American Politics during the Obama Presidency

There is a simple way to have your tax done.

The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.

That would save Millions of dollars.

The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439151]The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.

For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439152]There is a simple way to have your tax done.

The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.

That would save Millions of dollars.

The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.[/QUOTE]WT69 tows the party line and continues to spread the inaccurate premise it's the evil rich. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to give the IRS more power, or worse yet just tell the IRS to take what they want in tax?

[URL]http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes[/URL]

Very enlightening article about how much we pay in taxes. Top 10% pay 71% of the taxes and liberals still think they are not taxed enough!

By the way, everyone has lost under Obama.

Obama campaigned in 2008 as the uniter not a divider and his would be the most transparent administration in the history of the US. Yet this man continues to attempt to divide the people by race, class, economics, gender and the list goes on. As far as transparency, his has been the worst since Nixon.

When you see the sign The IRS you are not reading it correctly it really means it's all TheIRS

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8[/URL]

Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439154][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8[/URL]

Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a bunch of left wing clap trap to me REV.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435781]You trot out Warren Buffet. I say he's a self-serving hypocrite. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439150]All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire. [/QUOTE]You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule[/URL].

It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.

[QUOTE=Esten;439157]You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule[/URL].

It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.[/QUOTE]HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS? I believe he's a self serving hypocrite because of his positions on the death tax and taxes on dividends. The "Buffett Rule" may or may not have existed when I wrote that, I don't remember. The death tax, which he supports, enabled him to buy off family businesses on the cheap, because they had to sell in order to pay the tax.

His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital. If there's up to a 43.4% federal income tax on dividends on top of a federal corporate income tax up to 35%, corporations won't pay dividends. They'll keep the money in the corporation. If it's a corporation that's profitable and has need of retained earnings to grow the business, it doesn't matter. However, if it's a company that's not profitable or marginally profitable, it won't create value with the money and should instead pay earnings out in dividends. If the state + federal tax rate on dividends is, say, 50%, then corporate management has the perfect excuse to keep money instead of distributing to shareholders, who could invest in more profitable, higher growth businesses. The end result is that a high tax on dividends on top of a high tax on corporate income reduces economic growth. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY RECOGNIZES, and their tax systems are designed accordingly. You and Warren are alone on this one. The reason you believe what you believe is because you view stock ownership as a way by which the wealthy receive "free money" (your words), instead of an actual ownership position in a business. The reason Buffett believes what he believes is because he's a self serving hypocrite. Without writing a dissertation, higher taxes on dividends are a competitive advantage for Berkshire Hathaway, because unlike its competitors that aren't C corporations, Berkshire gets an 85% reduction in its dividend tax rate. And it is able to efficiently allocate capital within its business, better than most of its shareholders could invest the dividends, if Berkshire were to pay a dividend (and it won't).

I have no problem removing Berkshire Hathaway from the discussion of the Buffett Rule though. You just dwell on it either to confuse other people or confuse yourself. Somebody who's worth $60 billion is not going to give a rat's ass from a personal perspective if his tax is increased $6 million per year. The guy's got 10 years left to live if he's lucky, and $60 million over that period would be 1/1000th of his net worth.

I do respect him for what he plans to do with his estate, piggybacking the Gates Foundation. I do believe he bears more than his fair share of the tax burden indirectly through his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway. That doesn't change that he's a self serving hypocrite. That's not flip flopping, unless you're playing some stupid political spin game.

Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439177]Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.[/QUOTE]

Try this one.

[URL]http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/cliven-bundys-pro-black-pro-mexican-anti-government-statements-completely-discredits-new-york-times/[/URL]

Don B.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439177]Mongers-.

Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now[/URL]

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html[/URL]

Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.[/QUOTE]I don't understand the issue with the turtle, but it sounds like the guy is leasing land from the federal government on the cheap, and then not paying the bill. When leases like his come up for renewal, the BLM should either start leasing land at market rates or sell it to the highest bidders. Trying to make a crony capitalist a poster boy for Libertarianism rings hollow. While I hate to admit it, it sounds like Rand Paul was on the wrong side of this issue.

I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.

Obama should stay out of the matter.

Tres3.

Racism is everywhere in every color. But the reality is that people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists. Somehow, somewhere, they feel they were endow to exploit and dominate.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439185]people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists.[/QUOTE]They do not think they are racists because they are incapable of rational thought. However, no one has to sell something to a racist if they do not want to. As the old radio ad says, "money talks, nobody walks". As for Cliven Bundy, he is guilty of much more serious offenses than racism.

Tres3.

"As for Barkley's thoughts on Sterling, he said during halftime of the Pacers-Hawks game that this is the first big test for NBA commissioner Adam Silver.

"You can't have this guy making statements like that. He has to suspend him and fine him immediately...We can not have an NBA owner discriminating against a league that's...we're a black league," Barkley said.".

I always thought it was a league of the 450 best basketball players.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439183]I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.

Obama should stay out of the matter.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Agreed with all your comments.

The media also seems to be giving the woman a free pass, taping and leaking a private conversation (it appears). WTF?? From a quick check on Google, it looks like she is a classic gold digger. She already got a lot from him, maybe she wanted more. I wouldn't be surprised if she planned the whole thing, to push him to make some of the statements he did. When this guy comes forward with his public statement, I'll be looking to see whether she tried to extort him with the tape.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439158]His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital.[/QUOTE]I'm sure you know far more about Buffett than I do. You said some negative things about him, then some positive, so I couldn't figure out where you stood. Now I understand, you have both views of him.

I must admit, you do have me thinking with this phrase "inefficient allocation of capital". As you know, I've long viewed dividends paid by large corporations as essentially "free money" to wealthy investors and funds that park their cash in the stock. Wall Street parasites, leeching off the American worker. I've had a negative view of activists like Icahn who try to force companies to pay out their cash. What's good for these large shareholders is not always good for the company's workers. But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that [I]some[/I] of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).

So Tiny, it's not often you guys prompt me to re-evaluate my thinking, but I may have to on this one. It might be a choice of the "lesser of two evils". Regardless, the question of what corporations should do with their cash is a separate discussion from the Buffett Rule, which is a simple and common-sense proposal to set a minimum (30%) tax rate for high earners, and not allow the Buffetts and Romneys of the world to get away with lower effective tax rates than middle class workers.

[QUOTE=Esten;439190] But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that [I]some[/I] of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).[/QUOTE]Most dividend, capital gains, and ordinary corporate income is reinvested and will "trickle down" (not the words I would use) to the main street economy. If instead you heavily tax these sources of income, you reduce savings and fixed capital formation. In the long run this means the economy will grow slower and prosperity will be reduced for all. It's the same whether it's an economy, a government, a business or a family. If you don't invest and instead just consume, in the long run you're screwed. Again, if you look at tax systems in almost all first world countries, they tax dividends, capital gains and corporate income at lower rates than the maximum rate on ordinary personal income. These are reasons why.

Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.

Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.

For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439194]Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.

Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.

For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.[/QUOTE]I believe there is still hope for him Doppelganger. I hope he comes out of the desert and achieves true enlightenment on economic issues. And if not I say we duct tape him to a chair and make him watch Stossel reruns for 20 hours straight.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\[/URL]

[URL]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/[/URL]

We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.

And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?

[QUOTE=RevBS;439198][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\[/URL]

[URL]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/[/URL]

We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.

And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?[/QUOTE]RevBS, I read an interview with Jagdish Bhagwatti, the famous economist. He believes technology is the big factor, and globalization is actually positive in that it makes prices of goods more affordable for the poor and middle class.

My question, as you have some sympathy, like I do, for the poor Mexican or El Salvadoran who's trying to feed his family by working in the USA -- how do you square the prosperity that globalization has brought to the poor in places like China, Thailand, etc. with your concern for flight of manufacturing jobs from the USA?

Your sources are biased. Income distribution after income taxes and transfer payments is more equal. I believe the Democrat party promotes inequality through pandering to teachers unions (and depriving children of good educations) and promoting joblessness.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439194]

With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.

For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's obviously the progressives who are out in la la land. This nutcase in Nevada, who was initially supported by such towering conservative heroes as Rand Paul, uses much of the same terminology and rants against the same groups as Jackson and his fascist fan boys (among which you are obviously one of the biggest fan boys). This guy in Nevada, like Jackson and his fascist fan boys believes anybody who gets "free money" is a parasite and that blacks were better off as slaves. This is really the essence of which Jackson and his fascist fan boys are all about; they long for an antebellum South style plantation culture where whites rule as lords of the manor and everybody else is their servant; Jackson and the FFB's want all the money and power, don't want to pay any taxes, and want the rest of the country to live miserable lives of destitution.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/cliven-bundy-interview/index.html

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439193]Most dividend, capital gains, and ordinary corporate income is reinvested and will "trickle down" (not the words I would use) to the main street economy. If instead you heavily tax these sources of income, you reduce savings and fixed capital formation. In the long run this means the economy will grow slower and prosperity will be reduced for all. It's the same whether it's an economy, a government, a business or a family. If you don't invest and instead just consume, in the long run you're screwed. Again, if you look at tax systems in almost all first world countries, they tax dividends, capital gains and corporate income at lower rates than the maximum rate on ordinary personal income. These are reasons why.[/QUOTE]Tiny, we've been doing this "trickle down" experiment ever since Reagan started cutting taxes 3 decades ago. The result? Massive gains for the top 10% (especially the top 1%) and meager gains for everyone else. Put down the textbook and look at the data. There is no problem with savings and capital formation. Big companies and wealthy investors have tons of cash to invest. Only a fraction of it is invested in ways that help Main Street, because returns on such investments are limited by limited opportunities. Hence, their cash is invested in financial instruments with guaranteed returns better than savings accounts or Treasuries. Buffett (again) was right when he said tax hikes won't stop the wealthy from investing. Not as long as those taxed investments are still giving good or better returns.

It seems that "hope" plays a big role in trickle down economics (AKA voodoo economics). But the results are in: helping the rich get richer does little to help the middle class.

I personally think this political thread contains the lowest level of discourse I have ever seen on the web. I do not agree with most of Jackson's politics nor his style of expressing his point of view.

Your hateful personal attack is not appropriate for any public forum. You owe Jackson an apology. Attack the ideas, not the man.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;439209]I personally think this political thread contains the lowest level of discourse I have ever seen on the web. I do not agree with most of Jackson's politics nor his style of expressing his point of view.

Your hateful personal attack is not appropriate for any public forum. You owe Jackson an apology. Attack the ideas, not the man.[/QUOTE]Hi Bob-.

I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.

Thanks,

EAP.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439210]Hi Bob-.

I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.

Thanks,

EAP.[/QUOTE]Quote:

Jackson and his fascist fan boys believes anybody who gets "free money" is a parasite and that blacks were better off as slaves. This is really the essence of which Jackson and his fascist fan boys are all about; they long for an antebellum South style plantation culture where whites rule as lords of the manor and everybody else is their servant; Jackson and the FFB's want all the money and power, don't want to pay any taxes, and want the rest of the country to live miserable lives of destitution.

THIS IS NOT FRIENDLY BANTER. THIS IS HATEFUL. HITLER WROTE THAT JEWS DRANK CHRISTIAN BABY BLOOD, ALSO NOT FRIENDLY BANTER.

DEMOCRATS DRINK CHRISTIAN BABY BLOOD

Good one, thanks MiamiBob!

LMAO. Some welcome comic relief.

'Ol Adolph got "Christian baby blood" mixed up with Mogen David.;)

I have to apologize as I don't remember which board member was complaining about gas prices in California but here is an interesting article on the subject.

While I am sure some on the board would point to the evil oil companies lining their pockets at our expense the real culprit is the EPA.

[URL]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/bureaucratic-gas_634424.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439210]Hi Bob-.

I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.

Thanks,

EAP.[/QUOTE]Well I guess there are a lot of Obama Haters out there according to the latest Washington Post / ABC Poll.

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-shows-democrats-at-risk-in-november-as-obamas-approval-rating-falls/2014/04/28/2a448b04-cf07-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html[/URL]

Since our liberal / progressive friends embraced the poll prior to this one claiming it showed a trend upward for the Democrats / Obamacare / Obama, I wonder if they will embrace this one with the same vigor?

It would appear Jackson's reach is much grater than his detractors have given him credit for. From the numbers in this poll there are a majority of Obama Haters out there.

Here is an interesting definition for Fascism / Fascists:

Fas•cism (noun).

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

So ElAlamoPalermo who are the real Fascists? Sounds a bit like Obama, the Democrats, the IRS, the EPA, the BLM et al to me.

288,000 jobs created in April. Unemployment rate down to 6.3%. Expect the Obama haters to obfuscate with alternate metrics nobody paid any attention to until Obama became president. But this is good data any way you cut it.

I guess the Affordable Care Act isn't such a job-killer. But we knew all along the Republicans were trying to scare and manipulate people. Now that their attack on the ACA has utterly failed, they somehow think that reviving the Benghazi story for the umpteenth time is going to help them politically. Now there's an example of wasted taxpayer money. You seriously can't make this stuff up.

Esten, only you and your liberal / progressive friends are cheering the 6.3% U3 unemployment rate.

288,00 jobs created.

860,000 unemployed fell out of the job market and are no longer counted under U3.

How many more "Victories" like this can the economy stand? Sort of explains the 0.1% growth rate!

Esten, I know you are a Warren Buffett fan, so how do you explain Buffett failing to vote Berkshire Hathaway's stock in the Coca Cola executive pay dispute. Remember Buffett opposed this pay package, yet abstained!

[URL]https://www.google.com/#q=Warren+Buffett+fails+to+vote+coca+cola+Stock&tbm=nws[/url]

I agree some, a very small minority, have rigged the game in their favor through interlocking boards of directors and similar maneuvers for self-enrichment at the stock holder's expense. I don't' believe anyone on Wall Street is smart enough to make multiple millions on "advice".

But Esten you have only one answer to any questions, TAX TAX TAX. Take from the productive and give to the unproductive, MORE MORE MORE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND CONTROL!

President Obama's Socialist-Marxist-Islamic-Communist master plan to destroy the US Economy reached another milestone in April. The USA Treasury Department put a $114,000,000,000 dollar surplus on the books. Federal coffers saw a 7% increase in individual income taxes and payroll taxes, a 15% increase in corporate income taxes, and a 37% increase in money paid to Treasury by the Federal Reserve. Last month, the CBO projected that the 2014 shortfall would decline to 2.8% of gross domestic product — or $492 billion. That is well below the 4.1% — or $680 billion — recorded for fiscal year 2013.

This devastating economic news is just one of many recent disasters resulting from President Obama's un-American fiscal policies. April also saw unemployment fall to 6.3 percent, the stock market hit a record high, consumer spending increased, the US uninsured rate imploded, and finally insurers confirmed Americans are paying their Obamacare premiums.

You need to control yourself. Over exuberance is not tolerated in AP.

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/08/the-five-stages-of-gop-scandal-mongering-a-readers-guide/?hpid=z2[/URL]

Just in case you don't have a mirror or your mirror is cracked, a good look at yourself. I know, I know. It's hard to admit that you are an addict or ideologue of some kind. There are times when Constitution thumping is very similar to Bible thumping. Too much emotional righteousness and too little common sense. And so, nothing gets done.

Getting to the gates of heaven but unable to get in, it must be frustrating. It's time for soul cleansing of some kind. And a dose of humility will perhaps win over Saint Peter at the gate. That is, if you didn't walk over or bump some people off the path on your way there.

It is good to see the deficit below 500B, but we still have much work to do. Check out this blast from the past from CNN. If the Bush years had not squandered our surplus and left the country in a deep recession, we could have been looking at a debt-free nation next year...

Clinton: Pay debt by 2015
June 28,1999
[URL]http://money.cnn.com/1999/06/28/economy/clinton/[/URL]

[QUOTE]
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - President Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.

The president, who plans to unveil a major Medicare reform initiative on Tuesday, said he wants to use the surplus to add decades of solvency to the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are otherwise expected to go broke as the "Baby Boom" generation retires.

"If we maintain our fiscal discipline, using the surplus to pay down the debt and using the savings to strengthen Social Security, America will entirely pay off the national debt by 2015," Clinton told reporters on the White House lawn.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;439342]Check out this blast from the past from CNN. If the Bush years had not squandered our surplus and left the country in a deep recession, we could have been looking at a debt-free nation next year...[/QUOTE]Pull your head out of the sand. When it comes to deficit spending, Obama is Bush on speed.

You forget the deep recession Obama inherited. Federal revenues were slashed and deficit spending was needed. Obama does now share part of the blame, but the situation was thrust upon him from the Bush years. You're fooling yourself if you think it would have been much different under any other president.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439337][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/08/the-five-stages-of-gop-scandal-mongering-a-readers-guide/?hpid=z2[/URL]

Just in case you don't have a mirror or your mirror is cracked, a good look at yourself. I know, I know. It's hard to admit that you are an addict or ideologue of some kind. There are times when Constitution thumping is very similar to Bible thumping. Too much emotional righteousness and too little common sense. And so, nothing gets done.

Getting to the gates of heaven but unable to get in, it must be frustrating. It's time for soul cleansing of some kind. And a dose of humility will perhaps win over Saint Peter at the gate. That is, if you didn't walk over or bump some people off the path on your way there.[/QUOTE]Reverend, There is some irony. Lois Lerner, encouraged by prominent Democrat politicians including President Obama, tried to delay or prevent the exercise of first amendment rights by organizations that she didn't agree with. Now the House of Representatives is trying to abridge her fifth amendment rights. If the House wants her to testify then they should grant her immunity. Otherwise there's no cause to cite her for contempt.

It's interesting that six Democrats voted to hold her in contempt. I don't know what to make of that, unless they think it's something that would help them get re-elected.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439271]The "Darwinian" free market system creates jobs and provides the greatest prosperity for all. [/QUOTE]Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.

[URL]http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html[/URL]

Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.

P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842[/URL]