Shhhh!

If you're really, really quiet and listen very, very intently, you can hear the Tea Partiers singing their election anthem:

"I'm dreaming of a WHITE President,
Just like the ones I used to know . . . "

ByeByeBarry...you are credit. He never answers questions directly he avoids them. I heard when visitors come from other countries to the White House Barry has to speak to them with the teleprompter! He is an embarrassment to our Great Nation. Barry seemed to go to the commentator for protection the entire evening. Barry is and was so disconnected.

Hope you are happy when your Romney boy wins and he takes away the mortage deduction. Only dolts vote against their economic interests!

Right. Just as everyone is happy when their boy Obama won. 26 million about to lose their health coverage due to Obamacare. Rapture!

I didn't see Romney giving any specifics. When he said he would cut taxes and close loopholes, he never could say which loopholes he would close.

Romney's tax plan changed within the past week, because prior to that he was hammering the same plan - the one which would increase the deficit.

Romney was smirking as well

Obama kept his head down, wondering why the teleprompter was blank.

Hey, Miss Vicky?

Didn't you write last night that you were leaving the Patch commentary section because of all the "name-calling"? And then this morning you go and post all these disparaging comments about the President? What gives?

@Will Joseph,
I try not to call my fellow patch posters names, but Obama is not hands off for me.
Who do you think you are monitoring my posts, get a life. Your comment about the tea party above & a white President is disgusting. Don't you get tired of stirring up that old racial pot. Sickening, sick minds.

@ Will Joseph,
By the way, I didn't write that last night. Another time maybe, but not last night.
Get it right..

For Logansdad - Romney spelled out the pricipals of how pay for lower the taxes which closing the loop holes. He will layout to congress the amount needed to offset the tax reduction and then expect congress to determine which loop holes, this is reachig across the aisle. As for Romeny not giving specifics can you provide the specifics Obama has given for his 4 trillion in cuts?

I hope Jim Leher does no more debate's, because he has NO control at all.PLEASE DON'T DO ANY MORE.

All you had to do was watch the post-debate show on MSNBC. No smiles. Maddow and Schultz looked to be on the verge of tears. Chris Matthews was apoplectic.

That's the best scorecard.

He's never been confronted in his public life. This was something new. It was clear that he thought he could just run out the clock and no one would notice.

Lay off the Kool-aid Paul.

If Obama is reelected I will start drinking.

I think that anyone that buys Romney's plan is like a deer in the headlights. Wake UP!!!

Paul when you talk about benefits being cut and the age going up I assume that you're talking about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are going to fail Quote from the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees: "Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided." http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

It doesn't matter who gets elected. Social Security and Medicare will change. Benefits will be reduced and the age limits will be increased. Politicians on eiother side who say that these programs are safe are lying and should be disregarded.

Steve-- what's on tap?? lol Just askin'.....

I agree with Paul. Romney has shared nothing because his plans do not include fairness. His track record proves that he will fail the 98% in a very big way. Peace.

Cutting taxes can raise revenue. Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, check your history. The key to increasing revenue is growing the economy. You cannot grow the economy with high taxes. You need to quit believing the dems when they tell you your loss is someone elses gain. That is not how it works.
Blind liberalism is a disease.
Would you rather live in Greece, Spain, France or USA
Socialism only works for the people in gov. The rest of us suffer the consequenses.

If you look at Romney's record in Mass., he campaigned on not raising taxes, but then raised all kinds of fees accross the board in order to keep that "promise". Fees vs taxes, it all the same.

Romney also said he would make health care a state issue, so then that means just burdening the states with the problem. Most states are having financial difficulty so would that mean state taxes would go up?

Simple math you say. You must be a government employee. You need to stop drinking the liberal cool aid Paul.

BS Paul....Oblamer will raise taxes! The largest tax increase in 100 years is forthcoming starting 2013! Oblamer is a fraud and has no record. Obummer could not explain all his lies and deception last night. Romney has a great record as Governor of Mass. Get your facts right. You are a kool aid drinker thinking of your own entitlements instead of thinking of your country first. Oblamer has brain washed you well.

Completely agree, Paul. If Romney were to get elected, say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare. And the voucher system he suggested? Terrible, terrible idea. I hope people save money while they can because if he is elected, many people will lose insurance or their homes trying to pay for their medical conditions. The problem with Romney is he's now saying what he thinks people want to hear. Two weeks age he was saying different things. First, he's for regulation, then not, then he's raising or cutting taxes, then he's not. How can anyone vote for someone who can't make up his mind.

"If Romney were to get elected, say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare."

The Hopium smoke is thick with this one.

Paul, well said. Romney's ER gaffe was particularly telling. Luke, Reagan raised taxes frequently and monumentally, including 1982's Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which, according to Bloomberg, "raised an average of $47 billion in each of the four years after it was enacted" and at the time was the largest tax hike in four decades.

Good point - if you watched the broadcast and focused on intensity, body language, etc (and were willing to ignore some inaccuracies), Romney pulled it off. (Arrogant smirking aside) If you read a transcript/pure content, it may differ.

Romney should get a bump out of it in the polls. He was much more aggressive in getting in the last word - regardless of the format, whereas at times the Pres would stop because of time. Hence he didn't defend himself against some of Mitt's statements.

Barry tried to run out the clock.

This is what happens when you have John Kerry as your debate prep coach.

Your experts are wrong! The tax cuts will help put 23 million people back to work! If each one of those unemployed workers get back into the middle class and make $40-$50,000/year and paid only 20% in taxes, that would be an additional $184 Billion going into the Government coffers instead of unemployment checks coming out of the coffers! Of course, that would only be Federal Taxes! There are state taxes that would increase as well as sales taxes that would increase. The error is assuming that the economy will not grow if taxes are lowered and that the government giving up taxing the few left that are still working are going to get less in return! If business is given incentive to invest and create jobs, more people working will bring more tax money in through an increased tax base! Fewer people working means less tax revenue!

Whoops...Mr. Green has let the cat out of the bag. The simple fact of more people employed generating more government revenue utterly eludes the current POTUS.

Businesses do not create more jobs without more demand. You can throw all sorts of money a the rich and to corporations as we have done over the past 12 years and you are not going to create jobs. The only way to create jobs is to increase demand. The only way to increase demand is to get money to the people that spend it...the lower and middle class via unemployment and other benefits. Giving tax cuts to the rich only increasing our deficit and increases their coffers., Romney may have won on style, but he didn't win on substance. You can't win the substance of a debate when all you are spouting is lie and after lie.

I agree Paul... I'd like to know what "specific" things Gov Romney brought to the table in terms of What he will do. It wasn't there. It was the same comments I've heard for 3 months now...

I agree with Chronicles of Bob. Romney has given the voters NOTHING but attacks against POTUS.Romney doesn't have any solid plans that the 98% want to hear; that's whey he is so hush hush. IMHO, unless you are a super rich white COIN man, you cannot trust Romney.

Hope and change was specific enough for the libs in 2008, now they want details?

Yes, Tom... He (POTUS) was actually bashed for how specific he was. Gave actual dates for our withdrawl. He was called weak for that... Gave and gives the actual number and % of the taxes he will and won't touch.
I am not saying that his ideas are right or wrong, but there was lots of detail.
Tell me the details of Ryan Romney's plan on Taxes, deductibles, health care, what a 55 year old will do in 7 years, the wars??? I am not saying whatever plan he will have won't work, but he has yet to say how he will do it.

Obama's specifics (hope and change) have worked so well for the last four years.

I dunno. The hopium smoke seems to have cleared.

Hey Bob, Barack got bashed for basic reasons that actually hinted as his lack of experience and accomplishment.

You don't let the enemy know when you will withdraw. This lets the enemy know when to stop stockpiling ammunition and start using it. The post-withdrawal mess has borne that out (sadly).

Also, you don't raise taxes in an economy on life support. The government taking more money out of that type of economic situation is like asking a gunshot victim for a blood donation.

The truths you speak of Paul are only in your head. You're dreaming this is 2008. I have to laugh at your inaccuracy.

Please keep high-fiving each other about your winner...clearly we all have to concede to the fact that cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive, way to go Romney on that earth-shattering example provided to prove how sound your plan is. Big Bird is a commie!!

I agree with you, Karina.

Discovery Networks would pick up Sesame Street in a heartbeat. Heck, the toy sales alone should more than pay for that show. Why are they still on the dole??

Very funny. You are worried about the small funding for PBS meanwhile the oil companies get huge tax breaks and subsidies while raking in billions in profits.

Agree, Karina. Sad when style (especially overly aggressive) wins over substance.

Actually, LD, one of the best moments of the debate was when Romney pointed out that the Obama administration gave the equivalent of 50 years of the evil oil companies' tax breaks to so-called 'green energy companies' in one year.

Solyndra, a great investment, right?

And how much in profits did the "green energy companies" make last compared to the oil companies?

I see you still believe in giving tax breaks and subsidies to those companies that are making money hand over fist.

I thought the Republicans wanted to get away from our dependence on oil?

Actually, the tax breaks are mainly for exploration and discovery. Finding more domestic oil would lower dependence on foreign oil.

Like any corporate tax break, customers will be asked to ante up for the difference directly. That means paying more at the pump. That sounds great and will help the economy grow. Or not.

Tom, you and Romney might think it's perfectly appropriate to make stuff up, but to most of us, it's not okay. Don't just invent a reason why you think oil companies get subsidies. Inventing stuff might win a debate, but if lying wins an election, that's called stealing. The 50 years to one year number that Romney gave was debunked immediately, by the way. Inform yourself on that and the "27 lies in 38 minutes" that Romney told at the debate: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/

Except that he lied about it Tom. 3 companies out of the 33 companies that took money from DOE green initiative went bankrupt. Sounds to me like the government made a good investment financially and for our future.

You hit the nail on the head.

You hit the nail on the head...with a Marshmallow Peep.

Oblamer did not have his mistress, teleprompter. He looked like he had been smokin his dope from his chain gang days! He is just a Con Man and he could not Con his lies last night! Obummer is so full of himself and it showed last night. He is a loser. His polls cannot get over 50%.....!! American will fire him on Nov 6th!!! Then he can return to his Chicago corrupt criminals for comfort.

You apparently did not listen to what he was saying! He said he would work with congress (both sides) to come up with ways to put the country back on a sound fiscal footing! He said he would NOT go into this saying it's "My way or the highway!" He can't give minute details because that would be for congress to work out! As President, he would have to give congress a framework for his vision and then let them hammer out the details. ...or would you not want your representatives to have a say in how things get done? Personally, the less government intrudes into my life, the better I like it!!!

"You apparently did not listen to what he was saying! He said he would work with congress (both sides) to come up with ways to put the country back on a sound fiscal footing!"

So MItt is going to leave it up to Congress to decide which loopholes, he will cut. I thought this was Mitt's tax plan, not the Congress tax plan. So this is the way it is going to be - pass the buck. Either Mitt has a plan or he doesn't.

Congress has done a great job in the past year getting anything passed. Do you really think this is going to change in the next 2 years?

Actually, we can see Romney working with congress quite well.

This would be in direct contrast to the current WH occupant.

Logan's dad...Romney's plan, as he described it, would be to lower all rates and to simplify the tax code. Simplification may be done by a number of means. They may limit the dollar amount of the total deductions or eliminate some deductions. By reducing the tax rate, however, businesses will not be penalized for doing business and making money! Businesses that wish to grow will be incentivized to hire more people to grow the business. Do you want Romney to select which deductions or credits you lose on your 1040, or would you prefer that your representatives in congress hammer out those details? Do you think anything will change if Obama stays in office? Remember...Obama, Pelosi, and Reid pushed through Obamacare without a single Republican Vote! The change in congressional control was the result of Democrats unwillingness to talk to Republicans about the contents within the Obamacare Bill!!!

Yes, I do work for a fortune 500 and no my CEO does not care about anyone making less than 7 figures. I am absolutely expendable, just as the hundreds of others that have already been let go due to offshore outsourcing. Very few of my peers have bounced back from outsourcing. I got lucky. But my days are numbered if Romney is elected. My company will double the outsourcing if Romney is elected. Outsourcing in my business is in India, exclusively.

I don't trust Romney, and I'm a registered Republican!

Your CEO is probably trying to figure out how to stay alive in Obama's economy and with competition from outside the US. Ross Perot was nuts, but right about jobs going offshore (and roundly ridiculed for the insight by both parties).

You're right, your CEO has bigger problems to deal with, like survival of the enterprise.

You are all idiots!!! If you think that CEOs don't care about the little guys, you're nuts!!! They are concerned #1 about their multi-millions!!! #2 they are concerned about the bottom line! #3 they are concerned about their investors!!! Yet...the only way a business can survive and profit is if they have customers! The little guys!!! ...and they know this!!! If no one is working and cannot afford to buy a company's products, all 3 of the above will suffer! Business does not like to lay off labor or see the economy in recession because it's bad for business!!! They would much rather see a roaring economy with full employment so their profits and bottom lines are maximized!!! You underestimate corporate greed! ...and if a job is viewed to be worth less money to a business and labor wants more than that, then of course, the business will shop around for labor that costs less! Would you buy a loaf of bread for $5 when you could buy another loaf for $2? Money is food for corporations! The more they have, the better off they are! If you want more money, make yourself worth more than the guy in India! Why is the guy in India any less valuable than you are? If you both do the same job equally well, why should someone shopping for labor pay the increased cost? If you're going to live in a global economy, learn to compete!

Oh yeah the CEO's care about keeping the business running...that is so they can take home their million dollar plus bonus packages. Meanwhile the average worker gets slightly above minimun wage and has to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

Meanwhile if the CEO drives the company into bankruptcy, the CEO doesn't care because he has made his millions and can live off his investments. What does the average worker have to live off of - unemployment.

If the business does not make money, no one gets anything.

Robert Green, you understand. Too bad our pres doesn't. Nice submission.

Obamacare is still better than the Romney alternative - just go to an emergency room.

Again Romney said he would repeal Obamacare on day one if elected but could say what it would be replaced with.

Barry also used the stamp of approval of Obamacare from the AARP, an organization that will rake in $billions as a result of the law. It's The Chicago Way.

Again, Logansdad, if Obamacare is better why doesn't POTUS and COngress use it first before shoving it down out throats? No wait! They won't be using it at all!

If you don't want to be in, you are still free to purchase your own insurance. What is difficult to understand about that?

OK, Romney did not reverse his positions, he reversed the Obama camp's spin on his positions. The media has been stenographers for the Obama administration, so too many people actually believe the spin from the Obama Administration. Romney had to simply set the record straight.

Obama has never been challenged like he was last night. He has been deferred to since he entered politics. It didn't go well for him. You know you had a bad night when Bill Maher tweets that Obama actually does need a teleprompter.

Oh really Tom. How is this spin?

From Mitt, Romney's campaign webpage:
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

This will result in taxes for the middle class going up:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/10/819411/romney-tax-studies-five/

Wow, LD. Even a liberal group like that can say something so refreshing. It sure beats the economy slowing taxes, fees and regulations that the current administration will apply to all taxpayers.

Your guy was unable to defend his big government, one size fits all solutions to everything.

Its not basic math. Basic math does not inclde a growing economy and tax base. What if Obama's 25 million unemployed had jobs and were paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment. They are not factoring that in with basic math.

Obama only understands redistributive economics. This is taking from one hand and putting it in the other. He does not have the slightest clue how to generate real private sector growth. This was on display in droves last night.

That is exactly what Romney's tax plan will do, take from the middle class and give it to the rich.

LD, the taxpayer has to make it before is can be redistributed. Too many are not earning at all due to the POTUS's policies. Even Joe Biden has said that the middle class has been squeezed for the past four years, conveniently leaving out the detail of who was in power during that time.

The tax payer has to make it before it can be redistributed....so you agree that Romeny's plan will do just that, give it to the rich.

Why should the middle class be working so their hard earn money can be given to the rich?

Romney's tax plan will leave more money in the hands of those who pay taxes. This can then be used to grow the private sector economy.

LD, I see the envy in your posts. You begrudge anyone for what they earn if they happen to do well, or better than you. Well, how far would you go? Should we tax all income so that no one earns more than the guy on the production line? Should we all have equal outcomes in life?

"Romney's tax plan will leave more money in the hands of those who pay taxes. This can then be used to grow the private sector economy."

Not according to all the fact checkers:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, has said the Romney proposal would cost $360 billion in the first year before it is offset by closing loopholes, which others have extrapolated to estimate that it would amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

The report said the loopholes – popular deductions including those for mortgage interest, charitable giving and others – are not plentiful enough at the top of the income scale to cover the estimated $360-billion annual cost of reducing tax rates by 20%.

The gap would need to be filled by closing loopholes for those at lower ends of the income scale, those earning less than $200,000. Estimates say those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be significantly hit.

Also, the report said the trade-off between lower rates and loopholes would benefit higher-income households, which would see their overall tax burden go down while middle- and lower-income households would see their taxes rise.

"Cutting tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers," the report said.

Imagine that, LD, liberal think tanks decrying tax cuts.

If you look at the data behind it, you see net government revenue going up and tax rates going down for everyone. Oddly enough, those who pay more in taxes will get a bigger dollar break, go figure.

"LD, I see the envy in your posts. You begrudge anyone for what they earn if they happen to do well, or better than you. Well, how far would you go? Should we tax all income so that no one earns more than the guy on the production line? Should we all have equal outcomes in life?"

I have said no such thing. You are putting words into my mouth. I believe everyone should pay their fair share. However when Romney complains that 47% dont pay taxes does he even know who is in that 47%? Who is better off not paying taxes - the poor who can barely put food on the table or 4,000 millionaires who did not pay any taxes?

Who would you rather take income from?

I love it how Republicans complain Obama is a socialist because he takes from the rich and gives to the poor but when Romney's plan takes from the poor to give to the rich, they don't see a problem with it.

"Imagine that, LD, liberal think tanks decrying tax cuts."

You have selective reading Tom. You missed the last line. The net effect of Romney's plan will be:

"Cutting tax expenditures will result in a NET TAX CUT for HIGH-income tax payers and a NET TAX INCREASE for LOWER- and or MIDDLE-income taxpayers," the report said.

If you think taxes will go down for everyone, then you must be in the HIGH income tax bracket.

You can't see your own envy on display here. That's interesting.

OK. How much should be paid in taxes by the rich, LD? How much? They already pay upwards of 80% of all income tax dollars. Should their tax rate be 80%? 90%? What is fair, LD?

You ask for specifics from Romney. Now, it's your turn.

They are referring to tax dollars. The rates still fall for all taxpayers.

Read it yourself, LD.

LD, no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

"OK. How much should be paid in taxes by the rich, LD? How much? They already pay upwards of 80% of all income tax dollars. Should their tax rate be 80%? 90%? What is fair, LD?"

Well I don't think a flat tax is the answer. What is fair to me might not be fair to you, but I do think the wealthy are not paying their fair share. The tax rates in the 80's for the upper tax braket were at least 50%. I didnt hear the wealthy complaining back then.

Again do you think it is fair that 4000 millionaires have no federal tax liability, but expect the poor to pay more in taxes?

"The rates still fall for all taxpayers."

Yes however, based on the loopholes that Romney wishes to close the net effect will be a tax increase on the middle class because the loopholes and deduction help the middle class reduce their tax able liability. Even though their tax rate will go, the deductions taken by the middle class will not be there so their net tax liability goes up.

All you see is tax rates will go down by 20% and think it is a good thing.

Duh!!! Sure the wealthy paid 50% and weren't complaining!!! During Kennedy's tenure as president, the top rate was 90%! What you don't take into consideration is that with higher tax rates, there are more tax loopholes and the tax code becomes even more complex! Of course that's good if you're an accountant, but it doesn't make rich people pay any more money! Tax shelters, deductions, loopholes...the tax code is riddled with them! Do you want a complex code or a simplified one? Do you want Obama giving deductions and loopholes to green energy or do you want all business on an equal footing? The real problem is the percentage of GNP that the government spends! As long as the Government spends 18% or less of the GNP, the economy grows and full employment is typically a reality. If the Government spends more than 18%, the economy contracts and unemployment goes up! Right now under Obama, we are approaching 24% expenditures by the government and it's rising! Under Obama, everyone's taxes will go up Jan 1, 2013!!! Including yours! That's what it means to increase the tax rates! Do you feel that you don't pay your fair share? Anytime you want, you can write a check to the government and in the memo line put this is a donation to the federal government! Unless you believe in "Misery loves company" and you're very lonely, please don't expect all of us to jump on your Obama bandwagon! There is a better way!!!

LD, all you see is the rich, who pay most of the taxes in question, getting a bigger reduction than someone who pays far less in taxes.

...and it grates on you. It's not fair.

I have to remind you that the poor do not pay income taxes and will get no relief. Is that unfair too?

"...and it grates on you. It's not fair."

When you have 4,000 millionaires that pay no federal taxes while the average middle class person is struggling to make ends meet, it does bug me.

I guess you don't care then.

"When you have 4,000 millionaires that pay no federal taxes while the average middle class person is struggling to make ends meet, it does bug me."

Yep. You're jealous. You wish they were you.

OK Robin Hood, how do you propose to take their money from them? Theft? Frontal small-arms assault?

Force them to watch Big Bird and Barney and Friends 24/7 for a year. These people would gladly pay up in order not to watch it.

It would solve two problems: PBS would be funded and add revenues to the treasury.

Or we could just waterboard them since most Republicans have no issues with that.

"Force them to watch Big Bird and Barney and Friends 24/7 for a year. These people would gladly pay up in order not to watch it."

As tempting as that plan is, being forced to watch Barney and Friends 24/7 does violate prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments.

Not so with Sesame Street. However, I like Elmo, but the CTW makes too much money selling Elmo dolls. They really don't need a subsidy.

Yeah, $450 million a year to PBS.

The money generated by Sesame Street merchandising alone could cover the tab of running PBS. I guess what upsets me is that someone got filthy rich off of the tax payers promoting their product. Who is the genius that didn't get PBS a share of the merchandising money?

The $450M is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies to the oil companies. Meanwhile they are making billions off you and me.

But instead of worrying about big oil, lets concentrate on Big Bird, Bert and Ernie.

Your rock star, Oblamer has failed as a leader of this Great Nation. He is fundamentally unfit for the job and it showed! Obummer is a coward. And America is on to him.....

Somehow, I don't see Romney constantly blaming his predecessor for the mess he inherits. I see a man who will get to work on the problems.

Again, then tell me his specific answers to the issues.

Cron of Bob,
The answer to the issues on how to get the economy is going is easy. Look at what Obama did, and do the opposite.

Keep the Hopium lit, Bob. Your guy got shellacked.

Wrong.

Collectivist economics professors have to pay for their Prius somehow!!

Paul, Paul...hoarding money is something a few very sick people do. They put it under their mattress and watch inflation eat it away over the years. Rich people with money INVEST IT. The money is out working for them in the stock market, bonds or simple interest on CD's at their banks. That creates cash flow. That cash flow buys houses, cars and a lot of "stuff" and helps folks start businesses which creates jobs and as with cash flow, spending or saving, it creates work/jobs in the end. Some simply put more into the "river of cash" flow than others. If you are putting in or taking out...you are a part of what makes the system work. Hoarding is dead money!

You are mistaken! Obama did not inherit 25 million unemployed! The unemployed figures for last week were 365,000 alone. I don't think that Bush had anything to do with last week! Bush has been out of office for almost 4 years now!!!

Regarding Bermuda and the Caymans: You know about those accounts because he declared them to the IRS and paid taxes on them. American citizens get taxed on income they make anywhere in the world so having an offshore account doesn't mean that you pay nothing.

As to why they are there, I'm guessing but I can think of 2 good reasons. #1 I was a minor partner in an investment firm in the US. We wanted to sell our services to people in Asia and Europe. To do that we need accounts for the fund that are based outside the US. We opened accounts in the Cayman islands that were copies of our US based accounts to sell to these people. As a very minor 'partner' my name is attached to those accounts. Romney could have done the same for Bain. #2 When you are really rich you spread your investments among many money managers so that if one blows up, all your cash is not gone. Most but not all of the good managers are in the USA but occasionally you want to go with one based in Europe or Asia. To get access to those managers you invest in off-shore accounts. Then you declare them to the IRS so that you don't go to jail for money laundering.

Paul, it may come as a shock to you, but companies are not a jobs program. They are in business to make money. If a business happens to employ people, all the better for those who can get the paycheck. Yes, employees are expendable and always have been. It stinks to be expended, but it is a fact of life.

The people companies employ, by necessity, have to contribute more to the bottom line than they cost the company. Their compensation also cannot cause the selling price of the good or service provided to exceed what customers are willing to ante up to pay for it. This is why people who work at McDonald's don't get paid like rock stars.

Off shoring income is nothing new, Paul. Ask John Kerry about it. Somehow he gets a pass on that. It it patriotic? Nope. However, most folks when given the choice of paying 39.5% versus 13% in taxes would choose the latter. Even you, Paul.

As to caring about middle America: You can care about the middle class and then still completely screw them over. Look at Greece. They borrowed billions and essentially handed it all over to their middle class. A beautiful act of generosity. Then the whole country blew up and unemployment shot to 25% and people are starving.

Look at teacher pensions. We love teachers and promised them great retirement benefits. Then we didn't fund the plans for 40 years. But we still cared for them. Now we either double property taxes or we screw the teachers.

I'm just saying caring cannot be the end of the discussion. It's almost irrelevant. Look instead at what the results of the plans are rather than the intentions.

You are all idiots!!! If you think that CEOs don't care about the little guys, you're nuts!!! They are concerned #1 about their multi-millions!!! #2 they are concerned about the bottom line! #3 they are concerned about their investors!!! Yet...the only way a business can survive and profit is if they have customers! The little guys!!! ...and they know this!!! If no one is working and cannot afford to buy a company's products, all 3 of the above will suffer! They would much rather see a roaring economy with full employment so their profits and bottom lines are maximized!!!

As for having money outside of the U.S., sometimes it's more convenient and profitable for business to do so! International trading sometimes occurs in money that is NOT U.S. dollars! Exchange rates vary from country to country! Having money outside of the country and the reach of the IRS is advantageous for conducting trade in currencies other than the dollar!

The 13% tax rate is based on capital gains income! That money was already taxed once as income at most likely the highest rate the government is allowed to tax it at!!! Then that money is invested and any gains that come from it are taxed at 15% minus any legal deductions! Let's say you're buying your house! You make your payment with after tax dollars! Now you sell your house for 20% more than you paid (not in this economy). Should you pay 38% on the total sale? That's income! Or just the 15% on the extra 20%? Romney is paying 15%!

Paul...I have been fortunate enough to have good jobs and own businesses in my time. One of my favorite "moves" when taking over a big operation was to reverse the Organization Chart. These normally show da boss on the top with the pyramid extending and expanding downward to the last lowest level employee. I reversed all my charts and put those lower level people AT THE TOP, I was at the bottom, because without them the company would be noting! This wasn't just a chart to post "for show"...it was a reflection of my attitude and how I valued people. So...you need to open your eyes. The guy at the top well knows how important you are to him and to the company.

Right - and that's why, when the company gets that big tax break or makes a good profit, those guys at the bottom enjoy generous 1% payraises while being asked to do even more work.
Edward, that was a nice attitude - think maybe you were not typical?

Business looks into the future and sees no growth under the current occupant of the White House. Unlike the government that can raise taxes and fees when revenue falls short, businesses can't compel people to purchase their product.

If the taxpayers have more to spend and confidence in the future, they will spend. Confidence is actually quite low, as durable goods orders drop and economic activity continues to sputter.

Business will always pay the lowest price possible for their labor, that's a fact of life. If the local labor force is more expensive than one elsewhere, the jobs will go elsewhere. Tariffs and trade wars have been tried in the past, though not successfully.

I have news for liberals. People take a second mortgage, invest their life savings and start businesses for one reason. To make money. They hire people they need to accomplish that goal. People do not risk everything including their families finacial well being to provide jobs for strangers, the jobs are there to help the business man achieve goal #1 make money. If the company does well the business prospers and the employees benifit. Its that simple. This is the concept that built this country. Punishing someone who succeeds is a disincentive to taking the risk of starting a business. Thus no jobs are created.
Reading these posts from the liberals makes it pretty clear who the People are who expect someone to "give" them a job and a paycheck. Obviously you have never lost sleep, had to borrow money to make payroll, or worried about loosing everything you've invested in pursuing your dream. Probably union members.

Corps are not hiring because they have no faith in the future. They know obamacare, tax increases and all the regs this president is putting on them makes the future bleak. If they had confidence in growth they would hire to meet the need. Very simple stuff. Get the gov out of the way.

He's had four years. Passed socialized medicine and played golf.

He has not led. Last night showed why. Barry's always been treated with a disproportionate respect because it was not earned.

Another misinformed Fox News viewer here with Tom! Socialized medicine? I suggest you look that term up so as to avoid looking so ignorant in the future. But, I would expect no less.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

Yay! i was wondering when the 'he watches faux news' post would come up.

Can't argue on the merits, you must destroy the messenger. Right out of the Alinsky playbook.

Nice try.

Reagan cleaned up a worse mess with a Democrat Congress in less than 2 years! How? He cut tax rates!

Too bad your response doesn't debunk anything I noted. And yet, mine DID debunk your comment. If you knew anything about socialized medicine, you would realize how moronic you sound.

Bahaha, Robert Green - Reagan had to clean up HIS OWN mess by raising taxes many times afterwards! It helps to actually know your history.

"Reagan cleaned up a worse mess with a Democrat Congress in less than 2 years! How? He cut tax rates!"

I suppose it had nothing to do with his massive spending or the number of government jobs added during his terms.

If you double check, you will see the Dems controlled the House but the Republicans controlled the Senate. So Reagan had to work with both parties to get what he wanted

"Reagan had to work with both parties to get what he wanted"

BHO never bothered. He had both houses of the legislature and, then lost the House in 2010.

After that. Nothing. Agree with BHO or get nothing.

This was so successful.

You should pass this on to the Obama campaign.
They might learn something.

The left was so polite to Bush 43.

I'll check into that for you Jennifer.

Chris, Ed, and Rachel needed a hug.

Possible. Absolutely.

However, there will not be the 'let's be part of history' and 'yes we can' voting tidal wave this time. Obama has to earn it. Last night he didn't.

Dream on in Obummerland...He cannot get his poll numbers over 50%! Paul Ryan will succeed next week. Wonder if your Liberal Chris Matthews is still feeling sensations up his leg! Oblamer is a FRAUD!!!!!!
"We have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we take in"
Mitt Romney-A Clear Choice

I got news for you Paul. Real unemplyment is alot closer to 25% than you think. Those figures are put together by the government and are skewed for their benifit. Alot of unemployed people are not counted.

No. You must be taxed until your net is equal to the lowest paid person on the payroll. That is their definition of fairness. Karl Marx agrees.

I don't care who you're voting for! If you don't understand government, the constitution, basic economics or business, you're an idiot! Perhaps it would be more polite to say ignorant! If you've never been taught the basics in school, you are ignorant. I apologize for using the less than polite term.

...and look what the democrat party tried to do to get us out of the great depression!?! They tried to spend their way out! It took world war II to get us out of the depression! Would you like to see WWIII to get us out of this mini-depression?

And what did Bush do during the last two years of his term...spend his way out of it.

I've been running my business for 21 years and prior to that I worked in corporate America for 19 years. I'm paying a lot more than 23% and I don't make all that much! My customers are in the $250,000 plus bracket and many are small businessmen. Business is horrible because there is no stability and business is tightening belts. If my customers don't use my services because they don't have the money or are worried about staying in business themselves, then my business suffers! The cost of my business doesn't go down...there's not much left to cut before I go out of business. Obama wants to increase my taxes and those of my customers! Where will the money come from? What people never understand is that no business pays for anything...including taxes!!!! The consumer pays for everything!!! Business has no source for revenue other than their sales which means YOU pay for everything...including the government!!! Your computer has ALL the costs of the business built in! ...including taxes!!! Business will not stay in business if there is no profit!!! It can't!!! Government can't stay in business if they kill business because government is a parasite! It produces nothing! It does not create wealth! They can only print money which devalues your money in the process!!! Just remember...YOU as a consumer pay for everything!! Making business and the rich pay more just means YOU will have to pay more! The real control is to make government spend less!

As for the bail outs...if Obama had not bailed out everyone, we would probably have a very good recovery going on now! We have bankruptcy laws in this country to cover many of the circumstances that were encountered in his first year of his presidency. The biggest expense of any business is labor! That's not a derisive remark, it is the truth! When you don't allow business to reorganize and renegotiate the terms of labor, you disrupt the business cycle and create a false foundation for that business. When a business takes that bailout, the taxpayer and eventually the consumer is supplementing the business' inability to sell their product to a consumer base that will support the cost of the labor that goes into the product. Eventually, the business will crash again! The losers at General Motors were the investors! They lost everything!!! Obama, through executive fiat, gave the labor force the very assets that the investors could have used to recover their losses through a bankruptcy! Don't you think that is theft? To steal assets that belong to investors and give those assets to the labor force? Should the government be allowed to take your house and give it to someone who lives under a bridge because that would be more fair? Too much government control is bad...especially when government chooses the winners and losers!

You bring up the bail out of the auto industry which was $25B. How much was given to the banks for their bailout?

You also forgot the airlines were given around $15B in bailout money after the 9/11. How come this doesnt bother you. Should Bush have just let the airline industry go belly up?

I agree with RobertGreen!!!!!!!!! We should cut labor costs to improve profits for business!!!!! In fact, why aren't we running our labor forces like China, Thailand, Vietnam???? Who doesn't want to be a citizen in those countries where business has power over their slave force, oops, I mean labor force???? We should just all use a lot of exclamation points!!!!! and be really angry like Robert!!!!!! about how unfair it is to be business owners with record-breaking profits while the greedy laborers try to negotiate for livable wages or average salaries???!!!!!! If Obama gets re-elected, I'm moving to China!!!!!!! Thanks for your excellent points, RobertGreen!!!!

OMG. I agree with LD. For two years, Bush 43 tried to spend the economy into prosperity. Yep. Big mistake.

Of course, this spend pales in comparison to QE1 and QE2, plus the stimulus.

None of this worked. Only an uptick in confidence can get M1 growing again.

Yes. Don't trust him. He actually has private sector experience and understands how it works.

We need to trust who has never even run a hot dog stand to run the economy. He's done so well for the past three years.

Anyone who wants to run the government like a business has shown how clueless they really are about politics. One is done solely for profit. The other is done for societal good, however the people define it. Get a clue, Tom. Your ignorance is showing.

The government was supposed to promote the general welfare, now it is used to promote individual welfare.

Back to collectivist economics class, wabbit.

You're actually absolutely right on this one, Tom. Ever since Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy and mega corporations, as well as Citizen's United, our government has kow-towed to the wealthy individuals in this country. I couldn't agree more that we need to get back to providing for the general welfare of the average citizens in this country. Stronger democracy of, by, and for the people. Not corporations.
Great point, Tom.

smarmywabbit, The government kow-tows to unions too. Well, one party does.

He can go somewhere where his ideals run wild.

Cuba.

Funny that you say that, Tom, because when it comes to healthcare we actually trail BEHIND CUBA. That includes ratio of patients per doctors, infant mortality, healthcare spending, life expectancy...
It's almost like taking for-profit out of healthcare works. Huh.
Just sayin.

Anyone want to take this one? The wabbit has a silver Michael Moore stuck in his mouth.

Where does every desperately ill person in the civilized world go to for the best medical care available? Cuba? China? Kenya?

NO! They come here, to the US.

Does their ambulance go to Stroger Hospital?

NO! They go to the Mayo Clinic, the University of Chicago and Northwestern hospital.

Please. Only Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore think that Cuba has anything over the US. They should live there.

You are so uneducated on this topic, Tom. I feel sorry for you. Have you done any of your own research on health care? It will take you 5 to 10 minutes to look up actual STUDIES done by the dept of health, WHO, and other non-partisan respected organization that supports everything I said.
And, actually, you are incorrect. People from the U.S. are INCREASINGLY traveling to other countries for health care. I know because just a short while ago I worked in the health care industry. Did you know the #1 eye surgeon in the world lives in Japan, not the U.S.? Did you know that most top surgeons are now from India, not the U.S.? Did you know people from the U.S. are traveling to Mexico, Cuba, Thailand, India and other low-cost places that have excellent health care to get vital surgeries done that they can't afford to get done here? There are hugely reputable places all over the world for health care.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/top-5-medical-tourism-destinations-51502.aspx
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi

Of course. Cuba is better than The U of C and Northwestern hospitals.

Take your kid there, wabbit.

You liberals google everything including your thoughts? The internet is a dangerous thought. You believe everything you read there.
"Our economy runs on FREEDOM not GOVERNMENT."
Mitt Romney-

If you think the middle class should pay less and the rich should pay more, I have great news! Your work is done. Over the last 30 years the share of taxes collected from the the rich has steadily increased (even during the Bush years) while the share of taxes paid by the middle class has dropped.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes data on how much tax is paid by each income category. The data includes individual's share of corporate taxes, social insurance taxes, as well as income taxes. Between 1979 and 2009 the share of total taxes paid by the top 20% has increased by 12.6% while the share paid by everyone else has dropped. Plus The top 20% is the only income group whose share of income is less than their share of taxes paid.

The top 1% of income earners pay nearly 50% of the taxes. Its not that they are taxed to little, its government spends to much. Period. Why should anyone have to give the politicians half of what they earn. They waste it anyway.
You have loopholes to hazel. mortgage deduction, education expenses, property taxes, state taxes,medical expenses, etc. Romney said last night he wanted to get rid of some loopholes and lower the rates. Makes doing taxes easier. Sounds good to me.

haha, we know that FACTS or EVIDENCE are not things you probably think about on any kind of regular basis, G.Ryan. But don't you worry your pretty little head, you can just sit there and look pretty while the adults make big people decisions with reality.

"You liberals google everything including your thoughts? The internet is a dangerous thought. You believe everything you read there. "

And what do you do, guess about things? I suppose you just listen to Fox News and assume everything you hear is true.

What did you do in school when you didnt know something? Did you try looking up the answer or give the wrong answer and appear stupid?

I've been running my business for 21 years and prior to that I worked in corporate America for 19 years. I'm paying a lot more than 23% and I don't make all that much! My customers are in the $250,000 plus bracket and many are small businessmen. Business is horrible because there is no stability and business is tightening belts. If my customers don't use my services because they don't have the money or are worried about staying in business themselves, then my business suffers! The cost of my business doesn't go down...there's not much left to cut before I go out of business. Obama wants to increase my taxes and those of my customers! Where will the money come from? What people never understand is that no business pays for anything...including taxes!!!! The consumer pays for everything!!! Business has no source for revenue other than their sales which means YOU pay for everything...including the government!!! Your computer has ALL the costs of the business built in! ...including taxes!!! Business will not stay in business if there is no profit!!! It can't!!! Government can't stay in business if they kill business because government is a parasite! It produces nothing! It does not create wealth! They can only print money which devalues your money in the process!!! Just remember...YOU as a consumer pay for everything!! Making business and the rich pay more just means YOU will have to pay more! The real control is to make government spend less!

Naah. We listen to CBDNBCABCCNN and assume that the talking points they read on behalf of the DNC are true.

Agreed. They also shouldn't pay for it.

The only thing you and your party have to offer is...fear itself.

"The only thing you and your party have to offer is...fear itself."

But the Republicans had no problem using fear in 2004 and 2008 when it came to terrorism and same sex marriage.

It isn't about gov. telling you you can't have ins for birth control or abortions. If you want it call your agent and get it. People who have a moral problem with it should not have to pay for your birth control. Its not a health care issue its a choice issue. You could choose to keep your pants on.

U MAD BRO? Luke, it sounds like you have a problem with women deciding their own healthcare decisions. I don't recall their being a debate about VIAGRA in health care and I definitely don't hear you complaining about it. So just admit it, you're sexist. This isn't about you "paying" for something you disagree with (not to even mention the ignorance behind your comment because someone who doesn't have money to cover birth control or abortion CERTAINLY doesn't have the money to carry a child to term, so guess which is the bigger amount coming out of your pcoket? Ignorance. But what should I expect coming from a man about women's bodies?). This is about your double standard that women's bodies should be controlled but not men's.

Nope. Women can do as they like with their bodies.They can also choose not to procreate without having to have their baby sucked piecemeal into a sink or killed as they are being born.

Well...you can do that, but don't expect me to pay for it and don't mandate that religious organizations violate their basic principles to pay for it.

Rabbit, I love Tom's logic. He won't pay for an abortion or condoms to prevent a pregnancy. It appears he'd rather pay for the child's upbringing the next 18 years because the mother then gives the kid to the state to take care of.

Tom, are you both Tom and Luke? Because I'm pretty sure I addressed my comment to Luke. But, since you insist on being taken to the cleaners:
I have the PERFECT solution: separation of Church and State! Check this out: if religious organizations do not want to abide by the laws of our country, then they should not participate in businesses that must abide by the laws of our country! Radical idea, I know. And by that measure, any law that is passed by the government should have NO influence from religion or religious organizations! That means all the crap about fetus' lives taking precedence over the woman's would stay the hell out of the law. If we are going to cover health care for our citizens, we are going to cover it for everyone. Period.
Keep religion out of the government. Voila, constitution enforced!

sillyrabbit.
Viagra should not be covered either. It a choice not a health care issue. Someone wants it they can buy it themselves. The gove. should tax people as little as possible to only what needs to be done. nothing more.
If you know so much about womens bodies you would know that if you don't sleep around you don't get pregnant. Why should I have to pay to cover your recreational sex.

If you knew anything about women's bodies, Luke, you would know that one out of four women in this country will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. So, are you an Akin supporter that believes those are not legitimate rapes? Or that the women's bodies will shut that down?
LOL silly Luke. Try try again with your desire to condescendingly control women's sexual behavior! I'll wait until you say something about the man's role in intercourse. Like why he didn't wear a condom or take male birth control. Male sluts should keep your legs closed, then you wouldn't be knocking women up! Don't you know that if you just got yourself sterilized everyone else won't have to pay for your recreational sex??

Agreed. Separation of church and state. Exactly the reason that Catholic institutions should not be forced to violate their explicit beliefs.

Sadly for LD and the wabbit, Extenze is not covered by Obamacare.

Tom, you don't have a real solid grasp of Sep of Church & State, do you?
See, if you allow religious institutions to circumvent the laws of our country, and thereby enforce their beliefs on others, such as the case when any of their employees will have to live by the consequences of their law circumvention, then that is NOT separating church and state.
Case in point: Catholic hospitals are allowed to refuse to dispense HIV prophylaxis to rape victims. Seeing as the majority of hospitals in this country are now Catholic-run, and some areas' ONLY hospital is a Catholic hospital, this means the INDIVIDUAL has no choice in the matter. They are being forced to make that decision by the hospital. In addition, this poses a threat to other people, as HIV is a transmittable disease. Catholic orgs should NOT be allowed to run businesses unless they FULLY participate AS a business, which means following the rule of law in this country. Otherwise we are letting religion influence government decisions AND individual decisions.
Separate church & state COMPLETELY. The individual should be who has the say in their own lives.
PS this is not the only example, either. Catholic hospitals will not honor a DNR, dispense birth control to a woman who chooses to have it (including rape victims - guess who's paying for that birth? not the woman who doesn't want the resulting child!), etc. If you can't do your job or run your business properly, get a different job or stay out of business!

Wabbit, you are right. The government needs to stop establishing Atheism as the officially state religion at the expense of all others.

Tom, do you know the definition of atheism?
Separation of Church & State /= atheism.
Low-information voters scare me.

Oh boy! A church and state separation discussion!!! Let's look at what the constitution really says!
The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay...what is a religion? A religion is a set of tenets by which one may live his/her life. What is a Church? A church is a group of people who all subscribe to the same set of religious tenets. Atheism and Agnosticism are both religions. If the federal government pushes one of these religions, then they are attempting to establish their own church! When the federal government has an issue of religion before it, the correct response would be to do nothing! ...and in all fairness, Atheists and Agnostics believe in nothing and are allowed the symbols of their faith to be displayed in our schools and public square. They display "Nothing!" Therefore, Christians and Jews should get equal time to display the symbols of their faiths as well. Minoras or the Star of David and Nativity scenes. Schools should be able to display the ten commandments. I don't see a problem with that...

The founding fathers did not want to set up the equivalent of the Church of England in the USA!

@Robert Green. Sorry I couldn't let it slip. Atheism and Agnosticism are NOT religions nor or they capitalized. Being an atheist simply means one is not a theist. Being and agnostic simply mean one is not Gnostic (or claiming knowledge). Bald is not a hair color. Also the terms are not mutually exclusive. Given the low quality of comments on this thread, I WON'T be subscribing to updates, so I probably won't see a response.

Well Mike Bruno...you won't be seeing this but you are wrong! Atheism and Agnosticism ARE religions. They form the basis by which one will go through life and how they will think about things. Any guide by which one lives his life is a religion! Satanism is a religion! Satanists don't believe in God either! ...but it is still a religion! Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. all have rules by which they live their lives as do Atheists and Agnostics! They all don't have the same God...some don't have a god, but they are all religions!

@Robert Green
It's simple word deconstruction: A-theism: lacking the characteristic of theism. A-symmetrical: lacking the characteristic of symmetry. A-typical: lacking characteristics of others of its kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

(Not getting updates but may or may not check back. Busy next few days)

Atheism is a religion

Not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Not playing golf is a sport.
Not killing people is a crime.
Wait...what?

I understand why you want to call it a religion, I really do. You find it difficult to understand that the world is not made in your perception alone, and that everything around you must fit into your ideals.

It doesn't, and they don't.

I'm sorry to disappoint both Tim and Mike (who wasn't going to check back because it wasn't worth following), but Atheism is a religion! Atheists have a viewpoint in this world that guides them through life and those views allow them to make certain decisions by which they will move forward. Atheists are not brain dead!!! The way they view life not only gives them direction but they gain a sense of comfort from their observations and decision making. Atheism is a religion! It is a "Way of Life" for these people. Their belief system is as important to them as Islam is to a Muslim, Christianity to a Christian or Buddhism to a Buddhist! Your problem is your definition of religion! You think religion requires a big church or temple...bowing...singing...chanting...a big congregation! A religion is merely a set of tenets by which one lives his/her life! The primary tenet of Atheism is there is no God/god! Trying to convert an Atheist to any other religion would be like trying to convert a Muslim to Judaism or vice versa!

As for Tim's observation, Not Killing someone could be a crime! Case in point...A Cop has the ability to defend someone who is crying out for help! He watches a killer murder someone in cold blood when he had the wherewithal and the ability to stop it! Is he guilty of a crime? If two robbers hold up a liquor store and one pulls a gun and kills the clerk, both robbers are prosecuted for murder. Your example was bad.

...and by the way, Mike. Baldness may not be a hair color, but it certainly may be a hairstyle!

@Robert Green
Back from travels: By your stunningly loose definition of "way of life", I think you could say conscious thought would be a religion.

Well Paul...why do you bother posting and reading here. You believe what you want anyway and disregard anything that is contrary.

Barry already did. Its as simple as that.

"This mess would have been over 2 years ago if we did not have a socialist president."

Ah ,yes things would be a lot different if McCain and Caribou Barbie would have been elected.

In 2008 when the econcomy was in a recession, McCain thought it was just a bump in the road.

McCain who believes in a balanced approach to solving the deficit - cutting spending and raising some taxes

Luke, I'm not sure that MCCain would have been that different. There would be no Obamacare, no closing of perfectly good coal plants, business might have a more positive outlook and may have opened their wallets. All speculation.

They wanted to be part of history. Soon his presidency will be.

Tom, don't forget you would have paid more taxes under McCain than you did under Obama. I guess you won't mind giving that money that you saved under Obama back to the governmenet since you don't like his policies.

Mmmm. No. I pay more in fees and costs due to The One's administration. My healthcare insurance for my employees went up double what it did in 2005-2007. The reason as explicitly stated by the insurance company was the mandates of Obamacare. Can I get that back? Who do I ask? Barry? Biden? You?

Good ole GW tried to get along with a Democrat Congress his last two years. I will not defend Bush for assisting the congress in bringing about the current environment! ...and if you want to talk about IQs, you will find there is a range where you move from average to genius to having no common sense!

If Romney has been living off of his investments, he only has to pay 15%! The money he made to make those investments was taxed at the appropriate rate for Income! Capital Gains tax is 15%...Income tax is graduated and based on your income! If he hasn't had anything but investment income for the last 5 years, the last 2 years will look about the same as the previous 3. He's only required to show the last 2 years! You get away with showing your Driver's License for I.D. Why don't you show your birth certificate as well? If the law required him to show 5 years, he would have shown 5 years! Why does he have to go beyond what the law asks for? Is your desire more important than the law? That's what Obama does...if he can't get what he wants from congress, he makes an executive order! Where is your voice? Your representation? Why have congress? Why have laws? Just make Obama king! Look...I don't hate democrats and I know that many democrats are just as patriotic as anyone can be, but if the government gets too big for its britches, it has to be put back in its place! Government is supposed to work for us! They are supposed to be servants of the people! I don't want to be a servant of my government! You shouldn't want that either! You should vote for freedom first and foremost!!!

Correct, Paul. You are not idiots. The DNC treats you that way, but you are not idiots.

I hope someday you realize this and see through their patronizing allegations.

Condescending Tom says something condescending about the DNC being condescending.
Pot, meet kettle.

Wow, you would base your criteria on voting for someone based on tax returns? Not based on record, ability, character and what is best for our country? You Liberals are dangerous, it goes to show as you voted in the worst President of US history...Oblamer..

FDR tried to be an appeaser at first! How many Jews and Catholics were murdered before FDR got off his haunches and got us into the war to stop EVIL! The U.S. Military stopped Hitler...Not FDR! Just like the U.S. Military stopped Bin Laden...Not Obama!

BS FDR is the main reason the depression went on so long. He is also the one who realized that the democraps could hold power forever by taxing people and buying votes . Its taken 60+ years but here we are 1/2 the people in this country are either working for or getting handouts from the gov. That is why we are in this mess.

FDR actually warned against government employee unions. He knew what would happen.

Hey hey hey. I refuse to be put in sillywabbit's class!!!

The greaat communicator and orator was oddly absent.

Algore thinks it was because of altitude sickness. As usual, Algore gets it wrong. It was due to attitude sickness.

Well said

Make sure you throw away your vote to a radical party.

Mike - I am not a radical. If you found your perfect candidate that addresses all or most of your issues then congratulations, you are a minority. I read one of your previous posts so I deduced that you were going to vote for Romney. So, I surmise that you are pro gun, anti pro choice, pro prisons/harsher sentences even non-violent drug offenses, pro Gitmo, pro larger military, pro exclusive healthcare, pro guns (although its weird that Romney banned assault weapons in Mass), anti environment, anti stem cell research, pro surveillance (just like Obama), etc. This is the man you are voting for - at least I have the courage and take voting seriously enough to not waste it on a candidate like this.

As long as the extra parties are the Communist or the Socialist party, that's a fine idea! I prefer to not have the conservative vote diluted. It would be very nice if the Democrats had to share half of their voters with the Socialist Party!!! :)

Yes, I am pro America. I respect and believe that the Constitution contains the guiding principles of this nation. I respect life, this means no killing of unborn under any circumstance. I do not believe in the death penalty. I am consistent in views and beliefs. I don't change them because something is not convenient for me. I vote for the person who will best represent this nation and it's traditional beliefs. I give $ and time to charities. I take care of my family, I play by the rules, I pay my bills, I ask nothing of government except to keep me safe (secure the borders, etc.) and, yes, I did build my own business.

That 15% is capital gains tax! The money that comes from investment is taxed at 15%. The original money that was used to make that investment was taxed as normal income!
I don't make anywhere near $500,000! I'm lucky to make $70,000! The last 4 years, I'm down to about $45-$50,000, but because I run a business, I have to pay corporate taxes as well. I have to pay closer to 30-35% of my income as taxes, thank you!

"I'm down to about $45-$50,000, but because I run a business, I have to pay corporate taxes as well. I have to pay closer to 30-35% of my income as taxes, thank you!" "

So you chose to run a business instead of being employed by someone else. Do you feel we should feel sorry for you? That was your decision. It sounds like you are complaining. You have complained about the amount of taxes you pay, you have complained about certain companies getting bail outs. Hey if you don't like running your business, you have the choice to close and go work for someone else then you don't have to worry about paying corporate taxes.

LD, you made your choices in life and are not a multimillionaire? Should we feel sorry for you? Those were your decisions.

The results of your life decisions do not entitle you to a greater slice of someone else's money - unless, of course, you start a business and they voluntarily patronize your business.

There you go again Tom, putting words into my mouth.

How much more do you expect the poor to pay in taxes? You seem to favor the rich.

Nope. These are not words in your mouth.

"So you chose to run a business instead of being employed by someone else. Do you feel we should feel sorry for you?"

Lifted word for word from your post, LD.

My response:
"LD, you made your choices in life and are not a multimillionaire? Should we feel sorry for you? Those were your decisions."

Oh Tom, please show where I have said I paid to much in taxes and where I have said my taxes should be less.

You still can't even answer a question. How much more should the poor pay in taxes?

If that is to difficult for you, how much less do you think the rich should pay in taxes?

Plagiarism now, LD? I beat you to this one. Still no answer.

11:46 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
OK. How much should be paid in taxes by the rich, LD? How much? They already pay upwards of 80% of all income tax dollars. Should their tax rate be 80%? 90%? What is fair, LD?

You ask for specifics from Romney. Now, it's your turn.

Well? How much is fair? All of it? Go get their bank accounts and turn them over to Uncle Sam? Sell all their ill-gotten assets and take it all? How much, LD??

"Plagiarism now, LD"

Do you even know what that means? Because you are not using the word correctly here.

If you are accusing me of not answering your question (Your definition of plagairism??), I did answer your question at 11:55 am. If you don't like the answer I gave, that is not my problem.

It only appears to change! If you understand business, you know that there are a myriad things that have to be considered and dealt with on an ongoing basis. Things can change daily. The decisions you make today, may not be the decision you need to make tomorrow! Having a vision to get to a certain destination may include detours along the way. I'll bet if you think about it, you could find at least 3 different ways to get to your local grocery store!

No. He has thus far been defined by the fax machine at the DNC as dutifully amplified by his stenographers in the press.

Now that Romney had a chance to come through unfiltered, liberals have the nerve to act surprised that their media mouthpieces had it wrong.

hazel
Stupid people should not breed. Its going to be the end of civilization.

Agreed. All liberals to the sterilization centers at once!!

lol

And President Obama liked to bail out his contributors' businesses.

Solyndra, anyone?

Hi Beth, I would advise you to see where each candidate stands on certain issues that are important to you. And sometimes you have to literally vote for the lessor of two evils (which, honestly, is how to describe ALL politicans). As you have seen, it can get a little heated asking who to vote for because there is always something that someone will disagree with. What's important to one person may not be important to another. Good luck!

Beth, to hazelgreen's comment, here's a NON-partisan site where you can enter YOUR values and it will tell you who most closely aligns with yours. That way you can cut through all the bull.
http://votesmart.org/

I would suggest you read the constitution...see what the powers of the government really are...determine if you are more inclined to have government dictate how you should live or if you are more inclined to dictate to government how it should live and then vote accordingly. If you think that government has all the answers, then vote democratic. If you think that government should have a smaller role in your life, then vote republican. Of course you could go to the extremes and vote socialist or libertarian, but it is unlikely that one of those candidates will win.

I personally wish to have more freedom in my life. Not to abuse others, but to pursue happiness as I see fit for myself and my family. I choose freedom! I would prefer that government regulate my life less. I would like the government to do its constitutional duties and then get out of the way. I'm for smaller government and lower taxes. I believe that I am smart enough to know how to spend my money and do a better job of it than the government can do. I don't like some of the things that government spends my money on. Many of the things they spend my money on have nothing to do with their constitutional duties. As a result, I tend to vote republican.

Mitt Romney believes more of the things that I believe about the constitution than does Obama. The constitution has served us well for over 200 years. Basing your vote on constitutionalism should be a given.

Wow, really, bitter, must you insult someone that doesn't agree with your point of view? What does that accomplish? All it does is make sure that anything you say will be disregarded because of your behavior.

Why do you think the POTUS is an embarrassment? Why do you think Romney will be better at leading this country? Emotional comments don't help to further discussion.

Emotion is all you have, rabbit.

Tom, all you have is...nothing. Each of my comments have contained more substance, more points, facts, and evidence, than you've provided in all of your comments combined. Try, try again, troll!

Yay! First it's the 'they watch faux news' comment, now followed up with a generous dollop of name calling!

Yay for the wabbit!

And also, Romney's record in Massachusetts is absolutely terrible. I have a friend that lives there and he's not a popular guy with many residents.

So why would he do any better with the whole country?

Yay, it's another non-substantive response from Tom! Who also doesn't know what a troll is! While showing in his response that he is one!
We're all happy here.
BitterBluePoison, getting back to the subject at hand, do you have a response to my questions?

wabbit, time to go back to your job at Starbuck's there barrista!

Dude, I WISH I could make my salary at Starbucks! That would be awesome. I would never have to leave my precious caffeine.
Alas, I have to be the breadwinner for my family, so I'll keep doing what I do.

Sillyrabbit, you are entitled to your opinions and free to vote for your candidate but please don't insult my intelligence by saying Obama is a moderate by any measure. He is a redistributive socialist. Again if you believe in that it's ok but Obama is not a moderate.

Steve, the only person insulting your intelligence is you. Clearly you have no idea what socialist means. You are as ignorant and clueless as they come. Thank you for letting me know where your information level stands, though.

Obama is every bit the moderate as...say...Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Algore, Newt Gingrich, Paul Begala, James Carville,...

Btw, just to help you out a little, Steve: there is no such thing as redistributive socialist. That's not even a type of socialism. If you mean what I think you mean, then you are actually just saying the same thing twice.
Seriously?

Tom, you are such a useless troll. All you do on here is make comments that mean pretty much nothing. You aren't actually saying anything, you aren't actually making any points. Please, if you don't want to participate in an actual discussion, go play with yourself.

I guess I know why your screen name begins with Silly.

Aw, I'm sorry I left you with no rebuttal, Steve! I feel bad that your only argument back is to talk about my username. I hate it when I'm right.
OK, not really.

Way to elevate the discussion, wabbit.

Can't win the argument? Insult the messenger. Alinsky all the way!

Well, I understand if that comment was over your head, Tom. See, what I was saying to Steve is that HE had no counter argument. Therefore, he must have had nothing of substance to add to the discussion. One could assume, therefore, that in fact I had ALREADY won the argument.
I'm very open to rebuttal. Tom, I'm still waiting for a substantive argument from you.

wabbit, we're all waiting for something to come from your mind that did not originate on a DNC fax machine.

Tom, how old are you? Why do you keep talking about fax machines? Weird.

If you are going to bring in abortion, lets think about this logically. The supreme court says it's a matter of privacy and a woman (female) has the right to choose what happens to her body! Logically then, half of the abortions must stop because half of the babies aborted are female, thus they must have the right to choose what happens to their bodies! So now...only male babies must be aborted! But wait...the Declaration of Independence says that All Men Are Created Equal and are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! Leaving God out of this...who creates a man and when does this creation occur if not at conception? I would also venture to say that the parents create this man and bestow upon him the inalienable right to Life! The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right! Justices should only declare if something is or is not constitutional! Their personal or political opinions should not matter! The decisions about making law is in the power of the Congress! Any justices appointed to the supreme court should be first and foremost constitutionalists!!!

"Logically then, half of the abortions must stop because half of the babies aborted are female, thus they must have the right to choose what happens to their bodies!"

Just when you thought you heard it all coming from a Republican regarding abortion. Let's give an unborn baby the right to vote and make other important decisions. Maybe they should also be given the right to make out a will.

Logansdad...I am a Roman Catholic! I believe in the sanctity of all human life! I did not come up with the "a woman's right to choose" line. Do you think if an unborn child was given a choice, it would choose death over an inconvenience to its mother? Would you have chosen death so as to not have inconvenienced your mother? I believe that God places our soul within us at conception. I give a logical aspect to why abortion is wrong based not on God, but on the foundation of our country in the Declaration of Independence. Women are equal to men and therefore are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life! Again I ask...when is a life created if not at conception? It is the government's constitutional job to protect life. It is you who believes that some life is more important than other life! ...and all you can do is mock me.

Before I give you my full response, I have one additional question. What is your view on the death penalty?

The death penalty should be abolished! Even if there were no God in heaven...there is only one place in the entire universe that is known to have life...the Earth. There are two kinds of life...sentient and non-sentient. Both would be the rarest commodity within the entire universe. That alone would make life the most valuable commodity in the universe! The taking of any sentient life by another sentient, is abhorrent and reduces the sentient to something worse than a non-sentient. Killing people is just plain wrong!!!

At least you are consistent unlike some who say they are prolife butt then against the death penalty.
I think your question is ridiculous. Why stop at having fetus decide if they live or die. Why not give them the option to plan their entire life?What happens if the fetus doesnt likehis/her parents?

Also...let's clarify! Fetus is latin for offspring or in our colloquial tongue "baby." Killing a fetus is killing a baby! Embryologists may claim that it is not a baby until it has recognizable attributes which come along at about two months. However, if it is a baby at 60 days, what is it at 59? The difference is a quantity of cells. It still has the same DNA! What about at 58 days? Same DNA! 30 days? Same DNA! Conception? Same DNA! It's a baby from the start! Calling it a fetus is an attempt to delegitimize it as human life. Call it what you will, but it is still a human offspring...a baby.

Why is asking when a person is created ridiculous? The Declaration of Independence says that All Men are Created Equal. I didn't write the Declaration! It seems to me that a person's rights begin when they are created. You tell me...when is a life created if not at conception? Prior to conception, do you have human life? Can't be...there are only 23 chromosomes! You need 46 for human life! Are there 46 chromosomes at conception? Yes! You have human life! 18 days after conception the heart is beating. Is there human life? Yes! You have a distinct 46 chromosomes that determine everything that person's body will encompass! The map was drawn at conception. Unless a twin or triplet is produced by cellular divisions, there never has been nor will there ever be another set of chromosomes that match those that were produced at conception. It is a unique human life! So when does human life begin if not at conception? Is human life more valuable than animal life? Is human life more valuable than vegetable life? I would say yes! Is it the government's responsibility to protect human life over which it has governance? Again I say yes. Is it the governments responsibility to protect human life where it can around the world? Again I say yes! We are our brother's keeper! Should the government protect life in the womb? I say yes again. If a killer shoots a pregnant woman and kills the baby as well, he is charged with 2 murders! When does life begin?

Can anyone answer me this by filling in the blank?

It is okay to kill a baby in the mother's womb (supposedly the safest place in the universe) when ______!

What is ridiculous is you thinking a baby/fetus can make a decision. Now how logical is that? What kind of decisions did you make when you a day or two old?

I get that you are against abortion, you are entitled to your opinion. Not everyone believes as you do.

You think that every baby that is saved from abortion, will grow up and have a happy life. That is not always the case. How many babies that would have been aborted grow up in the foster care system for their lives?

Let's ask a few questions...
1) Are you glad your mother did not abort you? If so, why? If you are glad, then maybe the baby should be allowed to get old enough to make the decision on its own.
2) Who's to judge what a happy life is? Should we kill all autistic children? How about those with Down's Syndrome? How do we know they will have a happy life?
3) Why does the government prosecute the murderer of a pregnant woman with two murders when it's legal for the mother to kill a baby in the womb with no consequences? Do some babies have more rights than others?
4) Are babies Slaves/Property that mothers have the right to kill on a whim while they are still in the womb?
5) Why are children "abused" when they are spanked by their parents and the parents face legal repercussions while children in the womb are not abused when put to death?

Robert, you are so funny! I always find it amusing when a man thinks he has any say regarding women's bodies.
"Let's ask a few questions...
1) Are you glad your mother did not abort you? If so, why? If you are glad, then maybe the baby should be allowed to get old enough to make the decision on its own."
I don't give a shit. If I was aborted, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't be able to give a shit. I would never have been born. And, according to your religion, I'd be up chillin with Jesus in heaven. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
"2) Who's to judge what a happy life is? Should we kill all autistic children? How about those with Down's Syndrome? How do we know they will have a happy life?"
The person who's alive can determine what a happy life is for themselves. Therefore that person that is alive and born should have the freedom to make those decisions for themselves - whether that includes terminating a pregnancy or not.

"3) Why does the government prosecute the murderer of a pregnant woman with two murders when it's legal for the mother to kill a baby in the womb with no consequences? Do some babies have more rights than others?"
The government does this because the government treats the pregnancy as if it is a wanted pregnancy. If a pregnancy is wanted, than the parents will most likely feel a great loss and will want some kind of compensation or justice for it. However, if you notice, the Bible declares that any punishment for unwanted termination of a pregnancy is to be less than the punishment for the woman's life if it is taken. So - according to your religion - the mother's life IS declared more important than the fetus.
"4) Are babies Slaves/Property that mothers have the right to kill on a whim while they are still in the womb?"
Babies are not in the woman's womb. Embryos and fetus' are. They are a PART OF the woman's body and must remain so until it can survive on its own. Therefore, since it is MEDICALLY a part of the woman's body until birth and surviving on its own, the woman has rights over that part of her body, too.
"5) Why are children "abused" when they are spanked by their parents and the parents face legal repercussions while children in the womb are not abused when put to death?"
Um, see above.

SillyRabbit...how misinformed you are!!! You need to go back to Sophomore Biology Class. The embryo or fetus as you like to call it is NOT part of the mother's body! In fact the mother's body MUST produce anti-rejection chemicals to keep from rejecting the the baby as a foreign invader! The placenta separates the baby from the mother's womb and all nutrition and oxygen must be passed through the placental membrane. The blood of the baby never mixes with the mother's. They may not have the same blood type. The DNA of the baby is NOT the same as the mother's. It is a completely different being from the point of conception. Get your facts together and we can discuss this more! ...and fetus is latin for offspring! We call our offspring babies!

Whats the matter Pauly is your handout in jeopardy if a qualified president is elected.
No one should pay income taxes. Corporation or individual. Its none of the governments business how much we make. Tax at the point of sale. The rich will pay more because they spend more.

@Scotty: OMG, most HILARIOUS comment ever! I love your sense of humor. It's a great point you make: I would LOVE to see how Americans would react to life with almost no government! People, especially the rich, will be so pissed when they have to put out their own fires, teach their own kids, pave their own roads, basically do everything themselves because the government will have no money to do the things that society needs. What a great idea! We should definitely run with that, Scotty - then I think everyone will understand your point and be BEGGING to be taxed again!
P.S. I'm being facetious, in case you don't get it.

If they are rich, they will pay someone directly to take care of all that. Do you think that Barack and Michelle don't have a staff taking care of their Rezko McMansion in Hyde Park?

"If they are rich, they will pay someone directly to take care of all that."

So what was Mitt's execuse for not hiring someone to take care of his dog when he went on vacation? Mitt was rich and could hav afforded someone to take care of his dog, but instead Mitt decided to put the dog in the cage on top of a car.

Ah, now we get down to what Tom really thinks. He doesn't give a crap about anyone but the rich! Thank you for admitting that.

'He doesn't give a crap about anyone but the rich! Thank you for admitting that.'

Where did I say that? Where? Not once, wabbit. I could care less the size of someone's bank account or paycheck. frankly, that's none of my business, unless they are violating the law.

Freedom? Yes.
Opportunity? Absolutely.
Unions? Only in the private sector.
Government? Limited.

What is their fair share? Let's tax them at 100% Let's make them pay for everything! Better yet...lets just let the government take over their businesses! That way we'd be certain that people like Jobs (God rest his soul), or Gates could never possibly make millions or billions! Would that make you feel better?

Hopefully old enough to buy smokes. Someone has to pay those taxes.

I know, right?? We're agreeing, all of a sudden, Tom! When profit record-making companies don't even have to pay 15% taxes, then kids who choose to smoke like Scotty are forced into paying the taxes. Maybe he wouldn't have to if we stopped bleeding money through our military spending.

I knew we could find a government program that the wabbit didn't like.

As expected, another military hating liberal.

Bye wabbit. You are not worth anyone's trouble.

I knew I wouldn't find a fair-minded conservative. Military is the largest expenditure our government has, with waste, fraud, and abuse galore.
As expected, another hypocrite loving conservative. Federal debt and small government only applies to things you agree with.
Bye Tommy boy. Sorry to see you go. I was having fun taking you to the cleaners!

The only thing that got cleaned was Barry's clock. Last night.

Better yet, he should just go out and build something if his skills are so great. He could also do what some families are doing - working at jobs that have minimial skills requirements just to get the income.

You want to talk about what bugs me. I have too many friends in the trades that are still able to watch The View without a Tivo. These guys are skilled and experienced workers who have been busting their hump for decades now. To see them idle or working at the Home Depot upsets me.

We need confidence restored to the consumer and the roar will come back.

No pity pot bub. Just trying to get by until things pick up. Your right its hard finding work during obamas recession. One minute your blaming the rich for the plight of the unemployed the next your blaming the unemployed for their own problems. Some how the president who has done nothing to end this mess gets a pass. Your a hypocrite.

"I have too many friends in the trades that are still able to watch The View without a Tivo. These guys are skilled and experienced workers who have been busting their hump for decades now. To see them idle or working at the Home Depot upsets me."

Another one with the pitty story. What's the matter, did they make poor choices in life. Did their investments in the Furbee not pay off?

If they are idle, why are they not looking for work? Damn, freeloaders just sitting around collecting a paycheck while not doing anything.

If I was on a pity pot I would be on your side here. I would be blaming some rich guy for not paying enough in taxes so I could have a hand out.
No I want to work and fortunatly I've managed to get through these tough times by being careful what I spend and keeping priorities straight.
I'll weather this storm and soon enough we will have a new president. One who has a clue about how the economy works. What a breath of fresh air that will be.

"Another one with the pity story."

Really? Whining and pity is the foundation of the Obama campaign. You can't make it without a big government program there to save you.

Ask the Wabbit. The Wabbit never met a government program he didn't like, except for one I bet.

Logans dad
I only collect a check when I work. NO handouts here. What a dick you are. One minute your trashing the rich guy for being rich, the next you trash the working stiff who struggles to support his family. I thought liberals were caring people. Guess not, fact is they look down their snooty noses at people who work for a living.
Freeloader. Not by a long shot. I'm not the one crying because I don't get to spend someone elses money. Thats a liberal thing.

"I thought liberals were caring people."

Exactly as I thought, you want people to feel sorry for you because you are having a tough time. But yet when the poor and less fortunate struggle every day, you Republicans call them mooches and a drain to society. You complain they don't pay taxes and you shouldn't have to support them through your taxes.

"I'm not the one crying because I don't get to spend someone elses money."
More lies. I have not been crying because I don't get to spend someone else's money. I just don't think the rich are paying their fair share of taxes. Big difference.

Do you have kids? If you do, you are spending someone else's money. There are tons of people in this state that do not have kids, but yet support your kids by paying for their schooling thru their property tax bills.

No. Liberals are very generous.

With other people's money.

I don't want any one to feel sorry for me. I'll be fine. I want eveyone to be able to provide for there families. Help for those who need it I'm all for it. Al ifetime of handouts for those who could be working no. People need oppoutunities not freebies. But thats how your guys get elected they buy the votes with taxpayers money. Then trash the taxpayers for not paying enough. This proves liberals don't care about the little guy just his vote. If they don't get their vote they attack and belittle them Very nice. True colors are showing here.
When you and PaulyPoo thought I was making $500,000 a year you attack me. When you find out I'm in construction you attack me. What a quality person you are. I hope your kids learn from your bad attitude and grow up to be responsible members of society and not judgemental jerks. But look at the example being set for them.

"No. Liberals are very generous. With other people's money."

Than explain why the majority of the people who do not pay any taxes come from red states. Seems like it is the Republicans who don't pay their share of taxes.

Now you've gone from childish attacks to bald faced lies. Your son must be proud.

"But thats how your guys get elected they buy the votes with taxpayers money. Then trash the taxpayers for not paying enough."

As opposed to your guy who lumps people into one category and tells them they don't mean anything because they don't pay taxes, mind you he doesn't even know who is part of that group he is bad mouthing. As opposed to your guy who can't even care properly for a dog.

"This proves liberals don't care about the little guy just his vote."

Like Romney cares about the little guy. See examples above, plus he claims his tax plan will cut taxes for the middle class, but it will actually cut taxes for the rich and increase them for the middle class.

"grow up to be responsible members of society and not judgemental jerks." If I am judgemental jerk, I'd love to hear what you think of Romney. He's the one who is judging people based on what they pay in taxes.

How am I lying?

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/09/romneys-deadbeats-live-in-red-states.html.

If you think Romney was truthful in last night's debate, think again.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03

Logansdad
"As opposed to your guy who lumps people into one category and tells them they don't mean anything because they don't pay taxes, "

Lies he never said that your liberal media friends and the demmycrats took that out of context. He said they wouldn't vote for him, not that he didn't care.
Of course the truth with liberals in an inconvienence.

He may not be a socialist...but he is an anti-colonialist! He believes that the U.S. has stolen all its wealth from the poor nations around the world and it's time the U.S. gets a dose of its own medicine! He's deliberately putting us in debt to force us into a third world status. Our poor are rich compared to the poor around the world! He thinks the U.S. needs to be made less significant in the world. Read his book...Dreams from my Father!

Really? A radical leftist website criticizing a Republican? No way!

They couldn't have a bias there, could they??

Tom, you wouldn't know a radical leftist if they smacked you across the head. Which I don't necessarily think would be a bad idea. Maybe it would shake some reality and information into your head.

Paul that's like saying "According to Rush Limbaugh..."

So you've moved from name calling to physical assault.

Nice. Your intellect knows no bounds.

Want to see a radical leftist? Get a mirror, wabbit.

The Huffington Post? Really? Theres a reliable source that doesn't have an agenda.

Romney's own advisor said this morning, that Romney's health care plan would not cover those with pre-existing conditions. You know Romney is done, when his own advisor starts to the tell the truth about Romney's plans.

Tom, it is only radical because you disagree with it. Why is it so hard to believe that Romney didn't tell the truth, when Romney and Ryan both said they would not let fact checking get in the way of their campaign message.

So, keeping slaves and denying women property rights or a vote can come back, as long as a state votes for it?

If you'll recall...it was the Democrat Party that was interested in keeping slaves! Abe Lincoln was a Republican! The Republican Party was formed to eliminate slavery! Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood) was a democrat that was concerned that the black population would get out of hand and wanted to use sterilization and abortion to keep black births to a minimum. The Ku Klux Klan were Democrats who not only lynched blacks but Catholics and Republicans for trying to help blacks. The first blacks in congress and the senate were all republicans! So I guess you're right...Republicans are horrible people!!! I say, "lynch 'em all! ...and those darn Catholics with them!!!"

Wow! Did I take a party stance? No, I followed up your constitutional point with a question to who I thought was a Federaist. But, it turns out, you are only a partisan hack with your "Democrat Party" rants. Way to sway this independent with your bogus history lesson that doesn't tell the whole story. I read history and yes, the "Democrat Party" dominated the South during slavery and Jim Crow days. This "Democrat Party" you speak of could count on almost 67 votes in the US Senate up until the 1960's, thanks to the dominance of Southerners in the "Democrat Party" you speak of. Southerners rejected the Republican Party because they helped crush the South during the Civil War. By the 1940's, this "Democrat Party" was becoming more of a Northern, urban party, hence the rise of the "Dixiecrats". Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and George Wallace became Dixiecrats. You may recognize their names because they became prominent Republicans when the Dixiecrats bolted to the arms of the Republican Party once the Civil Rights Act was passed. At that point, your "Democrat Party" lost the Southern racists to the Republican Party.

But you still haven't answered my question of what happens if a state establishes the "right" to keep slaves or deny women the vote, if we go back to your dream world of 1789 rules and a federal government that only has the power to print money and fight foreigners.

Okay Steve...here's your answer. First read the Constitution. The States cannot supersede the federal government or the constitution. If you don't have time to read the constitution, start with the 13th amendment. No state can reinstate slavery. Then go to the 19th amendment that give women the right to vote. The right to vote also gives you the right to own property. It would take an act of congress and ratification of the nation to change either of these amendments with another amendment. Not impossible but 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% improbable!!!

Well said Mr. Green. Exactly - eliminate the electoral college, primaries and allow a straight population vote on candidates. The electoral college is no longer needed given the advances in technology but good luck making this happen - everyone knows that district boundaries, etc. control who gets elected and the powers in power want to prevent that from ever happening.

Jeff, the Electoral College is still neccessary in order to give the small states a voice in the election of the President. Without it, the bulk of the popular vote would come from the big cities and citizens will be left out of the process. In fact, candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign anywhere but the big cities.

It's interesting that those who want to eliminate the Electoral College only speak up when it works against them.

Most recently...Obamacare! The department of education makes decrees to the states all the time as does the epa! Neither one of these is a constitutional mandate! How about the endowment of the arts! States and taxpayers have to pay in to the government to support them. Not constitutionally mandated! If a state wants to allow a company to come in and create jobs why does the department of labor say they can't because the state has a "right to work" policy and the company building the plant has another plant in another state that is union based? Who's business is it other than the company's and the state's? ...and what I said was if a person did not like the way a state ran its affairs, there were 49 others to choose from. You don't have to lose your American Citizenship if you disagree with how a state government runs things. If you don't like Gambling, don't live in a state where it's legal...or try to change the laws in your state (much easier than trying to change federal law). You should have freedom to make choices in how you live your life. The federal government is all encompassing. You can't get away from bad federal choices no matter where you go unless you leave the country.

Look...I'm a Constitutionalist and a Conservative! It used to be that churches and the local community looked out for the poor and disadvantaged, but there were those who saw deeper pockets in the federal government and the ultimate power of taxation to further socialistic goals. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been transferred from the "haves" to the "have nots" since the 1960s in the name of compassion by the federal government, but we still have the poor! If poverty was truly abolished, then there would be no need for the "so-called compassionates" to rant and rave about the government not doing enough! They have no interest in truly eliminating poverty because then they would lose their power. As long as the "entitled" are looking for government handouts, whoever is handing out the money, will get their votes! I say, if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day! If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime! Which party talks about elevating everyone and inspiring them to seek the American Dream and which party talks about fairness and everyone getting their fair share? Self reliance or redistribution? Which do you think is better for people? I think people who are taught to rely on themselves and become a minimal burden to society is the better way! No one is saying to not help people, but if you're going to help them...actually help them! Don't make them more dependent!

Beth...if you are thinking about your kids first then think about this. Currently, the household debt to cover government spending is about $137,000 or about $50,000 per man, woman and child. That is what is owed now. If the economy is NOT expanded...if people do not get jobs and start paying taxes...if the government spending is NOT curtailed, your kids and grandkids may never get out of debt! The good ol' USA could literally become a third world country. Is that the future you want for your kids? Obama and the democrats say the way out of this trouble is to spend more money and Tax the rich! If they took every dime the rich in this country made, it would run the government for about 3 months. The government spends too much!!! ...on many things that are not constitutional! Romney and the Republicans believe that people need to be a lot more self reliant and depend less on the government. They believe that smaller government is the way to promote a healthy economy, jobs for more people and local control of education to put parents and educators in charge of teaching our kids "how to fish" and become self reliant! Public Unions, Pension plans, taxes, health care and over regulation are strangling our economy. America is suffocating under the burden. Something has to give or all our kids will have to pay dearly!!!

If you want to vote for someone in the middle, then vote for Romney! I'm way to the right of him!!! If anything I say makes sense to you, then the person in the middle would be Romney! We've had 4 years of big government and redistribution. If you voted for Obama the last time, has he fulfilled your hope with his promises? Has he united us all under the Red White and Blue? Has he changed things for the better...in Washington? ...the country? ...the world? Obama needs 4 more years to keep doing what he's been doing the last four. He freely admits that!!! If you think things are better then vote for him! You have an obligation to vote your conscience! Vote what you believe in! Even if it's not what I or anyone else believes in! The only thing I ask is that you educate yourself to make an informed decision!!! That is the true American way!

Westside Dem...you need to read some of my posts! Read the constitution! Read the history of the Republican Party and why it was formed in the first place! Read the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence! The democrat party is not your salvation! They are the party of good intentions!!! ...and what do they say the road to Hell is paved with?

Thank you for your offer Robert but I would not be too interested in reading biased/conservative party information. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I am happy with my choice and feel no need to convert you to switch sides. In fact no party should be salvation for anyone if Jesus is their Lord and Savior. As far as the road to hell goes, I am of the belief that begins when you fail to repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior

The Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence are NOT conservative propaganda! The history of the Republican party is simply this. The Republican party was formed shortly before the Civil War. Its purpose was to stop Slavery! Many Catholics and Republicans were lynched with Blacks in the south for trying to help the Blacks get their freedom! Abe Lincoln was a Republican! The first Republican President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation! The first Blacks in the Congress and the Senate were all republicans. Republicans were on the forefront of the women's suffrage movement (the right to vote). Republicans are not your enemy...we are not anyone's enemy unless they want to take away our freedom! There is nothing more important than our freedom!!! I won't go into the history of the Democrat party, but you can look it up! They ruled the south before the Civil War! I'm not trying to convert you but to educate you! If you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence, and still feel the need to vote for the democrat party, I would give my life for your freedom to do so! I just don't believe that they are really intent on actually helping people the way they say they are. History bears out my opinions.

Obama is more concerned with Colonialism! He admits that he believes in Redistribution! What you don't realize, is that the poor in the US are rich compared to the poor around the world! Putting us in debt to our ears and turning this country into a third world nation is his way of cutting the U.S. down to size. He doesn't want us to be a superpower. He doesn't want our influence to mean anything internationally. He believes we have stolen resources from around the world to make ourselves rich and it's time that the U.S. has to give everything back. Read "Dreams from my Father!"

I don't think that is quite true. If you don't purchase healthcare insurance, you are not guaranteed healthcare. Those that do not purchase will have to pay the "TAX" but that does not give you coverage. You still may not be covered...

Companies that choose to not provide insurance for their workers and choose to pay the tax instead, still are not buying coverage for their workers.

Well Mr. Green, I am open to other alternatives. Shall we let people die on the street and step over them on our way to the theater. We are in the first world and healthcare should be mandatory for everyone regardless of the way it is brought about.

Anyone that goes to the emergency room of any hospital will get treatment. It is required by law...even if you don't have any insurance. ...and if you are stepping over dying people on the the way to the theater and do nothing yourself to help them, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Look...we live in a Capitalistic society. Capitalism is good! Capitalism has given the world many advancements and benefits that we would have never seen otherwise. The soviet union and cuba tried their best at creating a communist paradise, but what real advancements to society have they contributed? All the significant technology and medicine has been developed by primarily capitalistic societies! Local communities and churches used to care for the sick and poor, but since the government stepped in to try and micromanage healthcare at the local level, things have gotten very expensive. Lawsuits plague the medical industry. If the government would adopt Tort Reform, doctor's malpractice insurance could go WAY DOWN! Unfortunately, as people have become more Godless in their lives, they see nothing beyond this life. I think some people believe they will never die! ...or at least don't want to believe that it's possible. All this eating right...exercising...having no vices...government mandated calorie control of meals...it all costs money and it's stuff that the government has no constitutional business doing.

That's right, Jerri!

Love it, Charles!!

Amen, Alexis!

More like 50M people watched Romney lie about his propsals.

The time Romney told the truth was when he stated his name.

Well you know what they say.....

If you're 21 and not a democrat you don't have a heart.
If you're 35 and not a republican you don't have a brian.

Should read "brain" for those of you whose brain doesn't automatically correct it.

Republicans are full of Mitt.

And if you're really, really quiet now, and listen very, very intently, you can hear many of the posters here singing their election-year anthem:

"I'm dreaming of a WHITE President,
Just like the ones I used to know ..."

Yea I'll admit Obama wasn't up to his usual performance last night probably cause he was a little stunned and trying to figure out which Mitt he was talking to.Was it the web Mitt or the campaign trail Mitt or the republican convention Mitt or the republican debate Mitt or the Mitt that answers questions in his one on one interviews and now the new caring debate Mitt for 100% of the country.I guess that would confuse anyone.The real truth, that Obama tried to tell pales in comparison to of all Mitt's different faces and lies.I think Sybil Mitt would best describe the empty suit that showed up to debate Obama last night. I don't think he(Mitt) will fool all of the people all of the time, this time.

The 2016 movie was biased and obviously anti-Obama. Anyone can make a movie and have their subject look bad. I recommended you research non-partisan websites and see what the candidate stands for. Sorry to hear you are basing your decision on propaganda. If you will notice, I did not try to convince you who to vote for by fear or lies. I'm sorry that you cannot see some people on this board are.

I saw the movie and I read Obama's Book and D'Souza's book. I can't say there isn't a little bias to the right, but Dinesh D'Souza comes from India. He wasn't raised here...he doesn't look at things the same way we do, for the most part. I thought he was rather neutral in his observations. I think the slant to the right is our projection of our ideals matching what he observed. Not so much him being a right winger...more like "we think we like what he saw, so we agree with him." Those on the left like what Michael Moore sees and they project onto him the same way. The only way to know anything for certain is to know that nothing is certain. What Obama was when he wrote his book may not be the man he is now. What D'Souza saw when he made his movie might have little tweaks if he started it today. I would say that conservatives are not like liberals. Yes, we can be mouthy, but for the most part, most of us are too old to cause much trouble. Look at the difference between a TEA Party rally and an Occupy Rally. TEA Party Rallies rarely if ever have any arrests, and despite what the media says we are not racists. (you should read up on the history of the Republican Party) Our rally sites are almost as clean as they were when we get there. Compare that to the Occupy Movement. Conservatives are relatively quiet. We wait for election day and then cast our votes. ...like in 2010. I am more vocal than most, I think. My goal is to educate...not necessarily convert.

Are you in first grade? This is like writing your boyfriend's name over & over on a piece of paper in grade school. Please look up racist in the dictionary.

Yes, at least learn how to spell first.

Republicans are so full of Mitt ...

Dianna the fun would be who would answer the TPARTY guy running for POTUS or the governor of the commonwealth of MASS,
U may be right on why he was not asked but I think the GOP outfoxed the CHGO advisors in many ways the air and the fact Obama was not conditioned to the MT air while the Gov of MASS was there for days prepping had a small part if I were OBAMA I would not rely on AXLEROD and JARRET or RAHM so much

Yes, Beth... Go watch 9/11 by Micheal Moore... that was based on interviews and real life situations... You will quickly see the one sided liberal view... You're really going to decide on a a movie...?
How about ending a war... Giving helath care to the 30 million children that have no faces... How about bin laden gone... How about dozens of Al Queda taken out, how about expansion of civil rights, how about relief for millions of kids with student loan debt...
HOW ABOUT the jobless rate falling for almost 3 straight years... Now under 8 %
Maybe, realizing it takes awhile to fix things...
Let me know when you lose your mortgage deduction and child tax credits if Ryans/Romney 0 tax increase really didn't increase your taxes?
Your listening to Robert green and his Fore Fathers, constitution and tort reform arguments? Tort reform will protect the doctors, not lower helath cost.
That's like giving corporations, who have RECORDED RECORD profits, tax and EPA restriction relief... Will that help the common person? It will boost their profits without the need to produce anymore product or hire a single soul., that's for sure

Beth, you are correct the movie,"2016" is based on Obama's book. You are making the right choice and decision in voting for Romney/Ryan. Obama is now trying to provide 450 MILLION to his Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. So right before our eyes, he is taking funds from America. Obama has since taking office has increased foreign aid by 80%. In 2011 alone, Obama spent 76% more on foreign aid than on securing our own borders. Ryan/Romney is not planning to remove the mortgage deduction that was and is under Obama's plan. I receive e-mails from Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and there is no mention of that. The Lies continue from the Liberals.

The Obama team has really bungled the Libyan crisis.
What a disaster this man is.

Really Gryan, emails...LOL.... So what deductions are they going to cut... or is it still a secret?
I love your slanted critisisms... You really don't see it?
Go slash debt... Get rid of the funding that PBS has... Yeah, scream to the rood tops that we have Disney and that elmo makes millions... But ignore the 100's of small staions that bring educational programs to rural areas that will be cut. Programs that don't have loads of ads and crap pushed by spoliled kids wiith all the latest fashion on Disney...

Hi Beth...if you don't trust Dinesh D'Souza's movie, then read Obama's book for yourself. Letting people synopsize for you will only confuse the issue for you. I understand that you might like a shortcut "insight" into the world of this election, but to take soundbites and the myriad of opinions that conflict may only confuse you more. I am not a republican because of what anyone else has told me. I'm a republican and a conservative because I read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence and any other material I think is relevant to the people and situations that surround this election. If you want to get to know Obama, read his book! Look into the people that influenced his life. If you want to see what Romney has done, walk into a Staples Office supply. If you want to know about Romney's religion, read about Mormonism and the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Talk to some mormons! I'm Roman Catholic! I can't vote for a democrat because I take seriously what the Church says in its Catechism of the Catholic Church. I read the book and was shocked at how many things supposed Catholics will say and do in the name of their faith that the Catechism does not support! I'm not saying you should vote like I do. I say find out for yourself and make an intelligent decision. Just read the Constitution for Starters.

...and should you talk to Westside Dem, do not believe that the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers are "biased/conservative party information." LOL LOL LOL ;)

Robert green says i cant vote democrat because i am a catholic and i read the constitution ... lmfao... wow!
So you were against retaliation after 9/11... youve never used a condom?

The Catholic Church has a "Just War Doctrine" that does not obligate us from not defending ourselves. Section 2308, 2309, 2310 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Section 2272 says that: Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sentential,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79

USCCB. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Kindle Locations 13104-13108). United States Catholic Conference, Inc..

The key word are "Formal Cooperation." You can't much more formal than voting for or contributing to a party that has a Pro-Choice Plank in its platform. I choose to not be excommunicated. Some priests and bishops think I'm right, others think I'm wrong. I choose to do what the Pope and the Magisterium say in the Catechism.

Using a condom is not an offense you can be excommunicated for. Support for abortion is. None of us is without sin! That's why we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Brother Robert .... please define what a "just war" is to a catholic Pope ....
you speak as though polititians and people should be voting based on your catholic doctrines. This country and its Constitution were not formed on the belief of your christian God.

Huh, I provided you a lot of information, both on all the positives that Obama has done for women AND a link to a non-partisan voting information site so you can figure out who to vote for based on YOUR values. Yet you've ignored both, while deciding to post about an opinion piece in movie format. I think you've already made up your mind, Beth.

First of all, they lied to the American people by refusing to call it a terrorist attack.
Said the movie trailer caused the protests when after the second day the Egyptian
President himself came out & labeled it a terrorist attack. Once again, Obama can't
"offend" you know who. Two weeks of lying & finally after so much pressure, yes it was a terrorist attack. Second, failed to beef up security for American diplomats
& embassies around 9-11 even after they received numerous reports something was going down. Our own American diplomat feared for his safety & conveyed that,
but no action taken. What kind of crap is this? Valerie Jarret is walking around with
24/7 security but our embassies & diplomats are not protected in these hot zones.
I don't intend to change anybody's mind, it's useless, but I sure as hell know in my
heart, Obama is a sham & way over his head from day one.

Meant to say Libyan President not Egyptian. So mad!

Vicky, you are credit. His incompetency is clear. There have been reports also that he is never in the White House. He is disconnected and never attends his daily debriefing meetings. His inability to lead and govern is evident. Our Great Nation saw this on National TV on Wednesday. Thanks for your input.

But his golf game has gotten really good.

If people don't like the redistricting, don't put a democrat in the governor's seat during a census year!

Recipe for Relief:
1) Donate Chicago to the Federal Government Like Maryland did with Washington. (Chicago D.C. does have a nice ring to it)
2) Make Illinois a right to work state.
3) Eliminate Public Sector Unions and their Pensions.
4) Watch Illinois Prosper!

Biden has resorted to only telling the truth now. Everyone loves to watch a train-wreck, rather than being in one(as we currently are)

Robert Green, what would be better if we turn Chicago into a Midwest Cayman islands tax haven for BI PARTISAN tax dodgers plenty of both already here and the local banks into SWISS type banking rather than a RED ARMY enterprise zone which is where the TPARTY are not investing.
Greed in this time is a one way street for not just the scum who were making millions who chose to make Billions in the peoples paradise leaving empty homes and factory's and a embattled government scrambling to tax at every level to keep schools hospitals,water agencies operationg police and fire Dept's open not just for pensions and perks for the chosen few of chairman MADIGOON.
Your elimination of schools and and unions is so GOPTPARTY fascist but strangely COMMUNIST because they are the beneficiaries everything the fellow travelers of the KOCH BROS,and their legislative arm ALEC says on top of that yer pious CATHOLIC RANTS are more inquisition than canonical and ignore the MURDERS of PRIESTS -ARCHBISHOPS and NUNS protesting the enslavement of their flock by the BAIN investors.

Butch...such venom! I've read your rant twice and I'm not sure what side you're on! Are you an "Occupier Anarchist?" All I said a few comments up is if Illinois got rid of the Chicago Machine...Got rid of the Public Sector Unions (because it's not a negotiation between the people of IL and the unions...it's a discussion of how big the kickback will be after the politician scratches the unions back and how much the union will contribute to reelection campaigns.)...made IL a right to work state to entice manufacturing to come back to this state, then IL would most certainly prosper! As to my religious rants...they are all based on what is said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church! I did not write it! I just believe it. Now...if you'd like to settle down and discuss things on a more intelligent basis, please feel free to respond! :)

Robert Green, all the new world order flag wavers and fundy's despise the Pope for his opposition to the unjust -BUSHEVIK wars while a sap like you climbs in bed with the enemy or the bible trumpeter anti homo's who are not only homo's themselves and take the same HILLBILLY HEROIN as their yell radio hero,
all you good ole boys and wannabe anti elitists like RICK SANATORIUM another draft dodging anti education and anti abortion TPARTY elitist believe abortion drains the cannon fodder pool making warfare more like to include them and their reactionary offspring

Butch...I can only surmise that you are some type of anarchist that hasn't got a coherent thought in his head! Settle down and use your God given brain. "Put Brain in Gear before engaging Mouth!"

No Bob, I vote with my brain. Didn't you mean to say "faux news" how cute......
With everything else going to hell, Big Bird is not top priority.
You're one angry dude....lighten up........

Ive never ised that term (faux) in my life....
Angry, no. I dont see any anger in that post. I just use true facts and try to understand a situation before i call someone incompetent or a failure. Its easy to repeat what we hear. Try and learn why something happen.... then make a judgment.

Bob,
You should look back, some of your posts are very angry.
Gotta go to work, I don't live off the government like some people.
Have a good day......

What debate were you watching? Obama looked like he wanted to be somewhere else. With out his mistress the Teleprompter he is lost.

When Chris "I get a thrill up my leg" Matthew and Rachel MadCow agree he lost the debate, you know it had to be bad for Obama.

Matilda...I used to freak out after watching any debate or presentaion of info on the TV only to have some ding dong come on right after and start telling me what they just said. I used to think who the hell needs these commentators to come on and explain away what we just heard...are we stupid? I'm re-thinking that. You need to watch the comments afterwards...please. It will help you.

Chill out Bob, get that blood pressure down.
Be more like your guy Obama, sit back & do absolutely nothing.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/correction-2016-obamas-america-fact-check-story-231728910.html
Read this.

Thanks for the article Oldeegee

Ed, two thumbs up. I'm just a blue collar guy and I've been saying for years that all pols are lying s.o.b.'s, even the ones that I vote for. "Shading the truth" sounds good, but I guess I'll just have to stay with lying, two faced swine. I yam what I yam.

A working person who votes Republican is like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

No CEO that knows anything is paying ordinary income tax rates, they wouldn't have the credibility to get to that point in the first place.
$0 in 'salary' = 0 taxed at 'ordinary income'.
$(entire salary in stock options and/or dividends) = 15% rate.

It's exactly how I structure my own salary, and I'm not even Warren Buffett. Hopefully, he is at least as smart as I am.

The tax code does not favor the average worker. It is specifically created by those who want to avoid paying taxes in every way possible.

I make no apologies for using this method. While it wasn't created for those in my 'class', I found out how the 0.1% use it to their advantage, and have applied the same principles to my own money.