Sunday, November 18, 2012

Lee Atwater and the Stupid Party

The Nation has just published the audio of Republican strategist Lee Atwater explaining, in 1981, how the GOP consciously and deliberately capitalized on white racism to build a base and win elections.
[It's a matter of] how abstract you handle the race thing. In other words, you start out ... Now y’all aren’t quoting me on this ... you start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” -- that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff.

And you’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites…. “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
There had been some conditions of the interview that prevented its release initially, and defenders of the GOP had questioned whether it was actually made up by liberals, but now the interviewer's widow has made the audio recording available, and there it is: "cutting taxes" is a substitute for "Nigger nigger nigger."

The timing of this is perfect. Just a week ago the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy" failed for the first time on a massive scale. The exploitation of ignorant white Evangelicals has worked well for them, it was an easy population to manipulate and they had it down to a science, but in 2012 it failed to produce a majority of votes, and it never will again.

For one thing, the role of women is not what it was, and the patriarchal sexism of the GOP's message drove women voters away. For another, the Hispanic population has grown to be a force to reckon with, and the bigoted fear of foreigners that was a hallmark of GOP rhetoric drove them away. And look people, we have an African-American President, and black people can see what party is looking out for them. Did you see where there were 59 districts in Philadelphia that did not have one single vote for Romney?

If they're smart, and I think they are, the GOP is going to abandon its ignorant-honky base. They can modify their conservative message of small government and the sovereignty of the rugged individualist to appeal to women and Hispanics. They need to get off the idiocy about abortion and contraception and rape; they need to dissociate themselves from images of barbed-wire fences and armed vigilante posses at the borders; even if they have to lie about it they need to make it less obvious that they are the party that supports the interests of the very richest Americans no matter what happens to the rest of us; the "war on terror" worked for a while but there is not enough xenophobia outside the white Protestant base to carry an election; evolution and climate change are real, science provides the best knowledge we've got, and the people demand something smarter than what "the stupid party" has been delivering.

I am actually kind of optimistic about this. If the Republicans would reclaim reasonable conservative values then the Democrats could move back from the unsatisfying centrist position they occupy now and argue in favor of liberal values, there could be honest debate and this polarized country could come together in comfort and prosperity. I don't know if they are capable of it, I don't know if Republican leaders are capable of thinking beyond the uptight, uneducated rural Protestant population that they have built their brand on, but they are going to have to start over and I hope they are smart enough to do it right. It was fun to see the Democrats kick butt but I would prefer to see a good honest fight where both sides offer real solutions to real problems and the voters choose the best ones.

Think about it: why was the conservative party the one that argued that people should be required to meet a government gender requirement in order to get married? A: The GOP stopped being "conservative" a long time ago, focusing instead on getting votes by manipulating the very worst side of ignorant people.

We are enjoying our moment of gloating, but the big-money guys who run the GOP are not going to let this happen again. If they want to win another election -- ever -- they will kick the teabaggers out of the party, cut off Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter and the others, and start over. Because the philosophy that Atwater describes in this audio recording doesn't work any more.

109 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything gay goes.

City lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places, a blanket ban that represents an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.

Supervisor Scott Wiener's"

good name for this task

"proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.

A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures."

what is it about homosexality that requires public nudity?

there's an exhibitionist component to homosexuality that accompanies the tendency to excessive and random promiscuity

"Wiener said he resisted introducing the ordinance, but felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets au naturel."

that's right: most days

"He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare rears,"

gross, I didn't even think of that

"yet the complaints have continued."

imagine that

""I don't think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is about. I think it's a caricature of what San Francisco is about," Wiener said."

sounds like this guy has what they in the City by the Bay call a straight agenda

"The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit."

oh yes, predictably

how daaare they say gays can't walk the streets without clothes?

"Last week, about two dozen people disrobed in front of City Hall and marched around the block.

Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists. But he thinks Wiener's prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition "that keeps San Francisco weird.""

I hear you, McCray

what would life be without a weird San Francisco?


November 19, 2012 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, the backlash against the gay agenda begins right where it started

November 19, 2012 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NOM sees one-third decline in contributions for 2011

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) saw a steep decline in the amount of money it raised in 2011 – dropping to $6.2 million from the $9.1 million it raised the previous year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Just two donors were responsible for funding 75 percent of the anti-gay group – the organization reported two donations of approximately $2.4 million each. The information is available in NOM’s 2011 990, which NOM made available this evening after HRC requested the documents in-person at their Washington, D.C. office earlier this morning.

“The National Organization for Marriage continues to push the notion that there is some sort of grassroots support for their discriminatory anti-gay agenda,” said HRC Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz.

“Last week, that notion was soundly rejected by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State. Now, NOM’s own financial records are serving as the latest proof that support for LGBT equality is common-sense and mainstream. NOM is nothing more than a conduit channeling the anti-gay agenda of a few secretive, wealthy donors," said Sainz.

The sharp drop in funding is notable also because NOM experienced significant financial growth each year since its founding in 2007, when it was formed to demonize LGBT people in California as part of efforts to pass Proposition 8, the state's 2008 voter approved ban on same-sex marriage.

According to the documents, 2011 marked the first year in which the anti-gay group’s funding declined.

In addition to illustrating that more than $4.7 million of NOM’s total $6.2 million reported came from just two mysterious mega-donors, the documents also reveal some interesting information about NOM’s closest affiliates.

For example, NOM paid $870,000 to CC Advertising – a group HRC recently filed an FCC complaint against for spamming unsuspecting cell phone users with anti-gay, anti-Obama text messages.

The organization also paid nearly $375,000 to Frank Schubert, their ad guru who makes his living largely off of promoting anti-LGBT propaganda.

NOM spent upwards of $5.7 million on attempts to prevent marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington; write discrimination in Minnesota’s constitution; and politicize Iowa’s judicial system. Voters in all five states soundly rejected NOM’s discriminatory messaging.

The NOM remains embroiled in several legal battles over revealing the identities of the few mega-donors who fund their work. Their 2011 990 is available here.

Additional background on NOM, including information on the organization’s leadership and details on its close financial ties to religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus and the Church of Latter Day Saints, is available via HRC’s NOM Exposed project at www.nomexposed.org.

November 19, 2012 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The National Organization for Marriage continues to push the notion that there is some sort of grassroots support for their discriminatory anti-gay agenda,” said HRC Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz."

yeah, who would think that?

I mean, just because two-thirds of the states in the U.S. have voted in large enough numbers to amend their state constitutions to affirm the heterosexual nature of true marriage

and just because the largest state in America just 4 years ago voted against gay "marriage"

and just because Americans flocked to Chik-Fil-A this summer when gay "marriage" advocates tried to demonize its owner for supporting true marriage

and just because gay "marriage" just barely passed in the recent election by a slender margin in four of the most liberal states in America

doesn't mean anyone in America opposes gay "marriage"

“Last week, that notion was soundly rejected by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State."

actually, it was anything but sound

it was a narrow win in all four states

which is remarkable considering there were all liberal states so the support there would tend to be the highest

so it likely won't pass many other places

especially now that SF is making gays cover the seats when they sit down

November 19, 2012 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-11-19/maryland-moves-to-big-ten-lefty-driesell-acc-buck-williams-john-lucas

November 20, 2012 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anon whiner sent packing said...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Tea party firebrand Rep. Allen West conceded his re-election fight Tuesday, two weeks after the election gave way to court appearances, two partial recounts and unending accusations by his camp that the vote count wasn’t fair.

In a statement, the Republican freshman said ‘‘there are certainly still inaccuracies in the results’’ but not enough to change the outcome, giving the race to Democratic newcomer Patrick Murphy.

‘‘While a contest of the election results might have changed the vote totals, we do not have evidence that the outcome would change,’’ West said.

Murphy campaign manager Anthony Kusich said he was not aware of any concession call to his candidate, simply an e-mail that was publicly distributed. In his own statement, Murphy said he was ‘‘humbled by Congressman West’s gracious concession’’ and eager to get to work on behalf of all voters.

‘‘To those who supported my opponent, my door is open and I want to hear your voice,’’ Murphy said. ‘‘I campaigned on a message of reaching across the aisle to get things done for the people of the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches, and that is as important in this district as it is in Washington.’’

Murphy declared victory in the wee hours of Election Night and has held his lead ever since, even as thousands of absentee, provisional and overseas ballots were processed and two partial recounts undertaken. But West’s campaign kept up a stream of skepticism about the results, largely focused on St. Lucie County, where elections officials acknowledged missteps.

An initial recount of some early ballots in St. Lucie gave West a slight bump. His campaign fought for a fuller recount, and received it, but it only improved Murphy’s margin of victory. He won by more than 2,000 votes.

Many have speculated West could find a new career in the place where he has been frequently seen, on cable television, but he has not said what his next step will be. ‘‘Only God knows what is in store for each of us,’’ he said in his statement, adding that ‘‘I will continue to fight for our republic.’’

Whatever the next step, the contest between Murphy and West will go down as one of the most expensive in congressional history. Murphy eked out the win though he was out-fundraised more than four-to-one.

West, 51, is a favorite among the most conservative reaches of the Republican Party. He has made a string of headline-grabbing statements, from calling a majority of congressional Democrats communists to saying President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and others should ‘‘get the hell out of the United States.’’

Murphy, 29, portrayed West as an extremist who had done little else in Washington than stoke partisan fires.

In his concession statement, West offered congratulations to Murphy, saying ‘‘I pray he will serve his constituents with honor and integrity, and put the interests of our nation before his own.’’

November 20, 2012 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Republicans continue to reflect on what went wrong on Nov. 6, they should think back on a scene in February, when U.S. House Republicans organized a grandstanding hearing on contraception coverage under Obamacare, in which they proclaimed it an affront to an employer’s religious freedom.

Democrats were allotted only one witness and chose Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who intended to speak out on the consequences of losing contraceptive coverage. But she was barred from testifying by Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican committee chairman, because she was “not qualified,” while a panel of men — some in religious collars — were.

That was the moment when America’s women were reminded of what is at stake in American elections in which one major political party enthusiastically embraces the agenda of the Religious Right.

We American women know how recent and tenuous our grip is on our reproductive rights. Anyone watching HBO’s Boardwalk Empire knows the travails of Margaret Thompson, the wife of wealthy Nucky, as she struggles against the Catholic Church, ignorance, fear and the law in the 1920s to bring sex education and contraception to women.

It wasn’t until 1965 that the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of married people to possess contraception in this country, a right that wasn’t extended to unmarried people until 1972 — four years after the Beatles released the “White Album.”

So it’s not such a surprise that this year’s election, according to a Gallup survey, resulted in a 20-point gender gap, the largest in history, with President Obama winning women by 12 percentage points while Mitt Romney won men by 8 points. Obama’s win among unmarried women was a whopping 38 points. Call it the Republicans’ Carrie Bradshaw problem, or for a younger generation, their Selena Gomez problem. Either way, they won’t solve it until they stop using women’s bodily autonomy as a political pawn.

During the election post-mortem, Republicans have blamed their loss on decreased support among Hispanic voters and voters who live in an urban core. Romney even blamed his defeat on Obama’s “gifts” to the moochers. But they’re missing the pink elephant in the room. Women made up 53 percent of the electorate, and most of us won’t support a candidate who promises to transport the country back in time when it comes to our essential right to control our lives.

Romney lost women by swallowing whole the Religious Right agenda, including its attacks on overseas family planning services. He promised to reinstate the Mexico City policy and to defund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Romney’s stance on UNFPA mirrors that of Bush II, who withheld $235 million of congressionally allocated UNFPA funding over the course of his presidency on baseless grounds that the group supported coercive abortions in China. Since Obama came to office, about $40 million per year has been restored.

The backwardness of the Republican anti-family-planning agenda is hard to put into words, so let’s put it into numbers. According to the just-released UNFPA report, “By Choice, Not By Chance: Family Planning, Human Rights and Development,” an estimated 222 million women in the developing world lack access to reliable family planning. This alone leads to 63 million unintended pregnancies every year.

If all of the world’s family planning needs were met, there would be 26 million fewer abortions. And if women in developing countries could space their pregnancies three to five years apart, it could reduce infant deaths by 46 percent. Republican efforts to defund family planning groups belie any real concern for “life,” revealing instead the party’s antipathy toward contraception and women’s sexual freedom.

This 1920s-era thinking subordinated our mothers and grandmothers and continues to afflict women around the world. If Republicans want to win national elections, they need to realize that American women don’t intend to relinquish their hard-won reproductive rights, not ever.

November 20, 2012 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Tea Party Smarts? said...

"After President Barack Obama was re-elected with a decisive 332-206 victory in the electoral college, many prominent Republicans decided that their party needed a new strategy. Adopting extreme right-wing positions and opposing Obama on every issue, no matter how trivial, hadn’t worked; as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal put it, the GOP must “stop being the stupid party.”

Clearly, Judson Phillips never got that message.

Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, is still refusing to give up on his dream of removing President Obama from office. If the voters won’t do it for him, Phillips and his far-right allies will just have to do it themselves.

That’s the message of Phillips’ newest op-ed for the conservative website WorldNetDaily. In the column, Phillips explains how “we can still pull this election out and make Mitt Romney president in January.”

According to the 12th Amendment, for the Electoral College to be able to select the president, it must have a quorum of two-thirds of the states voting. If enough states refuse to participate, the Electoral College will not have a quorum. If the Electoral College does not have a quorum or otherwise cannot vote or decide, then the responsibility for selecting the president and vice president devolves to the Congress.

The House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president.

Since the Republicans hold a majority in the House, presumably they would vote for Mitt Romney, and the Democrats in the Senate would vote for Joe Biden for vice president.[...]

Mitt Romney carried 24 states. We need to have conservative activists from all over the nation contact the electors, the Republican Party and the secretary of state in all of these states and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College when it meets on Dec. 17.

If we can get 17 of those states (just over one-third) to refuse to participate, the Electoral College will have no quorum. Then, as the Constitution directs, the election goes to the House of Representatives.


Phillips goes on to urge his readers to pressure their local officials to deliver the presidency to Romney, and to convince other Republican groups to do the same. Phillips seems to anticipate this being a problem, having somehow come to the conclusion that “far too often the Republican Party seems more interested in losing gracefully than winning and governing.”

Phillips’ plan has very little to do with Romney himself; indeed, he writes that “Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, and he will not be a great president.” Still, Phillips evidently hates Obama enough to try and steal the election anyway.

This represents an important step for the Tea Party; if his campaign catches on, it will be the movement’s graduation from fringe political movement to genuine insurrectionists. The voters have overwhelmingly picked Obama; Phillips’ attempt to pressure electors to abstain from the political process, and allow the House of Representatives — which the Republican Party controls largely due to creative gerrymandering — to pick the president is an open rejection of democracy.

Considering that Phillips has argued in the past that only property owners should have the right to vote, however, maybe his willingness to cast aside the will of the people should not come as a surprise.

Update: Phillips’ column has been updated with the following editors note, explaining that Phillips misread the Constitution:

Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College."


< D'oh! >

November 21, 2012 10:55 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation: “We need to have conservative activists from all over the nation contact the electors, the Republican Party and the secretary of state in all of these states and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College when it meets on Dec. 17.

Republican Party Platform: “We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College.”

November 22, 2012 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's sad, improv

meet a girl, start a family

it'll give you something better to do on Thanksgiving than spread hatred and division

November 23, 2012 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who thinks stating a few facts about the tea party is spreading hatred and division.




November 23, 2012 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's an irrelevant fact

the hatred is the obsession with finding minor statements to argue about

improv needs to get a life

November 23, 2012 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who's talking, Mr. "Deviant" Obsessed.

November 23, 2012 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Can the stupid party evolve? said...

As members of the Republican Party reflect on their losses at the polls November 6, they should do so with complete honesty and a commitment to play a constructive role in effective governance. Their first step should be to get their house in order.

The Republican Party under Reince Priebus is a failure. His leadership during this past election was characterized by distortion and deception. His incessant reliance on talking points and mean-spirited attacks did not elevate the debate nor inspire his troops. Not only did he miscalculate how Mitt Romney would do Election Day, Romney failed to carry Priebus's home state of Wisconsin.

Supporters credit him with cutting the RNC's debt in half, and increasing the party's donor base. Priebus sent an email to committee members notifying them he intends to run again in January, but barely mentioned Romney's defeat and the loss of Senate seats. Instead, he praised the RNC's get out the vote effort, even though Romney received fewer votes than Senator John McCain did four years earlier.

Preibus has not owned up to his role in voter suppression, an effort that backfired. This tactic was based on the old axiom that if the voter turnout is large, the Democrats win. There were also allegations of voter registration fraud involving Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm the RNC retained for $1.3 million before being forced to terminate their contract. At the time, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, "It's not hard to connect the dots here -- each of these cases is directly connected to Chair Reince Priebus, who as Chair of the RNC hired the firm headed by Nathan Sproul, a longtime Republican consultant with a known history of alleged voter registration fraud."

Senate Republicans should replace their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He has consistently put partisan politics ahead of working on a bipartisan basis with President Barack Obama. Prior to the 2010-midterm elections, Senator McConnell famously threw down the gauntlet. In an interview with the National Journal, the senator said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." If Congress actually accomplished something, he reasoned, it would make the president look good.

Republicans became the party of roadblocks. Republicans have had effective control of the Senate since the beginning of President Obama's first term. While they did not have a majority in the Senate, they had enough seats to keep Democrats from getting the required 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. And, under Senator McConnell's leadership, Republicans shattered all previous records for using filibusters. According to the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, "There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's combined." In the election earlier this month Republicans lost seats to the Democrats, although not enough to end a filibuster by that party.

November 24, 2012 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Can the stupid party evolve? said...

A mandate is in the eye of the beholder. Democrats say the election gave the president a mandate, especially for raising taxes on the rich, while Republicans disagree. No matter, Americans voted for a divided government, where Democrats again control the White House and have a majority of the seats in the Senate, and Republicans control the House of Representatives. It was as if the voters were saying, "Alright guys, enough with the gridlock, get back in there and get something done."

Meanwhile, the country is on the edge of a fiscal cliff, which Congress created. If no action is taken by the end of the year, automatic spending reductions will kick in, and all of the Bush tax cuts will expire. That will mean the tax bill for the average household will increase by several thousand dollars, which will snuff out America's already anemic economic recovery.

So the second thing Republicans should do is move to the high ground in the debate on the impending fiscal crisis. They should agree to the president's proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy, while putting in place some tax reforms. Republicans should show they are willing to compromise for the good of the country. To do otherwise would garner blame for a Republican party that is already flat on its back from a staggering defeat on Election Day.

It is time for the Republican Party to end its failed era of obstructionism. Elections do have consequences.

November 24, 2012 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As members of the Republican Party reflect on their losses at the polls November 6, they should do so with complete honesty and a commitment to play a constructive role in effective governance."

Yes, and as members of the Democratic Party reflect on their losses at the polls November 6, they should do so with complete honesty and a commitment to play a constructive role in effective governance

"Their first step should be to get their house in order."

That would be a good idea for the Democrats.

"The Democratic Party under Barack Obama is a failure. His leadership during this past election was characterized by distortion and deception. His incessant reliance on talking points and mean-spirited attacks did not elevate the debate nor inspire his troops. Not only did he miscalculate how Republicans would do Election Day, Obama failed to take as much of the popular vote as he did four years ago.

"Preibus has not owned up to his role in voter suppression,"

'owning' up to Democratic lies is never a good idea

"Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, "It's not hard to connect the dots here"

so why didn't they do that rather than make crap up?

"Senate Republicans should replace their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky."

why?

he hasn't prevented further implementation of the Obama agenda since 2010 and now has engineered a result that forces Democrats to the negotiating table

"He has consistently put partisan politics ahead of working on a bipartisan basis with President Barack Obama."

no more so than Obama

and Obama's agenda has increasingly proven faulty

November 24, 2012 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Prior to the 2010-midterm elections, Senator McConnell famously threw down the gauntlet. In an interview with the National Journal, the senator said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.""

that would have been best for the country but, alas, we'll have to work with our control of Congress

"If Congress actually accomplished something, he reasoned, it would make the president look good."

the Republicans passed inumerable bills in the House so Reid and Obama could have made them look bad at any time by considering and voting on the bills

they stalled government progress hoping the could take back the House

they failed

Democrats became the party of roadblocks. Democrats have had control of the Senate since the beginning of President Obama's first term. While they had a majority in the Senate, they have refused to vote on or negotiate on any bill. They haven't even passed a budget for years, although the House passed the one Obama sent up last year.

In the election earlier this month Republicans retained control of the House.

Democrats stupidly say the election gave the president a mandate, even though he got fewer votes than last time and the voters sent lawmakers to Washington that had vowed not to approve Obama's aganda.

Huh?

"Meanwhile, the country is on the edge of a fiscal cliff, which Congress created. If no action is taken by the end of the year, automatic spending reductions will kick in, and all of the Bush tax cuts will expire. That will mean the tax bill for the average household will increase by several thousand dollars, which will snuff out America's already anemic economic recovery."

And when Obama refuses to compromise and allows that to happen, the American people will realize he doesn't care about the middle class.

"They should agree to the president's proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy, while putting in place some tax reforms."

Actually, they've repeatedly offered to do that but Democarts aree holding out for increasing marginal rates.

"To do otherwise would garner blame for a Republican party that is already flat on its back from a staggering defeat on Election Day."

Flat on its back?

It was given the power, by the American people, to stop anything Obama wants to do

"It is time for the Republican Party to end its failed era of obstructionism."

Its "obstructionism" has worked very well so far.

It has saved our country from further damage of the kind that was done in Obama's first two years.

"Elections do have consequences."

Yes they do.

And the consequence of this one for Obama is that he will have to negotiate with a House controlled by the Republican Party if he wants to accomplish anything.

You lost control of the law-making institution of our country.

Get over it.

November 24, 2012 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.

Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.

One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

November 25, 2012 11:44 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It's funny when Republicans complain that the Senate hasn't passed a budget. High school civics explains this.

November 26, 2012 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, Robert, don't hold back

tell why a budget hasn't been passed for the last couple of years

November 26, 2012 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republican obstruction.

Thank goodness elections have consequences.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., is the latest high-profile Republican to back away from Grover Norquist and his pledge not to raise taxes.

“I’m not obligated on the pledge,” Corker told Charlie Rose on CBS on Monday. “I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”

Corker joins a number of other Republicans who have indicated they would consider bending on the pledge to prevent a set of automatic cuts from taking effect should budget negotiations fail.

“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told a local Georgia news station. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”

“I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform,’’ Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed: “A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress,” he said on Meet The Press. “For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have supported a declaration of war against Japan. I’m not going to attack Japan today.”

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., have similarly distanced themselves from Norquist.

November 26, 2012 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Republican obstruction.

Thank goodness elections have consequences."

you are deluded, if you think Republicans are the problem

the mandate from the people was not a resounding huzzah for progressive liberalism or class warfare

the voters want our government to unite and move the country forward

Republicans are making an attempt but not so Democrats

ultimately, our problems will be served when the wealthy pay more

they have always carried an ungrateful nation and will always have to

but the real key to revenue growth is to create an economy that creates more millionaires and not the expansion of governmental employment

right now, Republicans are trying to find a way to increase revenues by reducing deductions and exemptions and not increasing marginal tax rates, which just hurts the economy

last year, Obama realized this hurts the economy and he seems to now have forgotten this, conveniently

the Repubs are trying and the Dems aren't

don't think for a minute that Americans won't notice

remember the commercials where Obama said "we just have to ask the wealthy to pay a little more"

he was lying

and he doesn't want a little

he wants a lot

Repubs are suggesting 800 billion, the largest tax increase in history and Obama wangts twice that

and he doesn't want to ask either, he wants to take by government fiat

this all on top of several new taxes on the wealthy already passed to cover Obamacare

November 26, 2012 6:17 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

[Re November 23, 2012 10:15 AM]

Sociopathanon: “that's sad, improv … meet a girl, start a family … it'll give you something better to do on Thanksgiving than spread hatred and division”

Anon: “Look who thinks stating a few facts about the tea party is spreading hatred and division.”

Sociopathanon: “the hatred is the obsession with finding minor statements to argue about”
--
Obsessions aren’t “found,” they’re sought. If you don’t want your obsessions to be found and exposed, stop flooding our laps with them.

The disconnect between the Tea Party Republican “[orgasmic] dream of removing President Obama from office” and the Republican Party Platform’s position on the Electoral College Process that got him there is not only fundamental, but objectively empirical -- not “minor.”

If you and yours are unified in your unawareness of your disagreement with the legitimacy of the United State’s Constitutional mandate to determine who is to uphold it, then that is one grand chasm that I cannot "argumentatively" deepen or widen. External projection of internal fracture is your department -- individually and tea-party-wise-collectively.

There’s this thing that we commie pinko liberals like to do called mental-inventory. If you weren’t certain that your worldview was the definition of ass-backwards you wouldn’t be terrified of it.

-Emproph

November 26, 2012 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

improv here demonstrates a level of dementia only a psychologist could truly appreciate

the country's moving on, imp

Obama has learned he has to compromise with Republicans, now that Americans have re-affirmed their 2010 decision to give Repubs control of anything Obama wants to do

the Constitution, by the by, does not require electors to vote any way

they are elected by states to represent the states' vote but they are free to break their promises, just like Obama has done so many times

and, in our free speech society, anyone is free to encourage them to do so

take a big leap forward, imp, and accept reality

and, for heaven's sake, take your meds, if you got 'em

November 27, 2012 6:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, of the Simpson-Bowles commission, essentially called for anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist to slip and fall in the tub.

Norquist has said he wants a government small enough that it can drown in the bathtub.

Said Simpson:

“So how do you deal with someone who comes to stop government? … Grover wandering the earth in his white robe saying he wants to drown government in the bathtub. I hope he slips in there with it.”

November 27, 2012 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liberal mentality is always to demonize someone

this week, it's Grover Norquist

the Karl Rove hate fest as getting dull

why can't liberal socialists just exude joy at finding a couple of Repubs stupid enough to back tax increases without attacking someone?

why don't said Repubs stop talkign about Norquist as if he forced them into anything?

Norquist has been a welcome source of restraint

but his only power was that he was backed by the american people

funny how liberals howled about Bush's tax cuts

now, Obama is traveling country arguing that most of the Bush cuts should be extended

just like a couple of years ago when Oabam said we couldn't reverse the Bush tax cuts during a bad economy and now thinks we can

he's a liar

he said before the election, the wealthy need to pay "just a little more" and now he's going for a major heist

November 27, 2012 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Only the house can initiate budget bills. It's more accurate (i.e. less deceptive) to say that the Senate hasn't approved any budget that the Republican-controlled house has proposed.

November 28, 2012 5:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so you think "approve" is a more precise term than "pass"?

OK, thanks for sharing, Robo

now, go do some Christmas shopping and get this economy moving

November 28, 2012 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They learned nothing from their drubbing.

House GOP Committee Chairs Will All Be White Men In Next Congress

November 28, 2012 7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Presidents Reagan and Obama agree: No loopholes for millionaires

November 28, 2012 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They learned nothing from their drubbing."

uh, they didn't get "drubbed"

they won enough seats in the House to win control of the laws of the land...AGAIN!!

they did lose the Presidency by a narrow margin but the President did a whole heap of lying to get re-elected

"House GOP Committee Chairs Will All Be White Men In Next Congress"

this is a little unfair

committee chairmanship is assigned by seniority and most Repubs are guys that have been around a long time because their constituents really like them

those constituents chose them, not the Repub leadership

Dem Congressmen don't have a long shelf-life, they are all newer because the voters generally throw them out preeeeety quickly

eventually, there will be more minority and female Repub legislators in senior positions

its just a slower process because Repubs are much more competent and tend to have longer careers

despite the racist assumptions of liberals, not all minorities and women are socialists

btw, state governments are brimming with minority and women Repub leaders

many will run for Prez in 2016 and one will likely win

"Presidents Reagan and Obama agree: No loopholes for millionaires"

actually, you idiot, if you recall, Romney was in favor of closing loopholes for millionaires just like Reagan was

the difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan used the savings to reduce marginal rates and set off an economic revival in America that lasted a quarter century whereas Obama would like to raise marginal rates and add further damage to our economy still hobbled by his hyper-regulation, massive deficits and looming Obamacare

here's a history lesson for you:

our top rate was 90% until JFK, who reduced it to 70% and set off a boom in the mid-60s

Reagan reduced it from 70% to 28% and set off phenomenal growth which became a model for governments worldwide

it's true that Clinton raised it back to 39% and the economy boomed but he did that by deregulating financial and other industries, and Obama has undone Clinton's work

Bush Jr came along and dropped rates again, setting off a torrent of revenue and low unemployment until Americans, weary of Iraq, unwisley gave Congress back to the Dems in 2006

our economy hasn't been healthy since

November 28, 2012 9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so as I run the numbers this past Thanksgiving I came to the conclusion that either my husband or I should quit.

Right now we pay 70K in federal taxes on approximately 320K in income, or about 22%, By the time you add in FICA and medicare and state/local taxes, that number rises to 43% right now. that doesn't include property tax, or sales tax.

If the bush tax cuts expire on the under 208,333 bracket (33%) and with it the marriage penalty adjustment, our income tax rises by about 15K. In which case we are now paying 85K in federal taxes, and it becomes unsustainable for the second person to continue working ...alternatively if one of us quits we pay 20K in federal taxes as opposed to 70K in federal taxes.

Who do you think the folks are that are in this bracket ? do you think we got here because we are stupid ? do you think we will blindly accept tax hikes without major changes on our part ?

I am working to put my kids through college... If I can't keep a reasonable portion of the second 140K salary, and at the same time am disqualifying my children from any govt loans because of my second income salary ... what am I doing this for ? One of us should quit ! It certainly would make life less stressful.....

I am angry enough to work on a website publishing the numbers.

200K with two folks working at 100K each mom works for 30K and YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S progressive enough ? Really ? what else would you like to do to convice mom to quit working, you are well on your way....


I was quite depressed after the election thinking that I was on my own in this opinion, but as I continue in my day to day work life where I speak with women in similar tax situations, and at a similar point in their careers, they are ALL having discussion with their spouses about whether one of the spouses should simply retire early.... because it makes no sense to continue working in this enviroment. I am a govt subcontractor, and the discussion around the watercooler at all the primes is which spouse should quit.... (where you have a large percentage of engineering majors who have worked at these firms their entire careers)...

and here are the numbers...

If you are successful in getting the 250K+ folks to pay increased taxes you raise 82 billion.

If you are successful in convincing 1/2 of the over 250K crowd to exit the work force early,given that 73% of them are only in that bracket because both parents work, you lose 400 billion a year.

I am one of them. I am quitting. I will not work to give 90% of my salary to those who refuse to work.

this educated double major engineer with management experience is saying FU.

figure out how to get the money from someone else and have a great day.....

and by the way, this is a common water cooler conversation at the major defense contractors where LOTS of folks are only making these salarys because two people continue to work...and if one of them quits they all of a sudden exit this bracket...

as a professional female in this bracket and in sales, in discussion with lots of folks in my situation I have been encouraging these conversations... I am in sales, it is kind of my job...

anyway. If only 1/2 of this in the bracket decide to exit because the taxes are so oppressive (and I am ONE OF THEM DEFINITELY QUITTING) then the govt loses 400 billlion a year in revenue.


COMMENTS IDIOTS ?


becuase the rest of us are done supporting you....

November 28, 2012 10:08 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“anyway. If only 1/2 of this in the bracket decide to exit because the taxes are so oppressive (and I am ONE OF THEM DEFINITELY QUITTING) then the govt loses 400 billlion (sic) a year in revenue.


COMMENTS IDIOTS ?


becuase (sic) the rest of us are done supporting you....”


But wait a minute here…


“I am a govt subcontractor, and the discussion around the watercooler (sic) at all the primes is which spouse should quit....”

<<>>

You are a government sub-contractor and you are quitting… so MY taxes are done supporting YOU.

Now the government is now longer taking my hard-earned money working at a private company for commercial business and paying you WAY more than you’re worth. There will be no net tax loss because the taxes you were paying on came from other peoples’ taxes. The government can now keep all of it rather than giving most of it to you.

How do I stop myself from asking the obvious question:

“Comments Moron?”




BTW, I’m done supporting you.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 29, 2012 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My marginal tax rate is 43% also.

You've made an argument for avoiding the fiscal cliff. I suggest you send it to John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

November 29, 2012 8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the fiscal cliff can easily be avoided

extend the Bush tax cuts, freeze spending

wala!!

the status quo, no over the cliff

something like that is likely to happen for the next year anyway, why tie it to long-range deficit reduction?

then, negotiate after year-end abou that

no reason to screw the economy up anymore now

the debt isn't going anywhere

November 29, 2012 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You've made an argument for avoiding the fiscal cliff. I suggest you send it to John Boehner and Eric Cantor."

why?

they've already responded to the mandate of the American people to compromise and unite the country

they've offered to raise taxes on the wealthy if it can be achieved without harming the economy by raising marginal rates

honestly, Republicans have many other ideas for balancing the budget at the expense of the rich, such as capping Medicare benefits and Social Security over certain income levels but the Dems would rather expand government than contract it

and Obama has not responded to the mandate of the American people to compromise and unite the country

instead of negotiating, he's currently divisively campaigning across the country trying to argue for support for not making any compromises at all

he's the worst President we've ever had

November 29, 2012 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why don't said Repubs stop talkign [sic] about Norquist as if he forced them into anything?

Norquist has been a welcome source of restraint"

Welcomed by who? The top 1% of earners, that's who.

Norquist works to ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. That's not restraint, that's greed.

Grover Norquist's Budget Is Largely Financed by Just Two Billionaire-Backed Nonprofits

"Grover Norquist’s iron grip over much of the Republican Party is somewhat puzzling. Why should Senators and other lawmakers listen to a guy caught laundering money for Jack Abramoff?

But consider Norquist’s tax pledge and political power another way: that he’s just a proxy for the powerful interest groups that finance him. In the nineties, it was big tobacco that used Norquist’s tax pledge as a cover to lobby lawmakers against cigarette taxes (Norquist still uses an e-mail system donated to him by Altria to send out Tea Party action alerts against tobacco taxes). Now, big PhRMA and other industry groups provide grants to Norquist while his foundation endorses other giveaways, like protectionist support against importing cheaper drugs from Canada and the classification of tax subsidies to refineries as “tax cuts” that must not be cut.

I took a look at the last available budget numbers for Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist’s group. Though they do not reveal their donors, we can cobble together much of Norquist’s donors using foundations and other nonprofits that donate money to him.

The disclosures show that only two billionaire-backed groups have provided over 66 percent of Norquist’s funding:

• The Center to Protect Patients Rights donated $4,189,000 to Americans for Tax Reform in 2010, 34 percent of the group’s budget that year.

• Crossroads GPS donated $4,000,000 to Americans for Tax Reform in 2010, 32.46 percent of the group’s budget that year."

November 29, 2012 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Center to Protect Patients Rights is the foundation used by the billionaire clique led by the Koch brothers to distribute grants to allied groups. In 2010, wealthy moguls like Steve Bechtel of Bechtel Corporation and Steve Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group met behind closed doors to help lend money to these types of efforts.

Crossroads GPS is the undisclosed group run by Karl Rove. The only known donors are folks like Paul Singer, the “vulture” hedge fund king who benefits enormously from tax strategies like the carried interest loophole. Norquist’s pledge largely benefits billionaires like Singer and Schwarzman, who pay almost nothing in payroll taxes and likely pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

When Norquist promises consequences for the few GOP members willing to break with his pledge, what he’s really saying is that his donor network will retaliate with attack ads and money for primary challenges.

So as our country descends into a position where now 1 percent of society owns more than one-third of the wealth, it should be no surprise that the guy preventing any equitable tax system is fully financed by the privileged few at the top."

November 29, 2012 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Norquist favors not raising taxes on anyone

of course that tends to help the rich but that's just because they pay the vast majority of the tax already

keeping a restraint on government spending helps everyone

November 29, 2012 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The share of the nation's wealth held by the less affluent half of American households dropped precipitously after the financial crisis, to 1.1 percent, according to new calculations by Congress's nonpartisan research service.

Fifty percent of Americans earn 1.1% of all US income.

By contrast, the share of total net worth held by the weathiest 1 percent of American households continued rising, hitting 34.5 percent in 2010. The top 10 percent's share was 74.5 percent.

That leaves 25.5% of all earnings to be split among 90% of Americans.

The bottom half's share of wealth has declined since it reached a high of 3.6 percent in 1995. But the most dramatic drop occurred after 2007, according to the analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s latest Survey of Consumer Finances.

Another staggering indicator of the concentration of wealth at the top in the U.S: When all household wealth is divided by the number of households, the mean household net worth in 2010 totals $498,800. But the median household net worth -- the level at which half the households have more and half have less -- was $77,300, meaning that the rich have so much that the average net worth in the U.S. is actually 6.5 times that of a typical American family.

The rich can easily return to the Clinton era tax rates and will not even notice and change in their finances.

The study found that the share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of households grew from 1989 to 2010. In every other segment of the remaining 90 percent of households -- i.e. the middle and lower class -- that share went down.

The study cites a recent Federal Reserve Bulletin article's conclusion that "a broad collapse in house prices” was the main reason for the changes between 2007 and 2010. The decline in the stock market "played a considerable but lesser role" in part because stock prices, unlike home prices, have broadly recovered.

The report makes it clear that there is cause for alarm. "Inequality is the term commonly applied to the concentration of total net worth among the relatively few households at the top of the wealth distribution," it states.

November 29, 2012 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we tax people to raise funds for common expense

not to assure that assets are equitably distributed

people that are more productive and whose type productivity is sought after will make more money

get over it

you're right that the rich could afford to pay as much as they did during Clinton's term but raising marginal tax rates is the wrong way to go about it

it will cause a recession

Clinton got away with it by elimnating excessive regulation and causing a boom in investment

Obama could theoretically do the same but is intrinsically disordered

thus far, he has done tremendous damage to our economy with regulations and threats of more

but there is hope

word out tonight is that he has caved and will go along with the extension of the Bush tax cuts for ALL Americans, even our most productive citizens

give him credit

he knows when to choke

November 29, 2012 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did your crystal ball tell you that?

You need to remember the President won reelection, and there will be more Democrats in both houses of Congress starting in January.

The GOP brand is dying a little more each election.

Can This Party Be Saved?

We Republicans cherish the free market. So now might be the right time to start listening to it. Our party has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. That is 20 years of “no, thanks” from the American people. Only basketball’s Washington Generals, who are paid to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters, can exceed that losing record, and by only four years (1971–95).

The worst error politicians can make is to spin themselves. It’s time for the GOP to face the hard truth, no matter how painful. The Republican brand is dying, many of our strategists are incompetent, and we still design campaigns to prevail in the America of 25 years ago.

Identifying the problem is easy. The Republican challenge is not about better voter-turnout software; it is about policy. We repel Latinos, the fastest-growing voter group in the country, with our nativist opposition to immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship. We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues. And we have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues.

A debate will now rage inside the GOP between the purists, who will as always call for more purity, and the pragmatists, who will demand modernization. The media, always culturally alien to intra-Republican struggles, will badly mislabel this contest as one between “moderate” and “right-wing” Republicans. In fact, the epic battle we Republicans face now is a choice between two definitions of conservatism.

One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.

November 29, 2012 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The battle lines are already drawn. While the electoral arithmetic is obvious, teaching basic math to a political party is no simple matter. The lesson usually requires the heavy hammer of multiple crushing and painful election defeats. Whether the GOP has learned its lesson yet is the big question. The party’s biggest funders, mostly hardheaded business types, are in shock and high dudgeon after providing a virtual blank check to a GOP apparatus that promised much and delivered very little. Among this group, there is much frustration with the party’s perceived focus on divisive social issues and even some dark talk of a donor strike.

But in the precincts of movement and social conservatives, an opposite battle cry is sounding. In late November, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, whose tireless work to recruit unelectable GOP candidates in 2010 did more to help keep Harry Reid Senate majority leader than the work of any single Democrat, lobbed one of the first grenades. He denounced newly announced Republican Senate candidate Representative Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia as being ideologically unacceptable, despite the fact that Capito narrowly leads Democratic incumbent Jay Rockefeller in a poll of the prospective race.

Which points to another, often ignored, GOP weakness: Republicans tend to be more competitive in off-year elections, when voter turnout is far lower than in presidential years and the electorate is therefore older, whiter and more Republican. It is possible for the GOP to do well in 2014, especially because so many vulnerable Democratic Senators in GOP-leaning states face re-election. But like the Republican off-year successes of 2010, a few non-presidential-year victories, while welcome, would also provide the GOP with a highly misleading dead-cat bounce. The electorate in 2016 will look much like the electorate this year, albeit even more Hispanic and more challenging for the GOP. And the overall demographic trends that are burying the current Republican coalition will only become stronger with time.

How will this epic battle end? The struggles of the Democratic Party in its wilderness years from 1968 to 1992 provide two possible answers. Will the GOP, like the Democrats of 1992, find a path to pivot toward electability and the actual governing power that goes with it? Or will today’s Republicans act like the Democrats of 1972, who reacted to the defeat of Establishment favorite Hubert Humphrey in 1968 by nominating George McGovern, a purist candidate from its far left?

Senator DeMint, call your office. We Republicans might have to endure one more brutal lesson before we master America’s new political math. I hope not.

November 29, 2012 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must be so proud -- Romney finally made it inside the White House today!

November 29, 2012 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we have decided . rates go up one of us is quitting, it's official.

one of the other moms I was talking to got laid off today, she is not going to attempt to find another job.

Looks like it would be a 12K hit for us, which would be bring up up to 82K in federal taxes only, if one of us quits our fed tax bill goes down to 20K.

you got your wish, we are exiting the top bracket.

November 29, 2012 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"word out tonight is that he has caved and will go along with the extension of the Bush tax cuts for ALL Americans, even our most productive citizens"

Ah, no. Obama will not extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

Elections have consequences.

If the House GOP won't give the majority of voters the end to the top 2%'s Bush tax cuts, we'll all go over the fiscal curb together.

White House: No debt deal unless tax rates on top earners go up

"we are exiting the top bracket" by choice.

Whining and money can't buy you love.

November 29, 2012 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE STUPID STORIES TTFERS KEEP POSTING ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HOPELESS ARE BOTH BORING AND IGNORANT.

OBAMA DIDN'T WIN BY ANY GREAT ACCLAMATION. THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WON THE SUPPORT OF AN ENORMOUS CHUNK OF THE ELECTORATE.

SINCE HARRY TRUMAN LEFT OFFICE, THE PRESIDENCY HAS CHANGED EITHER EVERY ELECTION OR EVERY OTHER ELECTION, EXCEPT WHEN H.W. BUSH RODE THE COAT TAILS OF ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS EVER. HARD TO BELIEVE OBAMA, WHO LOST VOTES COMPARED TO THE FIRST ELECTION WILL CHANGE THAT.

"Our party has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections."

BIG DEAL. YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THIS IN THE SECOND TERM. WHEN GEORGE W WON HIS SECOND TERM, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD SAY REPUBS HAD WON SEVEN OF THE LAST TEN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

"Will the GOP, like the Democrats of 1992, find a path to pivot toward electability and the actual governing power that goes with it?"

ACTUALLY, THEY DIDN'T FIND IT UNTIL 1994 WHEN CLINTON GOT KILLED IN THE MIDTERM ELECTION BECAUSE OF HILLARY'S NATIONAL HEALTH CARE FIASCO. HIS "PATH TO ELECTABILITY" WAS TO DO WHATEVER NEWT GINGRICH TOLD HIM TO DO.

November 29, 2012 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Elections have consequences"

yes they do

that's why Obama can't dictate his terms

his party didn't win the house of Reps, which actually passes laws

"If the House GOP won't give the majority of voters the end to the top 2%'s Bush tax cuts, we'll all go over the fiscal curb together."

in which case, the House will quickly pass across-the-board tax cuts, which Obama can veto if he'd like to demonstrate he cares nothing about the midle class

"White House: No debt deal unless tax rates on top earners go up"

haha!

the cracks are already forming

""we are exiting the top bracket" by choice.

Whining and money can't buy you love."

well, as is seen, raising taxes can't get you more money

if it's not worth it to work, people won't

and the deficit just gets bigger

November 29, 2012 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good, Anon, yelling is so much more convincing. You are really winning hearts and minds here.

And by the way, that hopey changey thing? It is very cool.

November 29, 2012 9:14 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Theresa: “I was quite depressed after the election thinking that I was on my own in this opinion, but as I continue in my day to day work life where I speak with women in similar tax situations, and at a similar point in their careers, they are ALL having discussion with their spouses about whether one of the spouses should simply retire early.... because it makes no sense to continue working in this enviroment. I am a govt subcontractor, and the discussion around the watercooler at all the primes is which spouse should quit.... (where you have a large percentage of engineering majors who have worked at these firms their entire careers)…”

I’ve got it! Just get a divorce and then get civil unioned or domestic partnershipped. I hear that they have absolutely ALL the benefits of marriage except for that cursed joint tax filing thingie.

November 30, 2012 3:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"THE STUPID STORIES TTFERS KEEP POSTING ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HOPELESS ARE BOTH BORING AND IGNORANT."

Yo! Screamer! Do you know who wrote "Can This Party Be Saved?" It is one of your own, a GOP political consultant.

Michael Ellis "Mike" Murphy (born 1962) is a Republican political consultant.[1] He has advised such nationally prominent Republicans as John McCain, Rick Lazio, Jeb Bush, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Christie Whitman, Lamar Alexander, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.[1][2] He was, until January 2006, an adviser to Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachusetts and an about-to-become candidate for the Republican presidential nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[3] He stepped down as a result of his role as chief strategist to Governor Romney as well as Senator McCain, who were both widely expected to be Republican challengers in the primaries of the 2008 Presidential election. Murphy said he had decided to be neutral in a contest between two close clients, although he would advise each informally

November 30, 2012 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An opinion released Thursday by the Maryland attorney general’s office said that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses as soon as Gov. Martin O’Malley “formally proclaims” the results of the November election, which he is expected to do on or about Dec. 6.

The law, and therefore the licenses, will not be effective until Jan. 1.

Attorney General Douglas Gansler answered other questions about the implementation of Maryland's same-sex marriage law in a 19-page opinion.

Gansler and Chief Counsel Adam Snyder found that postdating the licenses’ effective date doesn’t impose an unconstitutional waiting period on same-sex couples because it’s the ceremony, not the license, that validates the marriage.

The attorney general’s opinion came in response to questions from circuit court clerks from around the state in the wake of voter approval of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was passed by the legislature during this year’s session, but opponents petitioned the law to a referendum.

Voters also approved same-sex marriage in Maine and Washington, and rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia also issue same-sex marriage licenses.

The opinion left the wording of same-sex marriage vows, including the traditional “man and wife” pronouncement, to the discretion of the administrative judge. It recommended, however, that judges defer to the couples themselves as to how they will be referenced in their vows.

The opinion also addressed the gray area created by civil unions –– especially those performed in states that grant all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Vanessa Bowling with Equality Maryland -- a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization -- said the group has been receiving a lot of questions about out-of-state and out-of-country marriage licenses.

Even if one or both parties is engaged in a civil union in another state, with each other or a different person, a license can still be issued in Maryland, said Alan Brody, deputy communications director for the attorney general’s office.

While the courts may rule differently later, the opinion deals solely with the issue of licensing.

November 30, 2012 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good, Anon, yelling is so much more convincing. You are really winning hearts and minds here."

TTFers have neither to win. My new policy is to type all caps whenever responding to the moron that posts all bold.

I'll stop when they do. It's a grand bargain.

"I hear that they have absolutely ALL the benefits of marriage except for that cursed joint tax filing thingie."

that, improv

just loves to use the term "thingie"

"Yo! Screamer! Do you know who wrote "Can This Party Be Saved?" It is one of your own, a GOP political consultant.

Michael Ellis "Mike" Murphy (born 1962) is a Republican political consultant.[1] He has advised such nationally prominent Republicans as John McCain, Rick Lazio, Jeb Bush, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Christie Whitman, Lamar Alexander, and Arnold Schwarzenegger."

actually, I'm not a Republican

I'm a registered Dem but will support whatever side with a reasonable chance of success comes closest to promoting liberty and protection of the defenseless

most of those moderates you just cited don't qualify

"An opinion released Thursday by the Maryland attorney general’s office said that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses as soon as Gov. Martin O’Malley “formally proclaims” the results of the November election, which he is expected to do on or about Dec. 6.

The law, and therefore the licenses, will not be effective until Jan. 1.

Attorney General Douglas Gansler answered other questions about the implementation of Maryland's same-sex marriage law in a 19-page opinion.

Gansler and Chief Counsel Adam Snyder found that postdating the licenses’ effective date doesn’t impose an unconstitutional waiting period on same-sex couples because it’s the ceremony, not the license, that validates the marriage.

The attorney general’s opinion came in response to questions from circuit court clerks from around the state in the wake of voter approval of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was passed by the legislature during this year’s session, but opponents petitioned the law to a referendum.

Voters also approved same-sex marriage in Maine and Washington, and rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia also issue same-sex marriage licenses.

The opinion left the wording of same-sex marriage vows, including the traditional “man and wife” pronouncement, to the discretion of the administrative judge. It recommended, however, that judges defer to the couples themselves as to how they will be referenced in their vows.

The opinion also addressed the gray area created by civil unions –– especially those performed in states that grant all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Vanessa Bowling with Equality Maryland -- a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization -- said the group has been receiving a lot of questions about out-of-state and out-of-country marriage licenses.

Even if one or both parties is engaged in a civil union in another state, with each other or a different person, a license can still be issued in Maryland, said Alan Brody, deputy communications director for the attorney general’s office.

While the courts may rule differently later, the opinion deals solely with the issue of licensing."

BOOORING!

November 30, 2012 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody forces you to come here and be bored. How's your "website publishing the numbers" working out for ya?

"TTFers have neither to win. My new policy is to type all caps whenever responding to the moron that posts all bold."

My comment immediately above was in bold. Oops! I guess you missed that one!

Scream all you want, poor little rich girl whose pick for President -- the RR team that intended to continue handing out "US government gifts" to the top 2% while putting more burden on the 98% -- didn't win the Presidency.

Big fat tax cuts for big fat cats will come to an end on Jan 1. The only question is will GOP obstruction in the House make sure the middle class lose their Bush tax cuts too by failing to compromise yet again?

GOP Reps are hearing from their own middle class constituents who are asking them, "Why in the world are you holding up #My2K -- continued middle class tax relief -- in order to continue to give more deficit producing tax cuts to the top 2% who do not need them?"

New Poll:

"Sixty percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000 a year, long a popular option overall, but also a divisive one: While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree."


See PDF with full results and charts here.

November 30, 2012 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so there are several (I think at least 3) anons posting here...


I am planning on getting my site up this weekend, for now I am still working. The govt hasn't made any changes yet so we are waiting to see what they do....

I think if most Americans actually went through the trouble of understanding how progressive the tax code is, you would not see the same numbers on polls.

Most folks are appalled to learn that the govt takes 70% of the second salary in a dual earner situation... and it doesn't really matter which party they belong too...

so I am going to attempt to make it clear to all, via publishing the numbers and raising the debate to a higher playing field than slinging insults like "poor little rich girl".

one, I am not rich and two, everything I have my husband and I worked for, our entire lives, and paying an enormous amount of taxes which supported several other families who did not choose to work in the meantime.

this is not raising the debate to a higher level, but
have you seen this video ? it's really quite funny....

http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=wiIkAyFDj5Q

November 30, 2012 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

also, the other subcontracts manager I was talking to this morning actually paid an accountant to figure out to the penny what their take home pay would be if she quits.....

they would also be exiting the top bracket, they have an accountant do a full analysis prior to the election.

In France, they went from 10,000 millionaires to like 3,000 millionaires, they all left.

Be careful what you wish for....

November 30, 2012 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think if most Americans actually went through the trouble of understanding how progressive the tax code is, you would not see the same numbers on polls.

Most folks are appalled to learn that the govt takes 70% of the second salary in a dual earner situation... and it doesn't really matter which party they belong too..."

Think whatever you want but be sure to show all the numbers -- both salaries -- with yours taxed at 70% and your spouse's higher salary not taxed a single penny.

Unless of course that's too much honesty for you and not enough spin.

November 30, 2012 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was going to show the difference in tax home pay. that's all that really matters anyway.

two people working, each at 100K, you keep 30K of the second salary ... over making the choice to have one parent work and one parent stay home. those are the tax differences, not even counting the extra expenses ... you have to then cover childcare and probably need two cars and work clothes.

the numbers are appalling, I don't have to do anything to embellish them.

November 30, 2012 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OUR LOUDMOUTH BOLDER JUST DOESN'T GET IT

MARGINAL RATES AFFECT OUR NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY DIRECTLY

LIVING WITH AN ENVIOUS MINDSET AND TRYING TO HURT THOSE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN YOURSELF, JUST HURTS YOU

TRY ASPIRING TO SOMETHING

YOU'LL BE BETTER OFF THAN IF OBAMA STEALS SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY AND GIVES IT TO YOU

IF OBAMA GETS HIS WAY, OUR ECONOMY MAY NOT RECOVER FOR A DECADE

November 30, 2012 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am kind of losing track of all these anons here, though two of them seem to be the same person.

I don't know much about how taxes work, I have an accountant do all that stuff, I just go off on the Metro every day and work. But wow, keeping only $30k out of a $100k income, that is bad, that's like a 70 percent tax! No wonder you're mad.

And I assume the other income is taxed at seventy percent too? Or, is it like the other anon said, the higher income is not taxed, and the average tax on the two incomes is less than thirty five percent?

November 30, 2012 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"IF OBAMA GETS HIS WAY, OUR ECONOMY MAY NOT RECOVER FOR A DECADE"

Stupid screaming GOPer!

Bush had his way and our economy may not recover for another decade.

November 30, 2012 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your video is juvenile.

Here. Watch this video and maybe you can learn to BOLD your text too. It might come in handy at your website.

How to underline, bold, and italicize text with html

You're welcome!

November 30, 2012 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


short answer, the difference is between the take home pay after all the taxes on 100K versus the tax home pay after all the taxes on 200K.

includes medicare, ss, state/local (iterated to be correct) and federal.


so high because you lose child tax credit/eic credit and hit AMT. even if you don't have child tax credit, older tax payers lose deductibility of tuition... numbers end up about the same.

did not include deductions besides state/local states, did itemize them. will run more scenarios this weekend, and I ran these numbers a while back. also did not compare a 1040 ez with a simple 1040 with state/local deductions.

however, 100K with no deductions is probably about equivalent to 150K with deduction.

November 30, 2012 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bush had his way and our economy may not recover for another decade."

WE WERE ALL FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR MOST OF BUSH'S TWO TERMS

HE ALSO HAD LOW DEFICITS COMPARED TO BARACKY

THE TIMING, JUST BEFORE HIS RE-ELECTION WAS BAD OR THE ECONOMY WOULD STRAIGHTENED OUT BY NOW

THE PROBLEM THAT OCCURRED HAPPENED MAINLY BECAUSE DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS IN 2006 AND STARTED MONKEYING AROUND WITH THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE

RIGHT NOW,OBAMA WANTS TO IMMORTALIZE STIMULUS LEVEL SPENDING THAT WAS TO BE TEMPORARY AND RAISE TAXES AND REGULATORY ACTIVITY DURING A WEAK ECONOMY, INSURING HE'LL BE IN THE HISTORY CHAPTER WITH HERBERT HOOVER AND SONGS THAT MADE THE HIT PARADE!!!

November 30, 2012 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're at work today, 30% pay is about right considering all the time you've spent posting comments here today and talking about accountants and tax schemes with coworkers instead of working.

November 30, 2012 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE TIME WHEN HAVING A "DEBATE" WITH A TTFer IS THAT DELICIOUS MOMENT WHEN THEY REALIZE THEY HAVE NO ARGUMENT AND TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT

ALERT THE WHITE HOUSE: WE"VE DISCUSSED THE MATTER HERE AND ITS OFFICIAL THAT HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATES HURT THE ECONOMY AND, THUS, ALL AMERICANS

YOU TTFers ARE ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH!!!

December 01, 2012 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

KAMPALA, Uganda — The Ugandan lawmaker who originally authored an anti-gay bill proposing death for some homosexual acts said Friday that a new version of the proposed legislation doesn’t contain the death penalty.

Parliamentarian David Bahati said the bill, which is expected to be voted on next month, had “moved away from the death penalty after considering all the issues that have been raised.”

“There is no death penalty,” he told The Associated Press.

Bahati said the bill now focuses on protecting children from gay pornography, banning gay marriage, counseling gays, as well as punishing those who promote gay culture. Jail terms are prescribed for various offenses, he said, offering no details. The most recent version of the bill hasn’t been publicly released.

In 2009, when Bahati first introduced the bill, he charged that homosexuals threatened family values in Uganda and that gays from the West were recruiting poor Ugandan children into gay lifestyles with promises of money and a better life. He said a tough new law was needed because a colonial-era law against sodomy was not strong enough.

December 01, 2012 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WE WERE ALL FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR MOST OF BUSH'S TWO TERMS"

Until Bush's last year in office, that's true but as the data clearly shows, employment was falling off by huge numbers during the final year of the Bush Administration. Compared to Bush's last month in office, employment has been increasing pretty steadily ever since. Another stimulus would really help get people back to work and revenues coming in to pay off the debts incurred for Bush's unfunded tax cuts, Medicare expansion to include the donut hole for seniors, and a couple of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember Bush's last year in office, 2008, when McCain ran for President. The GOP's presidential candidate, McCain called U.S. economy 'fundamentally sound' on same day Lehman Brothers declared bankrupt.

GOPers appear to be blind to the facts!


"ITS OFFICIAL THAT HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATES HURT THE ECONOMY"

Official to who? Your favorite Heritage Foundation spinners?

Sorry Charlie, but the CBO officially stated in August 2012:

"Under the alternative fiscal scenario [read: reversing the sequester and keeping all Bush tax rates], deficits over the 2014–2022 period would be much higher than those projected in CBO’s baseline, averaging about 5 percent of GDP rather than 1 percent. Revenues would remain below 19 percent of GDP throughout that period, and outlays would rise to more than 24 percent. Debt held by the public would climb to 90 percent of GDP by 2022—higher than at any time since shortly after World War II."

What's official is that continuing the Bush tax cuts at the top would continue to harm the economy.


"YOU TTFers ARE ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH!!!"

Un huh. Except when we're "BOOORING!" the "I MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY!!" screamer. You liked the tax cuts you've been enjoying for years but now that it's your time to pay your fair share, you want to quit working.

A true patriot would ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

December 01, 2012 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Teachable Moment for the GOP
Ben Domenech


Uber-consultant Mike Murphy believes that the way forward for the Republican Party is to ditch conservatism, particularly its social variety; stop doing campaigns the way they were done 25 years ago; and push back against the Jim DeMints of the world, who recruit “unelectable” candidates.

This is a teachable moment for the GOP, and I’m glad Murphy is publicly making this argument, given that it is a good encapsulation of the message he’s been advancing for a quarter century or so. It provides an opportunity for Republicans to decide who really represents the anachronism in the room and to engage in some creative destruction likely necessary to adapt to the future.

And for this case, Murphy is an ideal spokesman. He is a millionaire thanks in large part to the ad sale commissions from countless campaigns. He represents a way of campaigning based on massive air wars, top down direction driven by ad men consultants, the time when you dominated the three television channels and controlled the narrative from on high … all methods which have proven particularly irrelevant to electoral results in the internet era. You can practically taste the longing of John Weaver for all the ads he could’ve done for a Huntsman general – let a million desert motocross heli shots bloom.

What’s really out of date here – conservative ideas and ground-up grassroots activism, or the rich guy paired with genius consultant, advertising carpet-bomb, write off the electorate as idiots approach? I am increasingly of the view that these two approaches cannot both survive as a house divided – pick one, and send it out hunting with Dick Cheney.

As for Murphy’s social issues argument: as I’ve pointed out before, Mitt Romney won white voters under 30, even winning white women under 30. The youth voter barrier to the Republican Party is really the same barrier as it is for all age demographics: an ethnic barrier which concedes black, Hispanic, and Asian voters to Democrats. If abortion and gay marriage really are the decisive issues preventing Republicans from winning those voters, why aren’t they rated higher in the polling data among those voters? Is Murphy basing his argument on data, or on the same cultural biases he’s been peddling for a decade or more? And if it’s the latter, what approach is more adaptable to the future: DeMint and his unelectable social conservative recruits like Marco Rubio, or Murphy and his social liberal recruits, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Though of course, I’d have to concede Schwarzenegger understands outreach to Hispanics.

December 01, 2012 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please, since when is 70% of the second salaray not a fair share ?

the top 10% pay 70% of the nations tax bill, how is that NOT a "fair share". and 43% overall ? you think it should be HIGHER ?

A fair share would be a flat tax...

December 01, 2012 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I missed it. The tax on one income is 70%, what is the tax on the other income again? The percent of the summed incomes paid into IRS is your actual tax rate. If they are both taxed at 70% then your tax rate will be 70%, but you seem to be careful to say that only one of your two family incomes is taxed at that rate. What is the other one's rate?

Somebody here says it's zero percent. If that is true, then if both incomes are the same your actual rate is 35%, and if the lower income is taxed and not the higher one then your rate is less than that. Which ain't too gosh-darn bad a price to live in the greatest country on earth.

December 01, 2012 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The comments in all caps are virtually impossible to read. All caps is what caused the fall of the Rome.

December 01, 2012 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know, Robert, I agree. But the caps will continue to be a response to the bold.

The guy that does that needs some reparative behavioral therapy.

December 01, 2012 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the overall effective tax rate on the hypothetical situation of two incomes each at 100K goes from 6% federal effective tax rate if one parents works to 18% federal effective tax rate if both parents work. That's 200K of income. The overall tax rate on the 200 is about 35% (fed, state/local, ss, medicare). The over all tax rate on the 100K was I think around 13%, I would have to go look it up again. My point was the code is outrageously progressive already. Outrageously so, and it becomes very obvious if you have a choice to live on one income or two. And before you start going off on how lucky you are to have two incomes, it wasn't luck it was sacrifice, it was determining to keep working throughout your career, even when your children were little. When you have that choice, spouses in the situation are already choosing to work knowing that they are giving close to 70% of the second income to the govt now, while the second income also disqualifies their kids from any tuition deductions/Pell Grants/Lifetime learning credits/hope learning credits you name it. So, if Obama gets what he wants and raises both the rate to 36% from 33%, and the deductibility down to 28%, that equation may become so unsustainable that the rate of tax on the second income I believe goes up to close 85%. I haven't gotten to finishing working the numbers yet because I was at a swim meet with my son this morning. Lots of folks in this two professional bracket are at the height of their careers - in their 50s like me. And perhaps their income is close to evenly distributed at 150K each. So they are just hitting one of top brackets because both parents continue to work. Folks in that bracket could very easily choose to have one parent retire early...

taxes have consequences and people make choices. If you convince even 1/2 of the moms (or dads) to retire ... and the statistic I read is true, that 77% of the folks in the 250K and above bracket are only there because both parents work, and you look at the numbers for how much revenue that bracket generates (which looks to be about 800 billion) you could potentially lose about 400 billion a year in tax revenue as opposed to the 87 billion you might raise.

folks in this bracket have kids they are trying to get through college... if you can't keep enough of the second income to cover one college tuition a year and you are disqualifying your children from loans at the same time, you are almost being counter productive in continuing to work, if you believe, as I do, that the purpose of working was to cover your kids college.

It is a simple calculation. You quit, you get rid of your twice a month maids because you can do it yourself, you cancel the gym because you will spend your days cleaning out the house and the attics and getting ready to downsize not actually all that much earlier than you were planning anyway... and you know what, life becomes a lot less stressful and the rest of your kids have to get loans for college since you will no longer be able to pay for that...

but on the flip side once you have exited the top bracket they will qualify so and I am starting to doubt anyone will ever have to pay those loans back anyway...

"Barack O'Claus is coming to town.... get your hand out, don't work stay home and play"...

on the other hand, I will also say that I completely agree that taxes on investments should go up (the Romney situation), and that hedge fund managers should be paying far more than 15%.

But the dual income earners, the earned income ... esp those that only hit that bracket (which actually starts at 208,333)... we have paying far more than our fair share all along. And there is some perverse pleasure in knowing though it will cost me some income, the govt right now takes the lion share of the second salary anyway so it really makes me feel good to tell them "up yours".

December 01, 2012 5:09 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Sociopathanon: “the caps will continue to be a response to the bold.”

‘Pathon, the whole purpose of using html code like that is to highlight noteworthiness of difference.

It’s NOT that something is highlighted, it’s about why it is.

Bolding text is one of any number of ways to show that what is being read are not the commenter’s words, but those of the article or quote. Especially apparent when the effort to hyperlink to it’s source has been taken.

I realize whole blocks of highlighting can be off-putting and sometimes down right irritating, but the intent is for the express purpose that you and I should not have to suffer the torturous indignity of that right click-through to those original words in all of their non-boldious glory.

Yet you attack the commenter and the rest of us by proxy with recently tapped obnoxiousness because you are unwilling to use your index finger.

If you're just going to be annoying out of spite then at least realize it.

P.S: thingie, thingie, THINGIE, thingie. I admit it, I do like using that word. But again, it’s not about the word, it’s about what the use of it connotes.
---
I know that you don’t care or even want any of what I just said to mean anything to you. So here’s take-away part in Tea Party Speak:

Your insults are heard even more effectively at decibel levels.
--
Same goes for you too, Theresa. Instead of in all caps, I think a simple “Comments, idiots?” would have been much more offensive.

As far as tax rates go, what motivates you more, helping us to understand your perspective in order to make the tax system fairer for all or to ensure that the system in place punishes those who abuse it?

http://youtu.be/ZKL0QB-_ho0

December 01, 2012 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not the anon who has been commenting in all caps.

Motivation ? Led by your stunningly idiotic commander in chief, you are going to cause an enormous amount of people to exit the work force ... and a resulting enormous hit to the over tax revenue the govt brings in..

don't you get where this ends ? It ends up with us being Greece.

That's where it ends.

December 02, 2012 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Evolution said...

Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia), a lawyer and LGBT activist from Philadelphia, will be the state’s first openly gay elected legislator when he takes office in the State House next month. Sims beat long-time Democratic incumbent Rep. Babette Josephs in the primary, and then ran uncontested in Tuesday’s general election. CBS Philly reports that although Sims “says he’s proud to be the first LGBT legislator to be elected in Pennsylvania,” the “distinction will not define him once he is sworn in at the beginning of January.”

While Sims holds the honor of being the first representative to run for election as openly gay, however, he will not be the first openly gay member in Pennsylvania’s legislature anymore. Rep. Mike Fleck (R–Huntingdon) earned that distinction yesterday when he came out to a local newspaper, The Huntingdon Daily News, giving a very personal account of his struggle with religion and sexual identity. ”I sought out treatment from a Christian counselor,” he said. ”When that didn’t work out, I engaged a secular therapist who told me point-blank that I was gay and that I was too caught up in being the perfect Christian rather than actually being authentic and honest.”

Like Sims, Fleck noted that his legislative focus will be broad. “I don’t see anything changing in my life, I don’t see my voting pattern changing,” Fleck said. “I just want to do my very best for the 81st District. I’m just trying to be authentic and I do owe it to my constituency to do that.”

December 02, 2012 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Progress said...

Cadet Chapel, the landmark Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday.

Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, exchanged vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony, attended by about 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn't carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

The brides both live in New Jersey and would have preferred to have the wedding there, but the state doesn't allow gay marriage.

"We just couldn't wait any longer," Fulton told The Associated Press in a phone interview Saturday.

Cadet Chapel was a more-than-adequate second choice, she said.

"It has a tremendous history, and it is beautiful. That's where I first heard and said the cadet prayer," Fulton said, referring to the invocation that says, "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won."

The ceremony was the second same-sex wedding at West Point. Last weekend, two of Fulton's friends, a young lieutenant and her partner, were married in another campus landmark, the small Old Cadet Chapel in West Point's cemetery.

Fulton has campaigned against the ban on gays in the military as a member of two groups representing gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen. She graduated from West Point in 1980, a member of the first class to include women.

She served with the Army Signal Corps in Germany and rose to the rank of captain, but left the service in 1986 partly because she wanted to be open about her sexual orientation. Obama appointed her last year to the U.S. Military Academy's Board of Visitors.

Fulton said the only hassle involved in arranging her ceremony came when she was initially told that none of West Point's chaplains was authorized by his or her denomination to perform same-sex weddings.

Luckily, Fulton said, they were able to call on a friend, Army Chaplain Col. J. Wesley Smith. He is the senior Army chaplain at Dover Air Force Base, where he presides over the solemn ceremonies held when the bodies of soldiers killed in action overseas return to U.S. soil.

The couple added other military trappings to their wedding, including a tradition called the saber arch, where officers or cadets hold their swords aloft over the newlyweds as they emerge from the church.

December 02, 2012 11:41 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Theresa Rickman: “I am not the anon who has been commenting in all caps.”

You’re not even an “anon,” Theresa. And I didn’t mean to give the impression that EVERYTHING you’ve been typing has been in caps, just the “idiots” line at the end of one of you comments.
<<>>
Patrick Fitzgerald: “As far as tax rates go, what motivates you more, helping us to understand your perspective in order to make the tax system fairer for all or to ensure that the system in place punishes those who abuse it?

Theresa Rickman: “Motivation ? …your stunningly idiotic commander in chief…”

Not a direct or even intended answer, but more telling than I think any of us could have hoped for.

Theresa Rickman: “you are going to cause an enormous amount of people to exit the work force”

At 8% unemployment, you’d be doing “an enormous amount” of families “an enormous” favor.

December 03, 2012 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Bonehead still doesn't get it said...

In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner told host Chris Wallace that it doesn’t make a difference whether new revenue in a deal to avert the fiscal cliff comes from the middle class or from the wealthiest Americans.

Boehner, who said that he was “flabbergasted” by the White House’s opening offer (despite the fact that it’s exactly what President Obama campaigned on), blasted the president as “not serious” for demanding an increase in tax rates on the wealthiest earners.

When Wallace asked if Obama has a mandate on the issue — given that raising taxes on the wealthy was arguably the central issue dividing the president and Mitt Romney in the presidential election — Boehner argued that it doesn’t matter whether new revenue comes from the wealthy or the middle class.


"Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the president wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.

Boehner is wrong on two points. First, there is no reason to believe that restoring Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over $250,000 will prevent the economy from growing; on the contrary, rate increases on the wealthy in 1992 and 1994 were followed by a tremendous economic boom. Second, it clearly matters where the revenue comes from; as Boehner and the Republicans’ own rhetoric acknowledges, the middle class needs fiscal relief — not an increased burden.

=========

President Obama’s total share of the popular vote is the second highest of any candidate since 1988—trailing only himself. And if Mitt Romney had been elected with 332 electoral votes, you don’t think the GOP would be calling that a landslide? Their pre-election predictions, many of which had him winning even fewer electoral votes, were boldly characterized as such.

December 03, 2012 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner told host Chris Wallace that it doesn’t make a difference whether new revenue in a deal to avert the fiscal cliff comes from the middle class or from the wealthiest Americans."

YOU'RE TAKING HIS WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT, A-HOLE. HE MEANT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE MONEY FROM THE WEALTHY RESULTS FROM TAX RATE INCREASES OR REDUCED DEDUCTIONS.

"Boehner, who said that he was “flabbergasted” by the White House’s opening offer (despite the fact that it’s exactly what President Obama campaigned on), blasted the president as “not serious” for demanding an increase in tax rates on the wealthiest earners."

ACTUALLY, THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF CAMPAIGNED THAT HE WANTED A "BALANCED APPROACH" AND THAT WE SHOULD ASK THE WEALTHY "TO PAY A LITTLE MORE"

HIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX INCREASE AS SPENDING REDUCTION AND 1.6 TRILLION COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED A "LITTLE MORE" BY A LIAR OR A MORON

FURTHERMORE, THREE WEEKS AFTER THE BEGINNING OF NEGOTIATIONS, REPUBS HAVE OFFERED 800 BILLION IN TAX INCREASES AND OBAMA HAS NOT ONLY OFFERRED NO CONCESSIONS BUT INCREASED HIS DEMANDS

"Boehner is wrong on two points. First, there is no reason to believe that restoring Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over $250,000 will prevent the economy from growing; on the contrary, rate increases on the wealthy in 1992 and 1994 were followed by a tremendous economic boom."

NO, BOEHNER IS RIGHT

FOUR TIMES IN OUR HISTORY, MARGINAL TAX RATES ON UPPER INCOME INDIVIDUALS WENT UP AND GOVERNMENT REVENUE INCREASED

CLINTON GOT AWAY WITH THE OPPOSITE BECAUSE HE DE-REGULATED AND ENDED WELFARE AND SHARPLY REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING

OBAMA WILL NONE OF THESE THINGS

"Second, it clearly matters where the revenue comes from; as Boehner and the Republicans’ own rhetoric acknowledges, the middle class needs fiscal relief — not an increased burden."

WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT BUT, ACTUALLY, THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL USE IT TO PAY DOWN DEBT WHILE THE WEALTHY WILL INVEST IT

"President Obama’s total share of the popular vote is the second highest of any candidate since 1988—trailing only himself."

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IF OBAMA WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, HE MUST CONVINCE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO AGREE WITH HIM AND THEY HAVE A MANDATE FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO NOT RAISE MARGINAL TAXES

THERE'S A COMPROMISE TO BE HAD BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, OBAMA FEELS HIS RE-ELECTION MAKES HIM HUGO CHAVEZ, ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE

"And if Mitt Romney had been elected with 332 electoral votes, you don’t think the GOP would be calling that a landslide?"

CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT. THE FACT REMAINS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT GIVE OBAMA THE POWER TO UNILATERALLY IMPOSE HIS AGENDA

December 03, 2012 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A growing number of Republicans in the House of Representatives — including a handful of tea party-backed conservatives — are signaling greater flexibility than their leaders to reach a fiscal cliff deal with President Barack Obama.

They are not buckling on demands to slash spending or agreeing with Obama's exact proposals to avert across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts set to start on Jan. 1. But unlike House Speaker John Boehner, they suggest they would be open to higher tax rates on wealthy Americans as part of a broader deal to slash deficits.

Obama is hoping to appeal to more potential renegades to get a deal to avoid the massive tax hikes and spending cuts that economists say could tip the economy into a recession.

"If we can get a few House Republicans on board, we can pass the bill ... I'm ready to sign it," Obama said on Friday at an event in Pennsylvania.

The vast majority of Republicans in the House, led by Boehner, say they will not accept any higher tax rates, preferring to increase tax revenue through reforms and closing loopholes.

But among those newly voicing flexibility is tea party-endorsed Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, who said he backs a "balanced" approach — adopting the language Democrats, including Obama, use to describe a tax rate increase on the rich, although he said he would rather raise revenue in other ways.

"I'm not at rates, I'm at revenue, I'm at loopholes," Duffy said. "But listen, revenue should be revenue, whether you are doing it by rates or loopholes."

Rep. Allen West of Florida, who had strong tea party backing but lost his bid for a second term, said he was open to a higher tax rate on those earning more than $2 million — a far higher threshold than Obama's push to raise taxes on families with net incomes above $250,000 a year.

"If you want to talk about a compromise, that's a fair compromise," West said. "I want people to get to that million, I want people to get over that. Small business are 75 to 80 percent of our economy. I want to incentivize them."

Even though West lost his seat, he would still be able to vote on a fiscal cliff deal since the new Congress is not sworn in until January.

Justin Amash, another tea party movement favorite, said everything needs to be considered to reduce the country's debt burden.

"I don't think it would be a good idea to raise tax rates," said the Michigan representative who identifies himself as a libertarian. But Amash said: "I am not going to take anything off the table if we can resolve some of our biggest issues as a country."

Amash has a perfect conservative voting record according to the Club for Growth, which evaluated whether freshmen lived up to their promises of fiscal constraint.

Several members or their aides expressed similar sentiments earlier in the week, among them seven-term Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho.

December 03, 2012 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Youtube: http://youtu.be/ihUoRD4pYzI

President Ronald Reagan, Republican, tells us in debate with Walter Mondale on October 7, 1984, "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."

Flash forward to 2012:

GOP 'Cliff'' Plan: Cut Medicare and Social Security

Gallup: In U.S., Views of Obama, Democrats Improve After Election: Favorable opinions of Obama highest in three years

CNN poll: More Americans would blame Republicans if country went off fiscal cliff

Ramussen Reports:

"Following the election, most voters still believe that Congress is doing a poor job.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 10% of Likely Voters rate Congress’ job performance as good or excellent, while 61% say they are doing a poor job."

...The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 8-9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

December 04, 2012 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is it possible for the comments, even those in all caps, to be free of obscenities?

December 04, 2012 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NO !!

December 04, 2012 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Ronald Reagan, Republican, tells us in debate with Walter Mondale on October 7, 1984, "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.""

THE PROBLEM IS THAT BARACK OBAMA, OUR WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME, RUINED THE SEPERATE STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BY USING CUTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY

HE DID, OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF A MISGUIDED NOTION THAT IT WAS FAIRER TO THOSE WHO DON'T PAY ANY INCOME TAX

December 04, 2012 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yet another shocking tale of transgender violence:

The bizarre story of Angelo and Elizabeth: Elizabeth thought she loved Angelo, but Angelo was also very abusive. He hit her, threatened her with guns and violated her with a metal pipe. He threatened to kill her family and also once beat her so badly her lung collapsed. One day, Angelo started attacking Elizabeth, and she stabbed and killed him. But what she found out after was even more shocking: Angelo was actually a woman wearing a prosthetic penis.

December 04, 2012 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and, to think:

transgender is legal in MoCo

December 04, 2012 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE PROBLEM IS THAT BARACK OBAMA, OUR WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME, RUINED THE SEPERATE STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BY USING CUTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

Oh brother. Another stupid GOPer!

Experts rank U.S. presidents: FDR first, Clinton 13th, Obama 15th, G.W. Bush 39th

How uninformed can you GOPers be? Where do you come up with this stuff?

EVERYBODY who is paid a salary got exactly the same Social Security tax cut. All wage earners got to keep 2% more of the first $110K of their annual salary, the 2012 limit.

All wages above $110K a year per person are EXEMPT from Social Security taxes.

That little 2% difference on the first $110K of salary might not matter to a person who is a member of a family that clears $5K a week, feels entitled to use obscenities, and TO SCREAM LIKE A SHREW, but to us working stiffs, a few bucks more in our paychecks could be the difference between paying a bill on time or having to wait to have the money to cover it -- and the resulting late fee.

So tell us SHREW, how did the payroll tax cut "stimulate the economy," according to your sources?

No matter.

Here's how actually worked.

The Social Security tax break put more money in more people's hands so they could spend it -- maybe on a membership at a swank spa in Bethesda for themselves or on better heating and air conditioning for their family.

December 04, 2012 3:29 PM  
Anonymous They'll all be hearing from constituents until they raise taxes on the rich said...

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was shouted down by a large group of demonstrators Tuesday, temporarily preventing him from delivering an address at a "Campaign to Fix the Debt" roundtable in Washington, D.C.

BuzzFeed reports that Portman had prepared a speech about the importance of following Republican-backed plans to reform the tax code in order to bring about a longer-term solution to prevent deficit reduction measures, such as the fiscal cliff, from becoming commonplace. As he stood before the crowd however, four protesters took turns touting the importance of Medicare and Social Security and arguing against steps to slash the programs.

As additional hecklers stood up to tell their stories, authorities reportedly came forward to remove the dissenters from the event, which spurred a mass exodus among demonstrators chanting,"We want to grow, not slow, the economy!"

After they vacated the hall, Portman reportedly resumed his speech. According to BuzzFeed, Portman was later seen meeting with four of the protesters, all Ohio constituents who spoke with the senator for nearly 20 minutes.

The event's host, "The Campaign to Fix the Debt," is a coalition of influential CEOs, politicians and policy makers who are seeking to muster public support for reducing the debt, which they're attempting to do while simultaneously putting Social Security and Medicare cuts at the forefront of deficit reduction negotiations.

The Huffington Post's Paul Blumenthal and Christina Wilkie reported Monday on the "Fix the Debt" group's deep Republican ties, despite its clear attempts to appear fully bipartisan.

December 04, 2012 4:02 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Robert: Is it possible for the comments, even those in all caps, to be free of obscenities?

Sociopathanon: NO!!

December 04, 2012 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

improv:

thingie, thingie, THINGIE, thingie... I do like using that word

December 04, 2012 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans not handling election results well

PPP's first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard...and also declining in numbers.

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.

One reason that such a high percentage of Republicans are holding what could be seen as extreme views is that their numbers are declining. Our final poll before the election, which hit the final outcome almost on the head, found 39% of voters identifying themselves as Democrats and 37% as Republicans. Since the election we've seen a 5 point increase in Democratic identification to 44%, and a 5 point decrease in Republican identification to 32%.

Other notes from our national poll:

-Grover Norquist is largely unknown nationally, and among voters who are familiar with him he is generally disliked. Only 15% have a favorable opinion of him to 37% with a negative one, with 48% not holding an opinion one way or the other. Even among Republicans just 18% see him positively, while 23% have an unfavorable view. Only 23% of voters think it's important for politicians to follow Norquist's tax pledge to 39% who think it's not important and 38% who don't have an opinion.

-President Obama's received a modest post election bump in his approval rating. 50% of voters now approve of him to 47% who disapprove, up a net 4 points from 48/49 on our final post election poll. Voters trust Obama over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Libya by a 48/45 margin, suggesting that their attacks on the issue aren't getting much traction.

-As much of an obsession as Bowles/Simpson can be for the DC pundit class, most Americans don't have an opinion about it. 23% support it, 16% oppose it, and 60% say they don't have a take one way or the other.

The 39% of Americans with an opinion about Bowles/Simpson is only slightly higher than the 25% with one about Panetta/Burns, a mythical Clinton Chief of Staff/former western Republican Senator combo we conceived of to test how many people would say they had an opinion even about something that doesn't exist.

Bowles/Simpson does have bipartisan support from the small swath of Americans with an opinion about it. Republicans support it 26/18, Democrats favor it 21/14, and independents are for it by a 24/18 margin. Panetta/Burns doesn't fare as well with 8% support and 17% opposition.

-David Petraeus has a 44/30 favorability rating nationally and is seen much more favorably by Democrats (47/25) at this point than Republicans (38/36).

Full results here

December 05, 2012 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMERICANS ARE CURRENTLY IN A STATE OF DELUSION

OBAMA HAS CONVINCED THEM THAT UNSUSTAINABLE ENTITLEMENTS CAN ENDURE IF WE JUST TAX THE RICH PEOPLE WHO ARE FREE-LOADING ON THE REST OF US

THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE IN SO MANT RESPECTS

ONE PROBLEM IS THAT OBAMA HAS FIGURED OUT THAT THE MEDIA WON'T HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING

THE REPUBLICANS HAVE OFFERED TO RAISE TAXES 800 BILLION ON THE WEALTHY AND OBAMA SAYS WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT WILL "HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS"

WTF? NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED RAISING TAXES ON THE WEALTHY BUT NO REPORTER ASKS OBAMA WHAT HE MEANS

IT'S OBVIOUS OBAMA WANTS TO GO OFF THE FISCAL CLIFF

December 05, 2012 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh brother, T. The nations's problems are not because of the press. Our problems don't get solved because the GOP thinks "compromise" is a dirty word. The GOP would not pass a single bill that might make Obama look good because as Mitch McConnell made clear, the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of the GOP for the past 2 years has been to ensure Obama did not get reelected.

Obama offered compromise after compromise and the GOP refused to meet him halfway.

Well guess what. Obama got re-elected in spite of McConnell and Congress's OBSTRUCTION and Obama's coat tails brought more Democrats into the House of Representatives and into the US Senate. The election results prove the country supports Obama and his policies.

For more than 10 years the rich have enjoyed their TEMPORARY BUSH TAX CUTS and now the majority of Americans agree it's time for them to pay their fair share. That fact is not the press's fault.

IT'S OBVIOUS OBAMA WANTS TO GO OFF THE FISCAL CLIFF

Who came up with the Fiscal Cliff idea and why? Oh yeah, it was the Budget Control Act of 2011 because the GOTP didn't want to raise the debt ceiling. They wanted to enact European type austerity measures instead of raising the debt ceiling to pay off the unfunded spending by BUSH.

"The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it."

Who wanted this fiscal cliff enacted? The majority of the HOUSE GOP, that's who!

Why did they want it?

08/02/11 FOX NEWS reported:

"President Obama on Tuesday signed into law a months-in-the-making plan to raise the debt ceiling, putting an end for now to the partisan crisis that risked the FIRST-EVER national default...

brought to us all by the STUPID PARTY you support!

December 05, 2012 9:24 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon lamented:

“and, to think:

transgender is legal in MoCo”

So are Catholic priests.

Did you have a point, or are you just one of those bitter CRGers still pining over the failure of your fear and smear campaign against trans people and the ultimate ignominious loss of the ensuing legal battle?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 05, 2012 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh brother, T. The nations's problems are not because of the press."

actually, the nation's biggest problem is they have a President whose goal is to increase the size and reach of the national government to greatest extent he can get away with

the media has been a co-conspirator in that it didn't question his lies during the election and doesn't question his lies now

just yesterday, Obama had a strategy session at the White House with liberal cable media "journalists" like Rachel Maddow, which he tried to keep secret but it got out

"Our problems don't get solved because the GOP thinks "compromise" is a dirty word."

the GOP has currently compromised by offering 800 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy

Obama has not only offered no compromise, at all, but keeps adding new demands

it's the same thing he did when Boehner worked out a compromise with him a couple of years ago

at the last second, he increased his demand for taxes by 50%, which is why we have this problem now

"The GOP would not pass a single bill that might make Obama look good because as Mitch McConnell made clear, the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of the GOP for the past 2 years has been to ensure Obama did not get reelected."

you mean like when Obama sent up a budget and Repubs in the House passed it and Harry Reid refused to bring it up for a vote?

"Obama offered compromise after compromise and the GOP refused to meet him halfway."

I don't agree but it's pointless to discuss the past

Obama is not negotiating in good faith now

"Well guess what. Obama got re-elected in spite of McConnell and Congress's OBSTRUCTION and Obama's coat tails brought more Democrats into the House of Representatives and into the US Senate."

well, then why not just pass the bills over Repubs' objections?

because the Repubs won the election for control the House of Represenatives, meaning Americans voted for them to decide the policy for the country

"The election results prove the country supports Obama and his policies."

the election results endorsed the status quo, not Obama

the status quo is a House which does not believe raising marginal tax rates is good for the country

"For more than 10 years the rich have enjoyed their TEMPORARY BUSH TAX CUTS and now the majority of Americans agree it's time for them to pay their fair share."

but everyone else in America has also enjoyed their TEMPORARY BUSH TAX CUTS too

Dems love to say the Bush tax cuts is what caused the deficits but they are in favor of keeping most of them

"That fact is not the press's fault."

it largley is

the press has consistently allowed Obama to lie about Repub policy proposals

virtually every Obama commercial that Obama ran claimed Repubs were proposing to raise taxes on the midle class

Obama even repeated it this week when he said a Repub proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy will hurt the middle class

he simply lying

"Who wanted this fiscal cliff enacted? The majority of the HOUSE GOP, that's who!"

actually, they wanted a plan to reduce the deficit

they compromised and went along with putting it off

but I imagine from your comment that if the Repubs compromised now and voted for Obama's proposals, you'd be blaming them for the mess the economy would be in next year

Obama's is badly overplaying his hand

it will catch up with him

December 05, 2012 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah.

If Obama didn't want anyone to know some MSNBC hosts came to see him, no word would have leaked until Obama wanted it to, just like the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.


"the GOP has currently compromised by offering 800 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy"

That's what the RR plan was too. American citizens voted it down on 11/6/12 and independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for keeping lower rates for millionaires and billionaires.

"Repubs won the election for control the House of Represenatives, meaning Americans voted for them to decide the policy for the country"

And those GOPers are hearing from their constituents and every day more of them are seeing the error of their ways -- namely how many of their own constituents are harmed by GOP policies -- and even voicing support for taxing the wealthy more.

"the election results endorsed the status quo, not Obama"

What a good foot soldier you are, repeating Boehner's lousy bargaining gambit, but even he knows which side the pubic supports in this battle, which is why we now see John Boehner Has Started Purging Fiscal Hawks From House Committees

I can't wait to see which tea bagger they run in Boehner's next primary. If that tea bagger wins, the Dems will most likely pick up another House seat in 2014, a seat that formerly belong to a GOP Speaker of the House. Sweet!


"Dems love to say the Bush tax cuts is [sic] what caused the deficits but they are in favor of keeping most of them"

So are American voters, who want to see tax relief for the middle class AND to see the top earners pay their fair share, like they did under Bill Clinton, again. That's what this election was all about. You and your party members are living inside the bubble if you imagine American voters want to continue any Bush tax cuts to the richest among us.

actually, they wanted a plan to reduce the deficit

Bulloney! The GOP wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy even though The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that ending the Bush tax cuts for earners on income over the first $250,000 would contribute $950 billion over a ten-year period. $823 billion of that would come from the increased revenue, and another $127 billion would arise from the lower interest on the associated debt.

As we learned from President Bush, you can't spend Treasury dollars, even the Clinton surplus, without raising revenues to replenish what you spend. Bush's unfunded tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and wars are what got us into this mess and as usual, it will take the Democrats to get us out of it again.


"it will catch up with him"

< eye roll >

Sure it will, just like he was going to lose to McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and all the others you said Obama would lose to.

How pathetic you are, still stuck in your bubble.

December 05, 2012 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There goes another one!

GOP Rep. Jones says he could buck party on middle-class tax vote

December 05, 2012 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Message from the Real World said...

Gallup: 62% Want Compromise on Cliff

Sixty-two percent of Americans want to see President Barack Obama and Congress compromise to reach a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff — more than double those who want leaders to hold steadfast on their views on tax increases and spending cuts.

Only 25 percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed by Gallup on Dec. 1-2 responded that they would like both sides to remain true to their positions on the cuts and increases.

A majority of all party groups favor compromise, Gallup found.

In addition, many Americans responded that they were optimistic on whether a fiscal deal can be reached before the Jan. 1 deadline for huge spending cuts and tax increases to take effect — 58 to 39 percent.

Gallup also found that President Obama is handling the negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff measures well, with 52 percent of those surveyed approving of his efforts.

That compared with a 27 percent approval rating for Republican congressional leaders, and 39 percent for Democratic leaders, the survey found.

December 05, 2012 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sixty-two percent of Americans want to see President Barack Obama and Congress compromise to reach a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff — more than double those who want leaders to hold steadfast on their views on tax increases and spending cuts."

JUST SHOWS HOW THE PRESS PROTECTS OBAMA.

HE HASN'T MADE THE SLIGHTEST COMPROMISE WHILE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE OFFERED 800 BILLION IN TAX INCREASES ON THE WEALTHY.

YET THE PUBLIC DOESN'T REALIZE THIS BECAUSE THE PRESS HASN'T EXPLAINED IT TO THEM.

December 06, 2012 2:06 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

(Re: December 04, 2012 1:58 PM, posted the very day the video was uploaded to YouTube. Google alert, or just a tip from a fellow bottom feeder?)

Shower nut: “yet another [uncalled for] shocking tale of transgender violence:”
-
“A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group.”

And then this snipe an hour later:

“and, to think: transgender is legal in MoCo”

Translation: Gender transition should be criminalized.

December 06, 2012 6:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you can't sneak anything by the cool, penetrating logic of the improvster

hahahahahahahaha!


ha!

December 06, 2012 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are right, ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy MIGHT contribute that 92 billion to the economy, unless a significant portion of the dual earners decide to exit that bracket because the taxes become too punitive. If 1/2 of the 77% only in that bracket because both parents work exit the bracket because taxes become too punishing, you LOSE 277 billion a year goofballs. What about this don't you get ? I don't have an extra 1000.00 a month to give the govt when I am trying to put kids through college. we will 1) divorce on paper ... thank Patrick but was already considering that option; 2) one of us will quit or 3) one of use will retire and then work as a corporation, where all the deductions come back or... one might simply retire early and take over all the jobs we currently pay other people to do for us.


do you think people in this bracket got here because we are stupid ? you think we are going to just roll over and pay the extra taxes when we already fund 1/2 of the total tax revenue.

you are nuts. simply won't happen.

December 06, 2012 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

www.dualincomedilemma.com

December 06, 2012 10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get your facts right about Obama's plan. You totally missed an important point. What the President is proposing is that everyone, even people with the highest income, will keep the Bush tax cuts on the first $250K of family income. What that means, Theresa, is if you and your hubby earn $260K, Obama is only proposing that you pay at a higher tax rate on the $10K above his $250K limit.

From President Obama's Weekly Address: Urging Congress to Extend the Middle Class Tax Cuts 12/01/12

"Hi, everybody. I’m here on the factory floor of a business in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, where folks are working around the clock making toys to keep up with the Christmas rush.

And I came here because, back in Washington, the clock is ticking on some important decisions that will have a real impact on our businesses – and on families like yours.

The most pressing decision has to do with your taxes. See, at the end of the year, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire. And there are two things that can happen.

First, if Congress does nothing, every family will see their income taxes automatically go up at the beginning of next year. A typical middle class family of four will see their income taxes rise by $2,200. We can’t let that happen. Our families can’t afford it, and neither can our economy.

The second option is better. Right now, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody. That means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up at all. And even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their incomes. ..."

Now go recalculate the errors you posted on line.

December 06, 2012 11:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

first of all, you clearly didn't look at my new site because I didn't even address over 250K.
at all.

I was just looking at the rates right now, for families up to 200K. and pointing out how ridiculous the rates already are... you get cash back from the govt in lots of cases (that's what the negative numbers mean)... scroll down, you will see the table. I am eventually planning on linking those to a more detailed page with more details on how I arrived at those numbers, and links to the actual forms.


right now, they just indicate how very very progressive the rates are.... and how little of the second income mom gets to keep.

seriously, do you think it is fair to say married has a limit of 250 and single has 200 ? really ? talk about supporting a glass ceiling.... and against working moms, just look at that proposal.

the tax numbers I posted on line were based of numbers I ran in 2010, with the old ss rates. Have not gotten around to rerunning them on 2012 because .. that's right... I was working full time and running a household.

December 07, 2012 1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I HAVE to look at the impact on our family, and Obama is not just talking about 3K more on families like mine, he is talking 30K more on families like mine - I paid 70K FEDERAL ONLY last year. Unlike our completely dysfunctional govt, we keep a budget. bush tax cuts included a marriage penalty adjustment and about 3% on the number over 208. But the marriage penalty reduces the tables for MFJ, and I don't know what lower threshold they start enforcing 36% at, or even exactly WHAT revoking Bush era tax cuts for for MFJ means... because the Bush era tax cuts I believe not only changed the rates but adjusted the thresholds for what those rates were...

and it is not clear if they will adjust AMT for my bracket AND it is not clear if Obama gets his way that they will adjust the deductibility level of your itemized deductions, looks like if you are just barely over his threshold .... as we are... (and only because we both choose to work)... CHOOSE being the operative word...he will bring those back down to 28% which is an extra 8% (36-28) on the deductions over 200K... I think that means they are asking for an extra 8K there... so I think they are expecting an extra 11K per year from us - 8K and I don't have it without refinancing a mortgage to a 30 yr (which I won't do because the house is now too big for us) OR not paying for the kids college. but I can't get money for the kids college because the equity is maxed out. and of course in our bracket we can't get FREE student loans, so I have to either 1) sell the house and move my son out of his school (he is now at BCC) or 2) refinance the house to a longer mortgage term - stupid when it is at a great rate or 3) transfer all assets into a trust and get divorced, 4) incorporate one of us which requires a job change (not ideal from a productivity standpoint for us or the the receiving company)...or get a company to pay us as a llc or family partnership... basically you can get out of our 70K tax bill if you try hard enough. I haven't in the past. I will now.

so congratulations, your hike on the rich (with out reforming the tax code) will cost a LOT of wasted time not spent working for your company but employing accountants to figure out ways of avoiding taxes which is money going from the 2% to the 2% and diverting money from gainful enterprises which generally employ outside of the 2%.

I personally will not pay a penny more. I will quit and pay 1000's less before I give this admistration one iota more of my sweat and blood that was destined for my children's benefit (and lots of others by the by).

Atlas shrugged and @#$%^&* you.

find someone else who knows the embedded industry and embedded engineering and standards as well as I do. It's your loss when capable people decide that the investment they get to keep is no longer worth the blood sweat and tears in making it.

I love my job. but if you so devalue my work that you will tax me to the point I can keep nothing of my income... why do it anymore ?

why ? why should anyone get an advanced degree ?

oh, that's right, the people who run sewing machines have the same motitivation as our nuclear scientists... its not just intelligience folks it's also motivation and upbringing.

and you are coddling insufficiency, rewarding incompetence, and punishing success. that's obama's plan. It's called socialism. where will that lead us ? well I guess we are about to find out. we will find out when those of us paying the bills give up on the rest of you.

and we are there.

December 07, 2012 1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are COMPLAINING about the Bush tax cuts while pulling in $5K a week!

You poor little rich girl!

Take your whining back to your own website!



December 07, 2012 8:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home