WorldTraveller

They realize this is a potentially damning and defining moment of the campaign. The left and all their shills are all over zealously attempting to clean up the presidents mess. They can say that it was "taken out of context" until they turn blue in the face, but its not going away.

I'm gonna give you a little help Matty, the issue isn't so much how much the top 1% are paying in taxes, but what's lost in your views is how much the middle class are paying in taxes? The fact is that the middle class pay unusually low tax rates, And since we are talking about the progressivity of the US tax code, relativity is vital.

I did have a response, but you are too ideologically incapable to see a different perspective. "the share of federal taxes paid by higher-income households exceeded their share of before-tax income, and the opposite was true for lower-income households. In 2009, the shares of federal taxes paid by households in certain income quintiles were: Lowest quintile: 0.3 percent Middle quintile: 9.4 percent Highest quintile: 67.9 percent Declines in before-tax income among households in the top income percentile lowered their share of tax liabilities from 26.7 percent in 2007 to 22.3 percent in 2009. " Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period. when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession." And to your second point, so what you're saying is that you dispute the OECD's claims that the US has the most progressive tax code in the world. I guess it didn't fit your narrow views. Got it!

I don't know, you tell me...

Funny you say this, I just read a good article today that is somewhat connected: Move over, Iraq. Tribal politics have arrived at home. It’s not like our tribes will arm themselves, but American politics is developing a disturbing resemblance to Mesopotamia’s ever-feuding Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as the 2012 election rapidly devolves into a power struggle between irreconcilable factions rather than a healthy debate among citizens. The blame here falls in large part on President Barack Obama, who after four years of economic lethargy needs to recast the election as anything other than what it naturally is: a referendum on the incumbent and the state of the nation. To turn the page, he has revived the kind of divisive 50 percent–plus–one politics Bush political guru Karl Rove successfully championed in 2004. As former George W. Bush strategist Mark McKinnon has observed, Obama is now following the same playbook used in 2004 against another Massachusetts faux blueblood, Sen. John Kerry. Like Obama, Bush was a polarizing president of meager accomplishments and modest popularity. And like Bush, Obama is hoping to rally his base and demonize his opponent to achieve a fairly comfortable reelection. Click to learn more... To do that, Obama is offering an array of appeals based on tribal totems—gay marriage, contraception, cheap loans for kids, charges of racism by his opponents. Every “grand” statement is aimed at specific groups, either to offer them something or to show how Romney would threaten their interests. It’s a self-perpetuating dynamic: as he’s aimed his appeal at targeted groups to cobble together a winning coalition, he’s consistently lost ground with middle- and lower-income white Americans. That in turn compels him to double down on his appeals to single women, gays, youth, and minority voters—which in turn further alienates working and retired white voters. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/the-tribal-election-barack-obama-turns-to-the-karl-rove-playbook.html

Weren't you two sharing the same views just last night on this very same issue??

Hold on a second, I specifically answered your question, referenced three links that addressed three different points and now you want me to go back through the links to show you? So where is your outrage over the whitehouse leaks ? I mean GG already called you out as well for your faux outrage. I mean surely you must be a lot more concerned with the WH leaks which is infinitely more damaging for this country than anything in mitts tax returns. Where is your concern Matty ? Hypocrite

Generally speaking, that's been the case.

Generally I agree with you, however I do think there are things that the government can invest that can lead to surpluses. R&D, Infrastructure, grants towards economic development that could include jobs retraining programs. There are a number of things, but the idea of spending money just to create demand, and create jobs, any jobs, as long as it's a job from my perspective is.... well...... Retarded

Not well at all.

I'm not a big proponent of keynesian demand side economics, my argument is that there is no definitive outcome. It all depends in how wisely the money is spent, if it is for the simple fact just to create short-term demand that has little to no sustaining impact, then I would say no. If it's sole purpose is to create demand, with no lasting impact, then I agree.

Generally speaking, I would say history would agree with you, and the point that you make regarding deeply indebted nations and their growth rates would support your thesis. However, I don't believe you can make a definitive case that ALL keynesian demand side economics fails. Think of it like this, if you are a businessman, and you need to take out a loan from the bank so you can start your business, there is a possibility that as a result from that loan that there will be a multiplier effect. That those funds that you borrowed multiplies into more funds, helping allowing your business to grow and prosper. The key however is for those funds to be applied properly, intelligently and most importantly efficiently. Same example can be applied to government. The problem is that in most cases government is inefficient and government tends to mismanage money. It could be compared to an individual businessman who takes a loan from the bank, but just happened to mismanage his loan, therefore digging himself into a deeper hole.

Shut up you right-wing fact hating retard /Park

In Lybob's world, this makes a lot of sense.

I've got mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand I believe that the actions of the Fed in many cases have been corrosive, on the other, the politicization of the Fed and allowing slimy politicians to get their grubby hands all over documents that shouldn't be politicized most likely would end up a complete utter disaster.

That was gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay.

Don't you have a youtube vid of Of Mitt wearing some sort of dressage outfit to jerk off to?

In Joe and Obama's world, it's the federal governments responsibility.

I'm not a believer in absolutism, I don't usually see things from a black or white lens, I happen to believe there are many shades of grey in between. Point being that I believe in some cases deficit spending makes sense, in others I believe less so. However what is more important is how that money is spent, if you are spending money simply to add aggregate demand to the economy that has no lasting impact in an economy with many structural deficiencies, then its akin to flushing money down the toilet, except that you have to pay interest on that money and in some cases brings you that much closer to facing a debt disaster. If you have an economy that has your run-of-the-mill downturn, then yeah, adding a little demand to the economy, with the caveat that it efficiently and sufficiently does add demand to the economy relative to the amount spent, would make sense to me. But in this latest downturn, there were so many inefficiencies with this Stimulus Bill, that it was almost a complete waste. Proof is in the pudding, look at the economy, ever since the sugar high of the stimulus wore off, we've been steadily trending down. Reason being, because we never addressed our structural labor market woes.

Honestly, I don't see what he said as tremendously offensive or an outright politicization of the Aurora tragedy, however, as subtle as it may be, there is an inference that without government help, through providing more jobs for police officers and firefighters, that the first responders wouldn't of been able to do their jobs as effectively as they did. So in it's totality, it's not a shocking politicizing connection, but it is a tad classless.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/biden-points-to-aurora-in-iaff-speech-130077.html Vice President Joe Biden told a convention of firefighters Wednesday that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are bent on budget cuts that would undermine essential local services, and pointed to last Friday's shooting in Colorado as an example of the nation's reliance on first responders. Biden offered a more charged version of that criticism in Philadelphia. He closed by pointing to last week's massacre in Aurora as an example of the value of first responders. The 58 survivors of the shooting, Biden said, survived because of police, firefighters and emergency medical teams. "This new Republican Party looks at you as both the reason for and the solution to this godawful recession we inherited," Biden said. "They look at your ranks and they see an easy place to cut budgets to accommodate their priorities – not just you, but cops, public workers generally. Don’t take my word for it. Just listen to what Gov. Romney – who by the way, is a good family man, a guy who means well, I think part of the problem is, I don’t think he just gets you." "They're alive, those 58 people, because of you. You arrived on the scene in a timely way, you got them the immediate help," Biden said. "Friday morning, you were on the scene at the shooter's apartment. You were there, you were prepared to respond, because you were told it was booby-trapped. You didn't know whether the whole complex would blow up, whether people in the area would go. But you were there ready to do whatever was needed if the worst happened."

You're waiting for an answer? Good, keep waiting sunshine because you aren't gonna get it. Now tell us why you are such a hypocrite.

It's a simple and short read. Only a few pages. Fed policy has aggravated, rather than ameliorated our basic problems because it has encouraged an unwise and debilitating buildup of debt, while also pursuing short term policies that have increased inflation, weakened economic growth, and decreased the standard of living. No objective evidence exists that QE has improved economic conditions. Even before the Japanese earthquake and weather related problems arose this spring, real economic growth was worse than prior to QE2. Some measures of nominal activity improved, but these gains were more than eroded by the higher commodity inflation. Clearly, the median standard of living has deteriorated. W hen the Fed diverts attention with QE, it is possible to lose sight of the important deficit spending, tax and regulatory barriers that are restraining the economy’s ability to grow. Raising expectations that Fed actions can make things better is a disservice since these hopes are bound to be dashed. There is ample evidence that such a treadmill serves to make consumers even more cynical and depressed. To quote Dr. Cochrane, “Mostly, it is dangerous for the Fed to claim immense power, and for us to trust that power when it is basically helpless. If Bernanke had admitted to Congress, ‘There’s nothing the Fed can do. You’d better clean this mess up fast,’he might have a much more salutary effect.” Instead, Bernanke wrote newspaper editorials, have speeches, and appeared on national television taking credit for improved economic conditions. In all instances these claims about the Fed’s power were greatly exaggerated. In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals. http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2011Q2NP.pdf Interesting take

So let me get this straight, if someone purports to be a registered voter, yet doesn't have proof that he is indeed that particular voter, we should still allow that person to vote under the alleged registered voters name, and that it still should be accepted simply because the person verbally alleges to be the registered voter?

My guess is that he will take away Medicaid for the poor and use those funds and redistribute it to the wealthy.