Sad day for America when "rooting for your own team" mania leaves people like you to be so blind. Makes me ashamed to be an Obama supporter and associated with such nonsense. Mitt Romney gave $4M real dollars to charity, many charities that are supported by Dems and Republicans. That is the main reason his tax rate is 14%, instead of 30%. Would you rather see people let charities we all support lose donations because we are criticizing the charitable deduction? For every dollar he gives to charity, yes he gets a 35 cent tax break, but he LOSES the whole dollar forever, and more importantly, the charity RECEIVES the whole dollar to help those in need. I honestly never thought I would see a day when a guy is criticized for giving too much money to charity and for overpaying on his taxes. Shameful! And will backfire against us because Americans will see through such partisan nonsense and punish us in the voting booth. You have plenty to choose from in opposing Romney, so don't focus on one thing where he actually is doing the right thing!

DFB, you only need to post this once. Posting over and over is not only annoying it is considered spamming. Don't take this the wrong way. Please see below for a response.

Cheers!

While it's admirable that someone gives huge amounts to their church, it would be nice if a gazillionaire actually paid more than 9% in taxes. We are paying the lowest taxes we have in 50 years. Have you been to Europe of Asia? Their cities, roads airports etc., are beautiful while we look like a third world country. You can drink their water out of the tap instead of having to buy it. I could write a book on government services provided by taxes like free (of course since you're paying taxes it's not really free) childcare.

Supply-side Reaganomics have allowed the rich and corporations to get away with paying nothing in many if not most cases or next to nothing in the rest of the cases and our infrastructure and everything else like educational systems etc have suffered greatly.

Republicans tell us that the "entitlement" programs are the problem but those programs are not "entitlements" because we the taxpayers pay into them. They are insurance programs that have been funded. Reagan and the Republicans have, in fact, been stealing or started stealing funds from them to make their horrible budgets look better.

It's the rich corporations and their board members who pay zero in taxes or pay taxes once every five years but take hundreds of billions in subsidies, or trillions in bailouts and hundreds of billions, in loans that they never pay back that are the truly entitled and the true entitlement programs. They however, also own the media and employee journalists at million dollar plus salaries so they tell you and everyone else what they want you to hear. Since our education system is so poor most people can't think critically and they simply buy the crap they are told.

Wake up. These rich guys, and us, need to pay more in taxes, we need higher salaries and better benefits. But that's not going to happen under Republican control. They have been in charge for 32 years and they've become too corrupt. Just like we threw the Dems out 32 years ago after 30 years of control so too we need to throw out the R's. It's just the way the pendulum swings.

Republicans know this but it is called Greed. Just look at Cheney who made lots of money off the wars. For a party who claims to be religious and caring about their neighbor, I don't know what religion they practice. Also for a party that criticizes the Dems for abusing the constitution, it is amazing how often the abuse it. The republican party is a party of I got mine and you need to get your own. It's like the president said, "We helped you build that". Without our business you would not have your wealth. No one becomes wealthy in this country on their own. I have never seen so much greed. And if I hear one more time that it is only Repubs who work while Dems are lazy I will tear out my hair. They fail to see that most military people are Dems. The Dem party is an inclusive party. The Repubs are an exclusive party. Not the same conservative party of old. But now with extreme ideas which are ruining this country. A party of Liars.

Don't pull your hair out. Vote, and tell every democrat you know to. Action speaks loud-est.

VOTE! A Full Democrat Ticket 2012. CHANGE GOES VIRAL!

sedwinObama

Your response makes me wonder if you are a low information voter.

How would anyone vote for a man who has presided over the slowest post-recession recovery on record, whose singular foreign policy achievement in 4 years was to give a simple order to take down America's most wanted, gave away billions to an auto company and supposedly saved it even though there are 250,000 fewer workers in that industry today and the stock price is over 30% lower than its IPO price, and who made essentially the same promises in his 2012 acceptance speech as he did in 2008? Why would anyone vote for a man who ignored his own ballyhooed debt commission report and did NOTHING to address the structural debt bomb we are facing? Why would a voter give their vote to a man who now says he can't fix Washington (even though he said before that he could)? Why Why Why?

Is it that these low information voters don't care, or just too caught up in ideology to matter?

Romney is a flawed candidate, but an educated voter has to ask what Obama has done to deserve another chance.

I hate excuses. And all I've heard from this man is WHY he can't do something. I want to hear the words WILL repeatedly and I want you and everyone else to hold him accountable if he fails.

Ringer: Have you ever heard of the Great Depression? It took 16 years to recover from that Republican Businessman's recession that incidentally used the same policies as businessman Bush and the same policies that businessman Mitt wants to try again to cause that mess. What was it you were saying about low information? Ha Ha Ha!

If Obama had not saved the Auto industry 1.1 million more Americans would now be out of work. Your Republicans in Congress have now filibustered or voted against 20 jobs bills in a row including jobs for veterans returning from the war (just three days ago). The Republican Governors have fired over 650,000 government employees, which now puts us at the same government employment level that we at in 1968 when our population was approximately half what it is now. The jobs bills that the Republicans have killed 20 times are Obamas jobs/economics plan. So when you say Obama's economics plan has failed that's interesting since the Republicans in Congress have refused to pass it! Again who is the low information voter here? Ha Ha Ha!

Perhaps you should stop watching Fox and listening to Limbaugh and start actually paying attention to real facts my friend, because people are looking at you as the fool you are. Ha Ha Ha!

Mitt Romney's apparent miscues and "flip flops" may not be all that..he appears to have Asperger's Syndrome and CAN'T HELP stating what he "feels" about any subject at the time asked-ergo "flip flopping". It can't be helped but can be very dangerous in dealings with the rest of the world. It needs to be checked out quickly. This comes from numerous teachers who have observed the same actions in classrooms of children who have been diagnosed with ASPERGERS SYNDROME.

Low information voters are simply people who don't read newspapers, news magazines don't watch real news and aren't interested or informed about politics or government. You know like Sarah Palin when she was running for Vice President. Or people who watch Fox News. Or essentially 60% of the Republican party. Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaa!

Amusing, sedwinmars, but she asking a legitimate question. Low information voters, either by choice (they are fed up) or circumstance (imagine the single mom balancing work, kids, the sick parent, etc.) do not get the information we bloggers enjoy. They go to sources they trust, like their father or aunt. Of course, the one piece of information they do get will dramatically affect their vote, for better or worse. I hope this helps.

A lot of low information voters are students and new adults. They only hear the chatter, but have not committed to the responsibility of politics. They are of age and capable, and yet have no depth of knowledge about important their one vote is. On Melissa Harris Perry. I heard a college student say she didn't think her vote would matter much, she is african-American. Up to that statement, she made alot of sense in her other words. I though to myself, then young lady why are the state of PA trying so hard to take it and that one DAY (voting) away from you? Voting is your power-and republicans want to take it from! Your vote is most urgently important!

Low infor voters have one toe in, four toes out of this business of elections. Moreover. Negative, protracted politics drives people away, impacts friendships (has mine since 2008), and regular people run from this. Nobody wants a once in a while event to cause a life altering change in their family-friend selecctions!

FINALLY, I was watching Jennifer Granholm on CURRENT TV and this point is made. We, voters, have to start paying atttention down-ticket to STATE SUPREME COURT elections-something on the ballot that always boggle my mind (who/what/how?) .

So then, there is something for all of us to learn here. :-)

You guys are still giving them way too much credit. Most low information voters just don't care. They seriously never watch news or read news papers at all if it involves politics. They can't name any politician other than perhaps the President nor can they tell you about any issue. They are simply completely tuned out of the process.

They are into music, or fashion or their personal lives or whatever. It's not necessarily bad, they just have no interest in politics. I literally know people that have gone into a voting both and "tossed a coin,' because they have no idea who the candidates are or what they represent.

It sounds appalling to us, but, as a counter-example, my wife constantly shows me pictures of shoes and dresses and although I pretend to care, I don't. The "fashion police" would have thrown me into prison years ago. Ha Ha Ha.

What was the spoof Jay Leno used to do? Take photos outside the studio and hold them up to the public, and watch all the mis-called names? Stomach-busting laughter from inside the studio audience.

Yep. Low information voters. What are we going to do about you all?

Still, I got to bone up on local judge elections. That's a big deal for me.

sewinmars

I was offering my definition to someone asking for one, that is all. I will leave the value judgements to others.

Joseph: Me too, although that's what we do here through our opinions in. I hope you didn't take it the wrong way. I can be rather caustic. I apologize.

I hear ya on the low information voters. Or even better, how about the scotoma voters? You know like the majority of the sheep on this board? The ones that hear what they want to hear, not what is actually said or meant. I've heard the phrase "what he really meant was..." uttered more n the past 3 1/2 years than in a 52 year lifetime. It's nauseating.

Obama says exactly what he means, when the teleprompter is off. He has made the most egregious, radical and "traditionally un-American" comments ever uttered by a sitting U.S. president:

"I'm for redistribution of wealth"..."Spread the wealth around"...fundamentally transforming the United States of America"...and of course, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His quotes certainly resemble Marx (Karl, not Groucho) and Lenin far more than Jefferson and Madison. But the scotoma-prone Kool-aid drinkers will hear exactly what they want to hear. There is a difference between low information voters and this bunch. Its the difference between plain ignorance..and willful ignorance.

Have a great day...Steve

Ha Ha Ha! This from a guy who supports Mittens! The guy who has held every single side on every single issue? Ha Ha Ha! Talk about hearing what you want to hear! Just wait 5 minutes and Mitt will change his mind. He's more fickle than the weather in the North Atlantic! Ha Ha Ha!

Hypocrite!

It's amusing how the "National Debt Clock" always appears on the GOP stages during Democrat Administrations but during Republicans Administrations it goes back to where? The GOP National offices where it becomes the "Look how much money we're pocketing by screwing the American Taxpayer Clock." Ha Ha Ha!

Climbutrm: OKAY got it! Nevermind.

sed #3.7 - I have read your posts, you have read mine, we know that about each other, and I have no intention to cramp your style (even if I could). Recognize, however, those who are brand new and need legitimate information out of a textbook. Now, go out and reelect Barack Obama!

By the way, this is the first apology I have seen, period. We are big enough to recognize our mistakes here, which puts us MILES ahead of Mr. Romney:-)

climb #3.8 - It is nauseating to hear 'what he really meant was...', especially when it is said by the candidate's staff like Mitt Romney's people do every time he opens his mouth. Either Mr. Romney likes to pander to people or he is too scared of the consequences to his right win bankrollers to stick to his guns JUST ONCE. Either way, he does not deserve to be President.

Joseph: Of course it would be boring but if you peruse my past posts you would see I apologize, as well as admit that I'm a jerk fairly frequently. I am an Irishman after all. I do know I have a sharp tongue, especially after a few. Ha Ha Ha.

I was thinking the Jay Walkers on Leno as an apt who are low information voters, the undecided who have to be living under a rock to not know what is going on in this country. Maybe they no longer teach history and specifically civics in high school or had already dropped out.

The other thing that is baffling is why anybody would vote for a guy who immediately will give himself a tax break which sounds like the way Bane went in with the guarantee of up front money before the turn around or not of the company. I think we used to call that a stick up.

Jen1981

Kindly remember that Ann Romney is along for the ride into this 'kitchen'. Until she starts promoting policy initiatives of her own instead of only standing by her man direct the heat at the one who signed off on facing it. Contrast this to Hillary Clinton, who advanced her own policies, stood up to the heat, and she and her country are better off for it.

I did see Chris on Bill Maher and he was in his element/ They like each other. Got to watch that one again On Demand.

Jen, you are right. There is something "normal", dare I say, amateur-ish in what Ann Romney did in saying, 'this is hard, and if you think it is easy you try it'. Oddly, that's plain-speak. Something I didn't expect "high-ball" aristocrats to let me "in" to discover about them. It makes me look at her...again. Is she stressing? Already? She and Mitt do look tired.

Ann Romney seems one to eventually speak her mind. Can that work for a model first lady? I wonder. Furthermore, she impresses me as someone who takes charges of announcing some of the important decisions in her family once arrived at.A little different. I

ts early here...I need coffee. *YaWn.

Joseph- That's exactly my point. She is along for the ride and has received very little direct criticism, actually. This is, like you said, before she even gets to start her own initiatives. The problem is that she is already starting to crumble under the stress of, like I said, the criticism of her husband. Mitt needs to hear this and if they are as in love as they say they are he should realize that all of his criticisms are hurting his family and stressing his wife. Remember, there are 5 grown kids and 18 grandchildren in this family. I already have little respect for Mitt's comments and it will go even lower if he doesn't do something about and start being proactive instead of anti-obama. If I was married and my husband was running for President and said some of things he's said my whole family would be mortified and embarrassed!

Of course. All the Romney's have had to do in the past is strip funds from successful companies, pocket them and fire people. Even then Romney never fired people personally he had other people do it for him.

He actually said in the now infamous 47% tape that he wouldn't do anything if elected and the economy would just get better on its own. As if his good looks and personal "magic" would be all that that was needed to run the government and fix our problems.

The Republicans have lost the ability to lead.

Vote straight Democrat 2012. GObama.

Jen1981 - Your response is valid but I want to say this. Unless and until Ann Romney starts infuencing what pots and pans and appliances in the 'kitchen' produce the heat she cannot control the heat. She is not aiming to 'reform' Medicare, deregulate the banks and the industries that pollute, deny the franchise to legitimate voters, etc. Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP 'leadership' are, so aim at the source. It is these policies we need to stop, not Ann Romney - YET.

Sad day for America when "rooting for your own team" mania leaves people like you to be so blind. Makes me ashamed to be an Obama supporter and associated with such nonsense. Mitt Romney gave $4M real dollars to charity, many charities that are supported by Dems and Republicans. That is the main reason his tax rate is 14%, instead of 30%. Would you rather see people let charities we all support lose donations because we are criticizing the charitable deduction? For every dollar he gives to charity, yes he gets a 35 cent tax break, but he LOSES the whole dollar forever, and more importantly, the charity RECEIVES the whole dollar to help those in need. I honestly never thought I would see a day when a guy is criticized for giving too much money to charity and for overpaying on his taxes. Shameful! And will backfire against us because Americans will see through such partisan nonsense and punish us in the voting booth. You have plenty to choose from in opposing Romney, so don't focus on one thing where he actually is doing the right thing!

Doing the right thing would be to release 8 - 12 years of his taxes like all candidates have since his own father George Romney started the tradition arguing that all candidates should do so to prove their integrity.

The fact that Mitt has been unwilling to do so has not only shown that he feels he is above the rest of the presidential candidates but also that he disagrees with his fathers premise that candidates need to prove their integrity to the American people when they say they are the ones who are qualified to deal with the economy and individuals tax rates.

It show disrespect to us and to his own father. This is not about charitable donations. The right thing is to show your tax returns and prove that you are and honest man.

Respectfully disagree. The older tax returns are a red herring, and beating this drum makes us look mean and pathetic. Plus, it puts a spotlight on how incredibly generous he has been to charity, at a time when we are trying to criticize him for not caring enough about poor people. What if the prior returns show he gave even more away than 2010 and 2011? Be careful what you wish for, because it can really backfire on us. Why not pound him on the areas where he can’t defend himself? Sad that I seem to be the lone voice on taking an old school approach and only criticizing an opponent on issues where he has done something wrong.

First of all he is only releasing summaries eventually from 199-2009. He is leaving out 2010 for some reason. Secondly Mitt has a penchant for amending records to reflect what he wants us to see. He amended his tax returns when he got caught lying about his residency as Governor. He amended his Bain records to show that he wasn't the CEO when they were closing plants and shipping jobs overseas.

The fact that you do not believe that he has to play by the same rules as every other candidate and the very rules that his own father set up proves to me that you aren't the Democrat that you claim to be but merely another Republican troll that is using the advice given on the GOP homepage that says "claim you are a Democrat or that you voted for Obama to get on the good side of other progressive bloggers or progressive radio listeners at call-in shows."

I'm sorry. We hold all citizens to the same standards because we believe in equality under the law. The fact the Mitt doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else and he feels 47% of the population including the military, retired population, working poor and a huge amount of the middle class are lazy and moochers proves to me he is the wrong man for the job.

Sad, that you have to try to bully anybody who tries to reasonably make a point, and accuse them of being a Republican troll. Maybe I just want us to win this election based on the merits, instead of having to make stuff up. It is sad that your hatred and bitterness for Romney makes you incapable of understanding my point. You want to criticize him for what he says or what he intends to do? That’s great, and what politics are all about. But, I think you look like foolish when you criticize him for giving $4 MILLION dollars to charity. The same way the right looks foolish when they claim Obama was not born in Hawaii.

It makes me sad that you started this whole conversation of by accusing us of being " blind maniacs, rooting for our own team who make you sad," and being "shameful," and practicing "partisan nonsense."

As always you guys on the right can dish it out but start crying when sone else points out that your words and claims don't meet the smell test.

Sorry I hurt your sensitive feelings but perhaps you should re-read what you yourself write first before posting it. If you want to start aggressive conversations you've come to the right place. These Dems bite back.

Yeah, DFBdude. And, our eyes don't roll around in our heads when we reply either!! Since you hurled insults.

I never said my feelings were hurt. I just said you were a demeaning bully. And I never insulted anybody, I just suggested that your whining about the Romney tax returns does more harm to the Obama campaign than it helps. Extremists like you are no different than extremists like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin on the other side. In fact, I hereby rename you the "Michele Bachmann of the Left" – given that you both like to spew ultra-partisan babble that embarrasses most of your party. Facts are facts, Romney, like him or not, had 43% of his taxable income taxed or donated for the benefit of the public good. I'm glad I do not have to release my 2011 return, because my own number would be nowhere near 43%, and I doubt yours would be either.

Your tic for tat is not helping either. "We" have not lightly arrived at our own opinions and use of factual statements. For months, some of us have listened to the positions for and against democrats and republicians, Obama andcandidate Romney. We have followed, debated, and openly questioned issues in this room.

Our process guided us in making some conclusions. Conclusions way to many to repeat list in a long protracted post. (Some of us here are not new or late as the case maybe to this blog or other Newsvine forums.)

Now for a good work of charity, I do not condemn nor abuse Mitt Romney. But, and it is a BIG BUT, there is a presidential candidate tradition....arrgh, let's not rehash that one again...look it up, please. Presidential candidates in a good faith effort demonstrate character by exposing their tax history(ies) to the Public. For all to see. Mitt Romney is bucking and shortchanging this custom, and he is being called out. Certain parties who understand political sleight-of-hand want him to reasonably explain away his stance or come forth and disclose as is customary.

In conclusion, for "good deeds" should they be actual, I give Romney his due. Yet, he is the one who is foolishly casting about in most questionable manner.

Ha Ha Ha Your attempt to rationalize your own behavior while criticizing others for treating you the same way is childish. First I'm demeaning, then you say you meant I was whining, claiming you never insulted anyone while saying I spew ultra partisan babble that embarrasses most of the party.

Of course, to most people calling them a bully, accusing them of whining, calling them a girl, and the above are bullying and insulting tactics which you started from the beginning.

You, like most right wingers, are a child, who comes on to this site throwing insults around but expects all Democrats to roll over and take it. Sorry "DFB - Dumb Frickin Bit*h," You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a moron, just like Mittens.

There is a significant part of the electorate who vote because 'He will leave my guns alone!', or 'He will eliminate abortions!' or some other issue. They stopped listening a long time ago and, if current polling is correct, there are more of them than you think. Conservatives are saying the above about us right now (they would be wrong, but they are still saying it). The best course is to keep telling the truth and don't boo, vote.

I really hate to see you move, but you might want to start packing your bags. The polls are skewed very badly....most oversample Dems substantially. If the turnout is like 2010, which is very likely, Obama won't win.

Ha Ha Ha. Most oversample Dem's is pure crap. You can simply look at the metrics of any poll to see this isn't true. In fact most polls favor Republicans. This year for the first year in Rasmussin history instead of sampling an even 44% Dems to Repugs Ras has been sampling 44% Dems and 47% Repugs which is why that poll has had Mitt running ahead by 1-3 point for most of their polling.

2010 was a midterm election which like most midterm elections is always much lower than Presidential elections.

The only reason Obama may not win will be the voter suppression efforts which are disenfranchising millions of voters. But nice try on the misinformation tactics. Ha Ha Ha!

Have fun!

You know us, Koalas! You humans are cool and all that, but I need a good run in the brush. See'ya up a tree in five, four, three....

he gave the overwhelming amount of the $4million to the Mormon Church, BYU (Mormon University, and Ann & Mitt Romney Charity. They gave between $70,000 and $100,000 to other charities.

No one is criticizing them for giving to charities. Only the right is making that claim.

People are saying he made the claim months ago he has always paid more than 13% in taxes. These records show he paid 9%. Then he paid money in charitable funds and only wrote off part of it so that the rest remained an overpayment to the government so it looks like he paid 14% in taxes. However, after the election he will simply amend his return and write off the remaining charitable amount and he will only have paid that 9% he really owed and paid.

Don't try to play the tax game here because you don't understand how it works.

I hear ya...my 89 yearold Dad is furious. He's a Left leaning Independent (actually a Dem, just registered an "I") who voted for one Repub prez in his life just ONCE (over 40 years ago). He said if he makes it to November, it will be the 2nd time. He and I were usually disagreeing on politics....it's refreshing to hear him lately. He said we used to admire people who achieved and succeeded...now we vilify them. If Obama wins, the country is toast. Well, there are two flips in the family...my brother came around too. Looks like the rest of the family remains mesmerized by the fantasy. Oh well. It's a start.

My dog is a Republican and he is furious with the Republicans in Congress for voting against 20 jobs bills in a row, including the jobs for returning military vets. That's why he has decided to become a Democrat.

Wait a minute...I thought your cat was a DEMOCAT! G'night!! Gotta hit the sack...4:15 a.m comes around kinda quick. Steve

All cats are independents, don't kid yourself.

I have to respond to this one and give you a thumbs up (I know, unbelievable)...that was funny Sed!

Second thumb up. I don't "own" a cat. But I have one that lives in my backyard for going on oh, 5 - 7 years now (probably sitting out on the grinder now basking). Its a feral breed. Anyone tries to get near it and it jumps the fence gone...but comes by everyday.

:-( :-)I kid you not its a black cat too. Go figure, a koala with a cat for a familiar.

Calbab...We've had a couple ferals come around and eventually turn out to be fantastic, lovable cats. It took a long time though.

You never know. You might gain his trust.

Yeah. We gotten used to luv'in each other from a distance. :----)

I recently shot a huge bobcat that was after some of my animals. I hated to do it but it had killed several geese and turkeys and jumped down into the dogs yard. I wish it could have been love from a distance.

Sed, I am glad you are okay! That's horrible news all around. I am sadden by your experience. Take care of yourself, man.

That totally sucks Sed, but I completely get it...sorry dude.

Ha Ha Ha! The standard tax rate is of course 35% for earned wages. Mitt Romney didn't earn wages but claimed capital gains which are taxed at a flat rate of 15%.

If the Romney's, had not taken any deductions at all they would have paid 18.8%.

If they had deducted all of their charitable donations this year (or rather on this amended return) they would have paid an effective rate of 10.55%

However, these are U.S. returns that we are talking about. Romney only paid 2% on his international accounts. I was running estimates on what he should have paid had he not been hiding funds there. Those are very loose estimates because I'm sure there is much we don't know about.

Feel free to check my figures Tax Boy, all of them are out there on the web now. Ha Ha Ha!

I'll take 10% - 15% on $13 million over 40% of $0.00. Raise the rates and the wealth will leave in droves. The Dem solution is to try and punish....the Repubs want to lure and retain.

If Romney did not pay the least amount legally possible (like everyone else on this board), he would be an idiot and not qualified to run for office. If Warren Buffet wants to donate to the treasury and piss his $$ away, I'll send him the website....he's free to do so.

Capital gains of 15% makes complete sense...unless you want to raise it and discourage investment.

Ridiculous. We've been trying "Trickle-Down" for 32 years now and it hasn't worked. Mitt and the Republicans themselves have just been screaming 47% of people in this country are too poor and disenfranchised for them. So there is your proof.

The last Republican to balance a budget was Eisenhower.

Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget got a surplus, increased jobs and investments went through the roof. The "golden years" of growth in this nations history when investment and manufacturing and jobs were growing at phenomenal rates the tax rate on the rich was as high as 93% (under Republicans).

Don't talk economics when you have no idea how they work. Taxes are at a 50 year low. Go back to your video games.

I will give you credit, despite your demeaning attitude. I should not have used "tax rate" in my post. What I was trying to point out is that he paid roughly $1.9M in taxes on roughly $13.7M of income. But, it also showed he gave $4M to charity. So, he paid $5.9M that went from his pocket to some sort of public use. So, as a percentage of his taxable income (not tax rate), he paid 5.9M of his 13.7M to help fund public causes. That is actually 43%. So, laugh and make fun of me, but do you really want to spotlight that number to argue that he is a bad guy and not fit to be President, instead of a better argument that actually makes logical sense? Look, thank goodness you have freedom of speech, but I think you're argument is shallow, partisan and pathetic. Unlike you, I am choosing to exercise integrity and will take the high road. Hopefully, it will lead to the same place.

Gee thank you for taking the 'high road' once agin by calling me "shallow partisan and pathetic," you hypocritical moron. And thanks for giving me credit for proving that you really have no clue about taxes despite your claims.

Now take you so called "integrity," and sell it somewhere else because we are actually voting for the man who released 8 years of his tax returns like the other Presidential candidates who agreed with George Romney that all candidates should prove their integrity to the American people by showing their tax records publicly to prove that they haven't been up to any nefarious activities. It's too bad you, the Republicans, and Mitt can't actually bring yourself up to the basic standards of public integrity. You can only talk.

Oh and thanks for clarifying that the Mormon Church is "public." I'll be sure to send the public over there when they want to use their facilities.

Oh wait they're actually a private church that doesn't pay any kind of taxes at all and in fact is extremely private by any and all standards, right? Do they build roads or court houses, pay salaries for our jurists, or military? Perhaps they maintain our sewers, airports or schools? Do they make sure our water, food or air is safe?

This nation is a huge place and tax payers expect people, especially those who have profited the most, to keep it the best nation in the world. You do that by paying taxes, not by donating to your own personal clubs.

DFB1965

I think what is being demonized is the blatant attempt to manipulate these numbers in an attempt to 1) make him look better in public and 2) distract the public from comments that expose how he feels about the 47%. $4 million out of $13.7 million is quite generous, and it is Mr. Romney's business who deserves such generosity. That said, he has released ONE TENTH the information he required from others when choosing Paul Ryan for VP and ONE TWENTIETH (at least) the information he GAVE John Mc Cain when he wanted to run for VP last time. That is the very definition of hypocrisy, and this nation does not need that in the White House.

Sed...I think you're completely missing the point. And, if you go through all of the posts on these pages, I think the winner as far as most ad hominems per minute would be, well, you. By a landslide. But that's fine. Generally people losing debates go that route. I think the only ones remaining are for you to call me Hitler or a Nazi...granted, I did egg you on in a couple, so shame on me. But moving forward (actual forward, not Obama's macabre version)...

I think the important point here is people toiling to earn money and succeeding, only to have government pilfer it from them and then waste it. Conservatives would rather donate and see their $$ spent effectively. Nobody argues about infrastructure, national defense and the like as needs provided by government. And for the record, the higher earners (top 1%) already carry 40% of the burden. Every study (regardless of the author) has shown that Conservatives always donate more to charity than Liberals. It DOES NOT make them better people, but it demonstrates the view that they believe certain needs should be provided by donation/charity (not government), but Liberals think the state should provide. Two stark views. And before you start attacking "the church" (and for the record, I belong to none)...

"The Mormon Church has donated more than $1 billion in cash and material assistance to 167 different countries in need of humanitarian aid since it started keeping track in 1985. Many of these countries have few to no Mormons, but are also non-Christian. More than 53,000 Mormon missionaries serve through the world today."

Rather than vilify and demonize the top 1%, why not make an attempt to join them. You're clearly a smart guy, the only thing stopping you is you. In the meantime, just send them a thank you note for carrying the load for you.

I'm off to the gym..have a good one....Steve

Climbbutrm: "mr. moving forward", I quote:

"But moving forward (actual forward, not Obama's macabre version)...."

Bad transitioning, you start the paragraph out writing to Sed, and by the end of the same you insult President Obama. I AM MOVED TO WRITE THIS AND I HAVE NOT STARTED PARAGRAPH TWO!!!

Okay Climbbutrm, I finished reading your 13.8 comment.

I don't give a damn about Mitt Romney, and I have decided he doesn't give a damn about me. My take:

• Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan inarticulately or articulately your choice, take the position towards the American people to which we all belong, that either we as individuals, are independently wealthy, will become independently wealthy, or we will not.
• Romney talks about wanting to help re-build the middle class, but his policy statements betray a created middle class established in a different form. A new creation--not with any assurances the middle-class has fought and worked so hard to put in place for themselves for multiple decades. Subsequently, this class of voter does not overwhelmingly see value for themselves in his political positions.

Let me share something with you that I have read and apparently a high percentage of voters have learned through experential means. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was born to the aristocrat class in America. He went to the best schools and enjoyed all the benefits befitting the higher income group. As you may know before FDR became president, he was afflicted with polio at the height of his political endeavors. Still, he won the Presidency.

During his first term in office, he had several you may recall, FDR upset his "high-society" fraternity brothers who felt he had turned his back on them. They being masters of industry. FDR did not look out for the free-market system per se. He looked out for the every-day man who was enduring the Great Depresssion.

Long story short: (In my opinion) Mitt Romney is showing himself to be that counter-FDR type used by republican aristocracy (however so doing) to enact the long-held views of the American aristocracy, in doing so, he will reverse what was done for the people.

Everyday people feel this and are rising up to counter it.

Steve,

I donate plenty to charity, so that is a red herring.

The top 1% may pay 38% in income tax but hey pay far below 40% in total federal taxes while owning 40% of the total wealth in this country. Fair is fair but they aren't paying their fair share.

cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

As always you and yours have just continued to change the subject. Mitt still hasn't released his tax returns even after all this time. He has amended his tax returns using donations to his church to reflect a tax payment of 14% when, in fact, the U.S. payments not including the funds he has hidden overseas was really only 10.5% in taxes.

You may find charity work Christlike. So what. The fact still remains Mitt paid (or will end up paying) 10.55% in taxes. Yet he says he wants to fix our tax system. Yes, by lowering his rate even further. Trickle-down. Only they've been saying trickle-down will bring us prosperity now for 32 years. So where is it?

Oh and Stevie, for the record my ad hominem's are based upon my own entertainment value and the fact that I keep my laptops open and running on my bar. So every time I refresh my own (or someone else's), martinis, I check to see if I want to add a comment. Ha Ha Ha!

Sed...I never implied that you personally don't donate to charity. Kudos. I was referring to attitudes in general between Conservatives and Liberals in general...Liberals expect the government to provide more while Conservatives would expect a lot to be taken care of outside of government. That's all.

as for entertaining yourself by using ad hominems, whatever turns your crank I guess.

Yes, the top 1% carry about 40% of the INCOME TAX burden...correct. Found a fact check org from awhile ago and it provided some interesting info. As for 40% of the wealth, who cares? If they've accrued it, good for them. What in hell gives you or anyone else the right to pilfer it? Nobody.

The fact check org item is below....nice comparison between share of earnings vs. share of burden. That's all that matters.....what they've accumulated is merely the result of them intelligently managing their wealth. Kudos....to...THEM. They earned it.

Q: What percent of taxes does the top 1 percent pay and what percent of the income do they make?

A: The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush’s tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.

FULL ANSWER:

The nonpartisan CBO keeps track of such things and published its most recent tables in December 2007. The information to answer this question is in "Summary Table 2: Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities, 2004 and 2005."

The top 1 percent in 2005 were those households with income of at least $307,500, and they got 18.1 percent of all "comprehensive" income, which includes all cash income plus the cash value of such benefits as Medicare and food stamps.

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

• 38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes
• 4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)
• 58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)
• 5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

The share of taxes paid by different income levels have changed over time.

Working outside the government? isn't that what you guys are attacking Obama for saying right now! Ha Ha Ha! I love how you claim so what that they top 1% controls 40% of the wealth but you are appalled that they pay 38% of income tax! Ha Ha Ha!

You, like Mitt, would rather they pay what 1%, while those who control 60% of the wealth pay 99% of the taxes. This is where fairness is lacking. You guys feel you're being "ripped off" for simply paying your share.

For the record what makes you think that I am not part of the 1%?

The truth is many of the corporations and millionaires pay nothing but take billions and indeed trillions from the tax payers while claiming the tax payers are moochers.

I'm sorry you have it backwards. Billionaires do not need help of any kind. Years ago, before Reaganomics the USA rated at the top of every metric available in the top 35 westernized countries. Now we rate at the bottom thanks to Republican supply-side policies. That's every single one of the 30+ metrics.

Before Reagan and supply-side the rich used to not only pay their share (and more) guess what they were still filthy rich and everyone had jobs and this country was growing like crazy.

You stand for greed and selfishness. You stand against society and the betterment of your country. It's as simple as that.

I'm done wasting my time on Mitts tax return distraction for now. It's time to go back to the multiple other issues that disqualify him for the Commander-in Chief.

Well "Sed".

You lost me in the first paragraph. Could you explain it in more detail? I never said the top 1% shouldn't be carrying 38% of the income tax burden...I am against that share growing as it is already disproportionally higher than the percent of the total income pie. Enough is enough...no mas. Belize and Costa Rica will be welcoming the 1% with open arms. Then who picks up the tab? You? No, I doubt it.

My reference to "outside the government" was specifically relevant to giving to charities...rather than flushing it down the toilet by an inefficient, bloated government. That's all. Was that not clear?

The Reagan years were by far the best of my life...I was just too young, Liberal, naive and uninformed back then...so I voted against him in my first election. I was a dolt. Once again, I went third party! What was I thinking?!?!?

Go ahead and list your "indicators"....I'm sure the study is from reliable source, like moveon.org (yes, that was sarcasm).

"For the record what makes you think that I am not part of the 1%?"

Well that one is really easy...you portray a very bitter attitude, very much in line with the Occupy Wall Street Folks. There is an underlying "victimization" in your words and I'm pretty sure any failure you've ever encountered in your lifetime was surely someone else's fault.

When my wife and I were nearly bankrupt 17 years ago...the blame could only be found in one place. In the mirror. Thank goodness for Mac and Cheese and Ramen Noodles...we made it...and we never turned to the government to bail us out.

Sorry bud. I'm rich and famous. I just happened to be raised Roman Catholic and I've traveled all over the world both in the military and as an exec. I know what the rich pay in taxes in other countries (which is much more then here despite what you're told). The rich already have mansions in other nations but they choose to stay here.

I don't have a bitter attitude. You are the one that thinks the rich are victimized by the government. You think the government controls everyones lives. You think the poor and middle class are loafers. You think safety nets are a waste of money.

I'd call that bitter. I believe people like me should pay our fair share. I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country. You like it because you've never experienced anything else and you believe the propaganda that other rich guys are telling you.

If you want to see loafers than go to Sweden. If you want to see the Government controlling peoples lives go to Korea or China. You have no idea what you're talking about you just repeat things you hear on Fox. America has the hardest working people and the most free people in the world. You are delusional.

"Sorry bud. I'm rich and famous."

You don't have to apologize to me for being rich and famous. In fact, it appears I'm the only one around here you DON'T have to apologize to.

As for Mitt, you're right, he's paying 15% on capital gains. My answer to that is...and? What's the point" Who cares? You want to raise capital gains and inhibit investments? That would not be very bright. You keep clamoring about Clinton bro, but he lowered Cap gains to 20%,,and everything boomed after that. Coincidence? No, I don't think so. Bush dropped the rate to 15% and again, tax revenues soared. But we did have a few unexpected spending issues after 9/11 didn't we?

I'm thrilled and honored to be communicating with someone rich and famous. If I would've guessed, I would've figured you to be a King's Point grad who sailed for MSC and not a star.

P.S. Sorry I called you bitter....I just assumed that when you called DFB1965 a moron...and me a denialist, racist and host of other things while I referred to you as naive but big hearted.

Climbbutrm: You are a piece of work. Have you been arrogant lately?

Ouch...did I hit a nerve? Ha Ha Ha. Thanks dude.

No. I am better now. You're welcome.

Ha Ha Ha Did you just actually claim tax revenues soared under Bush? Ha Ha Ha Where do you guys get this stuff? Ha Ha Ha? Do you pull this out of you ass? Ha Ha Haaaaa!

OMG! I'm choking on my tongue! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaa!

Seriously, were you alive four years ago? Ha Ha Haaaaaa!

There you go with the Ha Ha Ha again! I need some of what you're taking!!

To clarify...revenues soared immediately after Clinton reduced cap gains to 20%. revenues dropped after 2001 (gee, ya think 9/11 might have affected that a little?)....definitely rebounded greatly around 2005/2006 (I think cap gains were dropped to 15% in 2003?). Causual relationships are difficult to prove with so many variables (particularly 9/11).

Seeking common ground....do you concur there is an optimum point for cap gains that will reap greatest revenue? Do you concur that raising it too high will inhibit risk/investment? Is there any way to find it other than trial and error? And lastly...what do you think that point is? Later! Steve

Nothing will inhibit/risk investment.

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, cutting taxes for the wealthiest does not result in economic growth, despite constant conservative claims to the contrary. New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth:

Instead, tax cuts for the rich merely exacerbate income inequality, CRS found:

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

Nothing will inhibit/risk investment.

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, cutting taxes for the wealthiest does not result in economic growth, despite constant conservative claims to the contrary. New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth:

Instead, tax cuts for the rich merely exacerbate income inequality, CRS found:

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

When Ronald Reagan raised the Capital Gains tax to 28% in 1985 because according to him the lower rate was both immoral and economically unsound did it inhibit or kill investment in any way, shape or form? No. It is a false argument by the right. Rich men will always invest if they can make a profit no matter what the tax rate is.

Profit is profit.

Sorry, but you are wrong, he will not get a $2M refund, he will get a refund of $225 thousand. It is a tax deduction, not a tax credit. And if he does amend his return, so be it, he was entitled to the deduction in the first place.

Disregard DFB, Sandie, he has proven he is full of it.

DFB is right on the numbers Sandie.

No, Sandie. Both DFB and Joseph are dead wrong. Mitt applied their $1.5 million refund to their 2012 returns.

Seriously guys the returns are posted on the web. If you have the intestinal fortitude to flip through the figures yourself.

Correct me where I am wrong, sed, but the $1.5 million is counted as a deduction from INCOME not TAXES, therefore the refund would be the taxes on the $1.5 million.

Incorrect. They, (he and his wife filed jointly), were due a tax refund of 1.5 million which they applied to their tax liability for 2012. There are hundreds of pages of actual tax documents to sift through so instead I've found a couple of articles verifying this for you.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-returns-2011/70000874/1#.UF9jFY7nu20

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120922/NEWS02/709229964/0/sports

Ha Ha Ha! Democrats will not vote for Mittens because he wants to not only allow the Republicans to reinstitute the exact same policies that Bush instituted and caused the Depression of 2008 but he wants to double down on them by decreasing taxes on the rich by 20% more than Bush, he wants to start 1-4 more unpaid for wars, he wants to deregulate even more on the banks and corporations, he wants to allow the Republicans to reject even more jobs bills for Americans (besides the 20 they have already rejected), he wants to allow Republicans to deny women the right to choose their own health care choices, he wants to deny minority children who have lived here their whole life the right to citizenship even if they have served in the military, he wants to deny women the right to birth control even if it is for health reasons, he wants to dent seniors their social security benefits and medicare benefits and much, much, more all so he doesn't have to pay taxes above 1%.

Get it Jerry...because the guys you get your information from all want the exact same thing.

I'm sorry Jerry, I didn't mean to give you a headache. I forget sometimes that the Republican base are incapable of critical thought and long term memory. If you would like me to address each point one by one, perhaps on a day by day basis so that you can have time to consult your tarot cards or right wing tea party web sites I'd be happy to give you the opportunity to do so. Ha Ha Ha!

Whats even more hilarious is that you claim that Obama doesn't know how to use his tax forms yet he like all Presidential candidates before him back to Mitts own father have had absolutely no problem at all releasing 8-12 years of their tax forms whereas it has taken Mitt months, in fact years to amend, and release summaries of just two years of his taxes. Ha Ha Ha! So what was it you were saying about Mitt knowing how to use his tax forms? At this rate our grand children wont get to see the rest of his forms! Ha Ha Ha! You truly are an idiot aren't you?

Jerry, your basis is off anyways. This spotlight is on the candidate/challenger for President, him alone. So do not attempt to drag President Obama into this! You, republicans, go to that well way to often!!

sedwinmars

You forgot:

Eliminate environmental regulations so our drinking water is polluted through hydaulic fracking.

Enact voter suppression so those who disagree cannot have a voice in change.

Calbab...kind of new at this and couldn't figure out how to respond to a previous post of yours. I enjoyed it as it was quite articulate and hit a chord with me...I won't go into the entire thing, but it started with:

"I don't give a damn about Mitt Romney, and I have decided he doesn't give a damn about me. My take...."

It was a well thought out commentary and I "got" where you were coming from." It's hard to get past your gut, and when you hear Romney's 47% remark, it only validates your basic thoughts.

I think what you need to realize is that dependence on government is only rising.....and it will only get worse with another 4 years of Obama. Your sense that one side cares more about the little guy than the other, well, I'll probably never convince you that it's just not the case. For me, I actually always give the benefit of the doubt to the opposition that they actually care, but they're just plain wrong as far as approach.

Creating dependency does nobody a favor, particularly those that are dependent. That said, I know of NO Conservatives that thinks we should eliminate safety nets for those absolutely in need. The best way to prosperity is LESS government, not more. More FREEDOM, not LESS. If you have a free hour sometime (you seem to spend less time here than Sed, so you probably do...sorry Sed, I couldn't resist one friendly barb), read Frederic Bastiat's The Law. It's brilliant. I seriously doubt it will turn you into a raving Libertarian, but it's thought provoking nonetheless. In fact, even I disagree with some of it regarding public education. Take care...Steve

P.S. I apologize for the lengthy nature of some of my posts....I need to learn to be more succinct.

You are equating "appropriate intercession by government" with "dependency". You have been doing it throughout your comments. So before we get too far along...pushback. Do you really think our exceptionalism will be infinite? That no other nation at no other time will lead the world again? History is replete with other nations who were GREAT in their time and now are not standing out at all amongst the nations of the world.

President Obama is digging the American/world economies out of major recessions. Similarly FDR responded with "programs" to dig our nation out of a major Depression. One of the differences between the two men, FDR for a time got the opposition party's support for his decions. Something republicans have denied the first african-American President. The strange thing is for a mongrel (Obama's word about himself), President Obama is producing with less than half of federal officeholders' support. Stop...imagine what he could/can accomplish to lift the burden off all the people-rich and poor alike, except he couldn't/can't because the opposition party has used up most of the political air. Paradoxically, friend and foe makes money off this President. He is like money in the bank for everyone who utters his name (see: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Drudge Report, et ceteras).

Did I go there? Yes I did. There is an infinitesimal audience watching us: The Future. Soon, we are going to be that abstract reality written about, read about, and discussed in the past tense! What do you wish future Americans to say about us? That at the first real test of America coming face to face with its diverse society, it balked and pined away for the glory days of the 1900's?

Future generations are going to rag on this republican House and Senate for being a bunch of entrenched biased fools, the way we do on past entrenched biased congresses of old. We are missing the moment to grow together and move forward, by pulling out the same old tried and tested methods that destroy and repress.

The first major crisis of the 21st century and republicans want to take our national ball and go home! Right now, America appears petty and small to me. At least, till I see the outcome of this election cycle. All for now.

Ha Ha Ha. The whole Republican party wants to privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Whoops. That's eliminating the safety net. That's exactly why you can't trust Steve.

How does a Republican say, "F#*k You?" Answer: "Trust Me." Ha Ha Ha!

TRUST ME Sed...I'm really going to bed now!!!!!! Calbab...I liked your post above....a lot to digest. Will get back, but have to get up at 4:15 a.m....and it's now 20 minutes closer to 4:15 than it was when I first wrote it! G'night dudes!

Good night. :-)

Calibab....good point on declining empires. They all eventually fall. Okay, now I'm depressed. You pointed to the possibility of other nation(s) passing us, so I'm guessing you're thinking about China at this juncture. And, I think back to that country in 1973 when we sent the U.S. Table Tennis Team...and I would say they were not exactly Westernized. I know people that have gone to work over there and indicated it was pretty "westernized." The people obviously don't have our freedoms, but it's safe to say they've moved more towards us then we've moved towards them.

As far as our government "creating jobs", it can't. Pure and simple. Read my lips...it can't. Yes, you can fund ARRA projects and effectively create temp work, but that's it. Anyone who thinks that all we need is for the government to fund all of this "temp" work and things will just keep rolling...well, they probably believe in perpetual motion in physics. It's fantasy.

Steve:

Depression: The fourth stage of Grief. We understand what you're going through with respect to Mittens loss.

1. Denial

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance

You're almost there, dude. Just accept it. Obama is going to win. Ha Ha Ha!

Democrats 2012.

Are you telling me I should pay off the wagers I made already? I gave them Obama +6. It's 1980 all over again. Based upon your post I'm glad I didn't bet too much. Later!!

A short answer as I have some WORK to accomplish, Climbbutrm.

I am not saying anything specific or new for that matter about world history, or nations' destines. Just that in the larger scheme of nations--America should wear expectionalism as a badge of honor to be earned, but never inherited. Vive U.S.A.! My home sweet home.

Greatness which is to be admired throughout history strives to bring something new, and something improved to the world. In the period since 2001 onward, America has inspired the world by her actions, not mere words. What we told our neighboring countries we would do-we continue to do. Just look at the extraorindary jump forward in the world since 2001! We inspired the world around it to take its own refreshing actions.

Its 2008, the world watches and beams with us as a nation. Going forward in the 21st century we bottled and topped up the past 20th century ideas which was holding up back and released them for good! A new era of relations began for us, our children, the world. But there were many who could not be happy with newness.

January 2009. In a secretive meeting to wash away the sorrow of losing to the first african-American Barack Hussein Obama, the republican opposition hatched a plan to re-open the recently forgotten tools of subjugation. Thus, they exposed to fresh air again all that is good, bad, and ugly about early American politicking.

In the worst crisis to hit since the Great Depression, republicans colluded to destroy the legacies of President Obama, the democrat party, the Unions, and bring down every symbol of Americans working together to get farther along by employing one unified strategy: Opposition to all policies offered by the Obama Adminstration.

Drown the Obama Administration and do not resuscitate hope and change in the American people.

_____

I do not say Government has to create jobs, because from one perspective that is supposed to be the scope of the private sector. Yet, the private sector doesn't live up to its 21st century responsibilities to update its wages and treatment of workers. Corporates have in many important ways ceded ground to the Government, and they have been doing it since the 1900s. Why? Because America belongs to the American people--never to corporation "bosses". Therfore, what corporations won't do for its workers-the Government is vested to do under the Constitution. In this way, the nation stays balanced and the people thrive.

Incidentally. The women, men, military and government workers here and around the world, disagree with you. Many of them have jobs from the government and careers besides! So your "government does not create jobs" is a cheap, empty, slogan likely created by a gifted and misguided conservative wordsmith, sloganmaster/pollster named Frant Luntz.

Calbab....I mentioned in another post that I read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence twice annually. Why? Because most people are absolutely clueless about what the government is here to do. Including those running it. They haven't read those documents sonce the third grade.

Government grows and grows and grows and has morphed into a behemoth that never retracts. And we can't afford it. It's that simple. That does not make me "anti-government." I've owed much of my livelihood to it and always viewed taxpayer dollars as a "precious commodity." Not everyone has that view.

You mentioned unions and my only experiences with unions were not very positive...in fact, quite the contrary. Will share in another post...have to hit the sack! G'night! Steve

Well you just happen to be communicating with someone who takes time out to read precious American documents. I, too, have read those documents recently and when I have the time I peruse Supreme Court decisions especially the most recent.

True writers are a joy to read, even in those instances when you disagree with their outcomes. G'night.

____________________

It is late here too, now. One thing. I agree with you about expansive, exploding government. But, what are you going to put in stead?

States fail to listen. Just look at this election, voter intimidation and suppression in key states, really? States behaving badly towards their citizens. In order for Government to shrink, states will have to treat their diverse citizens in such a way that relief from a higher authority becomes less necessary.

Last, but not least, it is Abraham Lincoln who established that the government has primacy over the states. And the citizenry will not let states who harm them indefinitely forget it!

Focusing on the NUMBERS distracts us from the real point, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Romney manipulated these numbers in a blatant attempt to make himself look better to the public (marginal success) and shift the discussion away from the attiude he presented to the country through the video toward the 47% (moderate success). The tax numbers, though significant, are a branch from the attitude tree; focus on the branch and another one will grow in its place. Let anyone who will listen know this attitude has no place in public service ANYWHERE, especially in the White House.

You are both right in my opinion! Once again, Mitt Romney and his handlers have acted outside the spirit on the matter. Experience has taught me to question if I am being manipulated.

Not to mention he did it to distract from all of the rest of his horrendous mistakes over the last several weeks. That's why we have so many people making these ridiculous arguments on taxes and charitable donations. They think they can divert the conversation away from Mitts complete lack of knowledge and judgment in foreign affairs as well as his complete disdain for 47% of America including military service members, their families, the retired, the working poor and many middle class families. Not to mention it is in essence admitting that his very policies and those of the Republican party, supply-side economics, are a total failure.

sedwinmars

Let us see if we can put everything in one place so all can be reminded when they see it. Add your clause and pass this on.

When in the course of human events it became necessary for our leaders to dissolve the political bonds which connected them to others and assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled them, their respect for the opinions of humanity compelled them to enumerate the causes, and their vision, courage and determination to end tyranny guided them to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the protection of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They established this nation, and the history of this nation is a chronicle of the struggle to provide these rights to all people, here and abroad. Common sense dictates that we do not discard the government and institutions that have advanced that struggle further than any other in the history of humanity. But when rich and powerful forces in society use and abuse the rights and freedoms secured by these institutions to reserve these riches, powers, rights and freedoms for themselves and reduce all other people to poverty and deprivation and subject these people to their tyranny with the consequence of degrading the global habitat, subjecting it to stresses that, unrelieved, will destroy its power to sustain the people, then it is the right and the duty of the people to counter these forces and restore the rights, freedoms and habitat all people need to thrive. Such is the current state of affairs and such is the necessity which compels the people to identify and abolish these abuses. We submit these facts to a candid world.

The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Russia have identified and remedied, with varying degrees of success, the abuses by their rulers designed to enrich themselves and keep their peoples in a state of poverty and tyranny. The current Administration has taken measures and instituted policies that support such remedies without affecting the sacred right of these peoples to choose their own safeguards of their unalienable rights. This is in direct opposition to the policies of the previous Administration which sought to dictate and manage this change in sovereign nations and the critics who represent the forces that benefit from such policies. These events demonstrate the extent these forces endeavor to exercise their control of human events and the measures needed to abolish such control for the benefit of humanity.

The vast majority of scientific research on global climate change leads to the conclusion that our environment is warming at a dangerous rate due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. This change is reliably linked by the same research to human activity involving fossil fuels. This research has predicted that this warming can destroy the planet as a habitat for human life. The forces that benefit from this current state have advanced scientists to challenge the conclusions of this research in order to postpone or forestall the steps necessary to remedy our climate. These scientists risk being discredited by the scientific community due to the preponderance of evidence against their position in this debate. This obstruction of scientific inquiry that sustains these forces threatens all of humanity.

(Note: Everyone is entitled to add to this in order to represent all points of view. Others can take on the financial crisis, the Gulf Oil Spill, Congressional deadlock, Citizens United, state laws targeting collective bargaining rights, voting rights, reproductive rights – any subject you feel affects the 99%. The only requirement is that the statement be factual. Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that the Founding Fathers saw fit to include only truths, not opinions, in their causes; it is up to us to do the same. Good luck!)

During all these incidents the people sought to accommodate the rich and powerful forces in order to preserve themselves and their posterity. Such accommodation only engendered further abuse and attempts to increase their riches and power over the people. We still seek accommodation since the rich and powerful share humanity with us and, therefore, are equally entitled to these rights and freedoms. We will treat them as we treat everyone in the struggle to preserve these rights, freedoms and habitat – condemn them as oppressors, welcome them as partners.

We, therefore, unite to call for justice over tyranny, fairness over greed, and global survival over destruction. Humanity, at this point in history, requires no less.

Looks good. It makes clear that this is about power. The rich would still remain very rich if they started paying their fair share and allowed people to have fair wages and benefits. In fact since the taxes obtained from those increased wages and new jobs created in updating our infrastructure to deal with climate change and old facilities and crumbling projects would increase greatly, taxes on the rich wouldn't have to stay higher (read fair), for long.

But the rich enjoy their class and status and that's what this is all about. Keeping people in jail via the "war on drugs," not allowing people to vote or make their own medical decisions etc., ad nauseum is all about keeping the lower classes down. It is a throwback to antiquated views and times that only dinosaurs and the ignorant believe in.

Does it look good enough to add your clause and pass it on? While I am here (and my father has been doing taxes for 50 years now - I know a couple of things) is the $1.5 million tax refund forwarded to 2012 tax liability and the $1.5 million deduction for charity not used in 2011 the same thing?

This is absurd...the church "asks" for 10% tithing. It's voluntary. Tell you what...give 0% or 5% and I'll bet they let you stay. Try that wit te IRS and you're in club Fed. Compared to the folks on this board...yes, Romney is a Saint. You donate 30% of your income? I doubt it.

No one who wants to start ANOTHER war overseas patterned after our last two is a saint.

No one who proposes to cut medical care to the neediest in this country to enrich his class is a saint.

No one who proposes to change medical care for senior citizens by changing the program that provides that care to a voucher is a saint.

No one who rushes in to make dangerous political statements before obtaining the facts in a diplomatic crisis where four diplomats died is a saint.

No one without the backbone to hold ANY position on ANY public issue for ANY length of time is a saint.

I pray that those in Mr. Romney's position are as generous with their wealth as he is but his generosity pales in comparison with his lack of credibility and his disrespect for 47% of this nation. His attitudes and public service do not mix, which disqualifies him for office.

Joseph...I give the benefit of the doubt to ANYONE entering public service the benefit of the doubt (regardless of party) that they have the best interest of the people as their motivation...especially if they're filthy rich and left the private sector (sacrificing greater financial gain). The sacrifices are too great and the demonization just ain't worth it..I'd say that both Obama and Romney have rather thick skin to subject themselves to the nonsense.

Tithing at 10% is a legalistic requirement of the Mormon Church. While you can choose not to tithe and still be a member of the church, if you do not make the full 10% tithe then you may not enter the temple and you may not receive financial services from the church.

suite101.com/article/paying-tithing-in-the-lds-mormo...

climb #17.9

That statement I would agree with but I still would not be FedExing Mr. Romney's canonization papers to Rome (or Salt Lake City) yet. I have no sets of papers for anyone else here, either, in case you are wondering. No, we concern ourselves with more secular issues, and in that vein:

Abraham Lincoln's vision kept this country whole and created a new birth of freedom.

Theodore Roosevelt's vision led this country to unrivalled respect worldwide as a promoter of peace among nations.

Dwight Eisenhower's vision strengthened this country internally and strengthened the struggle for liberty around the world.

Ronald Reagan's vision led to the defeat of totalitarianism.

Mitt Romney's vision enriches the 1% at the expense of the 99% (I think - you can never be sure with him).

The other visions served humanity, Mr. Romney's serves the 1%. We can do better, much better.

Here you are:

Go! Look it up yourself, since you are a high-information voter too aren't you? This is right up your "ballyhoo". :-)

While you are at it, uncross your eyes at the same time. :-)

3/75th Ranger

May I begin by thanking you for your military service. The war mentioned below may be suspect, your service to this country is not.

The Bush Administration started a war because of a lie (2?, 3?, 100? - we are not sure anymore) that alienated our friends, multiplied our enemies and made a budget surplus into a deficit. Mr. Romney wants to do the same in Iran.

The Bush Administration enacted tax cuts while funding two wars off the budget, enhancing that deficit right up to the present day. Mr. Romney wants to add to those tax cuts.

The Bush Administration allowed our banking system to invest depositors' funds in very risky assets and instruments. Bankers, under the cover of these instruments, extended mortgages to ever riskier customers. That risk was hidden from the depositors. The resulting debacle nearly sent the banking system down the drain, destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and created a recession we still feel today. The resulting crisis and bailout further enhanced the deficit. Mr. Romney wants to return to the regulatory environment that allowed such abuses and lower taxes on the 'gains' resulting from this activity.

The Bush Administration pursued an energy policy designed to provide oil companies unprecedented latitude while crippling environmental and safety regulations. Mr. Romney wants to return to that despite the fact that the largest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was caused largely by that latitude.

It is obvious the majority on this blog do not want to return to these circumstances. I get the sense that you may still be undecided or leaning away from the President; I hope this helps.

Thanks Joseph! There is just only so many answers and "revisitations" one can do in a day...if you plan to get anything else accomplished, that is.

I presume 3/75thRanger was alive and kicking, no pun intended, during the eight years George Bush was President. Subsequently if he has all the facts about President Obama's years in office, enough to be a smartmouth about it to us, then 2001-2008 was press-worthy and, to use his words, "oft repeated" enough for him to know it as well.

Thanks again, Joseph! Thank God, this election is right around the corner.

Let us not forget the Bush tax cuts, were supposed to create massive jobs right? So where are they? The wars were supposed to be over almost before they started but they are now the longest wars in our history. The Iraqis, were supposed to pay for the war, their oil was supposed to fund the wars and oil was supposed to be dirt cheap because we would "capture" all those wells. None of that ever happened.

In the past, Republican's always had exit plans for wars, always paid for wars, and never cut taxes when we went to war because these are irresponsible and inept budgetary decisions. The Republicans are no longer the fiscally responsible party. 32 years of Congressional control have made them corrupt just like it did to the Democrats 32 years ago when we threw them out and put the Republican's in charge.

This is the way it works. Every few decades we have to switch things up because the party that has been in power has just become too comfortable and forgotten how to govern efficiently. Three decades ago I was a hardcore Republican. Three decades ago I got my appointment to one of the US Federal Military Academies from Barry Goldwater Jr. But times change, and the Republicans have lost their mojo.

Calbab

If newcomers and opponents come here looking for information we should be ready to give it to them (ex. my definition of low information voters, I hope it sounded like it came from Websters). Showing disdain to those who appear to not know 'better' is out of THEIR playbook, not mine. The rest of you will have to tell me, but I try to respect everyone I meet here so that they know they are welcome on our side of the debate - we will get more votes for the President that way.

I think it is naive to think that you will change anyones mind. I have been discussing politics with people for years now and found that 99.99% of people have their minds made up. Even if you change someones mind on an issue for a day, the following day they wake up right back in the same previous mind state.

There have actually been several books written on the subject as a matter of fact. Anyway, please feel free to try.

Yes Joseph feel free to try. 3/75th Ranger and I have "spoken" before. He is not so "new" nor an opponent to me.

SORRY, I am jaded towards the comment, but let's just say the tone is infectious-the election nears. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is my norm to be on my best behavior. Though, over time, I have come to understans some people are simply engaging in deviltry on Newsvine.

Calbab, yours is the second apology I have seen ever. This also puts you MILES ahead of Mr. 'No Apologies' Romney:-)

Joseph, you seem so shocked by apologies. Are they really that rare where you come from? Are you not married? I am and I've found a good daily apology keeps the household running smoothly. Ha Ha Ha!

Joseph as I wrote earlier, I give credit where I believe it is due and I am able to apologize appropriately and mean it. Now, I am koala.

There is no shame in my game. As the election nears I will growl, bite, grip and hold on, when I feel mishandled! HA!

Apologies are that rare HERE, where many on one side feel that screaming it loud enough and often enough MAKES IT TRUE, and many on the other side feel they have to act, tit for tat, to make a dent in the screaming. It is gratifying to know those who are above the screaming horde and we should identify them when found. Noting apologies is as good a standard to start with as any.

Sounds like a good "on-air" question to ask Mitt Romney. You should call the show ASAP. I would call, but you brought the question to light.

Except for the fact that Mitt doesn't answer questions. He just avoids them. Ha!

You know, I should have seen that one coming. I left the comment "open".

What I meant (now I am doing the "what I mean thingie") was ilovethelaw can give the question to CHRIS, who can put the question on-air and press it out into the media-stream (hopefully). That's what I meant above. HA!

Ronald Reagan himself in 1985 came to his senses and said this low tax rate on capital gains was both immoral and economically unsound. He said it was not right that a rich man was paying far less in taxes than a bus driver. The he turned around and raised the capital gains tax to 28%. Did it stop investments at all? Absolutely not. It is a false argument by the right with zero proof what-so-ever that raising the cap gains will discourage investments.