READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Coming up this evening at 9 p.m., actor and comedian Jon Lovitz sits down with Piers Morgan for a lively discussion about taxes, specifically the high percentage he's currently paying under the Barack Obama administration:
"I don't agree when he [Obama] says 'You're not paying your fair share,'" says the former "Saturday Night Live" cast member. "I'm at the level of at least 50 percent or more and then I have deductions. And what I'm saying is I am paying my fair share."
As this evening's face to face interview continues, Lovitz goes on to further criticize the president for the way he's taxed the wealthy, in what he feels is an attempt to earn another term in the White House:
"What he [Obama] did was he took the one percent of the population, that [tax] bracket and throw them under the bus to get votes."
Watch the clip, listen to the interview, then tune in tonight at 9 p.m. as Lovitz further explains why he feels Obama is using the one percent as a "scape goat."
• Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
What the @#$% was CNN thinking when they replaced Larry King with this mindless twit?
There once was a time when an interview consisted of someone asking questions and actually allowing the person across the table to answer instead of droning-on endlessly about their own extremist ideological views.
It's one thing to be on the wrong side of nearly every argument, (which Mr. Morgan is) but being a pompous ass on top of it should be reason enough for network executives to rethink a very bad decision.
Larry King carried much the same ideological torch for the progressive utopians but at least he carried it with dignity, courtesy and respect, (not to mention actually backing up his beliefs with reasonable arguments as opposed to arrogant outbursts).
I thought it was just me.....glad you picked up on what an a$$ Piers was. He clearly has an agenda and he's nothing like Larry who just asked the curious questions that we all are thinking and Larry never tried to shove his agenda down his guests throat. Big change in the show since Larry left and that's why they lost me as a viewer a long time ago. This isn't the first time Piers has acted like this.
Larry didn't get replaced because old/stale, he did because he had his run and was retiring for goodness sake- and Piers is totally a B-player compared to King, even if younger- King was much more impartial and Piers is always picking a fight which is why I don't watch him much at all...
It is so refreshing to hear someone from Universal Studios (Jon) to actually stand up and be real about what is happening in this country. I have always been a fan no matter his politics but to see him admit he is struggling just like us common folk is GREAT! We are small business owners in Texas and gun toting Republicans. My in-laws are in Simi Valley and voted for Obama but have no plans to do so this time around. I am like Jon liberal on the social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Just leave the rest of us alone to make money and prosper.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so proud to be a "gun-toting Republican from Texas". Isn't that how this country got in trouble in the first place? People seem to overlook that fact that we were in a recession thanks to GBush a few years ago and instead blame Obama for the whole thing. Get real, people. I wish we were moving faster toward a robust economy but we are moving. BTW, we are bleeding heart liberals from Massachusetts and do indeed pay our fair share of taxes which reminds me of something else. Why doesn't Romney? One more thing, if Romney claims not to have raised taxes in Massachusetts while Governor, ask him why he raised every fee in the state while Governor. The man talks out of both sides of his mouth.....and always has.
Piers has done a lot of really good interviews. Larry King became old and stale and that's why he was replaced.
Wow, I totally agree with you. How about Piers release his own tax returns and lets see how much he's making and how much he's paying in taxes. I guarantee that it's not enough and Piers should have to pay more.
c level over paid actors complaining about taxes. He has only proved that he is actually as dumb in real life as the roles he plays on screen. Economic tid bits from Jon Lovitz. Now that is funny. A comic whining about the way the POTUS asks for the help of the nation. He really has embarrassed himself.
Illeana , Truth, Touchmythigh,et.al. all great responses. Economic tid bits from a c level celebrity is sickening. People confuse celebrity status with knowledge. Problem is celebrities have access to "open " microphones at their whim. Some are well schooled and intelligent(eg, Sean Pean, G Clooney ,Richard Dreyfus) with something important to add to a discussion. Others....well...are Jon Lovitz.
Sean Penn???? You're joking!
Last I heard he's still aching to sire Hugo Chavez's lovechild.
Well said. I don't think. Pierce had any intention of interviewing John. Look I'm poor and I don't want to take money from the rich. It's theirs to do as they wish. I want a job. I want the United states to have the must robust FREE ENTERPRISE system in the world. Fine, You give me a handout and I eat for a month. What then? I want people like John Lovitz to be able to go out and buy goods and services from companies that would be willing to employ me. What if we tax the rich until there are no more So that there is just a middle class and a poor class. What does the government do then? Tax the middle class and make them pay their fair share. So great, not we are all the same. Then consider you create a bussiness that catches on and you start doing a little better . . . ? Remember THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. It merely distributes your tax dollars. If you are pro big government you had better make sure that the free market is secure and robust. I DON"T WANT CHARITY. I WANT A FREAKING JOB!
That's great you don't want a hand-out fella and want to work on honest job. But the amount they're talking about raising taxes on millionaires is not going to bring them down to middle-class level, not even freaking close. It will put their tax level back in line with the rest of us which is only fair. and news-flash, the money they're talking about adding is not all going to pay for Welfare, it will help all branches of gov't...if they were going to give it to a single program though it should be education because that's the only hope the US has to compete anymore, the corporations won't let our country build anything eanymore because there's 2 billion "lave laborers" in AsiaPacific who won't demand benefits or unions.
Government does creat jobs in every state and the federal government. An example is the federal interstate network which badly needs repair and maintenance. There are currently thousands of bridges that need to be replaced. All of this is called infrastructure and the federal transportation budget takes care of most of it. Lovitz uses this every day. The 1%. Make most of the money so they should pay most of the taxes. The problem is that people like Romney and Ryan feel they should not have to pay any taxes. Romney says trust me on his tax returns because these creeps have not submitted Sven one completed income tax return. He says he paid 13% every year but 13% of what.
The first guy's name is Piers, not Pierce. The second guy's name is Jon, not John. And your name is Craig, with a capital C. Once we get all that fixed, I might consider reading the rest of your post.
I totally agree with you. It seems CNN interviewers have stopped allowing people to respond to questions and continue with their banter. It's really rude and unprofessional. If you want to see another example of a poor interviewer watch Soledad Obrien. She is terrible. I have stopped watching both Piers and Soledad because of their poor skills.
Wonderful reply..............thank you! Could not agree more!
Here's lookin at you JACK!
I cannot watch Piers Morgan anymore. He's political bent is too obvious and instead of interviewing and hiding his disdain (as LK did most of the time) Piers argues and insults his guests. Maybe that's appealing in the UK, but I can't stand it. Although I enjoy and am interested in many guests that he has, I simply cannot watch him anymore. And since I wont watch Hannity on Fox (for the same reason as I can't watch Piers anymore), I guess I'll just have to watch ESPN instead.
More of Hollywood should have the guts that Jon does. I'm sure many are thinking what he had the guts to say on national TV. These Hollywood types seem to be very vocal at other times so why not now? Obama thinks millionaires don't pay their fair. Really? Who says? Obama has to stop spending first and foremost!! Not taxing anyone any more than they already are. What other Hollywood types have spoken out against paying 'not paying their fair share'?
Lovitz seem to be feeding himself to death. If he shares more he'll live longer.
"Obama thinks millionaires don't pay their fair."
Yes, most millionaires DO NOT pay their fair share!!! Do you think Romney who makes an average of $20M+/year paying at an average of 13% rate is fair? And by the way, we're taking his word on that. I won't be surprised if he paid a lower rate (even zero) at some point in the last 10 years. He refuses to show the returns for a good reason.
When he says the rich should pay their fair share, companies like GM and individuals like Romney are what Obama is talking about. And there are plenty of them out there.
Romney pays a lower rate because his income is from money he is re-investing. The money he's using to invest he's already paid taxes on once! For example if he made 1 million and he (probably) already paid half in taxes. Then he takes the half and invests it, he then pays 13% taxes on anything he makes with that money. His tax rate on his salary was much higher than the average american, he just doesn't work anymore. If the government raises the taxes on investment income, people will just invest less (in theory), and businesses that need to borrow money will suffer.
I have news for you but the rich do pay their fare share – they pay up 50% of what they earn. The taxes on investments are lower because that money has already been taxed once. And they pay about 70% of total taxes. Half of us don't even PAY taxes and yet want all the services. Is that fair? John Lovitt was making tons of sense (odd for a Hollywood type) and yet Piers was not letting him get his point across. I like Piers but he is starting to act too liberal. I'm disappointed in him.
I don't know what world you live in but the rich have been getting a lot richer because of tax loopholes and overseas hidden deposits. Romney says he pays 13%. Of what? He has not submitted one completed tax return because he is obviously hiding something. He pulled the same trick when he ran for gov. Of MA.last year the top 1% made 94% of the gain in GDPcEO's in health ins. Cos. made almost $100 million dollars and probably deferred their taxes because they want to pay 0taxes under crooked republicans.JAK
The 1% has to understand that they are not a 'scape goat' – they just have to wake up to REALITY. The country needs help and the people who benefit from this country the most should understand that they have a moral obligation – one that will not break their bank. I am certainly not in the 1% but I also pay my fair share of taxes. Also, I am 29 and paying into a social security system that I know I will never see an adequate return on. However, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help those who need social security now and in the future. When did this country turn into a group of self-serving ideologues without any sense of obligation towards their fellow American? We tout ourselves as the greatest, most moral country in the world – ‘the beacon of light’. Can we stop whining and start acting like it again?
When are the rest of the 99% (of us) going to go back to 1st-grade math and think for ourselves before jumping on the "it's the rich guy's fault" bandwagon?
Taxing the "rich" at even a 75% + rate won't even put a dent in the budget deficit created by our elected representatives however they are sufficiently clever to create such a distorted game of class warfare in order to keep their jobs.
Those that fall for this trick should truly be embarrassed by their ignorance of simple arithmetic and ashamed of succoring to the "blame someone else" mentality.
You must have been very bad at math because if the top 1% just paid the 4% increase in the tax rate that was in effect when Clinton was in office, it could cut the deficit by almost a trillion over ten years. If you up that to 75% and get rid of the loopholes, we'll balance the budget in about ten years.
Let’s see one, just one legitimate, (key word here) budgetary breakdown that shows increased taxation of the top 1% will have any significant and/or meaningful impact on the deficit.
So, we are claiming "a 4% increase on the top 1% creating a 1 trillion difference over 10-years"?
How about we “untwist” these numbers a bit. Federal expenditures for FY 2011 were approximately 3.7 trillion, making our windfall of 100 billion/year from “bleeding the pig” a bit more what percentage of the budget? Since I obviously can’t handle the math, I’ll leave it to those better suited for such things.
The more important point here is that regurgitating party talking points with "big numbers" like 1-Trillion & the "asterisk" of 10-years is one of the best examples of the sad kind of demagoguery used to perpetuate the ignorance and jealousy necessary to deflect responsibility for the state this country, (and much of the world for that matter) is in.
But hey, did u hear that Snookie was pregnant?
RMKZOO – You should run for office. Seriously brilliant points on your part.
I love how all of the people you've responded to have nothing more to say.
Is class warfare asking people who make more than they need for their families to pay more, or is it that middle class wages haven't gone up with inflation in about 20 years while upper class wages have risen 100%, 200%, 300% or more in some cases. My God man it's class warfare asking people with more than one paid off home to pay more tax while many middle class Americans can't afford to pay their underwater mortgage. Fortunately for Republicans there are a lot of good hearted but easily manipulated people that buy their lies.
How about if everyone goes back to those "wonderful" Clinton rates? Just think how much faster we could cut back that deficit much faster.
At one trillion per 10 years it would take 50, 60, 70+ years just to pay off Obama's mistakes.
How about the 50% that pay no taxes.
I love Obama's ad which says the rich pay more so the rest pay less. Does he mean he will lower taxes for those who already do not pay any?
I just caught Lovitz's " act", Poor millionaire saying he is taxed at 50%. It sounds like Romney exclaiming he's paid 13% and we will just have to trust both.If Jon can't make a go of his business( what ever that is ) maybe it's Jon's fault. He cannot be a social liberal as he claims and even entertain the thought of voting for Romney! No talent hack should be glad he's gotten as far as he has. Disgusting. I won't support Lovitz or his company!
How come when people say that 50% of working people don't pay federal income taxes it's always "Those freeloaders!" and not "Can you believe that 50% of working people make so little that they would have their lives severely impacted by paying federal income taxes?"
If the middle class wasn't being squeezed and wages were going up, then wouldn't more people pay taxes?
it is NOT just about increasing taxes (at the margins) a few % points for those making a lot of money, it is also about cutting back on the tax credits for the rich and big corporations and limiting their deductions. Funny that some don't want to increase taxes on the wealthy (after they have had 30 years of BIG tax cuts since Reagan), but do want to make the middle and lower classes suffer with increased fees, less services, and less deductions (thus higher taxes). We have to stop letting EXXON take tax deductions for what it would do anyway to make all the money it does. The real story here is that Romney will cut his own taxes (if he really paid any) and average people will pay more and get less. I blame the education system in this country that has produced bunch of people that will not vote at all, and many others that are "independent" because they can see any difference it the two candidates. Sorry state of affairs and the real reason this country is in trouble.
An important thing is often left out of this conversation. Perspective.
Yes, 47% don't pay income taxes. Some people think they should pay more,but can you get blood out of a turnip? Middle class wages have been virtually stagnant since 1980 while other costs like health insurance (and executive salaries) keep going up.
Yes, the top 1% pay 38% of all taxes, but they also have over 40% of the financial wealth. Imagine converting all assets to money. Take this money from the top 1% and put it in a pile. To get an equally sized pile you would have to take all the money from the lowest 60%.
The tax raise Obama is proposing is only on money earned above your first quarter of a million. Some people say this tiny amount is not enough to pay down the debt, but it's not meant to on its own. It should raise about 80 billion a year. That is significant, and it will just raise taxes to what they were under Clinton.
Perspective. Too often left out of today's 5 minute news stories.
The 1% are not a scapegoat, it's the wrong use of the word. But they more than pay a fair share, our current tax system is very progressive; the more you make the more you pay (exceptions apply I know). Why is it that people that have been successful are viewed as having taken some advantage of others? Contrary to what Obama has said, sometimes they did work harder, were smarter and did it on there own. Why should that make them OBLIGATED by the Federal government to contribute at a higher percentage than others?
People you are all misssing the point.. It's very simple. Taxes for the very wealthy, lets include Jon Lovitz, have been progressively coming down since the 1940s. Each decade, they end up paying less thorugh lower tax rates and more loop holes. This means there is less money coming in to the federal governement. The last two decades, taxes rates went up a little bit, and went lower un Bush. In the last four years, under Obama , the tax rate has stayed the SAME!!! So I am not sure what Jon is complaining about. Bush..Less taxes will create jobs...Did not work. Clinton, Wealthy pay a little more, balalnce budget in decades.. Pick ONE????
When companies make billions in profits, executives make multiple-millions of dollars and then pay their workers $10 per hour, their success IS based upon taking advantage of others.
The increases in taxes is not simply a redistribution of wealth. Most of it goes to programs and services that society as whole benefits from: schools, roads, police, the military etc. You seem to assume that the tax increase is simply because the rich should feel OBLIGATED to support the poor.
If the country is in dire straits, why is it just the 1% who should pay more?
Let everyone be "patriotic" (as Joe Biden said) and kick in some more. If someone making $200,000 (hardly rich) is supposed to pay more, why not the guy making $100,000? That also is a good salary. For someone making $30,000, $75,000 looks pretty comfortable.
Dan can kick in right now and voluntarily pay more.
If he feels it's his duty to help others, there are plenty of charities that will take his money.
The government already confiscates plenty from the top 53%. It's the bottom 47% who have no skin in the game.
Dan, my point exactly. If you make 20 million a year and pay half in taxes you may not like it but you are not by any means in a financial hardship. If you can't make 10 mil work for you then shame on you. However, if you make 35 thousand a year and you pay 15 to 20% on taxes then that a different finanical picture. There is nothing wrong with being rich/wealthy but when the rich/wealty complain about paying half on a 20 million income (especially those in the entertainment business who get freely acommendated by businesses yet we pay) it's laughable.
Or how about that person who makes 20 million pays reasonable and fair taxes instead of the 50% describe, then invests the rest that creates more jobs for the 99%?
or give it to the government who will find ways to chase business away through higher taxes and unreasonable unions. Why do you think they out source?
Really? So if he paid 35% on $20M that's SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS. And when you paid 15% or 20% on your $35,000 you paid $5,000-7,000... Really? Who didn't pay their 'fair share' here? But your point is 'lets just take half'... but the numbers don't lie – if you took 100% from the wealthiest (and that's everything they'd make, ok?) that wouldn't balance the budget... however, if you added 8% to the tax bill of every American, (yes, even those who don't pay ANYTHING), you'd balance the budget. And, by the way, congrats, $35K is good money for asking "Would you like a hot apple pie with that order".
Danny, Greed will bring this coutry to its knees.
How would these jobs be created? Producing something to sell when there is no money to buy doesn't work. Supply does not bring sales; demand does. The US economy grew after WWII when the middle class grew. Prosperity came to the whole country.
Please don't tell me about the hard working wealthy; many of them made their's by cutting corners, cheating, sneaking ahead etc. I like to picture a road sign; merge left, right lane closes in 1,500 feet. Now watch 99% of the cars merge left, then notice the 1% who continue in the right lane to jump ahead of every good citizen/neighbor or whatever you wish to tag them as. Of course those non merging thoughtless self-serving, cheaters "budge" at the final merge point stopping all who do the "right" thing. Are they smarter, harder working, or just socially disgusting? I drive 35,000 miles a year and notice the majority of the budging cars are luxury models. I don't trust anyone who trods on others to their own end.
Our progressive income tax was scaled to maintain prosperity for the largest number of people, who actually live, spend, and save in the USA as they are the ones growing the economy.
Dan – you should've paid more attention during math class. You cannot balance the budget by getting 4% more (off the Bush era tax cut from 39% to 35%) off 1% of the people. Be honest about what this is – a crass political stunt that plays well to the masses. "Oh, that other guy, who didn't build that, should pay his (undefined) fair share". Even POTUS admits that this would not balance the budget, or even cover the increased deficits. Wanna be outraged over something? Try the fact that since POTUS took office over 3 and a half years ago we have yet to pass a budget.
Maybe you failed Civics as a kid, but last I checked it wasn't the JOB of the President of the United States to pass a budget. Congress is responsible for passing a budget, not the president. So put the blame where the blame is due, and come up with something that the talking heads aren't using as a faux reason for voting against Obama. There are plenty of ideological arguments, but spouting misinformation and proving an ignorance of how our government works makes you just as bad as an Obama supporter who repeatedly brings up Romney's dog escapade.
Here's a great idea:. Why don't we all become government employees? We would have 0% unemployment, but man, . . . payday is gonna' be a shocker.
Terms like "the 1%" are a wonderful way to stereotype and de-humanize a group of people without having to think of them as people. I propose that from now on we call them "the hard working successful entrepreneurs that were in the top of your class in school and worked hard for what they have". Or how about "the ambitious people that work endless hours, constantly educate themsleves and sacrifice their personal lives to succeed". Will we then feel worse for trying to get them to pay more for us?
You seem to be referring to professors, teachers, firefighters and other public servants, who are often the top of the class performers and are constantly educating themselves, renewing certifications, and improving themselves generally in order to provide services to you, the member of the general public. And many of them pay for this out of their own pocket. Oh, and by the way, I bet you you're local teacher, professor, or firefighter isn't part of "the ambitious people that work endless hours, constantly educate themsleves and sacrifice their personal lives to succeed" group that you seem to equate with what is colloquially known as the 1%.
What neither party wants to admit is that we need to reduce spending, balance the budget, quit being the world's police and let other nations pay their fare share for protecting the peace, AND raise taxes on the ultra rich. Both parties are partially wrong. You can't just lower taxes, hope trickle-down economics works and keep spending like a teenager with a credit card - i.e. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. You also cannot simply blame the rich, increase taxes on the rich, and then spend more without a balanced budget – i.e. the typical Democrat response to economic problems in the modern era. Both parties have some truth but both don't want to face reality. Bottom line for both parties– get elected and let someone else in the future clean up our mess.
Dan, Obama needs to stop spending money he does not have. He or any other President cannot keep raising taxes just to pay for over-the-top spending and wasting our hard earned money. I'm sure you are aware that Obama wants all Americans on a level play field when it comes to wealth. It's called socialism and it has no place in America. Obama has to cut spending, not raise taxes.
The only way Obama can spend any more money is if the House allows him to do so and since January of 2011 his free pass has been revoked.
The real question is whether the "conservatives" who are now required to sign-off on any new debt can stick to their priciples and turn this around. History doesn't seem to offer much hope in this regard as stealing from future generations to satisfy needs of instant gratification & greed is a disease that afflicts nearly all who reside inside the Beltway.
The only way to stop this madness is to take their credit cards away and put them on a clear, fixed budget.
For Gods sake Morgan go back to the UK. We, at least, I wish to hear what your guests have to say, not your opinions which we know what they are. The interrupting that goes on and making guests look foolish is a disgrace for those who don`t think like you. You are no match to Larry King who was always polite and always asking the right question.
Morgan is incorrect about the unemployment rate under George W. Bush. 2001 4.7% slowly went to 5.8% in 2008. It went to 9% in 2009 and has dropped only 1% under President Obama. When the real estate market crashed thousands and thousands in this industry lost their jobs. Further no business loans equals more layoffs, etc., etc. So for Morgan to say Bush had 8 years of unemployment of 8% is incorrect. We need an American hosting CNN. To have a Brit commenting on American issues is ridiculous.
Voluntarily giving your money to help others by choice is one thing; that's perfectly fine if one chooses to do that. Our tax money is taken from us by physical force. BIG difference.
Your tax money goes to programs that are designed to help you dumb dumb. It's not a charity.
Lovitz and most of the 1% are not paying their fair share. Yes, they are paying what they can legally get away with, but not their fair share. Does he say what percentage he pays? He immediately espouses the tea party line of 50% of people don't pay any tax which isn't true. And even if it was true, these are people that fall under the poverty line. Though you do have companies like GE that pay 0% Federal tax. Is that fair? According to Lovitz it is because they can legally do it and to him that is equal to "fair."
What's fair is for income from things like dividends to be taxed at the same rate as regular earned wages. Most of the top 1& earn their income from investments which is currently taxed at 15% and when you take advantage of the loopholes it goes down from there ala Romney who pays 13%. I earn less than $100,000 and pay a higher rate than Romney or Lovitz, I'm sure. THAT IS NOT FAIR MR LOVITZ!!!
Bingo. Nailed it...
You pay taxes on what you made minus what you give away every year. All "loopholes" go away and that means "all" loopholes, not just the ones used in the blame the rich war.
Carried interest rate, gone.
Long-term cap. gains rate, gone.
Mortgage deduction, gone.
Child tax credit, gone.
Earned income credit, gone.
... you get the picture.
This is the true definition of "fair". Not the looking-glass version of Sherwood Forest being passed around at the moment.
It's also not "fair" that 47% don't pay anything.
RE: It's also not "fair" that 47% don't pay anything.
It's also not "true" that 47% don't pay anything.
You must be a Teatard. You do realize that a large number of these people don't earn enough to be accountable for a tax payment?
Thanks MrXman, finally someone stated something that makes sense.
Fair share my a$$. I work hard AND pay my fair share. (and by the way – I am not in the 1% everyone talks about) When are the people that pay NOTHING going to start paying their fare share? I think if the large percentage that pay $0 started even paying a small amount, that would help out quite a bit! If you live in America and benefit from it's governmental services, everyone owes something, no matter how small. My 20 year old daughter who made less than $9000 last year owed taxes. EVERYONE needs to pay SOMETHING.
Whats worse – Paying zero percent of say 15,000 or only 35% of $500,000? 5% more for both would amount to $750 from the $15,000 wage earner and $25,000 for the $500,000 wage earner for a 33 to 1 ratio.
You're right. One of the biggest problems is that too many people who don't work or pay taxes vote for the candidates who will take money from the wage earners and give it to the parasites that aren't wage earners.
I say the vote should be restricted to only those who are working tax payers. We pay to run this country, but the non-workers decide how our money is spent.
"The real burden to society is not the poor, but the corporate rich; we simply can no longer afford them."
Michael Parenti – September 23, 1995
First of, it is absolutely a fact that half the people dont pay income taxes, and the poverty rate is nowhere close to 50%. Lovitz's point, which is a good one, is that all this stuff about the 1% is a red herring to avoid having to discuss the economy. Oher than engaging in class warfare in a pathetic excuse to get votes, what does Obama want t do to fix the economy? Taxing the1% more will NOT fix it, and many economists say will aggravate the situation.
Ths whole issue is Obama's attempt to divert attention from his performance, and its jealous people like you who are faling for it.
Even if Obama got his tax increases it would "only" raise about 40 billion dollars a year. The deficit is 1.3 TRILLION (or 1 thousand three hundred billion dollars).
In other words it would be a drop in the bucket and we would still be running a 1.26 TRILLION deficit.
So it's just class warfare plain and simple.
And I want all the people who want to raise taxes, EXACTLY what is "fair share"? 50%, 60%? 75% like in France? Lets have a precise number so we can have an intelligent argument. But we know that'll never happen.
If Jon Lovitz is paying 50% or more of his income on federal taxes, it’s his own fault, not that of the Obama administration. The highest percentage anyone pays in federal income tax is 35%. That's not 35% on all his income, but (for unmarried individuals, such as Mr Lovitz) 35% of the amount of his income that's over $388,350 plus 29.01% of tax on the first $388,350 ($112,683.50). It may be even less, because the amount that's taxed is reduced by $9,500 for a Personal Exemption, and $5,800 for a Standard Deduction. A tax of $112,683.50 on $403,650 ($388,350 + $9,500 + $5,800) is not 29.01% but 27.91%. Even at really high incomes where these subtractions aren't available, the most he would still have to pay in federal income tax is still 35%.
As for Mr. Lovitz criticizing "the president for the way he's taxed the wealthy," President Obama hasn't made rates any higher for anyone, including the very wealthy. The rates that have been in force for years, including a top rate of 35%, are temporary reductions enacted under President Bush - when we had a surplus. Those “temporary reductions” have been extended several times. If Mr Lovitz is paying 50% or more on his income tax, I think his accountants are extremely incompetent, or they (or his business managers) are stealing his money.
If Mr Lovitz is thinking of other taxes he pays, such as state income and sales tax, he might be paying 50%, but that's not something he can blame on the federal government. There's nothing President Obama can do if Mr Lovitz chooses to live in California or some other high tax state, instead of Florida or Texas.
If Mr. Romney had been paying anything like 50% I'm sure we would be hearing about it, yet Anne Romney has only said that her husband paid "at least 13%" on taxes in the last 10 years. Clearly, Mr. Romney has higher standards for lawyers and accountants than Mr. Lovitz because there are apparently ways to pay a lot less than 35%.
President Obama isn't trying to throw the wealthy "under the bus to get votes." He's trying to pay down the debt that the U.S. has incurred because of high expenses (especially the wars) and low income (especially with people losing their jobs paying less tax). We've had huge debts since President Obama took office and he's been asking Congress since then for ways to help pay them off. It's not an election-year ploy. Higher tax rates on the wealthy isn't the only thing he's suggested, but Congress wouldn't even agree to stop giving deductions for corporate jets!
Perhaps Mr. Lovitz has paid more than his fair share. Most Americans have paid more than their fair share. That's President Obama's point. Some, not all, very rich people have been paying a lot less than their fair share. It seems that Mr. Romney, who is benefitting under the current system, wants to keep it that way.
Everything was right on track for a logical and pointed argument against Mr. Lovitz's (thoroughly exaggerated) claims. And then came...
"President Obama isn't trying to throw the wealthy "under the bus to get votes." He's trying to pay down the debt that the U.S. has incurred because of high expenses (especially the wars) and low income (especially with people losing their jobs paying less tax). We've had huge debts since President Obama took office and he's been asking Congress since then for ways to help pay them off. It's not an election-year ploy. "
You are so very close to coming out of the fog. All that's needed now is to click away from the H-Post, turn off MSNBC and let common sense slowly enter back into your system.
And then turn on Fox for all the real truth. Haha.
Ileana, (and apparently "DBN") have been sucked into the redistributionist, (aka, from those who do, to those who don't bother) camp championed by A. Huff, "Ed" & Keith O. (how I do miss his rants). There is little difference from than the "blame the illegals" crowd, (Rush, Shawn H. etc.).
Our problem is that in the end their affiliation to the "Political" party trumps any loyalties to either the Democratic or Republican organizations. Their mission is to serve themselves through a federal bureaucracy that's 10-times the size it should be.
I'll say it again. Take away their credit cards before the entire country is in foreclosure.
Unfortunately, ½ the country runs their personal finances the same way as Washington does it. You know, the one’s crying about those big, bad banks that forced them to borrow that money to buy a house they could never afford, (and then throw a home-equity line on top of it to cover the Viking range & hot tub).
INot a spending problem OR revenue/tax problem. IT'S BOTH CAUSE BABY BOOMERS SPENT IT ALL!!! We need more money in and less money out. Raise taxes and reduce spending how the eff else are we going to pay for all your stupid decisions.
I very seldom watch MSNBC. I did during the Olympics. I'm not talking about redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. My post admits that some wealthy people are paying more than their share, but no one is paying anything close to 50%. However, there are some other wealthy people and corporations who are abusing the system and paying very little to none of their share.
God I LOVE smart women!
What makes people think our government won't spend away any increase in revenue, rather than use it to pay our debts? Stop spending!
They will spend it, but they will spend it regardless of whether it's revenue or debt.
The Senate under Harry Reid hasn't submitted a budget in over 3 years. We NEED A STRICT budget with lots of CUTS and NO SPENDING INCREASES.
"I remember Jimmi Savil, saying years ago, how he earned sixpence from every pound that came his way. Imagine what he was bringing out of peoples pockets/savings and back on the streets. That, as you/yourself must agree is Shillings-at-work. A magic, Obama has no idea of understanding. He is Joe Loss of Dead Loss, and even more lost on a highway full of traffic know-how."
Can we just have a flat tax alread?
We can have a flat tax when we do away with ALL tax right-offs. So, never.
Yea that's indicative of a flat tax. There's no reason for a write off if taxes are the same across the board. It would at least shut most of the yammering about too much or to little tax for who ever happens to be in the class that is affected.
I'm all for a flat tax. I do not think that people that earn millions should have to pay a higher precentage than some one that makes a 100,000 dollars, or someone that earns 25,000.
I don't think anyone should have to pay a different tax from anyone. I've made less after a raise because I was boosted into a higher tax bracket. It makes no sense. Flat tax ends the class war on taxes and brings solidarity to everyone involved. Everyone would have to fight for lower taxes on the same grounds.
Get rid of all taxes except a sales tax. That way the people who spend the most will pay the most, while those who spend very little will pay very little.
What is this guy talking about ? We are not paying anymore taxes under President Obama than we did under President Bush. .... Don't get it
Jon Lovitz is a washed-up jerk who's just trying anything to stay relevant.
NO ONE PAYS MORE THAN %35!!!! It's in the instructions on the 1040 on irs.gov if you don't believe me. My wife and I just started making more than $100,000 combined and are no longer on the normal tax table. We multiply our income by 25%. After that the bracket goes to %28 but no higher than %35 no matter how much you make. Also, for all the idiots out there...FICA/Social security is taxed at %6.2 on the first $106,800 you make. After that no FICA/Social security tax. Jon Lovitz and all other high wage earners want you to think they pay SO MUCH in tax when percentage wise they pay less than nearly all of the middle class. They want you to think that because as recently as Reagan in the 80's they paid %50 which was a %20 reduction from what they paid prior to Reagan which was %70. It's not rocket science!!!!
Thank You. Someone who knows economic history.
What you say is not. I congratulate you and your wife on your success. But when you hit AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) thresholds you'll discover a different story. I won't go through the math here, because it's frankly not simple, but point you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax where you'll find examples that illustrate much higher percentages being paid. The really sad thing is that we're only talking about Federal Income Taxes. Americans work an average of 4 months a year just to pay taxes. http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/27/pf/taxes/tax_freedom/index.htm The higher up your income goes as a W2 wage earner the longer you work just to pay taxes. Yes, there are folks like Romney, Buffet, Gates where they have passive investment income that is taxed a much lower rates but these are the exception, not the rule. The fairest thing would be to do away with ALL the exemptions, loopholes and deductions and have everyone pay a flat percentage. It'll will never happen but it would be fair.
Gerald, according to the Wikipedia article you referenced, "The AMT is a tax of roughly 28% on adjusted gross income over $175,000 plus 26% of amounts less than $175,000 minus an exemption depending on filing status after adding back in most deductions." The AMT has a "more comprehensive measure of income than regular federal income tax" because it's trying to get at real income that people have but have put in tax shelters & or used other loopholes that have put these items out of the reach of the regular federal income tax. These are the kind of tax dodges that have people paying a lot less than 35%. In trying to close these loopholes, the AMT has hurt a lot of people who weren't trying to dodge taxes.
Admittedly the AMT needs to be reformed to fix these problems (or eliminated if we can get the regular tax laws to work fairly). However going back to the pre-Bush tax rates on the regular income tax makes no difference whatsoever on the AMT calculation.
I don't think you and I are at odds. The AMT has hurt a lot of people. It was established way back in 1969 to target a very small number of individuals that were taking advantage of the tax loopholes you mentioned. But it has not been indexed for inflation and now adversely affects the middle class. It was a bad idea in '69, the loopholes should have been closed. We do this all the time, we treat symptoms and not root causes.
Piers Morgan clearly has an Obama Agenda. I am not a democrat or republican, but clearly Piers supports Obama. Lovitz pays more than 50% of his income in taxes, and Piers Morgan asks Lovitz if he feels that he should have a "moral" obligation to pay more taxes and help the less fortunate? First off, if Lovitz wants to donate money to the less fortunate, that is HIS business, not the federal government's business. Why id the Obama administration trying to punish the successful? I would like to know what percentage of income Piers Morgan pays! What has happened to journalism?
Sorry. Wrong person. I don't agree with this. Can't delete my comment. Not trying to troll.
I don't know what Jon L. is complaining about, the President isn't to blame, it's the elitist ideology of the career politicians in the House and Senate who have taken Americans for a ride on our dime. Obama has influence, but the power continues to be held by the Congress, a republican Congress.
John, you are an uninformed fool. The Senate is controlled by Harry Reid and the Democrats, and that's why we don't have a budget and haven't had one for three years. The Dims don't want to be held accountable.
Well Jon, being a member of the 1% you should remember that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one".
Jon is no longer in the 1 percent. He is irrelevant. He has some cash in his pockets that he should keep. My problem is the man that thinks that one person making 20 million dollars per year has come at a cost of 1000 people that are no longer working. Our country has a huge deficit that neither side will blame on the Bush Wars and the Dodd/Frank fiasco. The wealthy are paid to cut costs, not to create jobs. 50 people doing the job of 100 increases profit. After the Enron collapse; Barney Frank used his office to turn the banking system into what it is today. To Me, It is amazing that Chase Bank is worth more than our nation. Perhaps, They will pay for the wars that have been fought over the last 10 years. They financed WWI; Step up now.
Discussions on your program about the politics of the election are very frustrating. No where in this election cycle is the underlying economic problem being discussed. We have been bleeding about 5% of our GDP in capital out flow every year due to the trade deficit for over ten years. The trade deficit has removed the demand for about 60 million jobs and has reduced Federal personal income tax revenue by more than 400 billion each year and State revenue by more than 160 billion. 40% of the trade deficit is energy, 27% is electronics, 19 % is automotive, 12% is chemicals, and 3% is machinery. Only 17% is from China. With our lack of skilled trades training and our over consolidated urban schools failing to educate, we are becoming disconnected from economic self sufficiency. It really does not matter at this time who wins the presidency. Once the European union dissolves and major defaults occur, the interconnecting derivatives will bring our economy down drastically further reducing tax revenues. Since the Fed is already borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, the Fed will have no choice but to inflate the currency and cut spending drastically as no one will be absorbing T bills. Inflation will raise interest rates which will increase the debt service of the national debt beyond sustainability. The Fed will default and we will implode into the deficit. My fear is that the resulting loss in capital could affect the availability of food on the shelf. If that happens there will be food rationing and blood on the street. I believe that our Congressman, Steve LaTourette, bowed out of a guaranteed election because he did not want to be in the Capital when the ceiling caved in. http://orcosportsmans.com/Pages/Underlying.htm
Why would anyone care to know what a comedian thinks about politics or taxes ??
Judy, I'll bet your favorite comedian is Bill Mahr and you believe everything HE has to say. Right?
Economy is the same because Republicans voted NO to everything , period
How arrogant of Piers to tell Jon Lovitz that if he is successful and makes millions of dollars, he should be willing to pay more to help out the less fortunate. Anyone can do that right now. It's called charity. The Hollywood left who preaches about higher taxes should put their money where their mouths are and voluntarily fork out more of that tax money. It would be interesting to see where some of these uber wealthy Hollywood elites invest their money.
Agree with you wholeheartedly Jan, I made a similar comment. I found Mr. Morgans comments INSULTING!
Bush's Unemployment rate:
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.3% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.
Piers, Bush never had anything above 8% unemployment. I see now why CNN is lowest rated cable news channel.
John is/was a funny man, now that he has stuck his neck out into politics, he's lost half of his fan base. Here's an idea for actors and entertainers, keep the dirty political stuff to yourself, we don't wanna know.
Two contradictory statements here. Jon said that he has a 50% tax rate before deductions.
Then he went on to say his business is barely breaking even. He must have a really bad accountant, if you don't make any money, you don't pay any taxes....... And if you have other profitable businesses or income you can usually offset losses against it to reduce your tax liability.
Lets be open about why our nation is in this situation; We should ask Ken Lay. I wonder everyday where he is living.
Life for most Americans changed because of the Enron Scheme. This company had so many ties to foreign nations and a tie to the President of the United States. It is important to remember that Bechtel had kindred ties. Lets not forget about Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Enron collapsed and sentenced Schilling and Fastow to terms that saved the nation. GW may have not been in the mix, but Cheney was. What really bothered me was how the Democrat congress answered. Barnie Frank and his Ways and Means Commitee changed the law pertaining to Mark to Market; The Banks responded by increasing their loan activity to bring the share holders profits up. Barnie Frank thought that it was wise to treat mortgages as a quarterly investment instead of the 30 year investment that most Americans had intended. I am 55 years old and own my house, but I no longer have a job.
Ken Lay died of a heart attack in 2006.
It was the most slanted interview I have ever seen, I think CNBC would have been more fare. Doesn't mention democrats held both houses of Congress from 2006 to 2010, when it all happened. The banks were forced to give bad loans with no money down, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd said Freedie and Fanny were just fine no problem. Also I always ask my democratic friends how much extra did they send above their tax rate, no one ever sent in an extra dime. Let's tax Hollywood and TV folks at 80%, so they can help us all out. The congress is split and the Senate never brings most things passed in the House to the floor for a vote. The President never even had a Budget passed when he had all of Congress. Now Piers and Spike Lee can have a love fest for the next 30 min.
Poor 1%, who will look out for them?!?!?
romney pays 13% i support romney because he's taking a stand against stupid poor people. 13% is a lot of money because romney creates jobs and gives a lot of charity. without the rich, the poor would be out on the streets.
I want to address you in person. I am not a pauper, but I realize that 10 people that make $50,000 per year get more done than the man that earns the milion dollar salary. 10 more people would be in the tax pool and the company is richer by getting rid of the fat guy. Let us not forget that our own success is dependant upon others. You built it but you had help!
And without the non-rich, the rich would have no one to get rich off of. Looks like we're stuck with each other.
Hey Lovitz, why don't you use some of your money to get chin tuck?
Probably because he isn't a superficial image hungry d-bag who relies on looks to gain him fame or popularity (neither of which are anything more than a complete farce if you gain them based on something so meaningless – example the Kardashians. Kanye West, Paris Hilton, and the other 99% of the trash raised to celebrity status these days merely because freaks have no lives of your own and have to live vicariously through other obvious losers). Let's ask your own question of you now. Why don't you spend some of your own money to buy a clue, or a better personality?
I don't agree with what John said above but I do know the guy has more to be happy about in life than a sad sack loser trying to bag on him on a forum he'll never read. Your parents must be so proud that they raised such an asset to society. <--Wet floor! Do not step on the sarcasm drippings
No, the answer to my question is that Lovitz is obviously a tightwad, cheap-skate, scrooge, whatever you want to call it.
As for contributions to society, the kind of thing I said before was funny when Lovitz made a career out of saying it in character. I guess he and his fans can dish it out, but can't take it.
Mr. Romney..it's your INCOME TAXES that we cre requesting ..not just taxes,,we know you pay taxes on all your properties....
Unfortunately for you Ruthie, as it turns out there are different tax rates not only for levels of income, but also types of income. For example, capital gains of which I am sure Mr. Romney has plenty are generally taxed at a lower rate. That said, it may not paint a pretty picture for the election, but he didn't break the law. Nobody is beyond the reach of the IRS, and if there was a problem he would have been audited and penalized.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should have worked on tax reform instead of his socialist agenda, then instead of this petty discussion we could focus on something that matters. The fact that I voted for him 4 years ago does not escape my mind. It was a huge mistake, and it is one I will not repeat.
Yeah – like this piece of garbage has-been doesn't have enough chins yet from "paying his fair share."
I do not like Piers Morgan. – just saying
Does Morgan not know about themarket crash due to the over inflation of the housing market, which was brought on by the loosening of mortgage guidelines! Clearly he has his own agenda and brings nothing to the conversation other than badgering a normal guy who may not explain it like a pol but is willing to take the questions. I give Lovitz credit for sitting through this guys garbage. Someone needs to explain to Morgan the difference between cap gains taxes and income taxes.. Oh wait he knows he just chooses to ignore reality. Maybe because he didn't want to upset spike while he drooled over him.
I am very disappointed in your questions Mr. Morgan. Regarding the question to Mr. Lovitz asking if he felt a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, I find this incredibly INSULTING, AS I D DO NOT HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT to do THAT! I give on my terms, to charities, families in my neighborhood, churches, and others in my own community. It is ignorant, insulting and wrong to imply that just because someone is fiscally conservative, that means they do not care or have compassion for those less fortunate. It is exactly the OPPOSITE. Addressing our debt is the only way we will, in long run protect our liberties and freedom, in doing that it is showing the ultimate care for our country's citizens.
on another note, when are people going to wake up and realize THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT create jobs!!! Business's do!!!
Wow. Never thought I'd come to respect this guy but after this interview, I sure do. There's an 'unspoken' middle ground voter in this country, and I think he represented that echelon honestly and forthright. John doesn't pretend to be an authority or expert, just states what ordinary Americans might think (focusing on his own opinions). I'm registered democrat but I separate with liberals in some ways. I too am disappointed in Obama, and John expressed why I am better than I could have.
Like John, I'm waiting on the debates to see how I'm going to vote – like any true American should. Romney isn't like any Bush – such that if Romney were voted I wouldn't be compelled to move out of the country. I'm going to weigh the options in the name of the best possible America for the next four years.
God you must be an idiot if Romney is not like Bush 43. If you haven't notice, some of his foreign and economic advisers are the same ones that work with Bush/Cheney campaign. Romney will be like Bush 43 starting with outsourcing more jobs to China, more tax breaks with the 1%, and starting a war with Iran.
piers--APPLE as example ???? google how much THEY pay in taxes !!
Ken Lay is dead. long time !
if you want brit laws-just go back !!
OK I'm done with this show.
First off it's like a free Obama campaign ad lately, secondly there is NOTHING more annoying than a non-American telling us how we "should be doing things like they do in Europe".
He might even be right, but if it's so bad here.......PLEASE go back to England. We have all the self-important twits we need domestically, we don't need to import any.
Right on point, Dean;
Piers is a lap-dog, shoe licker for Obama. He needs to go back to that insignificant little island where he belongs.
love it or leave it right...can't have a dissenting view in this country without hearing that phrase!
Dean that was stated perfectly ! I love it and laughed out loud.
Piers Morgan is an out of control ego-maniac and a liability to America. He will get ratings for shock value and because of his famous predecessor, but that's where the line is drawn. I try to remain open-minded, but I can not understand why we want to make every country the same. In America should everyone have an opportunity? Of course, but that doesn't mean we have to become socialists. I find it hard to believe even as I type this that I have finally come to the point of recycling GOP rhetoric, but this guy makes it hard for an Independent to not lean right.
BTW, release your taxes Piers. Are you paying your fair share you self-loathing 1%er?
Why is it fair to ask the 1% to pay more, or anyone for that matter when:
1) You can't tell people to stop having more kids than they can afford to feed or pay for healthcare.
2) You can't shut down the borders to stop people coming into the country or ship people out who aren't here legally.
3) You can't tell the 99% to get off your lazy friggin butts and take the jobs that the people in number 2 are taking and not paying taxes on.
4) You can't tell the 99% that most people in other countries don't own their houses so why they heck shouldn you.
5) You can't tell people that what happens in rap videos isn't reality so don't try to be a rapper OR rock star for that matter.
6) You can't tell people to stop spending their money on cell phones, fast food, clothes, cars, etc. cause they can't afford it and you are going into debt you won't be able to pay back.
There are lots of things the government won't say to people because it's just not good for their reelection but that should be said. It's much easier to pick on a class of people that supposedly lives these glamorous lives on money they've been so fortunate to make. Jon is 100% right and more people should be honest about the inequities in this country. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be doing it. He pays his fair share. The rest of the country either needs to work harder or stop asking and expecting so much. Life isn't 'fair' but he definitely pays his fair share.
i love how he minimizes his "deductions." what a dweeb.
I just watched this interview and the realization of what Jon was really saying, (and what he claims many Republicans, and others feel) made me feel sick to my stomach. He said that when it comes to ALL the social issues, (gay rights, women's rights, health care, social security, ecology, etc.) he is NOT in agreement with the Republican party. But then, he goes on to say he supports the Republican party solely because of the economy.
This is when it really hit me. The reality that so many people in this country are voting for their bank accounts over the civil rights, health and well being of their fellow citizens and our planet. The epiphany that this many people would put "loving their neighbors" at the bottom of their priority list made me feel physically ill.
The worshipping of money goes against the basic tenants of all religions and even those who do not practice a religion should recognize how we are all interconnected. Yet, the importance of loving and caring for all those, (human or other), who inhabit this tiny globe, or what we COULD do if we all worked together, seems to be totally lost in the debates.
Is this what we have come to as citizens of this nation? (Of this planet.) A nation of selfishness and greed? A nation that puts the Almighty Dollar above everything and everyone? – How very tragic for us all.
Worse than that, brother...The system is making the entire society scared that, as a country we are going down the tubes and that there is nothing we can do about it.... save every dollar you can... grab the life vests...the zombies are approaching... collect canned goods & get a gun... Not volunteer and help your community.... give blood...coach a little league game...educate your kids... the message is clear! Panic! and look out for numero-uno. even at the expense of your own family. sad really
What a disappointment to discover that Jon Lovitz is this misinformed and gullible.
I'm curious, are all of you posters defending tax cuts for the wealthy also making millions every year? Because those are the people that Romney/Ryan/Bush policies are meant to benefit, but there are so few people, speaking just of sheer numbers, in that bracket, that no one would ever get elected on that sort of platform unless millions and millions of less-well-off voters were convinced to support policies that help the rich rather than themselves.
Lovitz was spewing all of the trickle-down myths when the host asked a direct question: Okay, if tax cuts on business and the wealthy lead to economic and job growth, why did George W Bush's tax cuts lead to financial collapse? Lovitz said "I don't know". He said it twice. This is because he really doesn't know. Clearly he doesn't, otherwise he wouldn't be pushing all of these Republican talking points.
Most small businesses make far less than $250,000. The vast, vast majority wouldn't be affected by a tax raise at that level. So this myth about "hurting small business" is almost entirely nonsense. Most people also make far less than that (again, ask yourself, do you make that much?) so wouldn't be affected.
The middle class has gained nothing, zero, in decades, while the rich took a larger and larger percentage of the wealth. So why would voters continue to support this arrangement? One answer is that everyone thinks that wealth is just around the corner, that any day now I'll be joining the ranks of the super wealthy, so I'll vote now for policies that benefit them.
You're all letting yourselves be duped. And robbed, basically. It's self-inflicted, without you supporting billionaires they'd have no power.
It is the people you call "wealthy" who create the jobs and build the industry of this country. No poor person ever created a job, other than the politicians they elect to give them more handouts. When the vote is controlled by the poor, or non-wage earners we are doomed to become a socialist country.
Voting should be limited to only those people who have jobs and are tax payers. After all, the wage earners are the ones who will be paying the bills of this country, so only they should vote.
Wrong. I created jobs with my small businesses and I am far from wealthy. As are most of the small business people I know. I think our taxes are reasonable. What would help us the most is a reformed health care system so we could provide more benefits to our employees. We love our employees and would like to ensure a better quality of life for them and their families.
Middle class these days equal working poor. Hard to fight for your right when they keep you chained with debts.
Watch Jon Lovitz with Piers last night. Piers must be blessed with patience. Jon may have knowledge but he didn't show it, and he did not articulate it. I think Piers is the best. How is suffers through some of his "not so bright" guests, I'll never know.
My view from NL. Canada
Wow, this board just seems to be full of support for Lovitz. Except that his claim of paying "at least 50% or more" is total bunk. The highest marginal income tax rate is 35% and has been for years, congress (nor Obama for that matter) hasn't changed it at all; and even that is only applied on what an individual or married couple makes OVER $388k in a year. He also hasn't touched the capital gains tax, which remains at a flat 15%, no matter how much you make. How has this lie that Obama is some sort of big tax hiker propagated so much to you sheeple? Under his administration, the Bush tax cuts to families making over 250k was actually extended, at great cost to the deficit. Like seriously, what in God's name will it take for you to stop eating up the absurd lies fed to you?
Taxes should be based on pain they cause. Federal taxes come to 19% of my $70k salary, or $13k a year. That $13k would make a big difference to me if I got to keep it, and it hurts to give it up. It would pay my rent for a year, which would allow me to send my kid to a better school, take a real vacation, etc. It would amount to a change in my lifestyle.
Compare that to someone making $10 million a year. He's going to be paying 35% to the feds, or $3.5 million. Now, while I'm sure it's painful to give up that much money, the fact of the matter is that he's left with $6.5 million dollars. His lifestyle isn't significantly impacted: he can still fly first class, still eat out every night, still afford just about any insane luxury he wants.
In other words, the pain inflicted by his $3.5 million dollar loss is not equal to mine.
"I don't know." - John Lovitz
How about we just do away with taxes and pay a consumer tax. You buy stuff, you pay a tax. Sure prices would increase but I'd gladly pay more to not have to worry about taxes and the irs. Plus no one would be able to avoid a consumer tax unlike now where people have loop holes and ways to hide their wealth.
I don't know what Lovitz knows or what but he does not even know how much tax he pays. You don't pay 50% before deductions.most of us pay around that amount when considering REand sales taxes if your just middle class. Lovitz probably pays less. Small business has also done better under Obama than Lovitz realizes tax wise and regulation wise to date.the problem is DEMAND! All these republicans are killing their own market beginning with Romney, Bush/Cheney, banks, WallStreet,Oil Companies,ETC. poverty level wages and benefits for 50% of Americans is absolutely rediculouse!
What kind of interview was that ? Morgan is a total fraud about what's right. Lovitz pays more than our african president. Furthermore, Morgan & CNN, in previous interviews, talked about the British royals as if the world needs those fools and their wealth is honorable. GTH. And maybe get that speech impediment fixed...sounds like you have a d i-c k in your mouth.
Moral obligation..... How can there be any morality if there is no God or Something to answer to when we die ? Typical fallacy of the liberal elite. So is the asteroid immoral when it hits the earth ? Is disease immoral ? No...it just is because the universe has no rules. You either agree with something or you don't. It's that simple. Don't use morality as a weapon to further your cause...especially if you are a Godless twit.
The liberal media is sooo over the top in its "love fest" with Obama, that it is going to backfire on election day. Piers: ask questions and listen to your guests answers.
Get back to what your job is!
The problem is there are those defined as being rich that don't pay their fair share. No one is accusing all of the rich, but 1 trillion dollars in tax havens tells you there are those in the top tier wealthy class that don't pay their taxes and do what they can to keep their money from being taxed.
The issue isn't just with the rich, tax evaders are everywhere.
If Lovitz is paying 50% in taxes he needs anew accountant since the highest rate is 35%. And that's only on the income e you make over $372,000 AFTER deductions. And if he's talking about ALL taxes not just income taxes then he can't say that half the country is paying ZERO taxes. Since if you included ALL taxes EVRYONE is saying some taxes. Anyone with a job gets FICA taxes taken out. Well FICA Taxes has the word TAX in it. Anyone that buys gas for their cars pays gas TAXes. Anyone that buy anything at a store pays sales TAXes. So sorry Lovitz EVERYONE pays taxes.
Fed 35%, NY State about 9%, add property taxes and sales tax, NY City Income taxes 3.876%....So 50% before deductions sounds about right. Sure, everyone pays some....but Lovitz pays more than you. A lot more. Romney pays millions in taxes. I think he's done his part also.
Well, he pays top bracket for earned income...like if he does a voiceover for a cartoon... But what about investments? Any money he earns when he puts that Million into a mutual fund, stock, or Bond, he pays much less for that. and I assume Jon Lovitz the Man is in control of Jon Lovitz the corporation which probably has its own separate tax ID number. and Perhaps there is Jon Lovitz the trust (another tax ID) .... If the dude was actually paying 50% taxes, these days, he should get a different accountant.
So in other words, Loki, if Mitt Romney paid enough when he paid "at least 13%" (his words) on his millions of dollars of income, why is it when someone else wants to pay "at least 13%" on his thousands of dollars of income he isn't paying his fair share? For that matter, why is it ok for Mitt Romney to pay "at least 13%" and Jon Lovitz, who is also a Republicon, to pay 50%? If they are both telling the truth, which I have serious doubts about but that's another story, does that even remotely sound fair to you? I mean, they're both rich after all. Shouldn't they pay the same tax rate? Don't strain yourself too hard thinking of answers to these questions.
What is wrong here is that we don't know how much either one of them paid. Mitt Romney paid 13-% of what? He has not submitted even one completed to come tax return!
Since Jon wants to talk about politics maybe he should one of the panels on Real Time with Bill Maher. Also, he should bring along his friend Dennis Miller, teabagger Victoria Jackson, Dana Carvey, and maybe Al Franken to Bill Maher.
Bill Maher doesn't allow his conservative panel guests even time and he finishes each show with his anti conservative rant. So why would any republican want to be his guest. His show is also a tribute to gays, I guess because he himself is a closet poof. Probably his worst liberal panel person is R. Maddow.
You must be a neocon since you prefer lies and opinions instead facts.
I really don't like Morgan. He just sits there argueing with people for the sake of arguement. It's like talking to an ignorant brick wall. To be honest Larry King wasn't much better. I don't know if I started watching Larry after he started going senile or if he was always like that but he just ran his mouth without taking in any outside information.
In this clip Morgan is argueing with Job Lovitz without actually listening to what he's saying. Predatory lending and a debt driven economy is what destroyed the U.S. financial system. If Jon Lovitz lives within his means then he shouldn't have to foot the bill for daytraders that bought porche's on credit and poor people who were two ignorant to realize the bank was offering them debt they wouldn't be able to pay back!
Most of you have commented about tax rates. A few about job creation. I can tell you as a small business owner, we are not hiring until Obama is out of office and maybe not until Affordable (JOKE) Health Care is repealed. Our costs are already rising from $527 a month to $820 since 2010. It was all a big lie that it would reduce costs. I am still hopeful because Jon spoke up. More people should do the same. I know you are out there. Income tax started out to be voluntary. WOW! Let's see what liberals would do if we went back to that.
Did you get your facts from Faux News or some right-wing website.
Oh, by the way that is just for my husband and I with a $5000 deductible and no co-pay.
By the way, I was just "banned" from Facebook for posting this "too much" about this matter on my Facebook "Bobby John" account. :(
Devildogoz, since no one can reply to u how can u debate? When the wealthy follow the christian values that most of them taunt at us then they have more validity. For whom much is given, much is required. And for the record I'm a Wendy's fan just dont like how they changed the apple pie.
• John Lovitz Pays Enough "Yeah! That's the ticket!"
GOOD FOR YOU, JACK!
Tough to stand by and remain silent when you're listening to this pampered and pompous privileged 'comedy actor' prattle on. Just like during these ('no-questions-please') GOP right leaning and cheerleading promotional appearance that Mr Lovitz makes...
Where the bright idea of a "Return to American Values" is making the wealthy wealthier and simultaneously dismantling Medicare; literally 'crippling' our seniors ability to maintain their vital health care coverage with security and level of dignity.
Grandma can't get her necessary new 'Wheelchair Upgrade' but Mitt Romney gets a Kick A*s Multi-Level Garage Installed? The Choice for 2012 Elections: Obama Cares vs. Romney "Who-Cares, Really?"
And who exactly is more "deserving" in this situation?" John Lovitz an apathetic washed up, windbag comedian (who's to evidently wealthy to care about the elderly anymore) or even Mitt Romney made money during his lifetime buying and selling businesses; and Granny and Grandpa worked and paid into their Medicaid account their ENTIRE lifetime!
By the way, these "comedy" right-wingers like John Lovitz and Dennis Leary also want to "End Food Stamps as We Need it" for the folks who are either senior, disabled and/or those who's unemployment eligibility has dried up. And who's next to demonized? What about VA compensable service-connected conditions. '
Will Romney and Ryan's "cheerleaders" instigation the "Obama Cares vs. Romney 'Who-Cares, Really" debate; eventually also demonize and then chuck these guys and gals under the bus too?
More Room For Mitt Romney's 'to-numerous-to-count' comfy SUVs inside Park in Multi-Story Garage Elevator Or More Room for Our Senior Citizens and Disabled At their Doctor's Offices?
And more importantly: Which is the better investment in our nation' Senior Citizens (not to mention their families) Future? Grandma's Health Care continuance; or installing the multi-story ‘Garage’ at Mitt Romney and companies palatial mansions?
I say send Mitt back to the Luxury Garage at his palatial mansion in Massachusetts and send our Grannies and Granddads back to her doctor's appointments.
These guys also want to "End Food Stamps as We Need it" for the folks who are either senior, disabled and/or those who are unemployment eligibility have dried up. And who's next to demonized?
What about VA commensurable service-connected conditions as well as those veterans needing nursing home care and inpatient hospitalizations. Will Romney and Ryan eventually also demonize and then chuck these guys and gals under the bus too?
Will Romney and Ryan's "cheerleaders" instigation the "Obama Cares vs. Romney 'Who-Cares, Really" debate; eventually also demonize and then chuck these guys and gals under the bus too?
Which is the better investment in America's Future?
You Decide – We ALL Decide ~ The Clear Choice in the 2012:
(+) "Charitable Benevolence for the Suffering and Disabled vs. Continued Tax Cuts for the Wealthy!" (+)
Side Note: By the way, I was just "banned" from Facebook today for posting "too much" I guess; regarding these Medicare related matters (supposedly for 'spamming' too many posts) on my Facebook "Bobby John" account. :(
You think we're going to sit here and read every word of this?^
Stupid, stupid. stupid Piers Morgan, you are from the UK you have no clue about America and the tax system, you only work here and pay in another country loser.
If Jon thinks he has it rough now wait until this story gets out.
Every time I mention to a Republicon that I paid 40%, whether it's talking to a live one, or on a message board, or on one of these blogs, Republicons always say the same thing about how could I be paying 40% when the highest tax rate is 35%. Well, Jon Lovitz sounds like a Republicon, so here's my question for him... How could he be paying 50% when the highest tax rate is 35%? Or is that 35% a magic number that only applies to non-Republicons? Oh, that's right. Republicons think the tax rate for them is "at least 13%". My bad.
"yeah... uhmm... I'm... paying my fair share. Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket! I'm paying my fair share... and I... I'm paying the most a person has.... every paid... ever. In the history or the world. Yeah, that's the ticket... and if I had even more money.... I'd... I'd be... a... a... job creator. yeah, that's the ticket.
Who Cares wrote: "Stupid, stupid. stupid Piers Morgan, you are from the UK you have no clue about America and the tax system, you only work here and pay in another country loser."
Actually, he doesn't do that because he can't. If you work here, you pay here. That's the law. And while he may be a dork, I wouldn't call him stupid. He moved here because the tax rates in the UK are much much higher than they are here. By working and paying taxes here, he is saving a lot of money over what he would have to pay in the UK. Not to mention, I bet he makes more here because CNN somehow got the idea that he's a celebrity.
I bet that if each of us would define his fair share of taxes, the tax will be negative.
Yeah..we'll get Jon Lovitz as a political commentator ...that's it That's the ticket..
I have the point of view that Obama is a very intelligent man, very smart, BUT it gave me serious pause with an incredulous laugh when I heard or hear him accuse the other of giving tax breaks for the rich.
Well, doesn't President Obama have a large very affluent, super wealthy set of supporters in Hollywood to Silicon Valley, etc. etc.?
This sort of hypocrisy I find in the (pathetic) Occupy Movement. Which I think is something that was spurred on by Obama's language and hypocrisy.
And... I don't like that. I'm changing whom I vote for from here on.
I don't understand this comment. Obama will tax all rich people even his supporters. Romney's plan destroys Medicare andSS as well as giving himself a multimillion dollar tax break. This will of course include the Koch Brothers who control him.
The logic missing in the statement by "Obama's hypocrisy" is the fact that president Obama's "super wealthy set of supporters ..." AGREE that they are not paying a fair percentage of taxes. They understand that the tax cuts they received in the past are part of the problems we face as a nation and they are willing to step up and help correct the problems. Even if this means they will be paying a larger percentage.
"Obama hypocrisy" makes the mistake of assuming that everyone of wealth is also greedy, selfish and short sighted. More money is not the goal of thoughtful, caring, philanthropic people and believe it or not, there are plenty of wealthy people who fall into this category. Even some celebrities.
You certainly have the right to change your mind about who you are going to vote for, but I hope you will put a little more thought and research into your decision making process.
But John, you're really not. The two Bush tax cuts will cost our government $7 billion according to the C.B.O., and the IRAQ war along cost us $1 billion. Because of these two things alone, we can't fund the FDA, the Dept of Education, the Dept of Defense and Dept of Health.....so John, you are not paying your fair share, and neither are the rest of us.
"Cost our government..." I see you drank the Cool-Aid. What does it cost the people who actually earn the money!? It cost the government nothing. The government did nothing to earn it. It just picks the pockets of hard-working Americans.
Waaaaah, I have to pay a high tax rate because I make millions of dollars, waaaaah!
If this guy has a problem with the U.S. tax system, he can move to Singapore: cram yourself into a 100 square foot apartment, pay $60,000 a year to register your car and get shot if you talk badly about the ruling party.
Looks like Piers bought the Obama campaign line. He's just a sleazy tabloid journalist. Move along, nothing special to see here.
This is an interview?? "Please come on the show, so I can tell you 20 different ways why your answers to all my questions are wrong." This is the best personality CNN could find to replace Larry King? It certainly pays to have friends in high places.
Did any one notice Jon said he pays 50% then he has deductions? What does he pay AFTER deductions? 10% maybe! The more money you make, the more money you can hide form the tax man.
Every one is paying SS and MC (7.65 % or 15.3%), it is a myth that people making 20-30K do not pay taxes.
Also the sale tax of %10 recently in many cities whipes another big chunk of money.
He pays less 3% effective tax for SS or MC and Obama Care (ACA) will increase it and add MC/MA tax to the anything people make more than $250K.
As percentatge of his income that he makes in this country he has not paid his fair share.
Neither has Romney at 13%.
Small business owners, 98% of which make less than $250K, should be upset with him since the pay 15.3 % taxes to SS&MA alone.
Instead of Obama's remarks, taken out of context and refering to infostructure: "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT!"
I am a liberal who is on the same side of this argument as Piers Morgan. That being said, I would have enjoyed the interview more if Jon Lovitz had been allowed to finish his thoughts. I tune into these shows to hear the person being interviewed...not to see him/her being cut-off in mid paragraph.(Or mid sentence, even) Also, Piers' arguments for tax increases are not as well though out as somebody championing my side should be. He practically confirms the fears that the Republicans have been promoting. I would like better and more reasonable voices in the media championing the left.. Drama may win TV ratings, but it does very little for fixing the country's problems.
come on you yanks, suck it up. You are trying to prove to the rest of the world that you are a bunch of idiots...I am sure such is not the case.
Why is your political system and fiscal regime a mess? Get with the honour and dignity you have always displayed.
where is Larry King ?
This drives me nuts. Romney is living off capital gains. Capital gains should always be lower than taxes for regular salaries. Why? THAT MONEY HAS AL READY BEEN TAXED! How many times does the greedy government want to get their hands on it?
That is why Warren Buffett pays less taxes than his secretary. warren is living off capital gains for the most part. Again, that money has already been taxed when he earned it. Regular earnings should always be taxed higher. It has not been taxed.
We have heard this stupid argument about taxes already being paid so many times it's become ridiculous. It's known that 48 of the top companies in the U.S. pay little or no taxes at all.capital gains is supposed to be based on the value of stocks, not taxes they don't pay.in addition, not all people are allowed to participate in capital gains,namely, pension funds and certain IRAs. There are also loopholes that allow people like Romney to unfairly use capital gains in ways other people can't. That's one of the reasons that Romney hasn't released even one completed tax return.
Answer this then. How many times does the government get to tax money that you have earned?
I thought Romney released two years of tax returns. Which was good enough for John McCain (who probably is as rich as Romney). Good enough for John Kerry ( remember him). Was it an issue for John Kennedy that he was rich? Why such an issue for Romney?
The reason is Obama can't run on his record. He has to point to tax returns of his opponent.
It is interesting. You don't hear anything about Obama running around asking people if they are better off than they were four years ago? Why?
Romney has NOT released even one completed tax form because he is still playing games like he did when he eas running for gov. Of MA. He lied then and he is hiding something serious now. He is used to committing felonies like when he played state trooper and stopped women driving by themselves. This my wife tells me is the MO of a serial killer or rapist. At a minimum, it is the action of a serious oddball.that plus the fact that the money he has made is blood money he is a corporate raider that took advantage of Reagon's relaxation of SEC laws to destroy moderately healthy companies or outsource them to China which republicans called investing in America?
I looked it up and Romney says he will release two years of his tax returns before October 15th. I stand corrected. Will that make you happy. Again, that is all McCain released. That is all JOHN KERRY released (it wasn't a big deal he was a rich guy was it?). Was it a big deal John Kennedy was a rich guy? Oh no. That is right. Kerry was a Democrat. So was Kennedy.
You never answered two questions.
Why isn't Obama asking people if they were better off today than they were four years ago?
How many times does the government get to tax your money? Shouldn't money that is taxed once – not be taxed again?
I don' t know what planet you have been living on but 4 years ago we were in one of the worst depressions ever. Republicans like to ask this question because they are stupid.W lost 12million jobs and is responsible for 13.5+ trillion dollars of our debt because of his tax cuts illegal irresponsible wars,bank deregulation,sleazy mortgages,unpaid for pill plan,bundling derivatives,destroying companies, selling companies, jobs, and defense technologies to China,etc.. Get my drift. JAK
On January 21, 2009 – Barack could have pulled all the troops home. The day after he was sworn in. Mr. Obama could have brought all the troops home. He chose not to.
In his first two years – he had a Democratic house and Democratic Senate – he chose not to fund the wars (put them into the budget) also, chose not to fund Medicare Part D. He didn't. He could have though since Democrats controlled both the house and Senate.
Barack promised to halve the deficit. Maybe he meant to increase it by 100 percent. Barack promised to end the war in Afghanistan – woops. Barack promised a Dream Act. Again, nothing. He has had 40 months of 8 percent or higher unemployment. Negative Job Growth (1.4 million people file for first time unemployement benefits monthly and only 100,000 jobs or so created).
I don't think anyone has ever called it a depression to my knowledge. Mr. Obama stated that the summer of 2009 was the "summer of recovery". Oops again.
When exactly does Barack take credit for how poorly the economy is doing? How far back do we have to look and blame George Bush, the tsunami, an earthquake, BP spill in the gulf. Funny. Nothing is ever Mr. Obama's fault.
Like I said, what world have you been living on. Krugman and reich have both said and written books about the fact that Bush and deregulating republicans put us into a depression. You also blew it because Bush lost 11million jobsand Bush/Paulson gave China a shopping coupon in their trade agreement that sold us down the river because Bush/Cheney needed money to pay for their illegal wars.as a comment, only very stupid military people would agree to a war that has 5,000miles of supply routes as well as choke points as Bush Rumsfeld decided to doin both wars. They also lied to us too many times about WMD without any proof. Obama had a huge mess to clean up all the job loses between 2007 and 2009 belong to Bush/Cheney. Almost all jobs created under Bush/Cheney were sub-poverty jobs along with the 60,000 plants lost to China or just closed due to Romney and his friends.i don't agree with any of the war policies especially Iraq because one cruise missile could have eliminated any WMD program that Iraq didn't have. Seniors pension plans were decimated because of Bush ,Paulson Cheney,Rumsfeld, all banks,WallStreet ,hedge fund managers,etc..
Paul Krugman? You must be having a laugh. The guy who thinks we should have blown (spent) more? Really?
Why didn't Barack just bring the troops home?
Why didn't he fund the wars and Medicare Part D? By fund I mean put into the budget?
He was going to close Guantanomo as well.
He put troops into Afganistan because he needed to clean up another Bush/Cheney Big mess. Remember all the oil we were going to get from Iraq to pay for the war that cost 4-5 trillion dollars.it was Bush that didn' t pay for the wars in the budget. Obama is protecting Medicare by forcing insurance companies to pay out . This decreases their profit margins to 20% instead of 40-%. Republicans want to destroy Medicare and keep insur. Cos. raping Americans and giving CEO's and executives 100's of millions in salary.
Where would I find Barack's plan for Medicare. By law he is supposed to send a report to Congress detailing how he is going to save Medicare. To date he has not sent them one report.
At least the Republican's have a plan. What is Barack's plan? Obamacare? You must be having a laugh.
Obviously you didn't pay attention in civics class. Congress appropriates money. Not the President. Congress could have told George Bush. No. We are not going to appropriate money for the war.
Congress decided not to fund the wars (put them into the budget). Not George Bush.
You must have been absent that day,.
Actually, Congress made the decison not to put the wars into the budget. Having both houses of Congress – Barack could have done one of two things.
1. Brought all the troops home. No matter if the war was finished or not.
2. Told Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (remember they had a majority in 2009 when Barack started) to put the wars into the budget. He didn't.
Tros willbe pulled out by 2014 with some left behind. This is the republican plan.medicare is being paid for and is currently very well. Republicans like Romney/Ryan will destroy it plus SS and Medicaid. O a a's ACA plan adds 8 years to the timeline for Medicare increasing it to 20 years. The Romney/Ryan plan reduces its timeline by 8 years to 4years.
What is Barack Obama's plan to save Medicare?
Jon Lovitz at this point in his not so funny career probably won't need Medicare, but he may find out that Medicare is perhaps the only option he has when he turns 65unless he employs several hundreds of people and provides them with health insurance. This can be used to force insurance companies to provide him with coverage in a group plan. This Iis due to insurance companies not offering individual seniors health insurance currently.republicans have NO plan to replace Medicare.obama ,in the ACA forces Advantage plans to be more efficient by cutting insurance company profit margins from 40% to20% giving Medicare huge savings.it also enhances other approaches to medical care such as preventive care which saves money. The result is that Medicare is projected to survive 8 years longer. Sarah airhead Palin says that it contains death panels but she fails to realize that insurance companiesv have death people who make life and death decisions on claim validity favoring rejection. Republicans want to replace a great system with vouchers that 50% of current and future seniors will not be able to use because of pre-existing conditions. There is currently no cost containment except for kickbacks. There is no pill plan in the coupon plan.there is no guarantees of coverage as seniors age. Life insurance companies drop seniors at age 74 . I am a classic example of what is going on I senior health care in that I had minor surgery 6months ago in the hospital because of other conditions. I was there for 21/2hours with surgery lasting 45 minutes. The surgeon charged $14,000,his assistant charged$2400, and the hospital wanted $17,000. Medicare cut all of them down to size.so. If this republican coupon plan goes through then health care costs will immediately sky-rocket. By 25-30%.
Why do you not answer my questions? What is Barack Obama's plan for saving Medicare?
Did you see the CBO report yesterday? If the Bush tax cuts aren't enacted for everyone and cuts to the budget in regards to defense aren't restored. Unemployment will be 9.1 percent. GDP will be 1.7 percent.
Well, in case you didn't notice the senate sent to the house a tax cut plan that kept the cuts for the middle class but raised them for those who make more than $250,000per year(above 250,000). The other point is that republicans refuse to negotiate about the spending cuts. Why should tax payers pay for a plane that costs one trillion dollars and a missile defense system in Europe that doesn't work. bushes ABMS this is the system that Romney promised the Poles that requires a transducer on the target missile to obtain 50% accuracy. The fighter was originally developed by the British 25 years ago.
What happened with Mr. Obama then? When he was running – he said that he would halve the deficit. Why will the debt clock hit 16 trillion? Mr. Obama said George Bush's debt of 4 trillion was unpatriotic. What does that make Mr. Obama's debt he is responsible for?
When does Mr. Obama take credit/blame for the economy? How long will we here about Bush/Cheney. They have been gone four years. Get over it run on your record Mr. Obama.
The Bush/Cheney administration is responsible for 13.5 plus trillion dollars of the debt as well as adding at least one trillion of debt every year as a Bush legacy. Republicans want us to remain in a depression by fighting everything Obama has tried to do to help tue economy. Keep in mind that Romney would allow the economy to bottom out in a bottomless republican pit and for some reason he wants to do it again mcCain's running around like a chicken with its head cut off techniques are all too common for republicans. Their only answer is to cut taxes for themselves a d declaring war on some other countr illegally.
A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals evaluated by Medicare starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.
Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates - which refers to patients who return within a month - by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.
Why isn't MSDNC and CNN not reporting this!
obamacare is throwing the seniors and middle class under the bus!
obama wants seniors to die!
Maybe the Obama administration has looked at hospital and doctor costs and realized that everybody is charging too much. They also found that administration fees are over30%. So what's going on here .maybe hospital administrators can afford to reduce their own salaries and doctors can do a better job of healing instead of worrying about filling hospital beds so they can get their bonus or kickbacks.
Well said John Kelly!
There is no recovery. Dont let the numbers fool you... they have been cooked for a long time now. Obama has wrecked the economy and added over 5 trillion to the deficit with nothing to show for it. In the first two years he could have passed any bill he wanted but didnt even think about jobs. His "laser like" focus was on the golf course and lavish vacations while Americans lost their jobs. He is the biggest clown to ever sit in the Presidency... and he is done come November. I just hope there is something left to recover.
As a reminder, the Bush/Cheney budget deficit legacy is more than one trillion dollars per year. Rich people like Romney and Lovitz just do not pay their fair share in taxes. Romney ,for example will not release one complete tax return because he is hiding a major discrepancy that he may go to jail over. He did not file a foreign investment form evidently in his 2010 return. So, as Clinton put it, we will be on a course to eclipse the Bush/ Cheney stupid administration with Romney/Ryan.
Get rid of the administrators. With no one to run things – something bad is bound to happen. That way you can sue the hospital and the doctor. Great idea.
The funny thing is when liberals/Democrats say (Obama included) say the rich aren't paying their fair share.
The top one percent pay 38 percent of the tax bill. With the other 99 percent paying 62 percent. I believe 47 percent pay no federal income tax. How is that fair?
So what percentage is the fair share? Are you a Socialist like French President Hollande who thinks top wage earners should give up 70 percent of their earnings to taxes?
Define fair share.
Eisenhower thought that 90% was a fair share for greedy rich people. The 12 million dollar legacy for Obama includes 11,5 trillion caused bt Reagon star wars Bush| Kuwait war, Bush|| illegal wars, stupid tax cuts unpaid for pill plans,subsidized Advantage supplemental plans,bank and WallStreet deregulation, etc.
The fact the wars and Medicare Part D weren't funded fell on Congress. They appropriate money. The President doesn't. Civics 101.
January 21, 2009 Barack could have:
1. Ended the wars. Brought all the troops home. That way the US wouldn't have spent the money. Why didn't he?
2. Kept the troops in the war and told Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to fund the wars. Democrats had control over House and Senate. Could have funded with not one Republican vote. Why didn't he?
3. Could have instructed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to fund Medicare Part D. Again, had House and Senate first two years. Could have funded without a Republican vote. Why didn't he?
Republicans took credit for part D so why should everybody continually have to clean up republican messes? Part D was designed by republicans to bankrupt Medicare.nthe ACA helps fix that by forcing insurance companies to pay benefits and stop paying themselves hundreds of million dollars in salary and benefits. Obama brought back the troops from Iraq, the stupid Bush/Cheney war that still costs us plenty due to c. rice's billion dollar embassey troops are coming home from the stupidly managed Afganistan war due to Rumsfeld remember Hussein's WMD impossible program.
What will the Obama deficit legacy be 12 trillion in four years?
Let's see Mr. Obama announce that like President Eisenhower he thinks the top tax rate for high wage earners – should be 90 percent. I would like to see him announce that before the election. The sooner, the better.
See if he gets re- elected.
When will liberals/Democrats/Mr. Obama stop looking in the rear view mirror? Bush/Cheney have been gone almost four years now.
When is the deficit/economy belong to Mr. Obama?
Nine Democrats voted for Medicare Part D. Had all nine voted no, it would have failed. Why didn't the nine Democrats vote no.
Why didn't he bring the troops home January 21, 2009. The day after he was sworn in. He could have saved the country a lot of money. Or, found a way to fund it with his Democratic House and Congress.
The war in Afghanistan is still going on.
He could have had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid fund Medicare Part D. Or, if you want – take the benefit away. Say the country can't afford it. Could have done it without one Republican vote.
Democrats should want to clean up Republican messes to be the shining white knight that saves the day.
Democrats just want the country to flounder? Democrats don't want to be the solution?
Maybe it would be better if republicans just quit making messes. Of course I just remember when republicans were men and not little boys or rich kids sons that dressed up in state troopers uniforms like Romney and stopped women driving alone. Some say that this is the MO of serial killers or rapists.
Sepahcs; Did you actually read what you wrote about Democrats should be cleaning up Repub messes to be white knights? I'm glad you actually realize the Repubs made major messes, but the rest makes no sense.
Bob- the Democrats missed a golden opportunity. They had the House, Senate and Presidency. They could have funded both wars and Medicare Part D without one Republican vote. Isn't that right?
The Democrats could have said the Republicans passed Medicare Part D – we are the fiscally responsible party. We found the funds for it.
The Democrats could have funded the two wars ( or ended them earlier – just brought the troops home). Again, all that money was going to the debt. Every single dollar unfounded. Again, they tell the American people they are the fiscally responsible party.
So you tell me that funding both wars and Medicare Part D wouldn't have been good for America?
The Democrats missed a golden chance.
Why not bring the troops home the day after Barack is inaugurated? You haven't answered that question? Why not answer the question instead of name calling.
If they had funded the two wars – which they could do without one Republican vote – Democrats could have come out and said Democrats are the fiscally responsible party.
If they had funded Medicare Part D, ( or nine Democrats hadn't voted for it the legislation would have been defeated) then again, Democrats come out and say we are the fiscally responsible party.
Democrats could have taken the benefit away, right. Again, Democrats could have come out and say Medicare Part D is a great idea. The country can't afford it. Democrats would have been seen as the fiscally responsible party.
Don't Democrats want to be seen as fiscally responsible?
Don't Democrats want to be seen as the fiscally responsible party?
Why did nine Democrats vote for Medicare Part D? Had they voted against Medicare Part D – it would have failed.
Under Mr. Obama the first two years – they could have funded Medicare Part D. They had the majority in the House and Senate.
If they had funded Medicare Part D – Obama and the Democrats could have said again. We are the fiscally responsible party. Found a way to fund Medicare Part D. We are saving the budget and deficit for our children and grand children.
The Democratic Party would have been HEROES!
I guess Democrats don't want to be seen as fiscally responsible?
Yea right, the last I noticed the republicans are now trying to get Obama to put million dollar troops on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria,try again in Lebanon, and soon in Iran. This also includes Romney's plan to re-install about 100,000 troops in Iraq to protect the Russian and Chinese oil concerns that Bush/Cheney promised to us to pay for the war,right.hopefully,Americans will kick republicans out of office so far that they will go to that Mormon planet on the other side of the sun.
Would you do me a favor? I have not heard about any of those ideas. Would you mind providing links?
There are no links. You need to follow CNN and MSNBC. Also the huffington Post and Washington Post. I also read the republican rag called the Chicago Tribune. McCain, Graham and Kirk are the major supporters of the troops on the ground philosophy and strategy that conforms to the neo-cons strategy of Bush/Cheney and now subscribed to by Romney. We still don't know what Romney said to Netan-yahoo but it's reasonably sure that he promised to attack Iran because Netan-yahoo has made him his stooge and will use him to interdict himself into the election.
So answer me this.
If Mr. Obama was against the wars like he was. Why didn't he bring the troops home January 21, 2009? The day after the inauguration.
Would have saved treasure in terms of lives ( most important), or, money spent ( which was going to the nations indebtedness).
Or, could have funded the wars with both houses of Congess. His current debt total wouldn't look so bad then.
I don't understand why he didn't do either. Tell me where I am going wrong.
Answer this question ,why did Bush/Cheney put 35,000 troops in Afganistan? Why did Bush/Cheney install Karzai as president? Obama gave these troops a goal which was to eliminate EQ from Afganistan. This was accomplished. He also had to get the troops out of Iraq which he has now done. Romney would put them back in .romney is also acting like Netan-yahoo's stooge so that he can interject into the election campaign. Netan-yahoo wants us to invade Iran now if not sooner. He and his chicken hawks staff and neo cons want to do this against the will of the American people.
Happy to answer that question.
Bush put the troops into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. Someone needed to be put in charge of Afghanistan government. Why specifically Karzai? Honestly can't answer that question. Romney has not said anything to my knowledge about putting troops back into Iraq. A link would be helpful. Even a link to CNN or MSNBC that states Romney wants to do that.
Unfortunately Mr. Obama has not been a good friend to our Israeli friends. Iran is a real threat to Israel's therefore our security. The US won't have to worry about striking Iran Israel will do it on their own. I am sure Mr. Obama is afraid that they will do it before the election.
Now it is your turn. I would appreciate an answer to my questions.
First-Bush didn't even know w hat a Taliban was when he put troops into Afganistan.the American troops DID NOT have a mission!! Second, they were not prepared. They had a 5000 mile supply line and through the Kyber Pass which basically destroyed the British Empire worst of all-there is nothing there. Obama kept troops there because he campaigned on destroying Al-Qaeda which they have accomplished and they are bringing the troops home.remember, Obama also had a stupid, illegal war in Iraq. .bsrack, the Israeli defense minister, has said on TV that the U.S. government currently has done the most for Israel than any other U.S. government. Romney is a stooge for Netan-yahoo so that he can interdict himself into our election. Remember this – you cannot build a nuclear Bo b under candlelight. Israel can't do the job in Iran without our help with cruise missiles and carriers.
P.S. all your questions have been answered . Think up some new ones if you can.
I have reviewed the thread and don't see we're you answered these two questions.
1. Why didn't Barack Obama bring all the troops home January 21, 2009. He was against the wars. Could have ended it right then and there. Saved lives and money
2. If he didn't end the wars. He could have funded them by havung the House and Senate fund. First two years – Democratic congress, doesn't need one Republican vote.
If you answered these then do me a favor please, just copy and past your answer in a reply you do know how to copy/paste?
Sepahcs; I'm tired of your theme song about a Democrat congress. Since Obama was elected the Repubs voted "lock-step" with one thought, oust the Democrats regardless of best interest for the country and what voters wanted. Democrats voted for what they believed was best, not always agreeing with each other. I certainly hope you don't answer back stating the Repubs know they are right about everything; that would be ignorant.
It' amazes how you all can ignore 8 years of destruction by the "W" administration like it never happened.
To repeat, Obama inherited a huge mess in Afganistan and Iraq. He did not bring the troops home because he gave them goals to eliminate Al-Qaeda which Bush was unable to do . Obama also restarted the the project to get Bin Laden which Bush dropped. He brought the troops home from Iraq. You don't seem to realize that Democrats vote their own minds and there are are many conservative leaning democrats. They aren't t robots like republicans that have no minds. You haven't answered one of my questionswhy did Bush attack Afganistan and Iraq? NoB.S. because I know.
Don't ignore it. I am just wondering when Democrats/Liberals will stop looking in the rear view mirror.
When does Mr. Obama accept responsibility for what he hasn't accomplished. If it was so bad, I guess Mr. Obama didn't have to run.
I am out. If you are not going to answer my questions and change the subject I am done. Sorry
Just one more shot. Bush was one of the dumbest Presidents we have EVER had. He even picked cabinet members that were dumber than him like Rice,Rumsfeld, and Paulson.they went to war because they thought it would help them get re-elected and Bush thought that he could finish the job his dad messed up. He didn't even read his father's book which basically stated to leave the Iraq mess alone. Then, Rumsfeld totally mismanaged both wars. Do you realize that one cruise missile would have destroyed the total ability for Iraq to build a nuclear bomb. The scientists in the U.S. knew this. They were so stupid that C. rice identified scud missile tubes as centrifuges.? Iraq didn't have any. Afganistan was left alone so Obama had to complete the job that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld failed so miserably about.
I would love to read more. Please provide me some links, so I can educate myself on those topics.
If you say they are on CNN or msnbc – they have to be on the web, sure you can find them.
All you have to do is search theWashington Post and Hiffington Post. You have to stop rwatching Pox Snooze and crybaby Wallace, Bill O'Fairy, and Hamm-ity the Fascist.everything Pox reports is twisted and then screened by Limbaugh, who by the way is not using contraceptives and has had four trophy wives and no children. That means ?JAK
Bush attacked Iraq and Afghanistan in response to Sepember 11. Saddam was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. President Bush didn't want to leave Israel hanging out to dry. Unfortunately for Saddam Hussein, he was walking around like he had a full house, instead of a pair of deuces. Tell me the world isn't a better place without Saddam Hussein? Afghanistan al Queda and Taliban.
If you know – by all means don't forget to provide a link. I want to learn more.
If Democrats truly wanted to do what was best for the country. It would have been to fund the wars. Fund Medicare Part D. Fiscally responsible remember.
In terms of the Republicans in the House? My understanding is they are the only legislative branch to pass a budget each of the last three years.
Now it is also my understanding that the Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in three years.
In terms of Republicans voting against the Democrats, the first two years the Democrats had a majority in both houses. They could have passed anything they wanted Mr. Obama's first two years.
In other words those things aren't true. I am not going to prove your point. You need to do a little work for yourself.
The disappointing thing is why the name calling?
I haven't disrespected Mr. Obama or any liberal commentator. Why do you have to call people names?
It has been fun. Just proves my theory. Democrats want to argue emotionally. When presented with facts they lose.
What facts- you have 't presented anything but questions that don't make sense. Your main premise is ,why didn't Obama not abandon hundreds of thousands of troops in Afganistan and Iraq? Al-Qaeda is a threat and republicans and Bush/Cheney failed miserably in their illegal wars. The problem is that we now have another republican idiot that will lead us to wars in which he was not only a coward but also a chicken hawkand draft-dodger. The main problem with republicans is that "dumb is that dumb does"
Facts you presented, not me.
1. One cruise missile would have destroyed the capability for Irag to make a nuclear bomb.
2. Condeleeza Rice identified scud missiles as centrifuges.
Those facts you presented. I want to learn more so I am asking you to help educate me.
You think the Democratic House and Senate funding both wars and Medicare Part D is stupid.
It would have been a brilliant stroke of genius.
As I said, they could have painted themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. Look at what the Democrats achieved that the Republicans didn't.
Where am I going wrong?
No. He wouldn't have abandoned the troops on January 21, 2009. He would have brought them home.
Think of the number of soldiers that could have been saved (lives), fewer that have been maimed, less money that was going straight to the national debt. Which would have looked better now as Mr. Obama is working to get re-elected.
Just bring the troops home on January 21, 2009. You yourself said it was an illegal war? Why not end it earlier.
He would not have just left them in Iraq or Afghanistan, he would have brought them home.
Just think. If Mr. Obama had brought home the troops on January 21, 2009. Funded Medicare Part D with both houses of Congress.
He might have made good on his unfulfilled campaign promise of halving the defecit?
See how easy it is to show proof of what you say. I said Barack Obama told the American people he would cut the deficit in half. Even sourced ABC News (not Fox) a liberal left wing news outlet, so you don't have a problem with that.
ABC is not a liberal network. President Obama (see how easy it is to use the honorific) has presented at least 3budgets to congress, whereas the republicans under Ryan have yet to submit one complete budget to the Senate. President Obama has also offered a 10-1 spending cuts to revenue gains concept to republicans and they do not accept it. Dumb is as dumb does is an accurate description of republicans as you can get.bi don't know what country you are from but it is proper and correct to refer to a sitting President as Mr. president or President Obama and not Mr. .uf you intend this to be disrespectful then you should join your ancestors and leave this country.
This link shows that the last budget President Obama submitted was defeated 99-0 in the Democratic controlled Senate. Shows that even Senate Democrats can't get behind President Obama.
If you have proof the House Republicans haven't passed a budget. Please post it.
Democrats seemed not to have a problem passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote.
So Democrats had a majority. They could have funded both wars and Medicare Part D.
Here is a link where Brett Baier of Fox News tries to get Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC to explain why the Senate hasn't passed a budget, instead she wants to talk about the budget passed by Paul Ryan in the House.
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Democrats had both houses of Congress and the Presidency the first two years of President Obama's term.
They got what they wanted. A big expansion of government.
How is that working out for you?
ABC is a conservative network according to you. That means Peter Jennings was a conservative anchor. Diane Sawyer is a conservative anchor. George Stephanopolous is a conservative anchor. San Donaldson was a conservative reporter. Katie Couric is a conservative. So was Cokie Roberts a conservative reporter. Who new?
You say President Obama offered a 10 – 1 spending cut to revenue gains budget to the Republicans and they have said no. Per the link above – the Democratic Senate also rejected it 99 – 0.
Here is an article from CNN saying the House passed a budget. I guess CNN isn't liberal either?
NPR uses Mr. As a second reference to the President.
New York Times referring to President Obama as Mr. Obama.
I guess The New York Times and NPR aren't liberal.
Should they leave the country?
The troop withdrawals have all been discussed . Congress has not provided one complete budget to the senate. Ryan's outlines are not budgets. It doesn't make any difference if the senate rejected President Obama 's budget because they are supposed to use it as a guideline .that'because the budget office provided it. Obviously you have never worked on a budget anywhere. The first step is for the agencies to provide a Bridget request. The Times and you are wrong. You are also of the opinion that if people don't agree with you, then they are either communists or extreme liberals, when in fact they are moderates. Or independents. As far as cruise missiles are concerned, it's obvious to a scientist that deals with power generation that Bagdad was having brow outs due to a lack of steam generators and turbines for electrical generation. The neo-cons under Bush were just chicken hawks as is Romney/Ryan
You know full well that Medicare with PartD is good for 12 more years. You also know that it has been extended by 8 years because of the ACA. So, if Romney is elected ,he will severely cut Medicare benefits for seniors currently on Medicare. He will also change Medicaid into block grants which as we all know will be put into state prrsonal accounts in republican states asper Brewer in Arizona. If you don't know this than what do you know? Rublicans will destroy Medicare, SS,and Medicaid if they control congress and the Presidency.
You need to go back to civics class.
Here is how a budget is passed.
You have ignored the troop withdrawal question (among other things).
Why didn't Barack Obama bring the troops home on January 21, 2009. The day after his inauguration.
He was against the war. You say it was an illegal war. Why not end it earlier? Think of the lives he could saved, the injured, the money.
I think you might want to go back to kindergarten and start over again. The procedure outlined already is correct . Where did you take a civics class. In Russia? President Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq and disengaged in a reasonable manor against all republican recomendations and demands. He decided to kick the Taliban and Al Queda out of Afganistan which Bush/Cheney neglected to do after 7 years.
Do me a favor (and yourself your posts look silly without facts to back up arguments).
Show me where I called you an extreme liberal or a communist?
In terms of the cruise missiles, post a link – it goes to your lack of credibility.
You know how to copy/paste right?
Did you ever take a debate class where they teach you to win an argument you need to provide evidence to support your argument.
So did you read the CNN article? The Headline says House passes GOP Budget? You say Ruan's budget isn't a budget? Why would CNN call it that then?
Do the Democrats have one of these?
The Democrats missed an opportunity to help reduce the debt by funding Medicare Part D. They could have funded Medicare Part D because they had both houses in Congress. They passed Obamacare without a single vote. Could have funded Medicare Part D. That would have helped the debt.
Democrats are in favor of defecit reduction, right?
It took President Obama three years after he was inaugurated to get the troops out of Iraq? President Obama perpetuated the war just like President Bush. The troops are still in Afghanistan.
Why didn't President Obama pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan on January 21, 2009? He was against the war. End it earlier.
Save lives (most important), save money.
Why didn't Bush/Cheney pay for the wars,tax cuts, increases in defense dept. spending (doubled) accounting for a total of 13.5 trillion dollars of our current debt and a legacy of onetrillion dollars each year. This is according to Michael Steele on Morning Joe which is a republican show.he said very clearly that President Obama was responsible for 2trillion dollars of our debt which I calculate to actually be 1.5 trillion.
You say that a President Romney would cut Medicare. By all means post a link and I would like to read more.
You may want to read this article that says Mitt Romney puts the Medicare cuts President Obama used for Obamacare back.
Look at your cite. Do you notochord that it has Forbes in it. I know that Romney says a lot of things that he will say something else the next day. For example ,he has stated that he supports the Ryan plan, then he says he is for only the Romney plan, then he says again he is for the Ryan plan . Ao what is he?we used to call these guys Jelly-heads remember, he was for the Vietnam war, then for the draft, then bailed out or dodged the draft by going to France to convert Catholics to the Mormon cult and drink wine and complain about bathrooms. He also put on a state troopers uniform an d stopped lone women drivers on highways which is a felony.
You say the Republicans will destroy Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. By all means post some links to back up your point.
I would love to read more about how that is going to happen.
Post some links – tell me all about Brewer vs Arizona. I am asking you to teach me.
In terms of referring to the President as Mr. – so both the New York Times and NPR are wrong?
Show me the etiquette on how the President should be addressed. I have heard many liberal commentators refer to President Obama during stories.
Show me where they are going wrong.
Looking forward to the link.
First of all, I am teaching you and I have the credentials.do you also refer to medical doctors as Mr. Not likely.also I have been to Savannah River, Oak Ridgeand have friends that used to direct nuclear programs at these sites. The power plant for Bagdad was operating under duress when Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq. One cruise missile would have taken it out if even a secondary hit.the boiler and the turbine systems are very vulnerable just as nuclear power plants are.
We are going back to civics class. It is not the President who chooses to fund wars. Congress appropriates the money for wars.
From 2002 – 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress. From 2006 – 2010 the Democrats controlled Congress.
So both parties had a chance to fund the wars. Both parties chose not to.
Here is a story from CBS News (are they liberal)?
It says under eight years under President Bush the debt had risen 4.899 trillion. Under four years of President Obama the debt has risen 4.939 trillion in just four years.
Newspapers are like you . They don't know math. Again, tax cuts, wars, pill plans,doubling def. dept. budgets and not pay for them is leaving a legacy of one trillion dollars per year now. One trillion dollar obsolete fighters, ships designed to sink , and Reagon/Bush ABMS that require transducers to hit anything seem to be extra agent. There are conservative democrats but no moderate republicans any more.bush/Cheney came into office with a 6trillion dollar surplus and blew it the first year. They could have paid off the national debt totally.if they had, we currently would not be in the mess we are in today.reagon or Bush | would not have put troops on the ground in either Afganistan or Iraq. The only way that number could have been arrived at would be to count in the tarp intoresident Obamas term.
That link above was dated March 19, 2012. I am sure it is more now.
In terms of Michael Steele I would love to see a link. Your point – you post the proof.
In terms of Michael Steele – I would be happy to post a link. Your point – you post the proof.
The above link was dated March 19, 2012
Please provide a link for the cruise missile. Your say so does not work for me.
Usually call physicians Doctor. You better go out and educate the entire media. Good Luck.
Will not post the Micael Steele link your argument – you post the facts to back it up.
The link for the debt statement is Norning Joe, MSNBC, so you can go look it up. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman.he is on at 6 am so d good luck. The cruise missile statement is based on my being in Saudi Arabia just before the Iraq invasion .the situation in Iraq and specifically the Bagdad power system was discussed. For your information, power plants operate at high pressure and turbines at high RPMs even a near miss could knock a turbine off its axis , destroy the building , and travel for several miles in almost a straight line destroying everything knits path. The Israelies knew this about Iraq and Rice obviously did not contact them. You cannot build WMD and specifically nuclear bombs under candlelight. Go call your high school science teacher and confirm this.
This link states. Even if you take to President Obama's first year. He still Raised the deficit from 11.9 trillion to a projected 16.7 trillion.
You can take all the links you want. The fact is that Bush's legacy is one trillion dollars per year in debt. I have already outlined the costs . The Bush administration came into office with a 6 trillion dollar surplus. He designed his budget to separate the war budgets so that his actual nudge t was 120 billion dollars per year low. This country needs to increase taxes on the rich and cut costs. The military must be included especially in reducing the million man consultant ,mentor, and contractor numbers. Also we do not need a trillion dollar non-air superiority fighter, and sinking ships plus missiles that can't hit anything. Why do we have so many bases in Europe? Why are we building a ABMS there? Romney still thinks that Russia is our main enemy! The way he's going, he may want to bomb Britain.
Your point, you provide the proof. Again, no credibility can't prove it.
Link from the Washington Post – if the Bush tax cuts aren't enacted for all Americans, payroll tax holiday extended, defense cuts replaced.
Next year unemployment goes to 9.1 percent – GDP 1.7 percent. In another words another recession.
What you don't seem to realize is that it takes budget cuts and increased revenue to handle this problem. Ezra discussed this in his statement. Maybe you should read it. Republicans ,because they signed that stupid Nordquist oath before they agreed to serve the United States will not negotiate. Forbes,for example is all for a flat tax of 20% and 0% capital gains tax so that we pay a lot more and he pays nothing after stealing our money.the sad thing is that you have not seen the graph that shows the top 1% getting 94% of the increase in GDP last year. Not much left for the rest of us is there and they want all of it.
Post something that proves your Saudi Arabia story. You have to have a file you can scan and print. Has to be a link to something on the web.
You do know how to copy and paste.
Medicare Part D
The Democrats had three options.
1. Nine Democrats voted for the plan. Had six voted against it. The legislation wouldn't have passed.
2. The Democrats had the majority from 2006-2010. They could have funded the program. They had the majority ( they passed Obamacare with all Democrats. They missed the opportunity to be the party of fiscal responsibility. The Democrats could have been the shining white knight. Instead they chose to do nothing.
3. The Democrats could have chosen from 2008-2010 to take the program away from seniors. If the country can't afford it. Then some things have to be sacrificed.
You are going to tell me the world isn't a better place without Saddam Hussein? As I said earlier, Saddam (is that ok in terms of respecting him ok?) was walking around like he had a Full House. Unfortunately, he only had a pair of two's.
Don't know if you ever played poker? Full House is good. A pair of two's not so much.
It was important to make sure our allies the Israeli's were protected.
How would you have felt if Saddam had WMD's and hit Israel with them?
When will Democrats/Liberals stop reciting about Bush? Why doesn't President Obama run on his record?
One thing you don't hear President Obama asking is "Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Just like a Democrat/Liberal. Can't back up what they say. Only have emotional arguments. When presented with facts – they lose.
We have so many bases in Europe mainly due to the Cold War. They are strategic so the United States can respond to problem areas in the world quickly and decisively.
Kind of like President Obama getting the US involved in a third war using planes against Libya. I am sure those planes came from Europe.
Like it if not, ( I know President Obama doesn't like it. The United States is the lone world super power. Many countries look to us for help).
Ok. Let's raise taxes on everyone. Under 250 and over 250. Not only that – broaden the base. No more fifty percent of Americans not paying taxes.
President Obama said it wasn't good to raise taxes on anyone in a recession ( which we are headed for).
Instead of saying the rich don't pay their fare share. If President Obama said we need the wealthiest Americans to pay more. You know what though – everyone is getting a tax increase. Not only that – those that pay nothing have to pay something in federal income taxes.
Everyone is going to feel pain.
I could have lived with that.
But, President Obama had to play the class warfare card.
In terms of the 1 percent – I need to see a link to believe it.
Why don't you post a link then I will see it. If it exists?
First of all, you seem to be concerned about a recession. Where we're you during the great Bush depression beginning in 2007 and ending un the summer of 2009.bush and deregulation,wars, and tax cuts as well as defense dept. spending caused two stock market crashes in which fund managers were the only ones to rack in the cash including Romney and Ryan.pension funds lost and America lost 25 trillion dollars in value during this time. Bush/Paulson allowed China to swoop in and buy businesses cheaply and Romney facilitated them. Bush actually gave them coupons to help them destroy American jobs. He even called investing in America's future. He and Paulson did this to pay for his wars, tax cuts, defense budget doubling, and pill plan for seniors. Your comment about putting the ACA Medicare insurance co. Cuts back in is not valid because Romney wants to use them to decrease taxes on super rich people and not put it to work decreasing Medicare costs and increasing benefits. Also, Medicare needs to negotiate with drug companies directly.
If it was a depression. Fine. Just link a story that shows it.
All you have to do is google Paul Krugman and you will see that he has written a book about the depression that we are currently in and how to get out of it. He has also written about how the Romney and Ryan so called budget outlines would destroy thos country.reich, the professor of economics at Berkley also has written articles about the depression we are in currently because of stupid republican policies.i suggest you stop listening to Pox Snooze because they can't report on anything without lying about it.
Please show proof for your Bush/Paulson comment. Thanks.
Your comment that Romney wants to use the ACA insurance company money to give rich people tax cuts. By all means, post a link to that information to prove.
Please show me where Romney says he does want to decrease Medicare benefits and increasing costs. I appreciate you sourcing your work.
I have no trouble with Medicare negotiating with drug companies.
Over one million people a month file for first time unemployment claims. This is announced every Thursday at 8:30 AM EST. job creation of around 100,000. Negative job growth.
If the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for everyone – defense cuts aren't put back into place. Unemployment reaches 9.1 percent GDP 1.7 percent.
Well, this time I'm asking for your link because it is totally false. Try 5000 a month in a bad month. Of course you may be thinking of the last six months of the Bush administration.again, it takes spending cuts and revenue increases to bring the deficit under control. Spending cuts must be reasonable and include the bloated military. How do you explain the Romney-Forbes-Ryan plan to force people to pay 10% income tax when they currently making 12,000 a year and pay 1500 for Medicare, spend 9000 for rent, utilities, food(dog food), transportation, doctors bills, etc.these republicans want to also take away their food stamps and even worse ,their Medicare andSS and Medicaid. If you want a link then you should start reading the Washington Post and The Huffington Post. They both have a good blend of writers including Nazi-Hammer and G. s-Will. Ed Schultz has the vulture capitalist graphs that show rather dramatically the increasing disparity between the rich and the middle class. Romney/ Ryan did not put the insurance company reductions into Medicare, they applied it to their ridiculous tax cuts for the rich like Romney. They also want a tax holiday for their profits earned overseas after they have used the expenses accrued to reduce their U.S. income tax. This means that Romney can bring all his money into the U.S. that he has been hiding in the Caymans and Switzerland tax free with no penalties. That is what he is hiding now and won't release any completed income tax return
Paul Krugman, the guy that didn't think that we have blown [I meant spent] enough of the stimulus.
I would think the liberal media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR ) would say whether we are in a depression. Wouldn't they?
Your cite does not have an author. That's because there are no trickle -down economists that have won a Nobel prize for economics .even the last American this yearns a middle up economist. Trickle down has been proven not to work at all. There are no republican economists that have not been bought off or are educated enough to solve this problem. Sending technology,jobs ,and plants to China does not work and Romney/Ryan are experts in doing this. Steve Moore of the WallStreet J. Is perhaps the leading commentator about the economy and I find him not only revolting but also stupid.the stimulus worked,evenRyan admitted it when he begged for funds for his district. It in my opinion saved us from a very deep depression. The graph showing our economy at the time was headed straight down under Bush.paulson led all the trade commissions to China and sold us down the river to pay for the Bush/Cheney wars.
This is a guy that thinks it is ok for the 50 percent who don't pay federal income tax is ok, because they pay sales tax, property tax etc.
I pay all those taxes too – plus federal income tax. What makes them so special?
In the article it says the four week moving average is 368,000. 368,000 x 4 = 1, 472,000.
It is worse than I thought.
Rich – you asking me for proof.
Did you take any math? Or business courses? Based on your numbers , the people in the U.S. would be unemployed in 20 years. The number your using is the number claiming unemployment insurance period. We are not loosing one million jobs a month. That alone would equal 7-8%more per year and we would be at about 40% unemployment just after Bush since you have used the CBO, what do you think of the Romney plan that will increase taxes for the middle class by $5000 and reduce Romney's taxes by millions.
The CBO said this week that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for everyone. Defense cuts aren't put back into the budget. Payroll tax holiday extended.
Unemployment will be 9.1 percent and GDP 1.7 percent.
Is that what you want.
You may need glasses. The author is Christopher Rugaber Associated Press plain as day
The truth hurts.
You mean moving jobs to China by Jeff Immelt of GE. He is the President's job czar. Now how does that look when the jobs czar (trying to get companies in the US to hire) moves a whole division.
Actually GE has more employees outside of the US than inside.
I meant to say how does it look when the jobs czar moves a whole division to China.
I never said we were losing jobs. Those people are still losing theirs right?
Those numbers can't be good for the economy.
Please show me where I said we were losing jobs.
Without a link to the Romey plan to raise middle class taxes and lower his own. No comment. I need proof.
What were you talking about then? Those numbers are the number of people applying for unemployment compensation. Read your own comment. You implied that people were loosing one million jobs a month. The WallStreet j. Is no longer a reputable source since Murdock took over.i 've seen Steve Moore in action and I think he stinks.chris Matnews does too, I think.if trickle down economics worked then we wouldn't be in the low GDP range we are in today .although it is much better than the Bush depression from 2007-2009.remember one thing, we are currently proceeding in a positive direction and Romney has stated time and time again that he wants to change direction. This means he wants to go negative again like most republicans and hedge fund managers.
I am sure those 1.4 million people who lost their jobs will be comforted that the economy has not lost their job. Maybe maybe not.
I guess you are saying those 1.4 million jobs aren't real? Nice.
The source is the CBO in one case I told you that since you used it. Typical republican ,if it agrees with me then use it but then if it doesn't, then criticize it. The second sourspce is Romney's budget outline plan which the CBO evaluated and used best numbers possible even though Romney doesn't believe in using facts and numbers for your information ,Romney said that his major accomplishment as a so-called businessman was to learn how to read a spreadsheet. WOW! The source is a Time Magazine interview two months ago. He does like to fire people though.
No comment without a source.
You need to post the link like I have.
When you learn to cut and paste – I will reply.
You were a jerk to me demanding proof. I ask nicely for proof. Nothing. You tell me to read two magazines.
Doesn't work that way my friend.
Well your link didn'twork very well for you when you made a horrible mistake confusing employment applications for job loses your 1.4 million new applications per month means 16 million per year not even Bush lost that many jobs in one year. You don't get unemployment compensation without first having a job. Got it? Also, I am not writing a technical paper here and I have written 40 of them I gave you my links but you will have to do the searching because O don't want to.who reads an article in the newspaper or hears a talk on the radio or TV and records and/or cuts it out to files? I don't but I do have a very good memory. The other thing is that Ryan's third budget outline included the Medicare cost reductions from insurance companies but did not indicate how the savings would be used but it is assumed that it will be used as a tax cut for the rich.you'lljust have to read the Ryan budget. The hypocritical problem with this position is that Romney/Ryan both lied to audiences that President Obama was cutting Medicare benefits by 716 billion while both knew that they are the ones cutting Medicare by. Ot identifying the way these cuts willbe used again, you can listen to these republican lying campaign ads.the statement that Bush only contributed 5trillion to the deficit is for six graders. His tax cuts for the rich contributed that much and completely disregards the facts that he came into office with a six trillion dollar surplus. That was reported in newspapers around the year 2000 when he was running for President or call Bill Clinton.
Actually it is unemployment applications. Your sympathy for those people is underwhelming.
Those numbers are reported on CNBC at 8:30 AM ET. I suggest you watch this Thursday. Then tell yourself how good for the economy it is that 360,000 people lost their jobs.
You can get most newspaper/radio showsonline. You know how I found every one of the articles I sourced Google. Learn how to use it.
Cut/Paste refers to a computer action where you can transfer links on a page. Learn how to do it.
It is so productive with people arguing back and forth calling each other names and not providing references for their arguments. That accomplishes so much.m
That is nonsense in my opinion, for which I have no time.
If you learn to cut/paste and want to back up your nonsense – fine. If not Goodbye.
Well, cutting and pasting is fine, the major situation here is READIN the articles when they are written.you are the one who needs to be schooled because you cite but don't read or understand what's being written. I have read ,for example Ezra"s articles and heard him discuss several issues . He is frequently on the Rachel Maddow Show. I suggest you watch that show plus The Ed Show, and The Laurence O' donnel Show. The Chris Mathews Show is also enlightening. I don't watch CNBC except for MadMax.the rest of them spend too much time salivating over the possibility of zero capital gains taxes for your information, The Washington Post tracks unemployment compensation numbers routinely. You do not multiply the by 4 to get a monthly number and then by 12 to get a yearly number. The real empathy starts when they run out of unemployment compensation. Here in Illinois, Romney avoided stopping at Freeport Il. When on his bus tour because a successful technology company had just been Romney- Bained. The plant plus all the jobs were being sent to China and the employees were having to train their Chinese counterparts. Romney is still partly to blame for this crap because he still is receiving money from this operation and stashing it in the Caymans.remember, before you cut and paste, read the article. It is the most important thing to do ,
The real empathy begins when they lose their unemployment compensation is what you said.
Why not empathize when they lose their job? The reason – Democrats want as many people on the government dole as possible.
Being on unemployment is better than having a job according to your statement?
You need to reconsider your statement because unemployment compensation is designed to. Bridge people between jobs. In that respect it is better to have some money coming in than to starve on the street. Remember. Talk about empathy, Romney says time and time again how much he likes to fire people. Today we find out that he is still receiving a salary from Romney-Bain. So much for lying about retiring! The other problem is that there is a lot of people that are highly qualified but too old or don't want to take poverty level jobs also, jobs created under Bush were primarily sub- minimum wage jobs. Once the unemployment runs out , then what do people do when 6people apply for every job
Great post. I used to be checking constantly this blog and I'm impressed! Very useful information specially the closing part :) I handle such information much. I used to be looking for this certain info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.
Don't forget – first time unemployment applications tomorrow. CNBC 8:30 AM ET tomorrow morning.
Still looking back at Bush! Start living in the present man man.
Would love to see all of your back-up for your information, in other words proof.
a pessoa positiva emana sua energia
superando a negatividade e passando por cima de tudo que é mal.E meu desejo e todas as pessoas sejam amorosas e positivas.Obrigado boa tarde!!!
The number you are referring to is those applying for unemployment variance from last week (loss or gain ) is considered those dropping out because they ran out of benefits or gains because they just lost their jobs. The problem is its not accurate. It's a mixture.
In the case of looking back, it is important to know the past to avoid repeating in the future. That's why people study history.Bush came as close to destroying this country as any single President. His policies are now being proposed again by Romney/Ryan who President Clinton says is Bush on Steroids.
Please post a link to show me what you say is true.
President Obama being interviewed on Today by Matt Laurr ( I am guessing NBC and Matt Lauer aren't liberal!).
President Obama says if he doesn't have the economy turned around in three years he will be a one term President.
I guess he is going to be a one term President.
I don't have a cite for an explanation of the unemployment numbers meaning. You Just have to do the math. Your explanation would have bankrupted the country under Bush. The numbers consist of current unemployed plus new applicants. There really no way to distinguish between them because there also are people that run out of benefits and drop off.
Obama has turned the economy around. We're you in the country in Sept. 2008.or January, 2009. The GDP was minus 8 and is now around plus 2 . Job losses under Bush were 800,000 per month and now they are positive 100,000. The problem today is that the growth is not fast enough. Besides, Romney wants to change direction which means he wants to take us negative again. Republicans like to do this because Bush tried to do it twice and was successful once. Now, Romney/Ryan will take us there again if we are so stupid to let them.
Funny. President Clinton in an interview on cnbc said he agreed with extending the Bush tax cuts.
Clinton also changed his mind later and agreed with Obama.in taxing the rich.
This shows that for the second quarter GDP was revised to 1.7. 1.7 is under 2. Not around 2. Again, your facts are wrong. Which goes to show you are embarrassing yourself. So, please post a link. Otherwise, no one can take what you say seriously.
Your problem is that your uninformed
You should google Romney beginning in2002 and read all the lies he has told through the years. Of special interest are the stances on gay rights, health care, budgets, etc. I think the best ones deal with his fetish on wearing a state troopers uniform and going out and stopping lone women drivers on dark highways. What did he do then? My wife tells me that this is the MO of serial killers and rapists. You might want to start reading the Washington Post and The Huffington Post instead of listening to Pox Snooze. No wonder you need cites which may or may not mean anything unless you read it.
So President Clinton wasn't telling the truth the first time? Or, the second time.
The problem is he is on tape saying he is in favor of extending them. Kind of goes to a credibility issue.
This article states there are 29 million unemployed. Do you think they believe the economy has turned around?
How will cutting taxes on the rich help this problem? Most of the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes now and where are the jobs? Record profits at American corporations- no jobs! Why? 11 million jobs lost under Bush and 60,000 plants closed . 4million jobs outsourced to China with Romney's help at Romney-Bain corporate raiders. This number is not quite correct in that most of that number are underemployed.you need to stop watching crybaby Walace,Bill O'Fairy, and the Fascist Hamm-ity. Brit Hume looks like he will fall off his chair most of the time!
You don't have to cite because you don't know how to cut/paste ( prove it cut/paste something).
You can't cite articles for what you say because they don't exist.
The CBO states that if the Bush tax cuts are not enacted for everyone. Plus, defense cuts not restored to the budget. Unemployment will go to 9.1percent and GDP will be 1.7.
That is why you should extend the Bush tax cuts.
Oh, so being underemployed is a good thing? How many are underemployed? You don't know do you and can't prove it either!
I cite articles to prove my point. You don't cite articles because of one or two reasons.
1. You can't cut/paste.
2. You can't find any information to support your arguments.
If you are underemployed then that proves President Obama has turned around the economy.
Because there are so many unemployed/underemployed you don't see President Obama going around saying Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?
What you need to do is get in contact with MIT Romney, I believe it's #MitRomney and ask him to cite references for all the lies he tells starting with his taxes which he has yet to provide one single complete income tax return , this is undoubtedly due to cheating and hiding his money in foreign accounts. Next, have him cite references on his plans to destroy Medicare, SS, and Medicaid. Then, have him cite references on his lying Welfare ads plus his lying Medicare adshis and Ryan's plan is meant to distract seniors from the true facts which is that the ACA increases benefits for seniors by forcing insurance companies to pay more in benefits.he is lying about jobs, and the economy because he just knows how to read a spreadsheet which most of us learn the first day in management.(time interview). Romney destroyed all his records ats governor of MA and also records of the Olympics where he got bailed out by the Federal Government. Also, why would he support the Vietnam war and the draft? Then go get some mysterious Mormon only draft deferment for three years to go to France to convert Catholics to the Mormon cult. This is called being a chicken hawk and a coward draft dodger.ask him to cite a reference on his and Ryan'budget outline since neither is a professional economist. Romney is not a businessman either, he is anti-business because he made his blood money destroying business ,jobsand outsourcing.
Obama care is one reason companies aren't hiring. Enjoy the reading material.
You are totally ignorant. Almost all of the big companies have healthcare and the ACA gives them sons tax breaks. From one perspective ,they are hiring in China using our tax dollars since 48 of the top companies in theU.S. pay little or no taxes, in fact, half of them get tax subsidies. You can cite all you want but I read and listen to learn, not to cite. I am not writing a paper here. Also your cites don't say who wrote them which is the major factor in wether it's worth reading.you didn't read those articles did you? The reason companies aren'hiring is because they are holding out for 0tax rates and actually keeping the economy improving only slowly. So that Romney can be elected.unfortunately, all hell will break loose if that happens because Romney is surrounding himself with stupid neo-cons. Another chicken hawk coward in charge of the government and running it like deregulating Bush on steroids.
Why do you care how much money he has?
Did it matter for John Kerry?
Did it matter for John Kennedy?
Did it matter they were rich? Oh no, they are /were Democrats.
The Democrats didn't take exception to John McCain being rich either?
Because President Obama can't run on his record. He has to sling mud.
I would think that you would want to extoll the virtues of President Obama? Has he accomplished anything?
Why throw mud at the opposition? That is Chicago style politics though.
John Kerry was constantly challenged by republicans about his money and actually demanded that his wife submit her tax return which she did,hypocrite. JohnMcCain didn't even know how many houses he owned. Besides , his wife is the rich one.john Kennedy't fortune was also discussed because of his father who was not exceptionally popular. The problem with Romney is that he is s,easy and is hiding his money . He did not earn the blood money ,he basically stole it legally because of Teagon's allowing corporate raiders to be legalized and allowing leverage buyouts.the way his investments are set up ,he is hiding too much.and probably is lying like a rug about his taxes.he did the same thing in MA where he hid his tax returns until elected because they showed he filed in Utah which contradicted his lie about his residency.why don't the republicans in the house and senate run on their economic accomplishments like trying to destroy this country with the debt limit debacle or not finding the government or not passing jobs bills. Punkin faced McConnell said his top goal is to defeat Obama this year and not to assist his state and voters. To this end he filibustered everything that was presented to the senate.(over400times).
Did it matter they were rich? Oh no, they are/were Democrats.
You are not telling the truth which goes to credibility.
The first article is written by John Crudele. His picture is even there.
John Stossel wrote the second article.
John Galt wrote the third third article.
Janean Chun wrote the fourth article for the Huffington Post ( is that liberal enough).
David Catron wrote the last article for The Spectator.
You don't like to tell the truth. You said my articles didn't have authors? I disproved that. Or, can't you read?
(I haven't disproved you like to not tell the truth)
Most of your authors are financial republicans with Stossel as an example. These people are salivating at the prospect of privatizing SS.i prefer to read Nobel prize winners and not trickle down experts that simply will not admit they are totally wrong.the Bush tax cuts have been in effect for 13years and there are less jobs now than before Bush. None of these people you list admit that their recommendations didn't work. Did you demand that they give you cites? You really needto grow up. I'm not impressed with any of yor authors even if it includes a picture. You should tweet these guys and demand their references and their credentials. As I said, my references have Nobel Prizes.
Just like. democrat/liberal. Emotional arguments. No facts. In other words no facts to back up your wild claims.
Companies only want the economy to grow slowly. Sure, I get it, it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.
As I've said before, Romney and now Ryan after extensive training(two days) can't say two words without lying twice. You should demand their references. Any of your authors that say we are worse off now than four years ago ,just live in their own world.the facts are that we have a positive GDP(2) compared to a negativeGDP (-8) under Bush. Also the stock market lost 7,000 points under Bush and gained it all back under Obama.krugman and Reich both say that we will dive into a depression if Romney is elected because of increasing taxes on the poor and middle class and decreasing or even eliminating all taxes on the rich . Romney under Ryan's tax plan will pay perhaps 0.1% in taxes.maybe he can install a car elevator in one of his east coast mansions.
CNN really needs to upgrade this site. No editing of your own posts. Can't delete your own post.
President Bill Clinton says Mitt Romney had a sterling business career.
Stossel is not a Republican. He is a libertarian. Another Democratic lie.
Another Democrat argument with no facts to support it.
Republicans as I've said before are taught by the Heritage to lie about everything.you haven't really supplied any facts that weren't well known in the first place .secondly, based on your comments you have not read your own cites. Third, tou needto get your nose out of Pox Snooze because these guys make up their own version of the news. You must know that Bush came into office with a 6 trillion dollar surplus. He should have paid off the national debt with it ! He left with 5 additional trillion dollars of debt totaling 11 trillion dollars. The facks are that because republicans did not pay for anything (wars,tax cuts, pill plans, inc.def. spend, etc.) his legacy is easily one trillion dollars per year, every year.the total Bush debt account is now 15 trillion dollars.michael Steele, former RNCchairman admitted that Obama was only responsible for 2trillion dollars of the debt. Ithink he counted the Tarp into his calculations.my economic references are Krugman and Reich and both have written books on the current economy. Both have earned Nobel Prizes.
You wouldn't mind sharing a link to show where President Obama is only responsible for two billion in debt.
When is anything President Obama's fault. Hope and Change! HA!
Transparency? What about Fast and Furious?
Don't forget – First time unemployment claims CNBC 8:39 AM ET.
What makes you think the next four years will be better than the last four years. If President Obama wasn't up to the task, shy did he run?
Why doesn't President Obama do something about violence in Chicago, Illinois? Seems like his buddy Rahman Emmanuel is over matched as well.
A Vida é Feita de Momentos, A Felicidade de Momentos Vividos intensamente. Positividade, nasceres do sol Liberdade e.Dia de luz e positividade.Bom dia!!!
Shows the definition of initial jobless claims and continuing claims. Initial jobless claims stay the same at 374,000 people filing INITIAL claims.
Did you see the debt clock at the republican convention?bclearly proves my point that republicans are not only stupid but they are responsible for the national debt. The sign says "we built it" referring obviously to the debt!!! Right?
What about all the unemployed and underemployed. How are they doing?
You need to go to http://www.washingtonpost.com and read the article on the unemployment numbers. They call today's numbers Applications. Basically, there is no need to report the number if you don't also report the total number of people unemployed. The number is bad eniegh so you can thank your republican congressman for helping get the numbers down. Remember, republicans don't want to pay unemployment even though the greedy B's like Romney are a major cause of the problem. Romney has clearly made his bed because he has stated that he really likes to fire people. What about his empathy for the unemployed since that is basically all he knows how to do.he is not an economist and neither is Ryan.
I would really like to see the quote that Romney says he really likes to fire people. I have not seen that.
If President Obama was such a job creator – people wouldn't need unemployment right?
I don't ever remember Republicans turning down an extension of unemployment. You will have to prove that.
The We Built It sign is in deference to President Obama's statement that government built small business. Not small business owners.
The Republican House has fulfilled all of its duties. They are not delinquent in passing a budget like the Democratic Senste.
I have always referred to the report this morning as first time unemployment applications.
Maybe you need glasses?
the "I love to fire people " ROMNEY quote is a very popular subject for democrats and their collage or Romney speaking gaffes. its taken only slightly out of context,and refers to his Bain work. it is unfortunately on tape only that I know of. for your information, the Ryan thing last night was full of lies. so maybe you can disprove the fact that the GM Janesville plant that Ryan talked so much about closed in 2008 under Bush. Lies,Lies,Lies thats allyouget from republicans these days.Remember that I told you that Bush is responsible for 15 trillion dollars of our current debt and the republicans admit it! the sign saying "we built it" is right next to the budget clock. RIGHT ?
you are just going to have to rationize this out.the number bas you identify iwith is 1.4-1.5 million per month.thats about 18 million per year.this means that to have a 100,000 job increase in a month then about 1.6 million jobs must be created per month. explain that remember, you must have had a job to claim unemployment benefits.
President Bush hasn't been in office for 3.5 years.
I gave you the blueprint for President Obama to cut the defecit.
Bring the troops home January 21, 2009. The day after he was inaugurated.
With the Democratic House and Senate fund both wars.
With the Democratic House and Senate fund Medicare Part D.
Why is President Obama never responsible for anything? Anything that has gone wrong, (well nothing has exactly gone right has it).
your questions have already been answered. now answer mine. why do republicans and libertarians lie like rugs. Why are democrats always have to clean up republican messes.? troops are coming home and PartD is paid for for the next 20 years thanks to theACA. Romney/Ryan will dump this country into a deep depression. neither knows how to creat jobs. Bush tried and almost succeeded in detroying this country loosing 60,000 plants, 11 million jobs, 25trillion in U.S. total value and probably worst of all, 4 million jobs,technology, and too many plants outsourced to China with Romney's help
This a weekly number. This weeks number meant 374,000 people applied for unemployment benefits last week. The prior week , 374,000 different people filed for first time unemployment applications.
If you have proof – by all means show me a link.
My question was – Why isn't President Obama ever responsible for anything?
Anything that has gone wrong – it is never his fault.
That is amazing.
answer my questions for a change. I gave you a citation at the Washington Post. can't you read? Why do republicans blame Obama for everything that tey did? Jendle built a sandbar to protect the wetlands in LA, when it floated away he tried to blame the government an have them pay for it. Katrina was a disastor that Jendle gave the rich people in LA a tax rebate and wanted more money from the government to pqay for roads, schools in rich neighborhoods. have you noticed that lower middle class neighborhoods are still a ness.Why? Also, the country is undergoing its worst drought ever and Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada Arizona Oklahoma,Etc, are drying up. these areas are projected to be deserts by 2020. so, theres no global warming is there?JAK
That is where you are wrong. It is not a Democratic mess. It is not a Republican mess.
It is an American mess.
Are you kidding? Do you realize that if Gore had been elected President ,which he was. And not voted down by the activists on the republican Supreme Court that we would be far better off now!!! Even if Cheney hadn't selected himself as VP we would have been better off. If is a republican MESS you don't seem to realize that The Northern Alliance inAfgsnistan won that conflict. We did not need to own it like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld decided to do . This was along with all the rest of the chicken hawks,and neo-cons in the Bush WH. The Bush tax cuts, theBush pill plan, the def. dept. budget doubling,and the blowing away of the budget surplus and doubling of the national debt. Don't forget the Bush 1trillion dollar legacy per year. If you say it's not a republican mess-then prove it.jAK
I guess President Obama doesn't have a " Buck stops here!" sign on his desk?
President Obama could have brought the troops home on January 21, 2009. The day after his inauguration.
There would have been more lives saved (most important). He also would be in better shape in terms of how the economy is going.
President Obama could have had Congress fund both wars with the majority in the House and Senate. He chose not to do that.
As I said earlier, Democrats could have been seen as the party of fiscal responsibility. They would have been seen as problem solvers, as opposed to part of the problem.
The Democrats would have been the shining white knight to the American people.
First of all ,ObMa did bring the troops home. Where have you been? This has already been proven! Secondly, Part D is paid for and further extended by theACAthird and most important of all ,the republicans ARE responsible for the mess and DWS did not admit to any thing of the sort. You still haven't answered o e of my questions! Why did Bush/Cheney go to two illegal wars put us 15 trillion dollars in debt and counting,kill over 100,000 irIraqies and 8,loo American troops, and wound seriously 50,000 american troops, if you don't admit to any of this then you are a stupid brick'!, lies, lies lies that's all you republicans know how to do.
The Democrats again missed a golden opportunity. With the House and Denate from 2006 – 2010, they could have chosen to fund Medicare Part D with a majority in the House and Senste. They managed too pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote. They could have done the same thing with Medicare Part D. Again, they could have been seen as the party of fiscal responsibility.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – Democrats own the economy.
I appreciate her candor and appreciate her taking responsibility for the mess.
So the Supreme Court made the right decision in terms of Obamacare? Didn't make the right decision in terms of the 2000 election?
You win some, you lose some.
Global warming? You must be having a laugh?
The troops are still in Afghanistan..
Again, had he brought the troops home January 21, 2009. The day after his inauguration. Think of the lives that would have been saved ( most important). Think of the money that would have been saved.
You say the wars were illegal? Why didn't he bring the troops home sooner?
Would love to see the links backing up your information. Educate me!
Where' your cite on DWS because there isn't any. The question is "why did we get into Afganistan and Iraq in the first place? Why didn't the republicans pay for it? Why the tax cut with all the costs? Why the deregulation that caused the mess were in? If you can't answer ,say so. How many troops do we have in Iraq? Do you even know? How come that across the last 12years that the rich have increased their income tremendously sly whereas the middle class income is flat? Why are republicans attacking Medicare and SS as well as Nedicaid?
Why didn't the Democrats fund Medicare Part D earlier?
They had the House and Senate from 2006-2010. The Democrats could have saved the country more money on the debt by funding Medicare Part D.
Instead, they chose to raise taxes on people (Middle class included) to pay for the Affordablle Care Act. The SupremeCourt is the one who said the Affordable Care Act is a tax.
So sure Medicare Part D is funded ( by the American people who have to pay the tax).
The Democratic Congress decided to tax the Middle class instead of putting it into the budget.
In response to September 11th the US attacked Afganistan and Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was found and executed. In Afghanistan the United States is (still, president Obama could have brought the troops home January 21, 2009 the day after his inauguration if he felt the wars were illegal) fighting the Taliban and Al Queda.
You say it was Bush's war? There were 100 Democrats who could have voted against giving him the power. One of those who voted for it was John Keery.
So, please stop your blaming Bush/Cheney. You have no credibility.
You still haven't answered one single question. When did Afganistan attack us? If Afganistan was so potent, why did we wait so long to attack them? We're we even invited in? You are yusuf making things up. Ow,aren't you you do realize that republicans want to put troops back into Iraq and rebuild the troop levels in Afganistan, don't you? My arguments are common sense, tour begin with S___.
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the wars. Joe Biden called for an invasion of Iraq prior to President Bush becoming President.
Harry Reid voted for the war in Iraq. As did John Edwards. Steny Hoyer and Diane Feinstein also voted for the wars.
Did you see the nuclear bomb cloud behind Romney last night? Read the Washington Post. It even has Krauthammer as a writer.
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, all voted to authorize the wars.
Care to recant it was/is a Republican problem?
You constantly think that the Bush administration did not lie about WMD in Iraq. bush told Americans on TV by Bush that Iraq had nuclear bombs. I don' remember any vote on Afganistan other than it may have been more legit because of AlQueda in Pakistan but the troops were never given a mission in Afganistan by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ,etc. and the rest of the neo-cons republicans.it is actually unbelievable that a sitting presidentBush could lie to the American people and congress like Bush did about nuclear weapons in Iraq.Why? Remember, Bush called Iran and Iraq "the axis of evil " and then invaded Iraq. If you were Iran , what would you do?
The Democrats I mentioned were just as adamant that Saddam had WMD's just like Bush.
No rebukes for your Democratic friends?
As I have said many times ( even though you probably didn't read).
Saddam was walking and talking like he had a full house. Reality, he only had a pair of twos.
Where's your brain? The CIA and theNSA told senators that Iraq had WMD. This was done by Cheney and Rice . The story was that Cheney used to go to the CIA an tell them to report falsehoods. Rice let it happen. Currently, republicans like yourself are trying to rewrite history and try to show Bush I. A favorable light even though he undoubtedly was the w orst president in U.S. history.we now face another problem in that rich republicans are trying to BUY the American election because of an activist supreme Court.
Well. So much for your ignorant comment. No other President in history has tinvaded two countries without justification. So tour attempt to rewrite history is nothing but a joke. Let's see, Nixon resigned in disgrace ,Ford coulldn't handle the economy and led us into a financial disaster, Agnew was convicted of fraud, Reagon didn't know where he was for the last 2years,and Bush engineered two stock market crashes with the last one leading to a depression like Hoover. That's not even mentioning the fact that he and Cheney were asleep at the wheel before,during and after 9/11. You also must note that Romney right now is touring LA so that he can show that he is better than Bush! The big difference is that there are competent people in charge for the Federal Government this time , not like the horse stall cleaner that Bush/Cheney put in charge of FEMA.unfortunately, thesupreme court ( activists) picked Bush and this decision will go down in history as one of two worst decisions. The other being citizens united(B.S.).
Unfortunately, President Carter was the worst. The good news for him. President Obama is about to take the mantle from President Carter.
Do me a favor. Per your request to respect the office – please reply to President Bush as President Bush.
Same for President Ford and President Reagan.
58 percent of the 4.5 million jobs are low wage.
NY Times – liberal enough?
First you didn't read my comment. You referred to President Obama as Mr. Which is not correct. Anyone that does that is disrespectful of the office. Besides, Bush was selected by the supreme court on a state rights issue which republicans say they uphold only when it suits them. All of the people you mention are not presidents anymore thank God. At the convention last night ,they even said that Bush was honest.i think that was aRomney joke, so laugh.
I think that you and President Obama should stop blaming George Bush. Follow Jeb Bush's advice : A real leader would accept responsibility for his own policies.
What? When did George W. bush ever take blame and apologize to the American people about his screwups ever when did he even apologize to the families that lost their sons, daughters, nephews, etc. due to his vanity.did you notice that the republican convention didn't mention their wars at all ,not even Jen bush.so what are his comments worth-nothing. bush was an airhead jerk.republicans comment on President Obama's talks about Arabs, yet they purposely forget that Bush held hands with the King of Saudi Arabia. Again, Romney /Ryan will be another absolute disaster for the people in this country. Romney even referred to this country as a corporation, so is he going to Bain us?
I have never referred to President Obama as Obama. You have referred to President Bush as Bush many times.
Mr. Obama has been a reference used by both the New York Times and NPR.
President Carter isn't a President any longer. I didn't refer to him as Carter.
The correct honorific for Reagon,etc., is former president.
I didn't say President Obama had to apologize. By all means show me where I said that!
I said that President Obama and the Democrats need to stop blaming President Bush for whatever ails the country.
As Jeb Bush said: A real leader would take responsibility for his policies.
No where did I say President Obama should apologize. Stop blaming President Bush.
Who else canbe blamed? The tables and graphs that I've seen have been on TV and in the paper. They showed the economy on a straight down path when Obama took office. Republicans won't apologize for creating the mess and definitely claim that the stimulus did nothing which is terribly false. It stopped the crash . It saved millions of jobs which even Ryan now admits to in his district. There are letters with his signature. Romney added to the problem by destroying good companies and selling technology to China and outsourcing jobs. Bush destroyed 11 million jobs outsourced 4 million jobs with Romney's help and shut down 60,000 plants. Even Jeb Bush can't justify that. Reagon did NOT have this kind of situation to deal with" his recession was a trickle compared to a deluge caused by republicans and W.you said that republicans have done their jobs in the house and senate. B.S. How will their abortion bills help the economy? They even stalled transportation bills that were approved by the senate. Why? They put forth budget outlines and call them budgets B.S. they attack SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and say there is a crises, maybe in 10 years for Medicare, and 24 years for SS. The reason there is a crisis is that republicans spent the lock box that Bush promised not to do. Remember the 6 trillion dollar surplus Bush came into office with? Gone- maybe you can explain it?
A rea leader would take responsibility for his own policies.
By running for President, President Obama said he would fix it.
Example, President Obama said by the end of his first term he would halve the defecit. Has he?
First of all, Obama thought that Bush/Cheney drove the economic pickup truck off the road into a ditch. In fact, Bush/Cheney drove a loaded cement truck off a 250 foot cliff. That' what the data said. The economy was headed straight down and the stock market had lost half of its value resulting in a 25 trillion dollar country value loss. Pension funds were hit very hard destroying many completely. Causing many seniors to be destroyed financially. Seniors need to be extraordinarily concerned because Romney/Ryan are headed in the same direction except they will also loose their SSandMedicare and Medicaid backup. These guys are on steroids. Think about this, Ryan went to college on SS funds, yet he now wants to destroy it for everybody else. What kind of person does that? Romney got the advantage of a rich dad who put him through expensive schools, universities, and paid for his 3year draft dodging vacation in France sipping wine and trying to convert Catholics to the Mormon cult. He tells college students to go borrow money from their parents, their parents probably lost their jobs because Bain-Romney Bained the company they worked for and outsourced their jobs to China. This is the AH the republicans put up for president and will try to buy it .romney isn't even a true businessman because he actually some kind of efficiency person that only knows on his own admission that he can read a spreadsheet.(Time Magazine).
The major problem that rublicans have is that they won't admit their own failures. The Bush years were an absolute failure and Romney/Ryan want to take us back to that crap-disaster.so, maybe instead telling Obama to own up to his policies which he has done, you rublicans and Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld should own up to their absolute failures so that Americans can move o . We are supposed to learn from mistakes but republicans can't so they must be reminded of them every day because they just don't listen or try to rewrite history.
If something isn't done to Medicare. (which President Obama is in favor of not doing anything since he hasn't sent a report to Congress which he is required to do how he would save Medicare).
The ACA adds 8 years to the longevity of Medicare. The republicans not only want to destroy it , they spent the surplus that could have been used to pay for it Medicare is good for 20 more years thanks to the ACA. Republican plans reduces Medicares life by 8 tears to 4 years. They are obviously lying about saving Medicare. The crisis with Medicare and SS is all I their republican empty heads.
The 6 trillion surplus was spent on the wars in Afghanistan that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Steny Hoyer and Vice-President Joe Biden all voted for.
Please call President Bush as President Bush. Not W.
Or, I will start calling President Obama Barry.
Just as a reminder, Bush was not elected ,he was appointed by the supreme(activist)court.
If something isn't done to Medicare, it will go bankrupt.
I don't read the biased guardian. Medicare is viable for for 20 more years unless republicans destroy it.. They will accomplish this by their so-called coupon plan by their admitted divide and conquer plan.seniors must realize that a vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote to immediately destroy Medicare, SS, and Medicaid. As Romney says which he told all those employees that he Bained, trust me.
You should search http://www.washingtonpost.com and click on opinion-George Will there is a very lively discussion taking place that you might be interested in republican baiting
Tim Geithner -We (the administration) have no solution to the long term problem.
You a big fan of The Washington Post, right.
Why not fix Medicare so it is viable forever?
President Bush was elected. Bitter? Remember respect the office.
Bush was not elected,he was appointed. Just like Romney is bought. Also Forbes is a joke.paul Ryan is not far behind. He also is not an economist along with all republicans. Supply side economics is stupid. You would think that republicans would look at Demand side economics.the ACA extends Medicare for 8more years to 20 years.romne/Ryan destroys Medicare in 4years the ACA adds benefits to Medicare,whereas the latest Ryan B.S. adds nothing to Medicare but takes the same cost reductions (716 billion) and gives to the very rich. You really need to read your own dumb cites because Ezra writes exactly what I have said above. I have read Ezra and watched him on Rachel where he is an analyst. The republicans plan to destroy Medicare, SS, and Medicaid and they are lying about it every day. You constantly talk about taking responsibility for policies, where is republican ethics, in the garbage? Where is yours? If republicans want to destroy Medicare, why don't they say so.?
You are the one making the accusation that Republicans want to destroy Medicare come up with the proof.
Why not fix Medicare PERMANATELY?
Medicare is secure for 20 more years only if Obama gets re-elected. If Romney Ryan then it's good for only 4 more years. The Romney/Ryan privatization coupon plan currently in vogue with republicans seriously weakens Medicare badly and they know it and are lying about it. The so called choice for seniors will only include very healthy and rich seniors. It does not include pill plans, cost containment,but will include caps, dropping due to sickness and age(74) ,etc. the republican coupon plan will cost 100 billion dollars per year right off the top of Medicare funding. That's if only 20% of seniors accept the coupon. The question is ,will Medicare still be available when insurance companies drop them? Which they will with their death people.
You would have more credibility if you sourced your information.
What proof do you need? It's mostly simple math. The coupon plan proposed by Romney/Ryan will kill Medicare. The current version offers a choice to seniors, Medicare or the coupon? If 20% of current seniors opt for the $8,000 ? Coupon, then it will cost $80billion dollars assigned to Medicare!sbudget yearly. 8,000 times 10 million= 80 billion. You then have to add $1,500 times 10 million =$15billion more for a total of $95 billion dollars directly off the top of Medicare's budget per year.the seniors that accept this coupon offer must be very very healthy with absolutely no pre-conditions. They also will be dropped by insur. Co. When they get sick or when they get older(74).life insurance drop age. Will Medicare still be around? Probably not if republicans get their way getting rid of Medicare,SS, and Medicaid is a stated goal of republicans for the last 50 years. Ryan led the charge against SS under Bush when he tried to privatize SS and failed. Privatization is just another word for destroy it cuts at least $400 billion/year from SS. First Medicare,because 95 billion off the top will be a major blow to current budget. Healthy seniors will not be a major cost for insurance companies or Medicare. They will however when they get dropped. There also will be less cost containment lik Medicare currently does. Those under 55 will opt out because they will see that both the coupon and Medicare will no longer be available for them. Therefore, the coupon plan is nothing more than a smokescreen for the real republican plan which is to eliminate both Medicare and SS.
Forbes is a terrible cite because he visually salivates at the prospect of paying zero capital gains taxes so that he will undoubtedly will get subsidies and by the way Romney will pay no taxes on what he says he is making which doesn't include his foreign investments( hidden)
Proof as a link to where you get your information would be helpful.
My assumption is that none exist.
Your cites are not proof of anything youve said. Their all opinions. I just gave you mathematic proof of what I said. So it's true that republicans hate math and science. It's because math solutions are so reliable. Can't take it can you. The $8,000 was heard on the radio from Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont. The number most frequently cited is $6,000, so who knows because it's a madeup number by Ryan. What is in this calculation that you don't understand?
You should watch the Democratic Convention this week so that you can see the answer to the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" . George Bush will answer the question himself on tape in his "I give up "speech concerning the horrible economy that he left America in!!,
No thanks I know we are not better off. Not when the debt goes past 16 trillion under President Obama.
How are we better off again?
Suit yourself, Bush's statement is on tape and highlights the disaster he and his buddies created. It is also easy to see that the policies of the republican party match those of Bush and this time they would destroy this country for everyone but the top 2%. The two liars(Romney/Ryan) keep asking about this comparison and keep reminding Americans that they were headed toward a major depression under Bush. Can't take the truth, right?
Barry Sanders? Really?
I am one of those Americans who can't say they are better off than I was four years ago. I have been looking for work for 2.5 years no luck. Four years ago I had a good job.
Nothing about the fact I can't find a job?
Just a suggestion. You might supplement your networking with new contacts by volunteering for a political partywhere you might meet some good people that can help you.
You could certainly see your expertise within the work you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with useful information to work on. You've performed an impressive task and our entire group might be grateful to you.
You could definitely see your enthusiasm in the paintings you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
I am extremely inspired together with your writing skills and also with the structure in your blog. Is this a paid topic or did you customize it your self? Either way stay up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon to see a great weblog like this one nowadays..
Hello! ffceafb interesting ffceafb site! I'm really like it! Very, very ffceafb good!
Very nice site!
Hello! fgbdeeb interesting fgbdeeb site! I'm really like it! Very, very fgbdeeb good!
Outstanding post however , I was wondering if you could write
a litte more on this topic? I'd be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Many thanks! http://stopfolks.info Happy Father's Day!
Please click on the internet.Marriott gives their customers
bonus bucks and bonus points.
Notify me of new comments via email.