadays, you will literally have riots in the street, much as you now see across the broke EU nations.
.
This fiscal cliff thing is a total dog and pony show. Simply a smoke screen to increase the debt ceiling....AGAIN. The path has never changed. We will just continue to run government on MASSIVE deficit financing. A few token moves will be made to claim they are 'doing something' where the REALITY is more debt trillions of $$'s will accumulate, and the Geithner-Bernancki brain trust will simply create more liquidity (QE) from thin air to purchase all that debt.

Red speaking of propaganda the proposed tax increases totaled for a whole decade aren't enough to cover the deficit for a single year of spending under the current administration.

I have never defended increased spending by an administration or party, just as I have never defended increasing taxes by any administration or party. It is the partisan hacks, like you, that are unable to address the problem...which is the same now as it has always been SPENDING not taxes or tax rates.

To your "claim" of a deficit created by one party you are indeed ignorant. This country has had an increase in national debt (total) every year for over 6 decades. There has never been a true budget surplus since the late 1950's. Ignoring the truth doesn't change it.

"...having an honest discussion on taxes and spending has never been the real point from the left."
-
Spending cuts were not a concern of Republicans either RAF. At least not until they decided to blame the deficit they created on Democrats. At least Reagan had sense enough to raise taxes after he realized his tax cuts were adding to the deficit. If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why didn't THEY include spending cuts with their tax cuts?
-
BTW RAF, Obama has included spending cuts but Republicans are being forced to focus on the tax rate issue because their fringe (teaparty and Norquist backers) lack any basic economic sense. The extreme right-wing wackos have nothing to lose by misleading the general public with their propaganda.

Taxes are not taken from "net worth", but having an honest discussion on taxes and spending has never been the real point from the left.

The same folks that claim they want taxes higher are also the same ones that are silent on wanting spending reduced to the same levels when tax rates were "X". Pretending raising taxes will fix the problem is forgeting for 60 years that has not happened. For the last 60 years our government has SPENT more than it has collected even when the highest tax rates were over 90%.

Until the left stops with the class warfare scares, and the cries of someone has more than me, nothing will be fixed.

Ultimately, Maynard, we will be able to raise the taxes up on everybody else as well. Once the middle class full regains their lost economic clout, they too will be able to share in the responsibility of increasing the revenue that will be used to pay down this country's debt.

I am a bit confused that the Democrats want to keep the tax cuts for 98% and raise the tax rates on 2%, Confused because I kept hearing during the campaign that we had a surplus under the tax rates of the Clinton preidency and that along came Bush and lowered the rates and nearly destroyed the country. So please explain if that talk was true, why you would simply not let the rates for all revert back to the Clinton rates if that was such a good time? Happy times and surplus should return right? Oh, I forgot, we need to continue the class warfare.

Red -- I would agree with elimination of most subsidies, if the tax rates were lowered and deductions were addressed, such that the tax burden were predictable and lower than today. Changing (increased) regulations, taxes etc.. create uncertainty, year over year. Where we will disagree is on rates. We do not have a revenue problem today, we have a spending problem. Redistribution is not an answer it is a panecea at best.

All I have to say is get used to it. This is a Conservative columnist laying out what Conservative political leaders (Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, etc) are already starting to say in the media about the new GOP philosophy towards those on government assistance.

Ezoner, with any luck someday you will understand the fact that providing businesses with tax credits DOES NOT lead to job growth and cutting tax rates for the wealthy DOES NOT create jobs. If the same rules are applied to all businesses and you eliminate subsidies, then market forces will determine which businesses succeed and which fail. THAT is capitalism. As a whole, Lobbyists pose a greater threat to our system of capitalism than our government.
-
There is a reason many teaparty backed candidates lost in the last election and why they are steadily losing membership. Their views are too extreme (whacky). If you want to do away with "socialism" in the U.S. then eliminate insurance companies, agricultural and corporate subsidies, the Rural Electric Cooperatives, stop driving on public roads, drill a well and build an outhouse. Good luck with that!

You should listen to the man you elected to run America.........Last section of the POTUS about our debt in JAN. 2010

. You remember? We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there -- scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan. And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z. That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now. And that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off -- every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points -- I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. He's already polled it, and he said, you know, the way you're really going to -- I've done a focus group and the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one -- I know, I like Frank, we've had conversations between Frank and I. But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems. And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about -- a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically. That's what I'm committed to doing. We won't agree all the time in getting it done, but I'm committed to doing it.

Obama agrees with Congressman Ryan.
January 29, 2010.

OFFICIAL WH TRANSCRIPT: [PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA]:

Now, Paul's approach -- and I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got a lot of detail in your plan -- but if I understand it correctly, would say we're going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level -- CONGRESSMAN RYAN: No. THE PRESIDENT: No? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: People 55 and above -- THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-five and -- well, no, I understand. I mean, there's a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries, right? That's why I said I didn't want to -- I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I've read it. And the basic idea would be that at some point we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of whack, and I'm sure there are some details that -- CONGRESSMAN RYAN: We drew it as a blend of inflation and health inflation, the point of our plan is -- because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability -- it has to be reform for younger generations because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Right, right. Well, look, as I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is twofold: One is that depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they're getting relative to their costs. Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare.

Truth::::

Socialism is considered the mother of progressivism which explains their common goal of attaining equality among individuals in society.

Summary:

1. Socialism wants to achieve the common good of society through public management and control of production resources while progressivism seeks to achieve public good by gradually raising the standard of living of the average member of society.
2. Socialists seek to abolish capitalism because it exploits the working class while progressives want to employ capitalism in expediting the accumulation of wealth for the benefit of the masses.
3. Socialism advocates a planned economy while progressivism supports a mixed economy.
4. Socialism is considered to be the mother of progressivism.

Easy -- I would make the same comments. We all want to support others, but there comes a time when we must look at what our government is doing us as a nation and the impact it will have individually.

As for PRed. It HAS been proven over and over again, that you cannot increase tax on those that produce the jobs and expect to increase revenue. It just does not happen - the companies and individuals will move off-shore. Investment capital will be reduced. Jobs will be lost. You speak of profit as though it is even and the same of success. When what we should be asking is how can we increase investment, which in turn provides the opportunities and job growth. Taking more from others and spreading around assumes we are in a zero sum world. That there is a fixed cap on the wealth invested and created and its all a matter of where the wealth is located. This is not what a capitalists system is. If this were the case, would GE exist today. Would the Rockefeller wealth exist today. Would Henry Ford / Ford Motor COmpany exist today. The answer is no. In a zero sum game, the risk taken would not have produced the jobs, wealth and oppportunity. If we continue to tax and spend (mainly spend) we devalue our currency and therefore our wealth. We all lose. -- Even those at the top, its just that they dont feel the pain as badly. Socialism does not work and will never work. Governments that have this type system are primarily dictatorships -- where the people have no rights.

If we continue down this path -- we will see a new group of revolutionaries.

HA - pinkoRed quoting a known markist.
Trickle down government certainly isn't working. Unless you are trying to force a nation into an impoverished condition.
Government has always been punch drunk with power. It's just that under these conditions where Obama has received the most amount of Revenue in our nation's history and he still managed to spend 6 tril more.
Tea Party only wants what most Americans do everyday. We balance our household budgets. We expect the same from our Government. How radical

As long as you're laughing Midnight, give me an example of ANY Republican administration that's reduced Federal spending? Since you can't refute the fact that Republicans have also given billions to their wealthiest donors, lets compare economic policies and gauge their effect on business. Republicans believe the way to expand business is to provide taxpayer subsidies for large corporations earning billions of dollars in profit. They believe environmental standards hamper business growth. They believe tax cuts for businesses will stimulate growth. They believe wealth trickles down. Of course those beliefs have been proven false - over an over. Republican economic policies have ONLY benefited the wealthy meanwhile REAL job creators, the middle-class, are left holding the (empty) bag. Obviously Midnight, you and your Teaparty minions don't have a clue as to what socialism really is, since you continue to benefit from the very system you condemn. Does that fit your definition of hypocrisy?
-
"...if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated." -Saul Alinsky
That's a good description of your "intellect" RAF. BTW, why are you so critical of a man who devoted much of his life to helping the poor and less fortunate?

PanamaRed
Nov 21, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
Walker feels compelled to bribe businesses in an effort to hire workers

That statement is rich with comedy! The billions (not millions) billions Benghazi Barry was given away to failed green energy companies that donated to his campaign.
Too Funny the hyprocrisy by this poster.

Michael Gerson what an idiot. Capitalism is all about opportunity and working hard for what you want in a country that still allows you to do so. This dud is talking about socialism/markism which Benghazi Barry is handcuffing everyday. There are over 120,000 pages of regulations in the halls of Congress.
By the way, socialism/markism has no base or foundation or legs to grow without the hard working capitalist.
Benghazi Barry and his minions are working very hard to bring poverty to the masses. But we'll keep fighting.

Red why don't you try something new, turn over a new leaf so to speak. If you're going to make the same alinsky style accusations try to step forth and back them up with some kind of proof. I understand this would be a new thing for you, kind of like living with conviction of positions. Give it a try...just once.

I sure can't argue with your interpretation of the facts in this instance,916. Obama proposed allowing tax cuts to expire during his campaign - and won. Raising and lowering tax rates a few percentage points has no discernible effect on the economy but does impact budgets and deficits.
-
If you had checked out the link to costoftaxcuts.com Ezoner, you have found that Corporations used to contribute more than their current rate of only 7.8% of Federal revenues. During WWII their contribution rate was nearly 40% which is where individual rates have remained.

Just a question -- where did the income come from to fund government and the military before taxes????? There has only been an income tax for about 60 years.... prior to that government seemed to run fine...

As for Panama-- Keep thinking its someone elses fault... didnt the dems vote to go into Iraq??? That was nearly a unanamous vote..

"...stifling and burdensome costs imposed by government."
-
Nice quote taken directly from the Fox News talking head points, RAF. Its obvious because you've never used the words "stifling and burdensome" in your life. But hey, since you mentioned them, I'd love to hear just some of the stifling and burdensome costs that YOU believe are currently preventing capitalism and the marketplace from functioning without the aid of taxpayer funding. Name a few.

Until we can get rid of these Republicans and Democrats, its only a short matter of time until the end.

"And for what? 99% of Americans have seen their wealth DECLINE since the tax cuts were passed. The tax cuts have NOT led to job growth. Middle-class wages have NOT increased as a result of the tax cuts. Businesses are NOT expanding as a result of the tax cuts. The top 1% have seen their wealth INCREASE as a result of the tax cuts. Wake up Ezoner - Republican economic policies have been an abject FAILURE for over 95% of most Americans"
----------
So you're laying the blame at the feet of the Republicans?!?
Why did Obama and the democrats vote to extend the tax cuts if they pose such a threat to our economy. You do realize that Obama could have simply let all of the tax cuts expire....no?

Gee Ezoner, if Republicans are so fiscally responsible why did Republicans pass tax cuts which reduced revenue while at the same time led us into two wars without EVER providing funds that would PAY for the wars? Why did Republicans pass a Medicare D benefit without providing funds that would PAY for the benefit? Why would Republicans pass a comprehensive education policy called "No Child Left Behind" which resulted in higher costs to schools without providing funds that would PAY for the necessary added expenditures? Why have the greatest economic FAILINGS occurred under Republican administrations? Why have the greatest economic GROWTH periods occurred under Democratic administrations? Here is what the Republican tax cuts have (and continue to) cost our Nation: http://costoftaxcuts.com/
-
And for what? 99% of Americans have seen their wealth DECLINE since the tax cuts were passed. The tax cuts have NOT led to job growth. Middle-class wages have NOT increased as a result of the tax cuts. Businesses are NOT expanding as a result of the tax cuts. The top 1% have seen their wealth INCREASE as a result of the tax cuts. Wake up Ezoner - Republican economic policies have been an abject FAILURE for over 95% of most Americans.

RAF said "If government got out of the way, no incentives, no deductions, and no over-needed regulations it would be an open playing field where business could thieve."
.
Freudian slip much?

Brown -- I am tired of the bickering as well. However, you would recieve significantly more than you contributed to SS, the original intent of SS was not a savings account. It was not meant to be the ONLY source of income. When it was concieved, the average age was significantly lower, and the baby boomers were not considered.

I am all for measurements and delaying the start date for these entitlements. So if you are happy with the fact that you are basically stealing your grandchildrens futures while collecting significantly more than you paid in -- fine. At least we know what type of person you are.

The problem is the programs, including unemployemnt and other benefits, that were intended to be short term gaps, have been driven by dems to be long term solutions, becuase without them -- noboady would vote for a dem. They are fiscally irresponsible. Look at your home and what your income was... would you be able to take out a loan for 10x your net worth??? Ohh and never worry about paying it back??

The dems are counting upon the uneducated and those that support a socialism vs capitalism to take over. If they do, a dictatorship is not far behind once the money runs dry.

The Fiscal Cliff, tax increases for the wealthy and the so-called entitlement programs. WELL, I've about come to the conclusion we should let the GOP commit political suicide and drive us off the fiscal cliff..... Yeah, it will be painful and especially hard for certain segments of our society (like the defense contractors) but the suffering will be worth it when we take back the House in the interim elections in 2014....
Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements in my book. We EARNED those benefits by paying into them. I've been working for 35 years and I've been paying into those programs for most of that time. I've EARNED those benefits. So GOP keep you grimy hands off. I paid for these programs, nobody GAVE them to me...........
Medicaid is a different story because it is more what I think of a an entitlement. Maybe I'm confused in my definition.... But I paid for my Social Security and Medicare
I don't know, maybe I'm just getting crotchety in my old age, but I'm getting REALLY tired of all this petty bickering in Washington.... I'm tired of all the lies and propaganda being spoon-fed to a gullible segment of our society who are too lazy or too dull to think for themselves.

Red your point, as it often is, contains tinged bias and misses the point. Government offers incentives precisely because they free enterprise from stifling and burdensome costs imposed by government. If government got out of the way, no incentives, no deductions, and no over-needed regulations it would be an open playing field where business could thieve. The very reason these incentives you bring up, that are done by both parties at all levels of government, work is because it removes part of the burden on business. Just image what would happen if all companies had these burdens removed....

Panama gets it. Incentives distort the market.

PanamaRed
Why don't your explain YOUR plan to attract businesses to the area?

Is this an example of how Republicans believe Capitalism works today?
http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2012...
-
Walker feels compelled to bribe businesses in an effort to hire workers. I thought capitalism meant businesses survived based on factors within the marketplace, not on taxpayer funds. A business only hires workers IF they believe they can PROFIT from adding to their workforce. So why are taxpayer funds provided to businesses that hire? In fact, Republicans believe businesses should not pay taxes, yet taxpayer funds are used to furnish and maintain the infrastructure that allows businesses to operate and NOW taxpayer funds are given to businesses to hire the well trained workers who received their training through an education system funded by taxpayer money. No wonder our economy suffers operating under Republican economic policy.

The only thing that Gerson missed is pointing out the Republicans failure to see the difference between pro-business and pro-market thinking. From the repeated inane comments made by Republicans on this site, they don't know the difference either. Obama is and was a fool for not educating the American public on this HUGE issue.

Conservative columnist Gerson is blaming, quite specifically, "the GOP’s economic message," which he says is, "well past its 1980 expiration date." He isn't blaming capitalism; he's blaming 32 year old tried and failed Republican policy.

"Moving forward, the GOP’s task is not only to make capitalism more efficient; it is to make capitalism work for everyone."
-
LOL. With the far left socialist wing of the dem party taking more control of their party agenda blaming the failure of capitalism on the GOP is like blaming the failure of the drug war on non-users. Those that support capitalism are not the problem with capitalism. Those that strive to strangle capitalism are the problem.

"The GOP’s economic message is well past its 1980 expiration date. It is not enough to promote growth in an economy where a personal benefit from overall growth is far from assured."

Pretty harsh critique and acknowledgement of Reagan's failed trickle down economics by Gerson. Amazing honesty! Is this the start of the end of trickle down economics worship in the Republican party?