Friday, September 16, 2011

Ron Paul Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is

I think all decent people realized the train had gone off the tracks when the crowd at the Republican debate began cheering the idea of letting uninsured people die when they get sick. Yahoo News has the story:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody ..."

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question. Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die

I'll let Gawker pick up the story from there.
So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man. So basically, yeah. He'd let him die.

As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations. Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured

The asterisk goes to a statement: "*The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a 'a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive.'"

According to all reports, Snyder was the one who convinced Paul to run in the first place, he worked tirelessly to run the campaign, and Ron Paul, a physician, did not see it necessary as an employer to provide health insurance to his employees.

Wolf Blitzer must have known about this when he asked the question. It was not a purely impersonal hypothetical situation for Ron Paul, this was really something that happened, he failed to provide health insurance to his employees and his campaign manager got sick and died.

After Snyder's death, Paul put out a statement that said:
"Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of liberty. Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family."

Ron Paul doesn't just talk about letting uninsured people die, he makes it happen.

47 Comments:

Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

And thus we see why, with the Republican agenda, there will be no need for "Death Panels."

Have a morbid day.

Cynthia

September 16, 2011 10:47 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I'm so glad I live in Canada. I hear about it all the time, but the incredible heartlessness of Republicans still shocks and amazes me.

September 16, 2011 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Have you guys seen the list of straight kids bullied by gays? This is the list:

http://www.bulliedbygays.com/

September 16, 2011 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. The 49-year-old Snyder was relatively young and seemingly healthy when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000."

so, he didn't die from lack of care

he went to the hospital, which allowed him to wrack up 400K in bills for a cold before he died

"The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother, who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations."

and how did the campaign go? did they raise the money to pay the hospital or did the hospital write it off, raising the price of health care for the rest of us?

"The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a 'a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive.'"

any confirmation of that?

if true, looks like the hospital took him and cared for him anyway

"According to all reports, Snyder was the one who convinced Paul to run in the first place, he worked tirelessly to run the campaign, and Ron Paul, a physician, did not see it necessary as an employer to provide health insurance to his employees."

why would he? employers only began providing insurance to their workers during WWII when it was a way to give something to employees that didn't violate the wage controls in place

it's not in the constitution nor is there is any moral sense in which employers are responsible for paying any more than is provided for in their employment contract

there are plenty of employers that do provide this and Snyder was free to seek employment at one of those places

"he failed to provide health insurance to his employees and his campaign manager got sick and died"

no, he didn't

Jim Kennedy failed to provide this guy with health insurance

why did you let him die, Jim?

why?

"Ron Paul doesn't just talk about letting uninsured people die, he makes it happen."

I would say, no, it was his family who let him die.

I would say that if the guy was denied care because he couldn't pay.

He wasn't denied care, however. He went to the hospital and got care. So, no let him die. Our system worked fine. He died because the doctors couldn't prevent it.

"And thus we see why, with the Republican agenda, there will be no need for "Death Panels.""

that's true

when the Republicans win the White House and the Senate, government will no longer be empowered to decide what treatments will be allowed to dying patients

if, under some miraculous scenario, that doesn't happen and Obamacare survives, we will have plenty of heartbreaking stoires about people denied care because government decides their treatment is not promising enough for the taxpayers to cover

there are already heartbreaking stories in places like canada where people suffer for endless months waiting to get a doctor's appointment

"Have a morbid day."

have another twisted day

maybe you can make up some more crap

"Priya Lynn said...
I'm so glad I live in Canada."

so are the rest of us, nasty Priya

"I hear about it all the time, but the incredible heartlessness of Republicans still shocks and amazes me."

yes, how incredibly heartless it was to let this fellow go to the hospital and get treatment

it rips your heart out

maybe if Paul had offered to sent him on a plane to London, the government there would have paid

oh wait, he would have died anyway

the hospital couldn't save him

"Have you guys seen the list of straight kids bullied by gays?"

no, drick, and we still haven't

I'm afraid no one looked at your link

man, what a bunch of idiots!!

September 17, 2011 5:17 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Oooo, someone's upset, LOL.

September 17, 2011 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, well the problem is that the lie being revved up by the liberal media about this guy dying because he had no health insurance is the kind of thing liberals use to make an excuse for the government to take over 16% of the economy and do for health what they've done for public education

we take our freedom seriously south of the border

you guys should try it

tell the Queen you're taking her picture off the money

September 17, 2011 3:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "we take our freedom seriously south of the border".


And by freedom you mean laughing at the idea of people dying because they didn't by health insurance. I'll pass on that kind of "freedom" - as will every other civilized person in the world.

September 17, 2011 3:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republicans are evil.

September 17, 2011 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and how did the campaign go? did they raise the money to pay the hospital or did the hospital write it off, raising the price of health care for the rest of us?"

Why don't you do some on-line research and tell us how it went?

Loooooooooove the crickets, Derrick! What a hoot!

September 17, 2011 5:47 PM  
Anonymous the Queen ain't even a human bein' said...

"And by freedom you mean laughing at the idea of people dying because they didn't by health insurance."

well, this guy who caught pneumonia and racked up 400K in bills at the hospital didn't die from lack of health insurance

he received lots of care

he died anyway

as a campaign manager of a Presidential campaign, he no doubt could afford health insurance

he chose not to but it, or seek employment where he was covered

he was free to do so

in Canada, and everywhere else where health insurance is run by the government, someone else decides what care you will get and the wait is so long for an appointment that people suffer and die waiting

doesn't sound like freedom to me

September 17, 2011 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why don't you do some on-line research and tell us how it went?"

because my question was a rhetorical device used to emphasize that the person in question received quite a bit of care despite not having insurance

do you guys ever feel bad about your lying?

or am I just being judgmental?

"Loooooooooove the crickets, Derrick! What a hoot!"

dude, don't flirt with Drick

he's demented

September 17, 2011 9:52 PM  
Anonymous why did Priya let Snyder die, why? said...

"Republicans are evil"

everyone who disagrees with nasty Priya is evil

it's an issue nasty priya's therapist is helping nasty priya work through

fortunately, Canada and its gracious Queen across the Pond, pay for all the mental health care costs of its subjects

yet another why we all agree with nasty priya when nasty priya says:

"I'm so glad I live in Canada"

September 18, 2011 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"well, this guy who caught pneumonia and racked up 400K in bills at the hospital didn't die from lack of health insurance

he received lots of care

he died anyway"

Maybe he did receive lots of care that was simply too late. Did you do any research and find out what actually did happen with him yet since you raised the question the other day?

I doubt you did, the facts would probably just be inconvenient to you.

Snyder probably did not seek any preventative care, like an annual physical, that might have caught his medical issue before it became so serious it became fatal.

Effective since September 23, 2010, one provision of the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act says "Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans."

And effective by 2018, the Act will require "All existing health insurance plans must cover approved preventive care and checkups without co-payment."

This is an improvement that will make a real difference in the lives of people like Leslie's son Mike and Kent Snyder when we move to a single payer system that covers all US citizens.

It's a lot cheaper to prevent disease and to treat it early, than it is to let disease progress and require ever higher levels of expensive care. That's true for everyone and all of us together too.

Ben Franklin was right when he told us so long ago that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Even if some found his life-style choices to be unChristian.)

"as a campaign manager of a Presidential campaign, he no doubt could afford health insurance

he chose not to but it, or seek employment where he was covered

he was free to do so"

Apparently you see no problem with Mr. Snyder choosing to leave the cost of his care to others to pay. You said he was "free" to make that choice.

This brings up a question.

Is it only people who are rich enough to afford health care coverage who you feel are not only free, but entitled to opt out of paying for their care, leaving their medical bills for others?

What about poor folks who do not have the means to make this choice but simply cannot afford their own health insurace? Do you feel poor folks are also entitled to dump the cost of their care on others?

I do not believe your concept of "freedom" here is what the framers had in mind.

September 18, 2011 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh sure, why use facts when rhetoric is so much more convenient!

September 18, 2011 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Maybe he did receive lots of care that was simply too late."

he had pneumonia

it's caused by a virus or bacteria and likely wouldn't have been present when any annual exam happened

"Did you do any research and find out what actually did happen with him yet since you raised the question the other day?"

no, it's not my burden since I'm not the one suggesting that the Federal government commandeer 16% of the economy and take our personal choices away from us

those who do favor this have yet to come up with an example of someone who is hurt by lack of insurance and, if the cases presented here are the most compelling examples, it's obvious why

"I doubt you did, the facts would probably just be inconvenient to you"

bring some on and we can discuss

my fact is that Dems want to socialize the most effective medical infrastructure in the world

"Snyder probably did not seek any preventative care, like an annual physical, that might have caught his medical issue before it became so serious it became fatal."

if you think an annual physical will prevent you from catching a virus, it just goes to show how ignorant you are

September 18, 2011 7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Effective since September 23, 2010, one provision of the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act says "Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.""

if that were the only provision, it would be obnoxious but not unbearable

"And effective by 2018, the Act will require "All existing health insurance plans must cover approved preventive care and checkups without co-payment.""

so, if I choose to buy a cheaper plan without that provision, I'm a criminal

doesn't sound like freedom to me

Snyder, who could obviously afford health insurance chose to spend his money otherwise

"This is an improvement that will make a real difference in the lives of people like Leslie's son Mike and Kent Snyder when we move to a single payer system that covers all US citizens."

Obamacare will not cover colonoscopies at 33- it's not cost efficient and this will be a political decision once the governement takes over

"It's a lot cheaper to prevent disease and to treat it early, than it is to let disease progress and require ever higher levels of expensive care. That's true for everyone and all of us together too."

they thought that back in the eighties when HMOs were the latest thing but, alas, it turned out not to be true

"Ben Franklin was right when he told us so long ago that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

that's for the individual to decide- prevention could entail a broad range of things and the individual should make his own decision

"Apparently you see no problem with Mr. Snyder choosing to leave the cost of his care to others to pay. You said he was "free" to make that choice."

problem? I was stating that it was that way

"Is it only people who are rich enough to afford health care coverage who you feel are not only free, but entitled to opt out of paying for their care, leaving their medical bills for others?"

right now, it happens with everyone- we also have Medicaid and a vast network of private charities, which is basically what hospitals are who take on patients that can't pay

"What about poor folks who do not have the means to make this choice but simply cannot afford their own health insurace? Do you feel poor folks are also entitled to dump the cost of their care on others?"

I think they're entitled to seek help and I have no problem when someone gives it to them

"I do not believe your concept of "freedom" here is what the framers had in mind."

if you think the "framers" envision Obamacare, you're nuts

"Oh sure, why use facts when rhetoric is so much more convenient!"

explains this whole liberal fiction about Snyder

September 18, 2011 7:16 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

It’s almost here… the end of another failed experiment in Christian behavior control… the end of DADT.

Yet we have not seen ANY mass exodus of troops – the dire consequences of the end of this rule predicted by right-wing Christians. In fact, there seems to be no indication of even a small exodus. Is there even just one dude who left in exasperation because of “teh gayz”???

What are all those morally outraged troops waiting for to leave?

Word from the Pope? A nod from Pat Robertson? The final “O.K.” from Fred Phelps Sr.?

Or is this just more apocalyptic conservative right wing rhetoric that never happens in reality? - like Harold Camping’s prediction of the rapture and the end of the world, Peter Sprigg’s prediction of biological males waving their naughty bits in front of little girls in the shower if trans folks are included in anti-discrimination legislator, the ubiquitous laments of “the end of marriage” if gay people are allowed to marry, and the CRG folks’ insistence that 23-07 was going to lead to men abusing the law to dress up like women, claim they’re trans and prey on little girls in the restroom?

Or is it simply more evidence that a large portion of people who consider themselves “right-wing conservative Christians” are in desperate need of medication to treat persistent symptoms of paranoid delusions?

To all my LGB friends in the military:

Have an absolutely WONDERFUL rainbow day!!

Cynthia

September 19, 2011 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the end of another failed experiment in Christian behavior control… the end of DADT"

DADT wasn't any experiment in behavior control

it was a compromise invented by Bill Clinton who wanted full-fledged homosexual involvement in the military

the compromise is that the damage done to military morale might be lessened if gays weren't allowed to flaut their homosexuality

September 19, 2011 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went down and visited the new MLK monument yesterday

right there on the wall was carved:

the loooong moral arc of the universe bends toward justice

that's how we know the Tea Party will win next year

"It’s almost here… the end of DADT.

To all my LGB friends in the military:

Have an absolutely WONDERFUL rainbow day!!"

let me 'splain the plan to you, Cinco

we're going to let all the homosexuals come out for the next year and a half

then, when the Tea Party takes the Senate House and White House to go with our nice Rep House, we'll undo Bill Clinton and enact an outright ban on homosexuals in the military

and we'll know just who to kick out

have a lousy shades of blue day!

September 19, 2011 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

obama has declared war on working moms ...

 I went back and reran the numbers, putting them in TTAX to be sure. 3 kdis, no mortgage. Assume 1.45% medicare, 6.2% social security, and MD Montgomery county. Dual income family making 200K takes home 131,649. Single income family making 100K takes home 77,815. Second person is working for 53K, but not really because you need to pay for daycare. Daycare runs 20K (at least), second person is working for 30K year (not counting the extra car expenses and gas, say another 5K a year) so the second person is working for 25K, NOT WORTH IT. That’s NOW, before the Democrats hike the rates on the most productive or our society. This is not even counting all the earned income credits and college credits and Pell Grants you also sacrifice by having the second person work. Therefore, Obama is making it impossible for working moms to have a career outside the home. Where are all the women’s lib folks on this ?

September 19, 2011 3:00 PM  
Anonymous DA is repealed said...

ha ha!

you may want to wait to "tell" until you find out the election will shake out

that may not work though

the "DA" was repealed along with the "DT" so we'll "ask" if we suspect anything and you better give a straight answer to your straight commanding officer

we'll start our files for the backlash

September 19, 2011 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where are all the women’s lib folks on this ?"

the same place they were when Obama nominated Lawrence Summers

September 19, 2011 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why would any homosexual want to "tell" to the military?

wouldn't be prudent

keep your rainbow skivvies in the locker!

September 19, 2011 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the same place they were when Obama nominated Lawrence Summers"

that's when Barry basically told the League of Women Voters:

Take this job and shove it!!

September 19, 2011 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is September and Barack Obama is in trouble. His poll numbers are down, and there is unrest within his party and among his supporters. Some Democrats have begun to doubt whether his inner circle is up to the task. They are calling for changes — in Obama and his team.

To President Obama and his advisers, this may be today’s story, but it was also the story in September 2007, September 2008 and to some extent September 2009 and September 2010. Obama weathered the first two storms but struggled through the second pair. Which history will be repeated? Can he count on the good luck that helped him earlier? Can he summon within himself the changes that may be needed this time?

President Obama will have a tough time in the 2012 election with the country's economic problems looming overhead.

The collapse of California solar panel manufacturer Solyndra raises new questions about President Obama's push for alternative energy--and whether White House pressure played a role in a loan guarantee that has taxpayers on the hook for millions.

A new book written by a journalist given inside access at the White House says female advisors in Obama White House have been sidelined and ignored.

White House officials say they are well aware of how tough their problems are but believe things will brighten politically over the coming months. Looking ahead to next year’s election, senior adviser David Plouffe said Saturday: “We understand the very perilous situation we’re in, but we think we have a pathway forward. But we don’t have much margin for error.”"

yes, but who could imagine Obama making any errors?

he wouldn't do anything like... threaten to veto any debt reduction plan that doesn't raise taxes

that would just be stupid!

September 19, 2011 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh no, Barry wouldn't do anything like that

only a true moron would do that!!!

September 19, 2011 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON — In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He vowed to veto any deficit reduction package that does not raise taxes."

smart, Barry

increase uncertainty at a time when it is holding us back

""We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said.

The president's proposal would predominantly hit taxpayers but would also reduce spending in benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580
billion.

"It's only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share," Obama said."

with "fair" being defined by the erudite Sir Barack

right now, the upper 10% of earners pay for most of the government and half of Americans pay nothing at all

many of those nothingers also receive a check in the mail

how is it fair the upgrade this imbalance?

"In issuing his threat to veto any bill that doesn't include tax increases, Obama said: "I will not support any plan that puts any burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans.""

why burden anyone?

why not stop wasting money?

"Obama added: "This is not class warfare. It's math."

"Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth_or even meaningful deficit reduction," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement issued minutes after the president's announcement. "The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House."

While the plan stands no chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.

Obama's proposal includes no changes in Social Security and no increase in the Medicare eligibility age, both of which the president had agreed to earlier this year."

flip-flopping like a fish thrown up on a pier

"Obama proposed that Congress establish a minimum tax on taxpayers making $1 million or more in income. The measure – the White House calls it the "Buffett Rule" for billionaire investor Warren Buffett – is designed to prevent millionaires from taking advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings than what middle-income taxpayers pay on their wages."

they pay lower taxes because they put their assets at risk to create business opportunities and jobs

we like that

"At issue is the difference between a taxpayer's tax bracket and the effective tax rate that taxpayer pays. Millionaires face a 35 percent tax bracket, while middle income filers fall in the 15 or 25 percent bracket. But investment income is taxed at 15 percent and Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been "coddled long enough" and shouldn't be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers."

you know, Warren, after you have your taxes doubled, you'll still have more than you know what to do with

you're in a unique situation:

stop setting yourself up as a spokesman for everyone else

the rest of is need the money

September 19, 2011 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they pay lower taxes because they put their assets at risk to create business opportunities and jobs"

that's not the only thing

his income was taxed at the corporate levels

then, again at the personal level

this guy should just shut up and realize that not everyone is as rich as he is

also, right now the IRS is after Buffett for about a billion dollar in back taxes

if thinks he should pay more, why doesn't he just concede their points and write 'em a check

the guy is probably hpoing to run for something himself:

"Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, has been critical of the low tax rates for the superrich. It would seem his own company hasn't prioritized paying its rightful share in a timely fashion either.

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.

But The Post doesn't focus on the issue of a major corporation not paying its correct amount in taxes in a timely manner. Instead, the newspaper criticizes Buffett's position that America's rich should be taxed at a higher rate, taking issue with Buffett's claim that he gave 17 percent of his income to the government in 2010. The Post contends that since the majority of his income comes from dividends and capital games -- taxed indirectly through the corporate income tax -- "his effective rate would really be well north of 40 percent for a big chunk of his income."

"And if [Buffett's] firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right," The Post editors write. "But it would be nice if this 'pro-tax-hike' tycoon were a bit more honest about it.""

what a hypocrite!

September 19, 2011 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

slowly but surely

the whole Obamic socialist agenda glubs down the drain

glub-glub-glub

maybe the Dems will get another shot in 25 years or so

September 19, 2011 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the loooong moral arc of the universe bends toward justice

that's how we know the Tea Party will win next year"

No, that would take a U-turn.

Ain't gonna happen.

"we're going to let all the homosexuals come out for the next year and a half

then, when the Tea Party takes the Senate House and White House to go with our nice Rep House, we'll undo Bill Clinton and enact an outright ban on homosexuals in the military"

Oh sure, just like George Wallace won the Presidency in '68 and '72, and replaced the Civil Rights Act with free slaves for all whites!

One of the contestants on Jeopardy tonight was from the NY Gay Mens' Chorus. The mainstream seems to have left you in the dark ages.

"That’s NOW, before the Democrats hike the rates"

Don't worry hysterical ALL CAPS woman, your $250K income is middle class nowadays. The new tax is called the Buffet Rule because it's for millionaires, not members of the middle class. And the Alternative Minimum Tax will be scrapped, saving you a bundle.

"we'll start our files for the backlash"

How threatening and intimidating of you!! You really enjoy being a bully in here don't you, you cowardly little twit.

"increase uncertainty at a time when it is holding us back"

Spelling out new tax rates does not increase "uncertainty." It increases "revenues" just like Bill Clinton did in the 90's, which led the economy and employment to soar.

It's time to raise taxes on so-called "job creators" because they haven't been creating jobs; they've been sitting on their ever increasing wealth. They've had low taxes for 10 years but rather than creating jobs, they have been closing plants here and moving US jobs overseas.

How unAmerican can these so-called "job creators" get?

Why are we giving them tax breaks to ship American jobs overseas?

It's time for the rich to pay their fair share!

The Buffet Rule is not class warfare -- it's math. It will correct, for example, the fact that Warren Buffett's secretary currently pays taxes at a higher rate than he does.

The wealthiest Americans don't need further tax cuts and in many cases aren't even asking for them. Requiring that they pay their fair share is the only practical way forward. The Republican alternative is to drastically slash education, gut Medicare, let roads and bridges crumble, and privatize Social Security. That's not the America we believe in -- but many in the Republican leadership actually prefer those policies, which explains their refusal to act.

September 19, 2011 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right. And the Buffett Rule won't really touch most Americans -- only 0.3% of households will even be affected.

September 19, 2011 11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeeeee haaaaawww!

Foo Fighters - Keepin it Clean in KC

"God Bless America! It takes all kinds; I don't care if you're black or white or purple or green, whether you're Pennsylvanian or Transylvanian, Lady gaga or Lady Antebellum. Men loving women and women loving men and men loving men and women loving women -- you all know we like to watch that. But what I'd like to say is, God Bless America, y'all!"

September 19, 2011 11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, that would take a U-turn."

U-turn?

Did you read the results of the 2010 election?

How about the results of the Weiner replacement vote in NY City last week?

It will take a historic U-turn to get Barack "OK, I'll Say Uncle" Obama re-elected

"Ain't gonna happen"

it's that special TTF "abracadabra" logic-

just say it, and it'll come true

"Oh sure, just like George Wallace won the Presidency in '68 and '72, and replaced the Civil Rights Act with free slaves for all whites!"

so sad

homosexuals try to equate their deviance with race

which has angered racial minorities, making them the most adamant opponents of the gay agenda

"One of the contestants on Jeopardy tonight was from the NY Gay Mens' Chorus. The mainstream seems to have left you in the dark ages."

you do seem to have the Hollywood crowd

what's new?

in the 1970s, Billy Crystal portrayed a gay character in the #1 show in America, Elton John was the second coming of the Beatles, and Midnight Cowboy won an Oscar for best picture

as Cliff Roberson said when it turned out Rock Hudson was gay: "Come on, this has been going on in Hollywood from day one"

I guess Doris Day knew all along

"Don't worry hysterical ALL CAPS woman, your $250K income is middle class nowadays. The new tax is called the Buffet Rule because it's for millionaires, not members of the middle class. And the Alternative Minimum Tax will be scrapped, saving you a bundle."

actually, there are several taxes that will hit the middle class on January 1, 2013, that Obama has already gotten passed

"How threatening and intimidating of you!! You really enjoy being a bully in here don't you, you cowardly little twit."

I wasn't aware there were any gay military readers here to intimidate. I was just rattling Cinco's chains because of her stupid comment

"Spelling out new tax rates does not increase "uncertainty.""

actually, raising taxes and issuing excessive regulations, as Obama has been doing, has made business entrepreneurs hesitant to hire because they are hoardding cash, not knowing what's coming next

"It increases "revenues" just like Bill Clinton did in the 90's, which led the economy and employment to soar."

Bill Clinton was forced to end welfare by Newt Gingrich, was able to cut defense spending because Reagan had ended the Cold War, and had a stock market flying because Al Gore had just invented the internet

"It's time to raise taxes on so-called "job creators" because they haven't been creating jobs;"

if you should have to pay tax when you don't create jobs, that should mean Dems will have to pay more than anybody

"they've been sitting on their ever increasing wealth"

that's because it's theirs

"They've had low taxes for 10 years"

what are you talking about?

they pay most of the taxes funding the government already and most of them pay tax twice on every dollar- once when their corporation earns the money and again when it's distributed as dividends

meanwhile, over half of all Americans pay no Federal income tax at all

to make the tax system fair, we should either stop taxing corporations or stop taxing dividends

"but rather than creating jobs, they have been closing plants here and moving US jobs overseas."

they are supposed to maximize profits

this is a capitalist society

the government's responsibility is to create conditions where maximizing profits and creating jobs in America are the same thing

September 20, 2011 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How unAmerican can these so-called "job creators" get?"

they could be like Warren Buffet and pretend to want to pay more taxes while fighting the IRS over unpaid taxes from a decade ago

"Why are we giving them tax breaks to ship American jobs overseas?"

Cash for Clunkers was Obama's idea

"It's time for the rich to pay their fair share!"

let's repeat it again because we have a true moron posting here:

they are taxed twice and fund most of the American government

more than half of Americans pay no tax at all

if they paid their "fair share", they'd be getting a big fat tax cut

to be fair, they shouldn't have to pay tax twice on the income they produce

btw, Texas has no income tax and a major industry that has numerous incentives in the tax code

the result: it has created most of jobs in America during the Obama reign

in 2013, President Perry goes national with his jobs-creation strategy

"The Buffet Rule is not class warfare -- it's math. It will correct, for example, the fact that Warren Buffett's secretary currently pays taxes at a higher rate than he does."

his secretary actually pays a much lower rate than he does because she doesn't have her income taxed twice

"The wealthiest Americans don't need further tax cuts and in many cases aren't even asking for them."

and no one has proposed tax cuts for them

like Edgar Bergen, you're arguing with an imaginary little guy on your knee

the Tea Party's proposal is not to raise taxes further, they aren't proposing tax cuts for the rich

"Requiring that they pay their fair share is the only practical way forward."

they are already paying their fair share

"The Republican alternative is to drastically slash education,"

education is the responsibility of the local government

the Education Department wasn't started by Thomas Jefferson

it was created by Jimmy Carter

let's give it to Panama

"gut Medicare,"

Obama proposed Medicare cuts this week

what the Tea Party suggests is adjusting the eligibility age up two years

when the current age was set, life expectancy was much lower

is that what you mean by "gut"?

sounds like someone gutted your mind

"let roads and bridges crumble,"

Repub have expressed support for the infrastructure expenditures recently proposed by Obama

he should have done it long ago but he was busy screwing up our health care, writing children's books, redecorating the Oval office and making travel plans

"and privatize Social Security."

a simplification to scare the aged

Dems commonly use baseless fear since rational arguments don't work for them

Social Security is currently a Ponzi scheme that will soon collapse unless changes are made

"That's not the America we believe in"

that's true

you believe in a socialist America you mistakenly feel is coming

"but many in the Republican leadership actually prefer those policies, which explains their refusal to act"

refusal to act?

we've done a great deal, despite only having on of the three Houses of government

just wait til 2013

"That's right. And the Buffett Rule won't really touch most Americans -- only 0.3% of households will even be affected."

interesting rationale

most Americans won't be affected if we outlaw homosexual practices either

September 20, 2011 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Tea Party austerity = $200K annual budget for food for two? said...

"Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family?

What do Tea Party congressman feed their families? On Monday, Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a member of Michele Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus met with MSNBC's Chris Jansing to discuss President Obama's proposed tax increases on the wealthy. Using his own income as an example, Fleming gave an interesting glimpse into the world of Tea Party economic theory ... and justifications.

Unlike many of his fellow legislators, Fleming's taxes would rise under the Obama plan. This is because, in addition to his $174,000 congressional salary -- which is far below the minimum threshold for Obama's tax increases -- Fleming also pulls in an impressive $6.3 million from his investments, including several Subway franchise restaurants and UPS stores.

However, Fleming was quick to explain that he only brought home a small portion of his $6.3 million gross income. As he told Jansing, "That's before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food. The actual net income of that was only a mere fraction of that amount." In fact, according to Fleming, he made a comparatively paltry $600,000.

While decidedly less than $6.3 million, Fleming's $600,000 is still nothing to sneeze at: Given the $49,455 that the median American household brought home in 2010, the congressman's yearly income still equaled the take-home pay of more than a dozen average families. But, as Fleming noted, even that princely sum was not all it appeared. In order to create more jobs -- and, not coincidentally, expand his business -- Rep. Fleming needed to invest more money: "By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment ..."

So, let's see: $600,000 minus $400,000 for reinvestment leaves $200,000 that Fleming has budgeted to "feed his family." In other words, the congressman's yearly food budget is more than the total take home salary for four average families.

And how many people does Fleming's $200,000 feed? Well, the congressman and his wife Cindy have four grown children. Still, assuming that the pair still has all of their children living under the same roof, the USDA's food allotment under its "Moderate-cost" plan would total $378.90 per week, or $19,702 per year. So, Congressman Fleming is budgeting more than 10 times the average yearly food cost for a family his size.

When Jansing pointed out the vast gap between the average American salary and Fleming's, the congressman responded: "Class warfare has never created a job."

Apparently, however, it puts a lot of food on the table."
DailyFinance: http://srph.it/nV05nl

"like Edgar Bergen, you're arguing with an imaginary little guy on your knee"

Oh that's you all right, a little dummy on my knee. You are like a combination of the slow-witted Mortimer Snerd and the man-hungry Effie Klinker, posting your stupid homo-phobic yet homo-interested off-topic messages on Vigilance every day.

September 20, 2011 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family?"

yes, because if he can do it cheaper, he should send the extra money straight to Barry Obama

how dare he have money left over when Dem constituents whp pay no tax could use a bigger earned income tax credit check!!

only .3% would be affected?

why not vote for more taxes if you won't pay them?

the Dem position:

let someone else pay

how statesmenlike!!

September 20, 2011 9:51 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon with the black leather boots and riding crop barked:

“the "DA" was repealed along with the "DT" so we'll "ask" if we suspect anything and you better give a straight answer to your straight commanding officer

we'll start our files for the backlash”

OOHHHH Anon, you sound SOOOO butch when you talk like that! It sounds like you’re ready to take down names and kick some booty!

Hmmm… collecting lists of “undesirables” so you can purge them later…

Let me guess Anon, History was never one of your better subjects.

You’re following in the footsteps of some famous guys, like Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, Joseph Stalin, and organizations like the KGB and the Stazi.

If you do a good job with those files though, I’m sure you’ll make your Gruppenführer proud.
Given that there has been some research pointing to genetic factors for gayness, you probably want to get in touch with the Mormons. They’ve been collecting genealogy information from around the world for decades, presumably so they can baptize the dead. (Apparently under the theory that when the resurrection comes, the religion with the most zombies wins.) However, you can use these files to find all the relatives of the gays and subject them to closer scrutiny – make sure you find them all.

Carnac the Magnificent said:

“that's how we know the Tea Party will win next year”

Let me check something here Anon – are you the same Anon that kept predicting that McCain would win in 2008 right up to the very last day even though he’d been behind in the polls for months?

Are you the same Anon that predicted Palin / Huckabee would win in 2012?

If so, I’m going to recommend you take a page from Nancy Reagan’s book and leave prognostication to the professionals – hire an astrologist.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

September 20, 2011 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don't get how they figure you can feed a family of 5 on 400 bucks a month.
I have tried to cut our grocery bills from about 1000 a month (including paper products) w/o success.
I think you have to spend a lot of time just knowing how much things should cost, and never purchasing boxed food like pizzas...
I even made a spreadsheet and started comparing the various stores... and then quickly came to the conclusion that safeway and giant were double if not triple sams... problem is sams is pretty far up 270 so you really have to budget and plan your time. back to one of the extra expenses you get from working full time while the govt is trying to tax all that "extra income" (which of course you trying to raise a family MUST NOT need, the govt has such better plans for it than your kids college education).

September 20, 2011 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whoops sorry, just reread your post and is says 400 a week not a month.
never mind.

some folks on the food budgeting sites were feeding a family of five on 400 a month.

September 20, 2011 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OOHHHH Anon, you sound SOOOO butch when you talk like that! It sounds like you’re ready to take down names and kick some booty!"

yeah, I almost didn't make that joke because I was afraid some of our regulars might get off on it

we have some real sick puppies coming to this site

it was a joke with a point though

you guys celebrate as if you've secured an irreversible victory

but, remember, the policy could change and then everyone will know who you are

my suggestion is to stay discreet

"Let me guess Anon, History was never one of your better subjects"

as a matter of fact, I'm Joe History

"You’re following in the footsteps of some famous guys, like Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, Joseph Stalin, and organizations like the KGB and the Stazi."

ah, yes, there are lots of similarities

taking showers, eating lunch, going to movies, keeping personnel files

however, the lists would only be to track who qualifies for service in the military, just like other employee records

I don't anyone will force gays to live on collective farms or take oaths to fight Communism

"Let me check something here Anon – are you the same Anon that kept predicting that McCain would win in 2008 right up to the very last day even though he’d been behind in the polls for months?

Are you the same Anon that predicted Palin / Huckabee would win in 2012?"

Sarah has not decided to run but she sure did a number on the Dems in 2010, didn't she?

Huck should have run, he's pretty darn electable

btw, the Chicago Tribune on Sunday called for Obama to not seek re-election, for the good of the nation

"If so, I’m going to recommend you take a page from Nancy Reagan’s book and leave prognostication to the professionals – hire an astrologist."

how about James Carville?

he says its time for Obama to "panic"

"Have a nice day"

have a day where you tell all your gay soldier "friends" to help us build our file!

"I really don't get how they figure you can feed a family of 5 on 400 bucks a month"

some folks on the food budgeting sites were feeding a family of five on 400 a month."

it doesn't matter

this is typical of liberal media

no one is acountable to anyone else for how they spend their money

most of the government is already funded by the wealthy

most Americans pay no income tax

when you add in the taxes on the corporate level, the wealthy pay a higher rate of tax than others

furthermore, if you have a loss on your small business, you can deduct it

but losses on capital gains are lost

all of that's not fair and Obama would like to make it less fair

Barry says its not class warfare, just math

he must have missed a calculation

even if we taxed 100% of rich people's wealth, it still wouldn't be enough

September 20, 2011 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"collecting lists of “undesirables” so you can purge them later…

You’re following in the footsteps of some famous guys, like Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, Joseph Stalin, and organizations like the KGB and the Stazi"

I hate to break it to you, cinco, but your employer is keeping a personnel file on you

now, don't go in and call them a McCarthyite KGB agent (!?!)

you don't want to make yourself unpopular

or make them ROFL!

September 20, 2011 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 20, 2011 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"only .3% would be affected?

why not vote for more taxes if you won't pay them?"

Many of us would gladly pay the higher taxes we all paid during the job creating and deficit eradicating Clinton Administration. I've told this to my local elected official, Chris Van Hollen, and expect the Super Congress will do what's needed and raise tax rates across the board along with cutting spending across the board.

We all need to make changes on both the debit and credit sides of the equation to get out from under the massive spending and insufficient income put in place by the Bush Administration that has lead to massive deficits, which Dick Cheney told us "don't matter."

"more than half of Americans pay no tax at all"

That is an outright lie.

Sales taxes are paid by all Americans, rich and poor alike, as are excise taxes on lots of goods and services like cigarettes, booze, gasoline, cell phones service, air line tickets, and cable TV service.

In 2010, the top 50% of US wage earners earned 87.25% of all US income and paid 97.3% of all US income tax.

In 2010, the bottom 50% of US wage earners earned 12.75% of all US income and paid 2.7% of US income tax. They were taxed at the average rate of 2.59%

Anyone claiming "more than half of Americans pay no tax" is mistaken.

"they are taxed twice and fund most of the American government"

Every business owner, large or small, is taxed twice, once as employer and once as employee.

Interesting facts:

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in absolute poverty.

The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."

Twenty-two thousand three hundred fifty dollars divided by 52 weeks means this family of four human being living at the 2011 US poverty level has just under $430 each week to pay for everything -- not just food, but housing, utilities, clothing, transportation, etc.

More and more American families find themselves falling into this povery trap every day, while the rich keep getting richer.

"Income inequality is more severe in the U.S. than it is in nearly all of West Africa, North Africa, Europe, and Asia. We're on par with some of the world's most troubled countries, and not far from the perpetual conflict zones of Latin American and Sub-Saharan Africa. Our income gap is also getting worse, having widened both in absolute and relative terms since the 1980s. It's not a problem that the "Buffett rule" would solve on its own, but at least the U.S. political system is starting to acknowledge how serious things have become."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/

September 20, 2011 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many of us would gladly pay the higher taxes we all paid during the job creating and deficit eradicating Clinton Administration."

pointless remark since no one, including Obama, is proposing that

Obama is targeting a minority that already funds most of the government because he wants the support of the majority that he argues will not be affected

why not support Obama tax increases if you won't have to pay more?

"I've told this to my local elected official, Chris Van Hollen,"

when I see him, I refuse to talk to him

"and expect the Super Congress will do what's needed and raise tax rates across the board along with cutting spending across the board"

actually, Obama has interfered with their work so they likely won't succeed and automatic cuts will take place

sad that the real Congress can't do its own work

"We all need to make changes on both the debit and credit sides of the equation to get out from under the massive spending and insufficient income put in place by the Bush Administration"

if the "spending" was unnecessary, why not end it right away?

how about today?

face it, spending was about right in the Bush era

insuffient income?

the deficits averaged a fraction of what they are now, under Bush

"that has lead to massive deficits, which Dick Cheney told us "don't matter.""

they didn't matter then because they were relatively small

Obama has made trillion dollar deficits the norm

September 21, 2011 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""more than half of Americans pay no tax at all"

That is an outright lie."

yes, they pay no income tax

you understood the point, stop playing games

"Sales taxes are paid by all Americans, rich and poor alike,"

food and lodging are generally not taxed so even the sales tax burden of the truly poor is minimal

"as are excise taxes on lots of goods and services like cigarettes, booze, gasoline, cell phones service, air line tickets, and cable TV service"

other than gas, it seems anyone who could afford those things should be able to make some contribution to federal income tax revenues

gas taxes, btw, are popular among Dems, who want to manipulate the behavior of Americans

"In 2010, the top 50% of US wage earners earned 87.25% of all US income and paid 97.3% of all US income tax."

want to stratify that further?

"In 2010, the bottom 50% of US wage earners earned 12.75% of all US income and paid 2.7% of US income tax. They were taxed at the average rate of 2.59%"

and almost half pay no income tax at all

"Anyone claiming "more than half of Americans pay no tax" is mistaken."

no Federal income tax

"Every business owner, large or small, is taxed twice, once as employer and once as employee."

we're talking about income tax here, not payroll tax

when you start using the Buffett rhetoric, you are ignoring that his capital gain and dividend income has already been taxed at the corporate level, so it is deceptive to claim that he pays a lower rate than his secretary

he pays more and his rate is higher

of course, despite his public posturing that he wants to pay more, he is currently fighting to avoid paying a billion dollars in taxes he has owed for a decadde

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in absolute poverty."

thanks, Barry

15% in poverty and yet almost a half pay no income tax

what the?

"More and more American families find themselves falling into this povery trap every day, while the rich keep getting richer."

and Obama's solution is to redistribute income

historically, America seeks to lift the poor rather than bring down the rich

"Our income gap is also getting worse, having widened both in absolute and relative terms since the 1980s. It's not a problem that the "Buffett rule" would solve on its own, but at least the U.S. political system is starting to acknowledge how serious things have become."

we could always make it go away by making everyone poor, right?

we are aspirational not envious

we are better than the Obama campaign of resentment

he doesn't fit our heritage and we'll make that clear in November 2012

September 21, 2011 6:29 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon tried to deflect:

“yeah, I almost didn't make that joke because I was afraid some of our regulars might get off on it”

No Anon, don’t flatter yourself. Nobody is going to “get off” on anything you write. My response should have shown you how effective your attempts to bully gay people back into the shadows are going to be.

“it was a joke with a point though”

Indeed, you were making career ending threats to some 45,000 gay people serving in the US military. What a joke. I don’t hear anyone laughing.

“you guys celebrate as if you've secured an irreversible victory
but, remember, the policy could change and then everyone will know who you are
my suggestion is to stay discreet”

You still don’t get it Anon.

Gay people are no longer going to cower to threats (even when their job is on the line) and intimidation from the belligerent Talibangelical wing of the Republican Party. They are out and proud and aren’t going to let people like you try to run their lives.

“however, the lists would only be to track who qualifies for service in the military, just like other employee records
I don't anyone will force gays to live on collective farms or take oaths to fight Communism”


It always sounds so innocuous in the beginning… no on ever suspects what it will turn into later.

So what are you going to do with all those unemployed gay soldiers? – Peter Sprigg has the answer for you – put them in jail!

Of course, you can’t keep them there forever, that gets to be too much of a tax burden. It would be the perfect time to bring George Rekers back from the wilderness – you can send all the gays to his camps for “reparative therapy.” Don’t tell me you haven’t thought of this already. It’s simply a logical extension of what anti-gay leaders and groups have argued all along for.

When Hitler started out, he just told folks they needed “lebensraum” (living space). Invading Poland later was just a natural extension of this concept.

“Huck should have run, he's pretty darn electable”

Too bad Anon. I saw an interview with him recently. He said he heard “God call (him) to run” in the ’08 election. He wasn’t hearing that for ’12. I wonder why that is? Did God want him to run in ’08 to learn a lesson in humility? Or is he on some better meds now and just not hearing voices any more?

“have a day where you tell all your gay soldier "friends" to help us build our file!”

Does your group have their own arm bands yet?

If you’re going to do this right, you gotta have arm bands.

September 21, 2011 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"pointless remark since no one, including Obama, is proposing that"

BS! The Super Congress is meeting to work out details for their proposal. It's exactly the right time to tell them what we want their proposal to include.

Chris Van Hollen agrees with me and the President -- we need to cut spending and raise revenue.

Why has Germany weathered the European economic crisis so well?

Ten years ago, "Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder staked his political legacy on a painful series of reforms that slashed benefits for people who were unemployed for more than a year, aiming to push them back into jobs. Other reforms privatized portions of the pension system, cutting guaranteed benefits. More recently, the retirement age was pushed to 67, from 65.

Unions made sacrifices, too: Wages stayed largely flat for the past decade even as industry profits and government tax receipts rose, making Germany one of the West’s most competitive exporters. This was helped along by the euro zone, which made German products cheaper abroad than they were under the Deutschmark.

Other aspects of Germany’s welfare state remained deluxe. Germans receive parental leave of 14 months at two-thirds salary, generous vacation time and publicly sponsored health insurance. And the tradeoff for flat wages has been a better chance at staying employed: If companies are struggling, they can appeal for government funds to subsidize their workers’ salaries, helping to avoid layoffs...

All the benefits come with a price: tax bills that are the second highest in Europe, and a nagging sense of economic insecurity, because of the flat pay and the new low-wage jobs, amid the outwardly robust economy.

Average German workers send almost 40 cents of every euro they earn to the taxman, according to OECD figures — nearly double that in the United States, and well above France and Britain as well."
WaPo, 9/20/11, Page A-ll

So making drastic cuts in services along with paying forty percent of their income in taxes, the second highest tax rate in Europe, has helped Germany keep it's economy moving forward.

The GOP insistence on refusing to raise taxes is pure folly and destined to fail as Germany's economic fortunes demonstrate.

The President and Chris Van Hollen are right to insist that benefit and spending cuts be coupled with tax increases in order to pull our economy up out of the Bush Recession.

September 21, 2011 11:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home