This afternoon, President Obama gave a brief statement (sans questions from the press, of course) on the state of the American economy and the impending fiscal cliff. He was greeted with the requisite whooping and applause that befits a messiah:

https://twitter.com/tokenbrotha/status/266964679870521346

How utterly appropriate given that our nation’s fiscal and economic health hangs in the balance.

The president announced that he’s invited Congressional leaders to visit the White House for a cliff summit.

Once again, his timing is impeccable:

He’d have invited them sooner, but, well, he’s got to tour Southeast Asia right now.

You understand, don’t you? This trip just can’t wait — even though he claims that his top priorities are boosting jobs and growth:

Yeah, funny that. He failed to address the massive layoffs that are occurring among small businesses and corporations alike now that Obamacare regulations’ stranglehold on business owners will tighten.

So, how does the Lightbringer propose we get the economy back on track? By combining spending cuts with revenue — generated from asking wealthy Americans to pay their “fair share.” In short, tax hikes:

Obama cited John Boehner’s Wednesday speech in which the House Speaker stressed the importance of increasing tax revenue:

Indeed. As Twitchy reported yesterday, Boehner’s remarks were widely misinterpreted as a call for tax hikes. Boehner never did so, but facts are inconvenient to a president with a Leftist agenda.

Obama’s insistence that the fiscal cliff can be averted through tax hikes was accompanied by furious waving of the compromise flag. After all, he’s always shown himself to be in favor of a balanced approach to problem solving:

Aww, come on. He’s serious about it, you guys! He’s even got his pen ready:

He’s just waiting for the House to fall into lockstep. The Senate’s already on board. The same Senate that hasn’t passed a budget since April 9, 2009. Don’t dawdle, Republicans!

He’s got a plan, you see. The rich are going to bleed a little so America can prosper. It’s so simple!

Oh. Well, he hasn’t thought that far ahead. Places to go, people to bow to … you know how it is.

Yeah. We know how it is, all right.

The president won’t rest until his Marxist utopia has become a reality. Voting is no longer the best revenge; class warfare is.

And if we don’t do everything we can to throw a wrench in his agenda, America will lose.

  • http://twitter.com/smferggie SFerggie

    He has to tax the rich. The dems are to stupid and lazy to earn it themselves!!!

    • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco

      I’m just curious…Warren Buffet is a democrat and wrote an Op-Ed basically saying “tax me more”… What say you to one of the richest people on the planet who advocates and encourages this?

      • SideshowJon36

        Point out that he refuses to pay the $1 billion in taxes he owes as it is? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-is-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-back-tax-bill-exactly-about-1-billion/

        • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco

          Perhaps you should read the article before you make a baseless statement and post a link…

          First, and foremost, we’re discussing individual’s taxes, not corporations. Second, other than the misleading headline, the actual article does not say anything about what the company does or doesn’t owe. The company certainly speculates how much it *could* owe, but the discussion between Berkshire Hathaway and the IRS is simply one of tax code compliance and the different interpretations thereof. Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn’t take advantage of the tax codes to their benefit? Are you also wanting to discuss corporate tax rather than individuals tax?

          • SideshowJon36

            Am I suggesting people, including corporations, shouldn’t take advantage of tax codes to their benefit? Of course not. But that’s not what Buffett or his company are doing; he’s refusing to pay taxes they legitimately owe.

            If Buffett believes he’s undertaxed, why is he fighting against paying more taxes? Because it will make his corporation less profitable, may cause him to have to fire employees and/or cut pay/benefits, etc. So it’s a tacit admission that there ARE real world consequences to raising taxes, even on (maybe even especially on) corporations and the mega-wealthy.

          • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco

            Again, you are completely misunderstanding this article if you somehow conclude that he/his company are “refusing” to pay. There are certainly plenty of opinion-based quotes in there, but the facts are simply that they’re in the process of an audit and the number itself is only derived from Berkshire’s *own* accounting that basically says “we may owe up to x much more depending on what the IRS says…” The notion that he/they are “refusing” to pay is simply false and to continue down the hypothetical path of “real-world consequences” is, again, baseless.

          • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco

            Perhaps we can look at what taxes were like over the last hundred years and learn something about the myth of taxes on the rich hurting the economy… http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

  • Teritd

    I’ve seen and heard this before.

  • walterc

    His first comment to Boehner “I Won, Again, get over it.” Now how shall we get this spending under control?

    • http://www.facebook.com/tom.ellis.946179 Tom Ellis

      First step is to dump boehner and replace him wiht someone with a spine

      • Ironhawk86

        Personally, I’d settle for leaving Boner in a room with Col. West for 15 minutes. You thought you saw him cry before, you aint seen nothing yet.

        • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

          *school girl giggle* Boner.

          I wish Col. West was our President.

          • Ironhawk86

            You like crying Boner, huh? :)

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Hey it’s a funny word. 😛

          • Ironhawk86

            You dirty girl, you 😉

  • Marcy Cook

    Small man; small ideas.

  • HannahJK

    Maybe he could solve the debt/economic problems the way he brought us world peace. Get the press to stop reporting that there are problems.
    War & violence & unrest that isn’t reported = peace!

    • RightThinking1

      Or, just issue an Executive Order

  • Fire and Adjust!

    I can’t figure out which “deja vu” situation is more frightening………the first few months of Obama’s 2nd term already shaping up to look like the first few months of his 1st term, or the last 100 years looking oddly similar to the last 100 years immediately preceding 476AD

    • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Or the first few years of 1930.

      • nc

        Especially the Messengers (MSM) – nothing would be possible without them.

  • Randal Redder

    Just economics 101. Taking money from a productive sector that creates goods and services people voluntarily exchange and giving it to an unproductive sector that creates goods and services that people don’t voluntarily exchange is not going to work. The businesses that make money have the best ability to create capital and grow to make our lives better. Taking that money and giving it to people unable to create wealth and productivity will fail, like it always has. Government never gets a big return on the dollars it takes. Why would anyone think taking money from ANYONE, let alone the rich, the poor, the middle class, will cause the economy to boom? The best way to grow jobs and businesses is to let businesses grow their business will their own capital. Just common sense.

    • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

      wrong. the biggest deficits have been created by tax cuts for the rich. economy booms by enabling middle class to spend money, so tax cutting the middle class/poor. Reagan himself said it is unethical and counterproductive to have millionaires paying less than people of ordinary financial background. Letting the rich getting richer doesn’t benefit the overall economy, it only makes the deficit bigger. trickle down economics have been proven wrong by every self -respecting economist. tax cuts for the rich has fueled the dot com bubble and the housing bubble. Clinton tamed the deficit, did a tax hike when he took office, and the economy started growing again after the recession. so no, eliminating taxes with no economical explanation, but as a religious commandment, doesn’t help. tax cutting is an economical tool, not an ideology. When you let ideology take over, everything goes to hell: look at communism

      • Abigail

        I think your last three words completely ruined your argument. Alrighty, let us see where the next 2 years gets us, and then the 2 years after that. Let’s see where that taxing and spending gets us. WAIT! Have you seen what’s happening in France? Japan? Greece? Just saying.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          I was referring to the fact that if you consider economics as something that can be regulated by ideology, you are doomed to fail. so the parallel between USSR with their five year plans and the ideology of tax cutting the rich is now clearer I hope. by the way I am from europe, the problems we’re in now are not because of excess taxing. On the contrary; deregulation of banking industry has totally destroyed the balance of the financial system, forcing governments to bail them out or otherwise everybody would lose their savings. This has increased gov debt.

      • TexSizzle

        Wrong. The biggest deficits have been created by spending without regard for the fact that there is not enough money for everything government wants to do, and prioritizing, or even better, just doing what government is constitutionally authorized to do and no more.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          indeed, spending what isn’t there. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been given essentially with borrowed money by bush administration for instance, i’m talking billions. obama has spent as well too much i think, but on most occasions he had no choice. Damage control for the worst crisis mankind has ever seen. the most important will be to see what happens the next 4 years; then we will be able to judge his merit without the interference of a financial meltdown.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Horrible things happened during Bush’s Administration that he couldn’t help yet he spent $4.8T in 8 years. Obama has spent $6T in 4 years! Now you may use the whole “but Bush’s policies!” Obama could have repealed nearly any of Bush’s policies since he had a Democratic House and Senate, but didn’t. And yes Obama could have skimmed back his spending by a hell of a lot.

          • SpinMeNot

            No he could have helped. He could have said No – veto, its there, make them overturn it, make them responsible.

            Then drop HE on their position and send in the boots. Bush could have been a great President, he got lost somewhere. I’d give my last good knee for Johnny Cash with a economics degree.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Too bad there’s no such thing as a time machine.

          • SpinMeNot

            I hear ya sister, I hear ya.

          • RightThinking1

            The ‘interference’ of a finacial meltdown? The fingerprints of the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama are all over the financial meltdown, and they are heaping coals on it.

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            ok explain I would like to know where the democrats are to blame. not that I don’t believe you, I’m just curious because I haven’t heard that remark yet

          • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

            Green jobs not created….”shovel ready” jobs not even addressed…..Stimulus spent on Green companies that did nothing to help produce jobs or even green energy at that. Just that alone has cost us a trillion dollars. Yes, the democrats are at blame, Emmanuel. You stated you are European. If you aren’t here in America then you are obviously on the outside looking in and have no clue what we are experiencing. Our hard earned tax dollars are going to companies/programs that appeal to lazy people who don’t want to work, and to cronies of the White House. It isn’t helping anyone else.

          • Robin Nelson-Herlihy

            Emmanuel,
            I don’t quite buy your argument about Obama having no choice about spending well too much. He allowed many companies billions of dollars that did nothing for anyone but the companies. So many green jobs were suppose to be created, yet they weren’t. But many of these Green companies took bailout stimulus money and then went bankrupt. Obama stole our money for his radical agendas. And the next four years we will see the same things happen. He will increase taxes and give our hard earned money to things that do not help the American people prosper. We are also in more trouble with Obamacare, as companies clearly can’t comply to the Obamacare bill. They are now laying off people. When the businesses have to downsize, then so does the workforce and the ability for more tax dollars to be collected. So are we to now tax the rich even more, which now, as of yesterday includes the middle class, until they are bleeding out their eyeballs? I’m sorry, but 250k/year income is not near being rich. This will not work.

      • SpinMeNot

        My god, another delusional liberal taking quotes and applying them to prove points that are cannot be supported. Rich people don’t pay less on money they make, they simply find ways to hide that income. For example, Warren Buffet draws no salary, yet makes more than Mitt in investment dividends, that since he was already fairly taxed on the money that purchased the investments, pays the legally reduced rate (not fully income rates, something like 15%, I don’t know, I have to work for a living and then spend my time schooling people like you. On the other hand, he pays his secretary a lavish salary (more than twice mine) and therefore she pays more percentage wise than Mr. Buffet, yet much less total.

        See, it is simple if you simply learn to speak the truth. The tax cuts for the rich did not cause the dot-com bubble. Stupid investors that gave money to punks with brains and no financial sense that subsiidized pointless perks for pretty boys and girls that never did dick for anybody else other than themselves caused the dot-com bubble.

        Let me drop a rolling barrage on your candy ass. Next you will move onto the housing crisis. That was caused by cleptocrats in both parties feeling like equality of outcome was more important than equality of opportunity, and private banks to make loans that should have never been made. This forced an artificial bubble into the market, which eventually had to break, just like the dot-com bubble because surface tension always win.

        Go ahead — bring up the most financial crisis, blame it on insufficient regulation rather than evil men and women with no sense of integrity or belief in the supreme power of God.

        Letting people produce, guided by the principles of our founding fathers does produce opportunity for all.

        You are a card carrying member of the communistsocialist/entitilement crowd. You try to pretend you aren’t but I see you .. I see you for the liar and coward you are.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          You make a mistake already in your second sentence. Rich people don’t pay less on money they make, they simply find ways to hide that income. that’s essentially the same thing: dodging taxes. because initially it would be indeed fair to reduce taxes on money you make from investments, since you presumably payed the full amount when you purchased your investment. Buffet however almost exclusively makes money off dividends from re-investing previous dividend gains. it becomes a vicious circle. So in the end, the money he makes does not come from being economically productive, but from capital. Which is ok, but should in my opinion be evenly taxed or even more taxed than the money you and I make. It would also make people think twice before they make investments and prevent insane speculation.

          Secondly, indeed the crisis is due to people with no integrity: like goldman sachs, knowingly shorting on ailing businesses, because they would make money off their downfall. Bankers lending money to poor people, a high risk operation which they then fraudulently sold to other banks (Mortgage backed Securities) This spread the poisonous sub prime loans world wide. This all could happen because the government let it happen. because bankers didn’t want control. Because they all wanted to be investment bankers with honest savings money that wasn’t theirs.

          thirdly, I am not a communist or socialist. I would like you to point out where I lie. I have an opinion, which I sincerely believe to be correct. If you can prove otherwise, I will stand corrected. Lying is deliberately distorting the truth. I do not see the benefit in that. And a coward? why, because I have the nerve to dissent? the USA was founded by people who were not allowed to dissent with the dictatorships in Europe, that’s why the Puritans fled England on the Mayflower. the founding fathers guaranteed everybody would have the right to have an opinion and voice it. It’s in the constitution. t So don’t blame me for not agreeing with you.

          • SpinMeNot

            You don’t understand the way things work. They’ve paid the taxes at full rates on the money they invest then they pay more. No salary lower rate. Its not the same thing. And as if BHO, you and everybody else doesn’t do everything they can to avoid giving money to people that are just going to waste.

            You keep talking about preventing and regulating .. you are talking about your belief you are smarter and better qualified to decide what I get do with my money than I am. That is called tyranny, not liberty. I will damn well guarantee you that you little man are incapable of taking away the liberty of old guy that is tired of useless communists like yourself trying to tell me you know more than I do about what is good for me.

            The didn’t want to get anything honestly — they were bad people enabled by other bad people. You will never punish me for the sins of other.

            Yeah you have a right to an opinion. I have the right to continue to shoot holes in that opinion and show you to the little troll that you are.

            Want me to sing soft kitty to you?

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            i’m not talking about salaries. yes they paid full rates on the money the first time they invest, but when they re-invest the profit and then generate new profit, and re-invest it again…the rate on those profits is lower than the income tax. that’s unfair to people who pay the full rate income tax every time, because they receive a salary and not dividends from some massive fortune. the thing about taxes is that it isn’t a judgment: nobody is saying the government takes a part of your earned money because “they know better”. It is a system to pool the money for projects that in theory benefit the whole of society, and are needed to fund big institutions like the military. It provides a constant amount of funds that is predictable, necessary for any long term commitment, like having a military. you can debate if taxes are too high, or misused, or they tax the wrong things, but you can’t say taxes are about me or the government saying that they are better qualified to determine the application of your money. It is a necessity in any form of civilization to have a system for pooling money and uniting purchasing and spending power

          • SpinMeNot

            Why is it unfair? They’ve paid tax on that money time and time again.

            What is unfair is that some people pay no tax, and get to decide how the taxes of others are spent. That is unfair.

            You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Get back to us when you’re 60 or so, and have some experience, because right now I hear the annoying drone of a baby that doesn’t like being told “No, you are wrong.”

            And I never said taxes weren’t necessary, you seem to be getting more delusional as the night goes on, stop huffing paint. Taxes should not be used to pay for things like snacks on Amtrak lines or Solyndra. taxes should be used to build roads, hospitals and parks. Taxes should be used ot promote the common defense, not pay for fat lazy SEIU employees to work 4 hours a day and surf porn using infrastructure that yet requires yet more taxes.

            Son, all this dancing seems to be making you tired. do you need a juice box?

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            Ok i’m glad we agree taxes are necessary, I concluded otherwise from your previous comment. other than that, why is it unfair: because they pay less tax than people who make less money. Rich people currently pay less than their fair share. Reagan said that as well.:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA

          • SpinMeNot

            No because they are getting both reward and privilege for no contribution. The very definition of unfair.

            You don’t contribute, I’ll feed you, but you don’t get a say in how my money is spent.

            Just look at the jubilation of the BHO crowd .. “I don’t have to worry about gas, I don’t have to worry about a house, I don’t have to worry about a phone, give me some of that free money.”

            You do understand that fair is a simple term for a mutually equitable interaction or exchange. If somebody gets something, but gives nothing. That is never fair.

            As far as I’m concerned, lets bring back the TVA an other programs. Want a check, do a bit of work. period.

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            I agree if you are unemployed for a long time (not due to causes beyond your control) you should work. I have to go now, anyhow good to have discussion about the fundamentals instead of the daily hate-garbage that is thrown around..I thank you for that. Next time though do not refer to people you don’t know as paint sniffers, cowards or liars. Even if you think my opinions are wrong.

          • SpinMeNot

            I know your type all too well, I spent half my life protecting you. You are the one that knows not about what you speak.

          • SpinMeNot

            Did I ever say that Mr. Reagan was somehow as omniscient as God? Mr. Reagan was wrong on many things, but he had the balls to never compromise on his basic principles.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Emmanuel is not American.

          • SpinMeNot

            Ms. Sunderland, thank you. I finally figured that out, took me a while to get it out of her, but she is Flemisch. She represents them and herself, rather poorly.

      • RightThinking1

        You seem to have forgotten that Gingrich et al put the brakes on Clinton’s spending, and it was THAT which brought the deficit under control. Moreover, there simply aren’t enough ‘wealthy’ to reduce the rate of deficit spending, even if 100% of their income was paid in tax.

        I am amused by the fact that for 8 years or so, the Bush tax cuts were only ‘for the rich’, and yet now that they are about to expire we learn that the middle class (and for some reason unmentioned, lower class tax payers) will have an untenable tax increase.

        I say, let the Bush cuts expire…, share the misery, hasten the inevitable collapse, which WILL come unless spending on frivolous ‘feel good’ programs are eliminated. Of course, that won’t recoup the insane $1 TRILLION peed down the stimulus rabbit hole.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          agreed that taxing the wealthy isn’t going to solve all problems. But it is a start. the bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, but to disguise that fact he also gave them to middleclass people, to a lesser extent. That’s why they are mad. and I don’t agree with your comment about gingrich: he created more tax cuts which accelerated spending. and more than half of each tax dollar spent through this scheme went to the top 1%

          • RightThinking1

            I weary of the litany about Bush’s tax cuts benefiting ‘the rich’. I am neither Rep or Dem, and thus do not carry the water for anyone, nor do I feel any obligation to defend Bush. I DO prefer to look at the hard data when assessing any circumstance, and that is what I did long ago with the tax cuts.

            There was a big splash when the CBO issued it’s data regarding those cuts, and the Dems were all over it, using the data to declare that ‘the rich’ benefitted more than others.

            The problem is, almost any data can be used to bolster a particular biased perspective. A typical analysis may be found here, see Table 1:

            http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2116

            Golly. It really does look like the lower income groups lost out, no? Well, the devil is in the details. Sadly I can not post here graphical data, so I’ll have to go at it piecemeal with just a few facts.

            There just isn’t room here to post all of the numbers, so let’s just consider the extremes, though the pattern applies across the board.

            It appears that lower 20% income class had tax rates cut by a puny 1.5%. What was the effect of that? In fact, in 2000 there were roughly 29 million tax returns that owed NO tax, 4 years later, that number skyrocketed to 43 million. Also absent from the referenced data is the fact that low income tax credits ballooned. Notice that the CBO report only mentions differences in *rates* and hypothetical incomes. It does not refer at all to the *real* change in income for the lower 20%. What was that change? Well, thats easy, as a consequence of tax credits the lower 20% of earners (who, BTW, were already actually paying *negative* taxes, i.e., were *receiving* tax credits) received even higher tax credits. In fact, that figure went from -4.3% to -5.7%. To take another perspective, the income tax ‘burden’ on the lower 20% went *down* by 1.1%.

            Now let’s look at the upper 20%. The CBO data show that the income tax reduction for the upper 20% was reduced by 3%. Horrors! But what was the net consequence of shift in tax burden? That’s easy, it went UP. After the cuts, the income tax burden for the upper 20% went from 78.4% to 82.1%. Which is to say that while the tax burden shifted *down* by 1.1% for low income earners, it went UP by 3.8% for upper income earners.

            I reiterate here, I like to look at the data, not at politically-driven opinion pieces. Any time an honest person sees/hears somone say ‘the Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the rich’, then you know that they are engaged in politically-driven cant, or are simply ignorant. Neither is very becoming, and neither is an objective assessment.

            All of the above is why the Dems will be in a panic about allowing the tax cuts to expire. After years of chanting that the Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the rich, they are now trapped by the ugly fact of their hypocrisy. The simple truth is, allowing the tax cuts to expire will be far more damaging (as it affects tax burden) to middle/low earners than to the rich. I invite *anyone* to demonstrate that ‘the rich’ have not borne a greater tax burden under the cuts.

        • Ironhawk86

          “You seem to have forgotten that Gingrich et al put the brakes on
          Clinton’s spending, and it was THAT which brought the deficit under
          control”

          Sorry but this is a myth that needs to be put to bed. The two of them just cooked the books to make it look like the debt was under control until the Government Accounting Standards Board undid their little fraud conveniently just as the two of them were leaving office

    • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

      by the way, in response to your statement that the best way to grow jobs is letting businesses grow and their capital as well? Also wrong. Look up the “Jobs creation Act” by G.W. Bush, which led to corporations use 92% of the money they got for top executive payouts and shareholder dividends. what they got was not used to create jobs or invested in factories. My point is: businesses are concerned with making money for their shareholders, which is fine. But that means government is the only one protecting the public interest. sometimes they can by cutting tax, but now is definitely the time to rebalance the budget and the tax code: otherwise long term growth will be jeopardised.

      • SpinMeNot

        No that act did not lead the corporations to pay lavish salaries for no results. The greed and ignorance of men did that. Nothing in that bill required any company to pay any executive any amount of money. But of course, you must restrict all through more government and more regulation because you are too full of your lack of anything to realize that you are crazy. If you think the democrats, or for that matter any career politician is out to protect the people, your are a threat to yourself and others. And with regards to government pencil pushers, don’t make me laugh.

        There is no rebalance there is reduce. There is no change to the tax code, there is replace the tax code. every pays the same percentage, no more no less, no exemptions. If you don’t pay in, you don’t get a vote. Its that simple. That will fix things.

        For every lie you tell, I will be there. Tell your friends, I’m an equal opportunity debunker.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          i didn’t say the bill required that, I said the bill provided the opportunity for them to do that. and i’m not saying government is all good, i just hope they will and if not we can hold them accountable through the rule of law or vote them away. the government is sworn to respect our rights through a system of laws, like the constitution. I don’t see any constitutions of corporations to protect the people. And that’s normal, that’s not their job.

          • SpinMeNot

            Liar! you did say that, you said that GW Bush passed the law that caused corporations to pay lavish salaries and lavish dividends. Have you been nibbling on lead paint chips?

            You want to hold government responsible. Hold BHO responsible for Benghazi. Hold BHO responsible for the deaths of border patrol. Hold Mr. Holder (jeebus, did I just say that ..) responsible for allowing voter fraud to go unchecked.

            You really need to be more careful .. you don’t know what the hell you’ve grabbed onto …

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            i quote myself: ” Look up the “Jobs creation Act” by G.W. Bush, which led to corporations use 92% of the money they got for top executive payouts and shareholder dividends.” the wording “which led to corporations use 92%…” means they abused the opportunity the bill gave them. I dind’t say the bill obliged them to do that, that would be absurd . It states a causation (or how do you say that in english) not a requirement.

            I will hold the government and Obama accountable if it is proven that it is directly their fault or because of their wrongdoing or neglect. something which is very difficult as you may know, to establish that legally.

          • SpinMeNot

            Which led to corporations? Look up the definition of the word lead dipstick. It didn’t lead, the act was passed, bad people did bad things. You don’t understand correlation vs. causality. The result you claim cannot be proven to have a causal relationship to a the law being passed, only a temporal relationship.

            I realize that logic is hard with a public education and liberal arts degree, but do try to at least put up an argument that I have to work to prove insufficient.

            Join the debate club, get a puppy, something …

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            English is not my native language. So can we stop the hair splitting, you know what I meant. And yes there is a correlation, this is not a coincidence. I can prove it as well: because before the act, it was illegal for corporations to bring off shore money back at the reduced rate stated in the bill. When the act was passed, corporations used it to their advantage. they used the tax break to get the money back they parked on off shore fiscal paradises at a very low price. (thanks to deregulation of the bush administration-I can prove that too if you want) . The original idea was that they would use that money to create jobs, build factories, but they didn’t. All that proves tax cuts for the rich don’t always work. and I had very good marks for logic by the way.

          • SpinMeNot

            No we cannot stop the hair splitting. You can’t hide behind behind English is not your native language. Don’t post trash on an English language site and expect to be cut slack.

            Are you even a citizen of the united states, or just some pansy ass that has come here to take stuff from those that paid for it?

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            it’s not trash, I never attacked people, only their arguments. You however do. secondly, the hair splitting was about a language issue, not the core of the discussion. It was a misunderstanding.
            And no I’m not a resident of the US, I live abroad, but this is the internet, free to all, and this issue concerns everybody.

          • SpinMeNot

            You never attacked an argument, you told half truths, neglected basic facts, lied and failed to be even to defend those lies.

            Let me guess, french? belgian? Should have let the Nazis keep you. you don’t live here, you have no clue what you are talking about and you claim this concerns you. What concerns you is that if this country goes tits up, you guys are going to have to deal with Vladimir and the Muslim Hordes on your own and like all cowards you hide behind words an brave Americans.

            Go get a puppy if you want to be accepted when you are so obviously wrong. You’ll get no quarter here.

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            i do have a clue, I lived in your country. I have family who are americans, my uncle served in your military. He is a desert storm veteran. and yes it concerns me because i’m concerned about my family in the US and I’m concerned because what happens in America impacts the whole world.
            you spit on the sacrifice your countrymen made for the rescue of democracy in WWII, the same democracy that guarantees you the right to speak out and post your vile comments.
            secondly I came up with facts that you can look up, a properly structured argument and you never went beyond ordinary name calling and spewing hate.

          • SpinMeNot

            Oh, and your professors were apparently morons as well if they gave you good marks. you logic sucks, you’ve got a sucking chest wound and aren’t smart enough to realize it.

          • SpinMeNot

            Wait I just re-read this. A law is passed, and you expect somebody to not take advantage of it? Moral men and women need naught but God’s love and grace. A law tells people what they can do. If you tell that its ok for me to park my car on the grass, and there is no place else to park, that is where I am going to park. If the laws say I can’t I won’t park there.

            You do understand that doing something that is allowed by the law of men is all most people want this day. You are looking for people to follow God’s Law, but you can’t kick him out of your government, country and heart, and expect people to act morally. Its not possible.

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            no I expect the law isn’t passed in the first place. that is my criticism. The fact that immoral corporations used it to their advantage doesn’t surprise me

          • SpinMeNot

            We’ve covered this already — nothing in that law had a causal effect on the salaries paid to C-Level executives or dividends paid to investors. Your problem is that I’ve proven already, you don’t understand economics, you don’t understand what socialism is and that every member nation of the EU participates in a socialist economic cooperative.

            The greedy bastards asked for more then they deserved, the stupid bastards gave it to them. When the greedy bastards turned out to be undeserving of their lavish salaries, their corporations had less money to invest, and be able to pay dividends to their investors. If they didn’t pay the dividends, the investors would take their money back, and the company would close. And because morality is not ethics, ethics told them it was ok to do something immoral.

            Its not the law you stupid little socialist, its the amoral men and women like you that don’t believe in something larger than their own overinflated sense of self worth and do bad things because it is easier than being an adult.

            Sorry, and now for the obligatory, do try to keep up.

  • Socal71

    You want to stop the fiscal cliff… don’t pay your taxes. What are they going to do arrest 200 million people? The other 100 plus million are liberal and don’t pay taxes anyway.

    Americans have become a land of the lazy, the land of the iPad… OWS was lame, you don’t even need to leave your home to beat the government. Stop paying taxes and they will shut down. No need for violence, just cut them off. It’s our country.

    • lcky9

      sorry I have been saying that for YEARS.. we don’t even have to NOT pay taxes.. we can take a 3 day vacation without pay (no sick days or vacation days to cover this,, remember you will pay less in taxes by doing so on your paycheck so you WON’T be losing as much as you think).. put a sign in the small businesses windows saying closed to avoid paying taxes for 3 days ,, don’t buy GAS,,FOOD.. ETC for those 3 days just stay home .. a good thing to do for a winter snow day ….and SIT and WATCH what happens with 3 days lost revenue.. loss of sales taxes alone would make them yell.. when LOCALS yell they yell at D.C…. anyone that is NOT paying taxes anyway will still NOT make up 10% of their losses..

  • Steve_J

    Seriously, what world does Obama live in?

    • SwTk

      The Obamanation where all the stars tweet and spew freedom and peace for all, while they live in their cribs, looking at four to six 60” flat screens and wondering which car to drive today. “Is it Tuesday? Oh yea, the Escalade” And all the impressionable liberal children’s, of all ages, follow all their illiterate tweetings and spewings like it was manna from… But I digress. We have a nation of followers and hands out seekers. Not for a hand up, but for more hand outs. Vaginas are breathing and peeps get to keeps thay food stamps. That will be the legacy.

    • RightThinking1

      A different world, where he has been coddled, protected, and provided for his entire life.

      • lcky9

        he’s just like those that voted for him,, only notice OBAMA lives and will continue to live MUCH HIGHER about the serfs he controls..

    • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

      Our Hell.

  • 1MHD

    I have been hearing this term “Fair Share” for…oh, I don’t know fore ever, but the things no one has ever explained to me is 1. How much is a “fair share”? 2. Who decides what that amount is? 3. A fair share implies EVERYBODY is paying something, but that just isn’t true now is it, just ask the 47% who receive but never give. What is their fair share? Seems the ones always demanding someone else pay their fair share, never pay a share (either fair or unfair) at all.

    • Michelle

      My feelings exactly. Pretty fed up with this “fair share” nonsense when using it as a reason to go after the rich. Fair share is laughable – to me it means ALL people of working age and ability to pay taxes. What share is the welfare mother paying who is having kid after kid she can’t afford, but is raising them on tax payer money? She’s paying nothing, but taking more and more. She’s not paying her fair share, so what right do we have to demand those paying also pay more? I pay a higher earned income % than does Barry Obama, and he’s a millionaire. Is THAT fair?

    • nc

      Ok, you asked, I’ll explain. Libbies own the language so only they can define the terms. And if they decide to change the definitions at some point, well it’s your responsibility to keep up. Also, if they want to keep things vague, they will, so just shut up you greedy racist.

      Did that about cover it?

    • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

      I tell the libs I talk to anything over 50K is too much income.
      they never like that.

      the definition of fair is a small amount higher than what they expect to earn.

    • lcky9

      and the men and women calling for it DEPEND on US for their pay.. and OBAMA hasn’t paid a bill for housing or much else so what does he care..

  • Streetiebird

    A balanced approach!!! He must be INSANE!!!! How could you try to raise money to reduce the deficit when we’re trying to reduce the deficit?!?!? It’s crazy!!

    • http://twitter.com/yahneverknowCB yahneverknow

      yes.

    • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Shit-fer-brains is back….

      • Streetiebird

        Yeah you are! Hey Ice :)

        • nc

          Did he give you permission to call him by his first name?

          • Streetiebird

            Yes, by responding with stupid insults and name-calling to a whole host of my comments. Also for telling me to kill myself.

        • Liberal Hater

          So sad. The dumbfuck isn’t even self aware enough to know when it’s being talked about.

    • Maria Seeger

      This is the man you voted into office and have been telling people that you won. How dare you call him insane? Oh wait, you must have been talking about John Boehner, you couldn’t possibly be talking about President Obama.

    • Ironhawk86

      Yeah, take all those greedy rich people’s money and sustain the entitlement spending patterns for a few months. Hooray for balance.

      • Streetiebird

        Yeah, instead we should have followed Romney’s plan of gutting the federal government via $5 trillion in reduced revenue, handing FEMA over to the states, turning Mediacare into coupons, and building more submarines the pentagon didn’t ask for. That would have helped our bottom line! Oh wait, what’s the opposite of helping?

        • Terry

          Streetie, Romney NEVER had a plan to “gut” the gov’t by reducing revenues by $5 trillion. Please tell me you understand that if more people are working, and thus paying taxes, that revenue will go UP? Also know his proposed tax code changes did keep rates low, for everyone, but closed out loopholes for the rich. It was a ‘revenue neutral’ position, until you add in new tax payers by getting the 23 Million who aren’t currently working, back to work. FEMA does belong with the states, just look at Staten Island… I wish I could opt out of Medicare when I get to 65. A coupon for premiums would be nice, cause I already know I’m going to have to buy my own insurance. No docs will treat medicare patients with the pittance they are about to be paid after Obamacare guts $760 Billion from it. The Pentagon DOES want more ships. Just curious, what flavor is your kool-aid?

          • Streetiebird

            You’re precious! :) If you cut $5 trillion in taxes, the revenue will go up! It’s like magic!

          • SpinMeNot

            Street, don’t make me start again. I’m done being nice to you. To BHO and his crowd, you are a useful idiot. To me, you are a brat that will receive no quarter, no tolerance.

            You know that you can’t put an argument together I can’t take apart.

          • Streetiebird

            You were never nice to me :) First comment you called me a moron, your memory may be failing.

          • SpinMeNot

            Well, buckle up troglodyte because if you post lies, half true and liberal progressive clap trap and I see it, I’ll unload enough HE into your LZ to make you think its judgement day.

          • Streetiebird

            Very kind, as always.

          • Liberal Hater

            Gosh, it must suck to be a blithering idiot.

          • Terry

            Bless your heart Streetie, you bought into a big Obama lie. Romney never proposed cutting taxes by $5 trillion. In fact, he didn’t propose to cut any taxes, just a change in the tax code that lowered tax rates and closed out loopholes (think deductions). And FYI, the Bush tax cuts? They DID increase money coming in to the gov’t (aka revenue) because employers had more money to hire people, thus increasing the number of tax payers. Same thing happened when JFK and Ronald Reagan cut taxes. Obama’s plan to ‘tax the rich’ won’t increase revenues. When the gov’t confiscates too much of what one earns, the earner no longer has incentive to do any earning. Are you are aware that if Obama took every penny from those who have more than $1 million it wouldn’t keep the government running for more than a few months, max? Think about it, how much money does the richest person in the US have? 30 billion? Obama has borrowed more than $1 Trillion every year he has been in office. We can’t say he went over budget, because the asshat Democrat Senate leader won’t bring a budget up for a vote. (except Obama’s which got ZERO votes, even Reid didn’t vote for it) Obamacare is loaded with new taxes on medical device makers and any employer with more than 50 full time employees. Guess what? Med device makers are moving their business overseas businesses are planning to cap employee hours at 28/week so as not to have the requisite number of ‘full time’ employees. Throwing hundreds of thousands of US citizens into poverty because of increased taxes, and you think that will increase revenues? Get a clue. If you have a job, I wish you good luck in retaining it after the first of the year.

          • Streetiebird

            LOL!!!!! What about the proposed tax cuts? You voted for a guy without even knowing what he was talking about :) Not that I’m surprised.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Streetiebird is merely a troll and nothing more. It’s best to ignore it since it doesn’t know how the government works.

        • Ironhawk86

          God, IF ONLY that were true. A govt operating within the boundaries of the Constitution would just be bitchin’

        • Liberal Hater

          Damn you are stuck on fucking stupid. You truly can’t process facts.

          • Streetiebird

            Pure class.

  • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

    Wonder if I can get a job working as an English interpreter in Russia.

    • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

      Da
      just learn the work for flexible and you’ll be ok :)

  • Ironhawk86

    Hey BO, if you want to tax the rich so damn much, how about doing it to the people who supported YOU for a change. They obviously like your governance, so maybe they want to pay their fair share instead of being on the take like Buffett, Soros, Immelt, Schmidt, Lewis, Pickens, and all those sleazy Hollywood producers. Hell, you don’t even have to raise taxes on them to prove your point. Just stop the massive flow of corporate welfare and government favoritism to them for a week, and my opinion of you will skyrocket. Not exactly holding my breath though.

    • RightThinking1

      Thus my inclination to allow the Bush taxcuts to expire. Once the 50% that voted for O begin to pay the taxes, and become victims of the consequent economic/jobs contraction, they may actually begin to get the idea. I’m doubtful…, but maybe.

      • Ironhawk86

        Unfortunately, you’re making the same mistake as the Paulbots who think our foreign policy is what makes muslims angry at us: attributing a reason-based thought process to a group of people incapable of reason.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          funny, I was thinking the same thing about conservatives. I suggest you read my comments and the responses to them, maybe you will see the “incapable of reason” works both ways..

          • Ironhawk86

            Fuck off, dipshit.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            Typical international Liberal.

  • Grumpa Grumpus

    NEWS ITEM:
    Obama EO confiscates all private property over $100k.

    Finds it’s enough to cover next three vacations for The First Wookie™

  • Grumpa Grumpus

    Guys you’re giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    He’s trying to crash the system, folks.

    At some point, it will become obvious even to the “47%”.

    You might expect, at that point, that seeing how they’ll simply have to be liquidated, they’ll resist— I mean, I once thought so.

    In this election, we’ve watched seemingly almost the entire black community fall in lockstep again!

    In effect they’ve said “42% unemployment caused by The Obamassiah’s policies? Well, he’s BLACK, and that’s the most important thing! — Besides! Screw the children! We’re abortin’ ourselves into oblivion anyway!”

    After watching The Obamassiah pull this off, I think he’ll be able to get the “47%” to dance, singing, to their own liquidation… with a brand new Obamaphone, too!

  • $30423294

    We’re entering the dangerous phase of socialism.

    At first, the leader promises that his brilliant theories will save the economy and the empire.

    Obviously, socialists are idiots and their theories fail.

    Now comes the second stage. The theory can’t be wrong because the dictator can’t be wrong.

    Cognitive dissonance alone proves that the REAL problem is the bloodsuckers.

    In the 1930s Germany the bloodsuckers were the Jews.

    In 2012 America the bloodsuckers are the job creators.

    Did ya notice how the Democrats moaned about the job creators laying off workers?

    They’re laying the groundwork. It’s OUR fault.

  • Junie3

    It’s time for pitch forks and torches.

  • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

    When all the rich are no longer rich, the upper middle class are next. When they are no longer upper middle class, he’ll go after the middle class, and so on until he raises taxes on those in poverty.

    • SpinMeNot

      Your logical is indisputable — and when the poor can’t pay anything, we will be Greece and millions will die from starvation, disease, and violence.

      I’m ready, lets get the show on the road.

      • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

        I hope it doesn’t come to that, I really do.

  • Chris Witham

    When 0 says he’ll tax the rich more, did anyone realize he’s going to tax all those Hollywood types, too? All the musicians (good and bad), the music industry, movie industry, and so on? Why do the libs in Hollywood want to agree, even DEMAND, this?

    • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

      because they understand that taxation is a necessary economic tool for the government. If you are a responsible citizen you contribute to your counrty. you can agree or disagree with the level of those taxes, but then you vote them away. the thing is most rich people think they’re undertaxed and that it is bad for the country not having the necessary funds. Ask Warren Buffet. As Reagan himself said in 1985: it is unethical and counterproductive to have a millionaire pay less taxes than a bus driver. Who do you have to thank for such an absurd situation: Bush and his insane tax cuts for the rich.

      • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

        the same buffet who spent yrs fighting an irs bill of billions?

      • SpinMeNot

        Mitt did contribute more to government and way more to charity than BHO.
        No person with money and a brain in this country think they are undertaxed. They may be willing to pay more, but I won’t ask that.

        Provide a study, performed by a non-partisan entity that supports that claim, or admit you are making shit up on the fly, and go pound sand.

        You are tool.

      • RightThinking1

        Buffet has always had the option of writing a check to treasury if he felt that he was not paying his share. He has never done so to my knowledge.
        I invite you to find a bus driver who has paid less tax than a millionaire.
        Romeny paid something like 1.9 million in taxes last year. The impression I get from the Left is that the government would be better off if Romney had not been in a positon to pay that sum. If I recall, that was on an income of ~14 million. Lets assume that all of that had been garnered by secretaries making $30,000 a year. The tax revenues collected would have been much less, but by golly, at least Mitt wouldn’t have been accused of shirking…, and THAT is what it is all about for the Left.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          No he didn’t, and maybe he should have to back up his words. Then again, voluntarily giving money to the government without legal basis is something few would do. my point is that everyone who pays their taxes should be left alone, but those who don’t or pay disproportionately low taxes compared to their income should pay more. This are not all the rich, but some of them. i don’t have a problem with people who make a lot of money, I’m not blaming the rich, I blame the government that allows them through a flawed tax code to not pay their fair share. and I believe currently that the super rich are under taxed. a socialist or a communist would say it is undeserved to have so much money, and not allowed, that it is morally indecent to have so much money. some people say that, I do not.

          • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

            From everything you’ve been spouting off about you seem to abhor the rich, which is contrary to your last few sentences! How about you start acknowledging the people in my country who DON’T PAY ANY TAXES like SpinMeNot has been trying to point out in countless replies! THEY should pay their “fair share” like everyone is!

            I bet if someone made $14 million through hard work, you’d demand they pay $13 million or more to taxes. The Liberals in my country want that.

    • RightThinking1

      What! And criticize the Annointed One?

  • SpinMeNot

    I am not sure who is more delusional … BHO or his zombie mob. Yes, lets raise taxes, raise spending … that will help. Will somebody give this buffoon a copy of the complete history of ancient Rome pls? Can we find an illustrated abridged version that Moo can read to him at night while she pats away the tears because he’s just too smart for the rest of us to appreciate.

    Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur …

    • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

      Ancient Rome met it’s demise through lack of unity and internal strife over power, paralyzing effective government. It overstretched it’s borders into Germania, which it couldn’t defend all at once, because they wouldn’t acknowledge that they were not “special” or exceptional, but just as any other empire susceptible to failure and destruction, which eventually happened in 476. Read de commentarii bello gallico of Julius Caesar. the fighting you have with liberals is exactly what is bringing your country down.

      • SpinMeNot

        My god you are as thick as Streetie. Rome met its end due to corruption of a system that started out good. I have, when your weren’t even a gleam in your daddy’s eye little boy.

        Rome was fine until they lost site of the ideals of the Republic and began to feed the cleptocrats and the mob.

        Et Tu Plebius?

        • http://IKnowBO.com/ Slam1263

          Jacta alea esto.
          As they most certainly have.

          • SpinMeNot

            Roll the bones, roll the bones. Brilliant.

        • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

          yes, and like I said, internal strife. the Roman empire got split up, remember? The eastern part survived until 1453, when the Turks conquered Constantinople. and the crazy emperors didn’t help (Caligula and others.)
          quid salvis infamia nummis. and that applies today as well

          • SpinMeNot

            The internal strife was due to the corruption that prevented the actual problems from being addressed, and continued bribes to the mob in order to placate them rather than help them.

            You are still having problems with correlation and causality. Do try to keep up.

          • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

            no, you are having problems in understanding syntax and grammar. I acknowledged your comment (“yes”) and proceeded to add my own (“and like I said, internal strife”). never did I say that corruption was not one of the causes of this internal strife.

            Do try to keep up.

          • SpinMeNot

            Wait, I must apologize, I did miss responding to something you said. Again, you fail to understand correlation with causation. The cause was a corrupt ruling elite that convinced the people that they really cared, and yet did not. Rather than actually address the underlying problems of insufficient, food, resources, opportunity for getting ahead etc, they gave them public games, free wine, free bread.

            And the corruption fed on itself, the strife began, worsened and over 450 years or so, destroyed Rome. It had long since ceased being a republic, and the masses were slaves to their masters. Hell, it took Jews to build the Colosseum, the Romans were too damm cheap to actually give jobs to their own citizens, who were likely too proud to take them.

            Strife was the effect of the corruption. The cause of the fall of Rome was moral, political, and civil corruption.

            This is getting tiresome, pls try to keep up. Causes, create systems. Causes create effects. Symptoms are how we describe the effect. Observe, hypothesize, experiment, evaluate.

    • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

      My cat likes that song. But anyway, it’s like trying to dig yourself out of a hole…that doesn’t work, it just gets deeper and deeper.. DingleBarry will never learn.

  • BeeKaaay

    Obama says “MORE MONEY FOR CRONIES NOW!!!”

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    spending is to the government as crack is to a crackwhore.
    guess I could say spending is to a crackwhore and it would still work here.
    it will never go down. they cannot resist the urge.

    • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

      Giggity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brett.mcmicken Brett McMicken

    could this also be a diversion from benghazi? nah!

    • Let’em Crash

      I’ve been fearing the day he would start focusing on the economy.

  • http://twitter.com/DonnaParlow Donna Parlow

    It seems to me that not enough was said about any of this during the campaigning. Also it would seem if you tax the rich businessman, it will only create more unemployment.

    • RightThinking1

      That pretty much covers it.

  • RightThinking1

    There is a significant discussion of this over at NRO. You might read Steyn’s piece there, or not, but I very strongly reccomend that you read the comments section. There are widely varying opinions (and some junk comments) regarding what ought to be done, some not-so-well thought out, but others that are very insightful. I really would urge anyone with a serious interest in where we are going to read the entirety of the comments there:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333116/edge-abyss-mark-steyn

    • http://twitter.com/mister8nine Emmanuel Stubbe

      will do. and concerning junk comments, it would do no harm to condemn these kind of comments, from both sides.

  • Purple State

    The primary focus of the campaign this man has been running the past year was raising taxes on Americans making more than $250,000/year. He just won that election. How is it a surprise now that he wants to raise taxes on Americans making more than $250,000/year? It’s all he’s been talking about — and people voted for it.

  • SwTk

    New T-Shirt for anyone that wants to be taxed to death in a year? “Don’t blame me. I voted for Romney!” Better watch out though, you may become one of the evil rich.

  • Let’em Crash

    The bottom 47% drawing from the top 1%, and for those in between, who work
    for a living are welcomed with less employment. Do any of those “fair share” types want spend a day paying in exactly what they take out of our system? I don’t see how a $6mil/year salary
    earner gets much return on any part of the $2mil tax, nor would I
    expect down on luck types pay in more than they make just to live in the greatest
    nation in the world.

  • Bowdoin81

    President Revenge could have decided to be a man of substance and announce his intention to push for a Simpson-Bowles type approach.
    Instead, he gives his campaign stump speech and proves how unserious he is about solving the big problems.

  • lcky9

    OK near as I can figure the best way to solve this problem is let Obama try to run with the ball.. let him go around everyone.. let the SHTF so to speak and watch all the liberals FALL.. make sure YOUR prepared.. it’s NOT going to look pretty .. it’s like teaching these kids the lessons their parents FAILED to teach them.. nothing is free.. I would rather go over the cliff and pay more taxes than to just CAVE in and hand it to them where they get no pain only those that are supporting them get it,.

  • http://twitter.com/DaffodilTimes The Daffodil Times

    Why don’t republicans understand math? During the clinton era tax tate on the rich, the country had a surplus of money. Make the rich pay their fair sharr so the country can climb out of the hole Bush put us in

    • Concerned

      blame and jealousy…all the left has.