Anyone who buys into the birther and other document hoaxes needs professional help. It is a diversion to keep you from asking questions like "Did Romney illegally shelter income for years and then take advantage of the 2009 tax amnesty?"

Our President's grades got him into Columbia and Harvard Law School where he was editor of the Law Review. Something tells me that his grades were just fine.

His "grades" got him into the Ivy League> You really think so? The Columbia Commencement Program indicates he did not graduate with any level of Honors. That's actually hard to do in the social sciences at the notoriously grade inflated Ivy League schools.

I remember when Republicans used to think before speaking and use actual facts. Rush Windbag is not a source of reliable information. Obama graduated from Harvard magna cum laude with a JD degree. Rush would not know that it means Obama graduated with academic great honor. Rush's mommy said he was too dumb for college.

Generate and maintain money only for himself is not what we're looking for! He was a great business man who shipped labor oversees to pay less and make more. He was never a job creator! He's a rich man who has manipulated the system like many 1%er others and avoided paying the appropriate amount of taxes. Was it legal....yes. Does that make it right....no! The people who manipulate the entitlement system do the same thing. All people need to be accountable and pay their fair share!!!!

Teammate,
Let's take a look at some of the records for these two gentlemen. I'll post some for each and you decide which one you would like to handle YOUR finances.
Romney
While running Bain Capital he invested private money in:
AMC Entertainment
Burger King
Burlington Coat Factory
Clear Channel Communications
Dominos Pizza
Dunkin Donuts
Guitar Center
The Sports Authority
Staples
Toys R Us
Warner Music Group

President Obama
While running our country invested taxpayers dollars in:
Solyndra
Ener 1
Beacon Power
Abound Solar
Amonix Solar
Spectra Watt
Eastern Energy

So, what's my point?
All the companies listed that Romney invested in are currently employing Americans throughout our country.
All the companies listed that President Obama invested in are not employing anybody because they are bankrupt. They have another thing in common, they were all Obama Campaign contributors.

He also invested in GM and Chrysler, both of which are still alive. Please use all the examples since it's unlikely that all of Romney/Bain companies succeeded and kept jobs here. The same as all of the companies President Obama and President Bush supported through TARP failed.

Both Chrysler and GM filed for bankruptcy

Get your facts straight, GM and Chrysler are having record profits and are still here because of the bailout.

There plenty examples of how Bain under Romney made their money and bankrupted plenty of companies.
• Ampad, Bain used only $5 million of its own money to seize American Pad and Paper, funding the rest of the takeover with loans that saddled Ampad with $60 million annual debt repayment. Bain charged Ampad $7 million in management fees. "Ampad wound up going bankrupt, and hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Bain and Romney made more than $100 million on a $5 million investment."

• KB Toys -- "Bain put up a mere $18 million to acquire KB Toys and got big banks to finance the remaining $302 million it needed," the article says. Soon afterward, as new manager of the company, Bain pulled a "dividend recapitalization" that gave $83 million to Bain investors, including Romney. "Bain added $300 million debt to the firm's bottom line while taking out more than $120 million in cash -- an outright looting." KB Toys went bankrupt and its jobless employees got no severance pay.

•Ironically, Romney is campaigning strongly against government debt, yet he used debt as his chief mechanism to gain control of corporations.
Source: Rolling Stone magazine expose titled "Greed and Dept: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital."

When Bain uses debt in its businesses, the money is from private investors and private banks, all of whom chose to participate in these ventures. When the governmnet does it, its our money and we don't get to chose. GM and Chrystler could have gone the normal bankrupcy route without government money and emerged in better financial shape, as many other companies have done. Bankrupcy does not mean that a company disappears. These companies were done in by their legacy costs that could no longer be absorbed in the price of their cars. Obama wasn't trying to save GM, he was trying to get the best result for the UAW. With our money.

John its amazing what you choose to know.... yes,bain has investors. Who's only objective is to make $$. There is nothing wrong with that objective. However, if closing down a company means maximize profits they will do it. What ever motive you feel the bail outs had it still kept many working.

As far as you can tell? You can't tell jack squat from what he has released and that is the problem.

Here is a fact for you while you repeat what you've been told to think. We are $15 Trillion dollars in debt in this country. There is currently $20 to 30 Trillion dollars in accounts in offshore tax havens avoiding taxes.

Wake up and straighten up. You've been bent over and don't even know it.

Bob, ever hear of the IRS? If you don't believe the government can police the tax code, you are in the wrong party.

What a load of hooey. Romney has consistently supported tax breaks that are in his economic favor. Buffett, Gates and many of those Hollywood types ( except Eastwood?) are promoting policies not in their favor to line their own pockets at the expense of the country.

I'll vote for the first person to fix the "loophole" that allows half of the country to pay 0% or less.

Arthur - expecting everyone to pay something, that's elitist, classist, and racist

I saw it and believe you are a creature of your environment and the apple don't far from the tree. There are no coincides and facts are facts I believe the President was the one who took God and Jerusalem out of the democratic Party Platform. 2016 shows some scary implications that everyone should be aware of before voting. There was an eerie feeling in the air walking out of the theater that day.

The movie is ridiculously biased, full of opinions. For God's sake, don't vote based on this movie!

Lingle, I'll assume you're OK with my opinions of GW Boosh based on Michael Moore's movie? And, i'll assume your second sentence is aimed at your fellow Teebaggers.

Oh, Mokena Snap!

A person who buys into propaganda slime says what?

Obama borrows money from China.

So does Nancy Pelosi & Debbie Wasserman Schultz & a whole list
of other Democrats. These people make me want to throw up- total hypocrites.
And don't give me the line they're not running for President, getting old.......

Arthur,
Youre right on point with most of what you say. It is tiresome, and in the end most heads don't get turned. However, to be dvils advocate. Say you have 3 or 4 or 5 parties. Take your pick. Then what you get is the majority fails to get represented. A perty with 25-30% of the vote and with radical ideas can slide in and win. The majority, who may have similar ideas lose. Then we have major problems,
I don't have the answers,,, Just more questions

That's a good point I suppose

Arthur, what if we took all the money out of politics and let the politicians be free to do the right thing? Also, limit all politicians to a single six year term.

Yes, Obama has admitted he would pay more and said he has no issue with it. Me, I have little trust for a guy that puts money over seas to avoid paying taxes to his country, while waving his flag. Then for his wife to say "we don't even know what's in there."...

He "would" pay more? He "can" pay more (Lord knows the US treasury cashes every check I send them, even if it's too much) but doesn't - because he is not legally required to. You don't "trust" Romney but at least HIS actions and rhetoric are consistent....

Juvenal,
I'd like to point out that for something to be a loophole, there must be ambiguity that can be taken advantage of. There is nothing ambiguous about the 1040 tax guide which gives instructions on how to itemize (with a requirement to get help if needed) and also instructs taxpayers intending to itemize to also figure their taxes using the standard deduction in case their tax liability is lower with the standard deduction. (So which is the loophole there?)

Also, don't you think it's a bit unfair to judge the President on his taxes when we can't even see the other guy's in order to pass judgment? And while Romney seeking to pay as little as possible in taxes is consistent for a person who doesn't like to pay his taxes, it's certainly not consistent for someone who seeks a government job, has worked a government job, and whose parent worked for the government. I'll never understand the Right's mantra that government is terrible, politicians (and lawyers, for that matter) are corrupt and evil. They want us to hire them to work for an organization they detest (or at the very least, that don't believe in), to take a job they don't respect in order to work with people they respect even less, and be paid out of a system they dislike so much that they will do whatever it takes to avoid paying into it.

Point is that one person's loophole is another person's deduction. Where to draw the line-- IRA's (parking money in a tax free account) buying municipal bonds (no fed tax on earnings)? Rich people have more incentive to engage in tax planning and they all do -- including Mr Buffett et al. While the rhetoric suggests that fiscal conservatives hate government it would be more accurate to say that they recognize that there is an inevitable tendency for government to grow and expand, which is not limited by any market forces. This tendency is especially pronounced in the US because the perception of our strength means that we can always find "investors" who will buy our debt. The US government is the most indebted institution in world history; no entity has ever been $16 trillion in the hole before. You could never tax your way out of that hole, not even if you taxed the 1% at 100%. Conservatives understand that, liberals just want to give away more free stuff to constituencies that they can count on to vote for them -- the Chicago Machine school of politics. It works great in the short term, but in the long term.....

Arthur, by your question you obviously believe a tax system with varying rates based on income levels is inherently unfair. I do disagree with you on that and would also point out that a strong majority of Americans support a progressive tax system and have historically done so. And I would add that there are practical and economic reasons why an income tax system needs to have some progressiveness in it. The question should be how progressive.

The idea of a flat tax system where everyone pays the same rate can be appealing. But there are a lot of problems going to a flat tax system. Should all deductions be dropped or do we keep popular ones like the mortgage interest deduction and the child credit; should there be any exemptions? What should be considered income? Should capital gains dividends be considered income? What about tax-free municipal bonds? Once you start making those decisions the apparent fairness of everyone paying the same rate disappears. You would end up with a tax system where the rate for everyone is the same but not the rules.

Arthur, you also questioned why so many people don't pay income taxes. Actually they do. Everyone who has earned income pays FICA taxes on that income.

Ron Kurowski

And Obama was successful running....what was that business's name again?
Obama was successful at what level of government?
I really would like for you to point to all of the success that Obama has had, while running anything, if you could.
Don't even try to say something about Bin Laden as his success, that was successful in spite of Obama.
Anything?
If you do take your chances with Obama, you will be just as bankrupt as all the rest.

I'm going to point out the obvious that President Obama has almost four years' experience of, um, being President and Mitt Romney doesn't. I'd also like to point out the other obvious point that a country is not a business.

As for the successes that the President has had since taking office, Google it.

Denise - experience does not equal success.

Yea but the seal team should get the reward and tour the nation! How many heros do we have that dont play sports...

Whats your point? Of course they get credit... the current anministration gets credit as well... i just answered with a few examples. There are many more.

and $16 TRILLION in debt, 11%+++ REAL unemployment, no Federal budget, and no plans to fix it going forward. Great record if you are an anti-Colonial Socialist, intent on bankrukpting the USA.

Should we call you sean hannity there Jim...

Don't ask me, ask Obama.
Better yet, ask the people in Yemen. You know, that country that we are at war with and use drones to bomb.
Wait a second...we are not at war with Yemen, Obama is and he will drag the rest of the U.S. along.
So maybe your question should be taken to the man that is waging war against Yemen...Obama.

For the record, this is what Obama stands for

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

This is fun, what other games ya got.

Good answer "Tired of the B.S.
That about sums it up.................

Kinda like Pelosi saying 'we have to pass it before we can tell you what's in it', eh? People in glass houses.......

Sooo ,your a Romney supporter and Romney's taxes are revealed finding many illegal activitties or no taxes paid,something really negative and you would still be a Romney supporter,kind of telling isn't it?

If Romney did anything illegal, he should go to prison and, no, I wouldn't vote for him. I'm sure that if he did anything wrong, the IRS would have dealt with it. The only way that he could not pay any income taxes in a given year is if he had a loss that year. It's an income tax, so you only pay it if you actually have an income that year. Its not a wealth tax; a person can have losses from investments and still be very rich.

The IRS had an amnesty program to not pursue criminal charges for felony tax evasion for not reporting offshore tax income if the tax evaders voluntarily come forward and pay all back taxes, interest, and penalties owed. Criminal charges avoided. My money is betting that this is the main reason Mitt romney is not releasing his tax returns. I am sure there are others too, almost as bad. He would be forced to step down as the Republican presidential nominee. Romystery tax retuns will stay as mysterious as bigfoot and Roswell aliens!

Rrrrrright cuz taking blame for someone else's failures makes you seem so smart! Can you imagine how much more Obama would have won by if he took responsibility for McCain's bad shoulders and baldness? I know....I got goosebumps too!

So if Obama gets re-elected, will he continue to blame the previous administration for his failures?
If he does, it will be true, because the previous administration will be Obama

If the republicans don't stonewall and actually vote in the country's best interest and not their party's interest, then yes Obama and his admin will rightfully be to blame.

Then a question(s) for you. As Bob stated and I did earlier... If corporate profits are at an all time high... companies like Oil, Insurence are breaking profit records in this "horrible recession".... Then I ask you... Why are they not hiring? Why are they laying off people?

Thank you for mentioning this John. People seem to think that businesses have some moral obligation to hire people and create jobs. You're right on in saying that hiring workers is a byproduct of making money.
Bob, I am not sure why businesses are doing well but are still laying people off. It could be as simple as "trimming the fat." Say I own a business making widgets. I employ 10 people. Even though business may be booming, if I can somehow make the same amount of widgets, or more, with 8 people then 2 people would be getting laid off. That's just common sense. Because I did not go into business to hire 10 people, I went into business to make money. It may sound harsh, but that is reality.

Yes arthur, you are 100%raili correct. It also adds validity to what im saying. The whole trickle down, lower taxes, lower epa is a bunch of bs. Unless they increase their profit margins because of an increase of production to where it dictates the hiring of more people they wont. All lowering corporate taxes will do is increase deficit. All lowering epa standards will do is hurt the planet.

Capital is like water; it flows to the low points (ie the area where it will get the highest return) The loss of all the "good middle class jobs" is almost solely attributable to the global market: for a couple of decades there, with the rest of the world too damaged by WWII or too backwards to industrialize, we were the world's manufacturer and any uneducated peasant in the US could get a factory job, or job building the factories and the houses for the factory workers. But the market has found out that uneducated factory workers are a fungible commodity and those in the third world are far more cost effective at making things than are US workers, who are somewhat more productive but histroically MUCH higher paid. Romney certainly understands that dynamic; Obama does not. Hate the game, not the player. Only Nixon could go to China.......

Bob, the difference between you and Juvenal is that you think with your heart, and Juvenal with his head. Anyone with a good education in economics can understand that we now have a global economy. Companies still exist to make a profit (which the Socialists/Democrats think is evil). Materials and labor are the ingredients for the goods and services, and enterprises purchase both at the lowest cost in order to generate a profit. I am not happy that I have to compete with labor in Singapore, Vietnam, or China---but it is a fact. The laws of economics are not ones that BHO can repeal or conveniently change with his Executive Orders.

No one is saying blow up the Rockies.

Ray Blah Blah Blah,
My only frame of reference in the Walmart vs. Costco debate is my parents. They have nothing to do with Walmart/Sam's Club (Mom=Tea Party Republican, Dad=Libertarian) but they do like Costco. I think it might be the mini quiches from Costco. They're pretty yummy.

We are not slaves, no has to work at WalMart. Many WalMart employees like the company. If pay and benefits suck, apply elsewhere. If WalMart cannot meet labor needs they will improve pay and benefits.

Same old nonsence ray.... yet you can never give logical answers.... yes i know no one said blow up Rockies .... was an example. Extreme yes. Explain what opening up the rockies to drilling.... expanding more rigs on the coasts or alaska will do for?

He does have almost four years' experience being President of the United States. That's something.

Bernie Sanders calls himself and indpendent. Most people realize that is code for a communist.

According to Wikipedia, Sanders is a self described Democratic-Socialist.

<< No amount of tax cuts can make it economically feasilble to create jobs here.>>
Well there is also the notion of comparative advantage, so it is possible that the things we do best will create new jobs. A very targeted industrial policy could revive manufacturing, likely for high tech assembly - at least in the right right-to-work states. But, the reality is that in a global economy, unskilled uneducated persons here will fare no better than those in the third world going forward. You can accept and manage that reality, or ignore it and give speeches. Eliminate the tax breaks and you are left with the world's highest corporate tax rate, and the exodus of business from our shores will soon be complete.....

"If you have another way to create jobs here, I'd love to hear it."
Elect Romney, reduce the corporate tax rate, use domestic energy resources to become energy-independent, implement the Fair Tax, return the work-component to welfare, repeal Obamacare, implement term limits for all politicians - Federal & State. Too much government is the problem, not the solution - as the last few years have clearly proven.

Bob, there haven't been communists in this country even back to ....McCarthy??? What is the address of the rock you live under? BHO is a closet communist. Google his two most important mentors (by his own admission!): Frank Marshall Davis and Roberto Unger. He is using the same playbook that he learned from them. WIse up.

I'm sorry, can you remind me again what Obama has done specifically during his presidency that makes him a communist?

Well obviously billable, then Paul Ryan must be a communist that is also an atheist... I mean the same guilt by association with Ryan's public fondness of Ayn Rand must make him so. Logically of course..
However, if Commrade Obama was a closet communist, then by definition, wouldn't all of his public actions in his life be the opposite of "communism"?
I mean that would be like you being a "closet gay" but publicly grabbing my ass. "Not that it's wrong..."

Oh public grab ass sna..............wait what?

Oh not rhetorical questions snap!!!

1)Raising corporate taxes (which is what happens when "loopholes" are eliminated without a corresponding change in rates) will simply cause more companies to move more activity overseas to lower tax jurisdiction = US jobs lost
2) Stricter EPA regulations especally on emissions will make moving factorie, etc to China and third world, where there are effectively no emissions standards = US jobs lost AND more, not less, pollution.
Look, the global market is a bitch. Don't shoot the messenger. Any other questions, CBob?

I need accurate answers

How about you get your facts starigt.... thats about the only thing that is laughable. The raises are 3%,2,2,2 over the years... not 16.
Everyone who has covered this has said the primary issues are not salary. Have your opinion, but please know what you're talking about.

Oh V.S. your facts aren't factual snap!!!!!

I find $71,000 when I google . . .

A communist without a tan.....

So a pale white person is a closet Communist

No, a communist without a tan is a closet communist.

But if they are already a Communist, though pale, how are they in the closet?

Oh "without a tan" is because he's black and "closet Communist" is because he's black and getting reelected?!?! Got it.......Good talk Guru!

But i dont have a tan, and i have never publicly grabbed a mans ass... so am i a "closet gay communist"?

V.S. I'm begging you to stop trying to break the breath holding world record. You brain is in desperate need of oxygen!!!!

( in my best Col Wilhelm klink voice)
Heil von Scheurich!

His FishScam.com web site encourages pregnant women to disregard federal mercury guidelines and eat more albacore tuna.
FACT: The “UnionFacts” are nothing more than distortions and half-truths

The centerpiece of Berman’s anti-worker campaign is a website that purports to show the “facts” on unions, but which offers distortions instead. In posting union staff salaries (which already are publicly available from the U.S. Department of Labor), the website does not distinguish between salaries and travel expenses, inflating salaries so that union field reps who are reimbursed for travel and lodging look like high-paid officials.

While highlighting the fact that there have been "$400 million in labor racketeering fines and civil restitution in the last five years," Berman's outfit ignored that almost all of the penalties in question were being paid by businesses, not unions, violating labor law.

Their ads feature actors speaking as working people, but in fact the group attacks the groups who work for fair wages, safe working conditions, and a better life for hard working Americans. Further, the full-page ad in the Oregonian, with a model posing as a worker sneering at the camera, is just plain mean. People who work for a living deserve better than to be mocked by corporate lobbyists like Berman, who rakes in $10 million a year.

More information on Richard Berman is online at ConsumerDeception.com.

Despite Berman’s denials, his group is in bed with Americans for Limited Government, Grover Norquist’s group that’s pushing Colorado’s TABOR failed spending limit in several states. Unions in all four states that are being attacked by Berman this week – Oregon, Michigan, Nevada and Montana – are fighting the failed Colorado experiment. In Oregon, this is Measure 48.

The American Prospect wrote an excellent expose in which quotes Berman as saying, "Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [advocates'] credibility as spokespersons."

FACT: Berman’s PR machine is notorious for creating front groups to spread distortions and attack consumer and progressive groups.

Berman’s Center for Consumer Freedom has attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control on behalf of alcohol, fast food, and tobacco lobbies.

His American Beverage Institute was set up to fight laws aimed at increasing safety regarding alcohol and drinking/diving laws.

His Employment Policies Institute fights minimum wage increases, especially in low-wage, labor-intensive sectors such as the restaurant industry.

FACT: The Center for Union Facts is a PR facade and is pure fiction

Richard Berman’s Center for Union Facts is reportedly funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fights against unions on worker-friendly laws like the prevailing wage for construction workers, minimum wage increases, and Fair Share Health Care legislation. An anonymous source revealed to the AFL-CIO that, in a meeting of the State Chambers of Commerce National Conference held on Sanibel Island in Florida on January 26, the State Chambers announced they were spending $8 million a year ($2 million a quarter) to launch this anti-union campaign.

FACT: This attack is related to unions’ success in fighting for working families.

With all the mainstream media in the tank for Obama, and doing all they can to get him re-elected, may be the primary reason to vote against Obama. He had 4 years, why not give another guy a chance? Couldn't be any worse.

Remaining the same,heading down a road of destruction is not good either.Me I am not going to be responsible for voting for either.Will not vote for more wars,more taxes,more medical corruption,more invasions of privacy,more laws passed to restrict the citizens rights to bare arms while constantly continuing to bomb other countries and standing up and saying things like we need to invade Cuba,passing 5,000 laws in a single year,signing executive orders to control all natural resources,know what this means? All of your things running to your house get shut off if ever a stupid civil war was to break out here. When is enough enough,when do we say you got the point don't mess with us and we leave them with the knowledge we will flat lad your country.Instead of getting more and more people killed. I will not vote for a war with Iran for blocking off the the Straights of Hormoz for Oil.We know full well the consequences for consistently depending on other countries and crude oil to be the energy for the world when we know there is other options...No Thanks