90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Taxes, Romney And The NAACP, Minimum Wage In Scranton

Tax talk from the president. Mitt Romney gets an earful. Minimum wage for all city workers in Scranton. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands during a campaign stop at Central High School, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in Grand Junction, Colo. (AP)

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands during a campaign stop at Central High School, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in Grand Junction, Colo. (AP)

A glimmer – just a glimmer – on the economy this week, and a wave of fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s business career.  When was he in charge of what?  Why money offshore?  Will he show more tax returns?  President Obama talks middle class tax cuts.  Romney goes to the NAACP.

The House takes its 33rd vote against health care reform.  At Penn State, a sad report of top level cover-up on child sex abuse.  We’ve got more massacre in Syria.  Slowdown in China.  Minimum wage for city workers in Scranton.

This hour, On Point:  our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Major Garrett, White House correspondent for National Journal.

Bryan Monroe, editor of CNNPolitics.com.

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

The Boston Globe “Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.”

The New York Times “The most senior officials at Penn State University failed for more than a decade to take any steps to protect the children victimized by Jerry Sandusky, the longtime lieutenant to head football coach Joe Paterno, according to an independent investigation of the sexual abuse scandal that rocked the university last fall.”

Houston Chroncile “An adviser to Mitt Romney suggested the presumptive Republican presidential candidate knew what he was walking into Wednesday in Houston when he told an NAACP audience that he would repeal the health care reform law, that President Barack Obama’s policies were not helping create jobs, and when he said that he would be a better president for African-Americans than the current White House occupant.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Yar

    Did Condolezza Rice tell Mitt Romney no thanks for VP spot?
    “Ms. Rice sparked vice-presidential speculation late last month by delivering a speech to Romney donors at a retreat for his top financial backers in Park City, Utah. But she quickly doused those rumors, telling CBS’s “This Morning,” “There is no way I will do this because it’s really not me. I know my strengths and weaknesses.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577523631390995126.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    • nj_v2

      She wore out her lying muscle during Shrub’s reign of disaster.

      • Consultant

        You may be an uneducated boor – but why open your mouth and confirm it – what a fool!

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    Will Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s spokeswoman, be held accountable for accusing Governor Romney of committing a felony?  Is Mr. Obama responsible for the actions of his team?

    The media spent two weeks obsessing over some silly etch-a-sketch comments by Romney’s spokesman.

    Let’s see how the media treats this latest outrage.

    Oh, I forgot.  There isn’t any media bias.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       btw – I recall that ‘on-point’ was part of the media obsession with etch-a-sketch.

    • Doug in Virginia

      Worry about your facts, as well.
      “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was
      misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony. Or
      he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to
      avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.” (http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/)

      Also, Factcheck.org was the first to float the felony word, citing that it would be a felony if Romney certified that he left in 1999. That’s a bit different from what the Globe is reporting, but Cutter is hardly the first to suggest the possibility of major wrongdoing.

  • JGC

    “I’ll have what he’s having…”   On Gov. Mitt Romney’s Excellent I.R.A. Adventure:  (excerpt from Vanity Fair article, August 2012, Where the Money Lives)

    “…Mysteries also arise when one looks at Romney’s individual retirement account at Bain Capital.  When Romney was there from 1984 to 1999, taxpayers were allowed to put in just $2000 per year into an IRA, and $30,000 into a different kind of plan he may have used.  Given these annual contribution ceilings, how can his IRA possibly contain up to $102-million, as his financial disclosures now suggest?

    The Romneys won’t say, but Mark Maremont, writing in the Wall Street Journal, uncovered a likely explanation. When Bain Capital bought companies, it would create two classes of shares, named  A and  L.  The A shares were risky common shares, to which they would assign a very low value.  The L shares were preferred shares, paying a high dividend but with the payoff frozen, and so most of the value was assigned to them.  Bain employees would then put the exciting A shares into their IRA accounts, where they grew tax free.  With all the risk of the deal, the A shares stood to gain a lot or collapse.  But if the deal succeeded, it could be stunning:  Bain employees saw their A shares from one particularly fruitful deal grow 583-fold, 16 times faster than the underlying stock.”

    I contributed to an IRA at my workplace in roughly the same years (1984-1999), and strangely, when I looked at my most recent statement from Vanguard, it was not even close to $102-million market value… 

    • Don_B1

      The Mark Maremont article is here:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577223682180407266.html

      Interesting. The Romney campaign has to know that the kind of deal he and his “troops” took advantage of were written by the wealthy for the wealthy. What advantage comes to the middle class from such shenanigans?

      • JGC

        Thanks for supplying the original link to this story, called “Romney’s Unorthodox IRA”.  Very enlightening.

        Here is another article that provides more insight into Romney’s IRA play, called Why Didn’t Mitt Romney Convert His IRA, from Forbes, by Josh Barro:   

        http://forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/01/19/why-didnt-mitt-romney-convert-his-ira/

        Barro writes what strikes him is that Romney has a traditional IRA instead of a Roth at this point.  In 2010 all income limits on IRA conversions were eliminated permanently, so perhaps Romney is taking a wait-and-see approach; “if you think the top tax rate is likely to fall – for example, because you intend to become the president and then cut it – it would make sense to do what Romney did and decline the conversion opportunity”  until later.  Since “converting an IRA to a Roth is essentially a bet on future tax rates”, if that person did not win the election in November 2012, that person, assuming tax rates, in that case, may head higher in the next Congress convening in January 2013, has a window to lock in the 35 percent top income tax rate by converting his traditional IRA to a Roth before the end of 2012. 

        Advantage: Romney.

  • Gregg

    Kudos to Romney for going to the NAACP, it’s more than Obama did. But why was he talking about savings accounts and entrepreneurship to that crowd? Black people can barley find a way to get back and forth from work.

    • JGC

      This is not a play to extract a major voting block from Black Americans.  After the scathing Wall Street Journal editorial and Murdoch’s biting Twitter blurbs, this is a show to bolster support from strict conservative and Tea Party voters, proving how he can stand up to the liberals and give them his tough love. Let’s call it “50 Shades of Romney”. 

      And do you think some of your comments on black folks not being able or interested in savings accounts, entrepreneurship and the daily work commute might possibly be a little bit…over the top? (There, you didn’t hear me mention the “R” word…)

      • Gregg

        I’ll use the word. Yes, I think it’s racist as hell. My apologies for not using quotes.


        “I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” Charlette
        Stoker Manning, the chairwoman of  Women in NAACP, told the website BuzzFeed following the Republican candidate’s Wednesday speech in Houston.

        “You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level
        he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts —
        black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work,”
        Manning said.

        http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/naacp-leader-accuses-romney-of-favoring-white-people-after-speech/#ixzz20VfeLOMA

        • Don_B1

          Context is everything: Ms Manning’s comment was NOT racist; it conveyed the deplorable state that too many Blacks, Hispanics and poor Whites find themselves in.

          But the way YOU used it is racist.

          • TFRX

            Doesn’t linking to the Daily Caller guarantee something is either a lie, or lied about?

            It’s like the old question about the angel and the demon who look alike in front of two identical doors, one leading to heaven and the other to hell.

          • Hidan

            Always check his sources it usually misleading,distorted, or outright lies.

          • Gregg

            So you condone her racist remark? You had no problem calling me a racist when you thought I said it. That was too easy.

          • Hidan

             I had no problem calling you a racist cause you are.  As Don_B1 said Context is everything.

          • Gregg

            I used her racist words not mine. It was a trap, I plead guilty. 

          • Hidan

             Remember Gregg also believes the Tea Party isn’t racist nor are the birthers.

            It’s rare for Greg not to distort something. But getting ones info from the dailycaller, Ann the Man Coulter and Rush seems to do such thing. He blew the Dog whistle hoping to try to turn his racism on blacks but instead failed.


            “I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” said
            Charlette Stoker Manning, chair of Women in NAACP. “You cannot possibly
            talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s
            talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can
            barely find a way to get back and forth from work.”

            Pointing to
            what she sees as Romney’s lack of interaction with the poor
            African-Americans, Manning added,

            “It’s such a big gap in what he’s
            attempting to sell us.””

          • Hidan

             http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/naacp-leaders-romney-cant-connect-with-black-aud

            The link the daily Caller link to

      • TFRX

        I’m just hoping our mainstream press doesn’t sell “Romney at the NAACP” as this decade’s “compassionate conservatism”, aimed largely to snare inattentive married suburban womens’ votes with the idea that yet another R candidate is the reasonable one of his party.

        • Gregg

          The NAACP was formed by rich white Republicans meanwhile the KKK was founded by Democrats. Just sayin’…

    • J__o__h__n

      Romney claiming that he would be a better president for blacks reminds me of his claim/lie that he would be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. 

    • Hidan

       racist and both bigoted.

      “Black people can barley find a way to get back and forth from work.”

      Kudos for not trying to hide it.  Gregg must know all black people to make such a statement.

  • JGC

    A Note from Mitt Romney’s Doctor about his Memory Loss (excerpt from the borowitzreport.com ):

    “…In 1999 I received an urgent call from Bain headquarters indicating that Mr. Romney had suffered a serious accident.  Once I arrived at the scene, I learned that Mr. Romney had participated in a “going away party” to celebrate the end of his tenure at Bain and that he had been hit in the head with an exploding champagne cork…it became clear to me that Romney was suffering from symptoms consistent with head trauma, including severe memory loss.  For example, he could not remember several key episodes from his youth, including the time he pinned a gay student  to the ground and cut off his hair…”  

  • Sblashill

    Romney is not only a LIAR, he’s now likely a FELON to boot!

    The idiot just keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper!

    Poor Romney lied and lied, now there’s no turning back to the truth for the idiot! 

    • Sblashill

      Rick Santorum was right when he said, “Romney is the WORST Republican in America.”

      That’s one hell of a claim to fame!

    • Zing

       The Bain thing is going nowhere for Obama.

  • Newton Whale

    Mitt Romney’s Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim

    WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney’s own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain investment during the period.

    Romney has consistently insisted that he was too busy organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics to take part in Bain business between 1999 and that event. But in the testimony, which was provided to The Huffington Post, Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. “[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth,” he said.

    Romney’s sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

    Romney testified that he “remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation” at the time.

    Yet in the Aug. 12, 2011, federal disclosure form filed as part of his presidential bid, he said, “Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.”

    Bain, a private equity firm, held a stake in the LifeLike Co. until the end of 2001, including during the period in which Romney claimed to have no business involvement with Bain entities. Bain had heavily invested in LifeLike, a company that Romney identified personally as an opportunity, in 1996 and sold its shares in late 2001. His involvement with LifeLike contradicts his assertion that he had no involvement with Bain business. His testimony is supported by his 2001 Massachusetts State Ethics Commission filing, in which he lists himself as a member of LifeLike’s board.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html 

  • Michiganjf

    One thing has become obvious watching Romney stump and greet:

    President Obama is going to obliterate the clueless, awkward, fumbling Romney come debate season!

    Of, course, that will only be Romney’s funeral… it will be YouTube that buries him!

    Poor Willard… it will be brutal!

    • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

      And then, after that many American voters will vote for him and the election will be close.

      My hope is that Obama wins in a landslide but I’m afraid no matter how much Romney hurts himself FOX will spin it so that it’s viewers see it differently.

      Remember, many of those viewers don’t really care about Romney, they just hate Obama so they’d vote for anyone or anything to defeat him.

      • Zing

         Glad to see that we agree that the debates and youtube are irrelevant.

        Remember, many of those viewers don’t really care about Obama, they
        just hate Romney so they’d vote for anyone or anything to defeat him.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         I disagree.  They hate what Obama has done, not the man. However, his negative campaigning is starting to make him much less likeable.

        IF President Obama had pushed for passage of Simpson-Bowles he would have guaranteed his reelection.  Now, not so much.

        • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

          “They hate what Obama has done, not the man.”

          Ya think those Tea Party folks with pictures of Obama as Joker like the man? I doubt it.

          Those people hated him before he did anything.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Sure, there are plenty of haters — on both sides.  I remember when George W. Bush was personally attacked incessantly by many on the left.

            However, for most it isn’t hate of the  man.  The man becomes the symbol of the policy and in this case the only way to remove the policy is to remove the man.

            I find it interesting the Mr. Obama ran against so many of W.’s policies yet ended up adopting many of them once in office.  However, when Bush implemented these policies he was vilified but we only hear crickets now.

          • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

            I was one who attacked GW Bush before he was president. I worked in Texas before, during and after he was governor and I can tell you the man ruined the state (Perry continues the job).

            So, when Bush ran for President I didn’t need to know much about him, I disliked him already.

            And, as President he was as big or a bigger disaster than he was in Texas.

            If you remember, even southern Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries because they disliked Obama. Why? Because he’s black.

          • TFRX

            On both sides?

            Please stop with your false equivalence schtick. It only plays on The Evening News or Sunday gasbag shows.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Yes, those of us NOT affiliated with a party can objectively observe both sides.

          • TFRX

            You’re a right-winger who’s too embarrassed to “wear the t-shirt” of the GOP any longer.

          • TFRX

            It’s almost hilarious that  “Obama as the Joker” is one of the few posters from the baggers of tea we can mention in polite company.

    • nj_v2

      Yep, four more years of dissembling, slick talking, corporate butt kissing is just what we need.

  • JGC

    The Freeh Report leads me to think PSU T-shirts and paraphernalia should be changed from “Penn State” to “State Pen”.

  • Ed

    A group of nuns on a bus protesting the Ryan budget made the news. But around the country the Fortnight for Freedom included prayer rallys, speakers, etc., and the media barely covered it. Not a surprise, but tells us where we are.

    • Yar

      “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6:5-6

    • J__o__h__n

      No one covered it (with the exception of Ed’s post last Fri) because, despite the alliteration, it wasn’t news. 

  • Ed

    The outrage at sexual abuse of children is completely appropriate, of course. But over these ten years at Penn State  thousands of children in that city were killed in abortion. Why can’t we feel the same outrage at the killing of children?

    • Yar

      “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Matthew 26:24Ed, Where is your outrage at the institutional church that promotes itself instead the word of God?  I have no rage against a woman who is pregnant and knows she can’t care for her child.  Ed, where is your compassion?  You gloss over abuse in the church, ignore the message of nuns on a bus, and then attack mothers who are at the most desperate points in lives.  Ed, you are betraying the Son of Man!  
      “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8

    • J__o__h__n

      Isn’t there another large institution that covered up child rape? 

  • Ed

    And doesn’t our President, around the chin and mouth, look like the Grinch?

    • Yar

      God made our president, he is a child of God, please don’t criticize the work of our father.

      • J__o__h__n

        No he didn’t.  There are no gods. 

        • Yar

          You are free to criticize our President’s looks, Ed on the other hand claims to believe in God.  A more restrictive set of rules apply to believers. 

  • AC

    what has Romney done now?

    • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

      He put the truth on the roof of his car and drove off.

      • Patrik

        Oh snap, lmao.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Nothing to see here except distractions.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

      The WaPO fact checker says the Obama campaign is blowing smoke with the felony charge.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html?hpid=z4

      Imagine a Romney campaign spokesman accusing Obama of FRAUD for refusing to release his college transcript because he was hiding that he received a foreign student scholarship, under false pretenses.

      It is irresponsible of Obama’s campaign to throw around these charges.

      • TFRX

        Once again, WaPo “fact checking” is for crap. (No wonder you cite it.)

        Wapo: “The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and
        Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the
        Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats.”

        No. The story hinges on the filings Romney made to the SEC. Full stop.

        Mitt Romney told two different stories to two gov’t entities, the SEC and the FEC. They can’t both be true. Lying that way is a felony.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           WaPO is left leaning my friend.

          • TFRX

            Your limited media habits are showing.

            And don’t call me “my friend”. You sound as trustworthy as Mitt when he says it.

          • Don_B1

            The WaPo Editorial Page has lost its way since it hired two editorial people from the Wall Street Journal over a year ago. Actually, it lost its way before that, which is undoubtedly why they hired these two, who have been writing falsely contrived editorials about Climate Change, etc.

            So much of the Washington Post’s integrity has been lost. Fortunately at least some of its columnists and a lot of the “straight” journalists do fairly good reporting, though not as full and complete as it should be.

  • Ray in VT

    I heard about this one yesterday:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/american-family-association-google-video_n_1666218.html

    Apparently the American Family Association, based in Alabama, has a problem with Google supporting an effort to combat laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians.

  • J__o__h__n

    If Romney is claiming that he was CEO in name only for his last three years at Bain, why does he include the last few years of his absentee governorship on his resume? 

    • Brandstad

      It would be nice if Obama took another long vacation, and possibly reach 500 rounds of golf during his presidency.

      • Hidan

        weak comeback.

      • TFRX

        “Now watch this drive.”

        You don’t want to get into a game of this.

      • Jeffe

        So you think presidents should not have breaks from one of the hardest jobs on the planet.
        Did you have this mindset when Bush was president? How about Reagan who would nap everyday and took more vacations than President Obama has, about twice as many days. 
        The winner is GW Bush with a whopping 77 days away from the White House.

        You need to get your facts straight if you’re going to post dirt. Now you look like a fool.

        • Gregg

          “So you think…”

          You libs are incapable of debating without telling others what they think. At least use a question mark.

          • jefe68

            If you think there is a debate about the job of being president not being one of the hardest on the planet you are really in need of some schooling.

            You know what’s lame, is how you lower everything to the level of a 6th grade child. That you even think what you are doing is debating is quite astonishing.
            The Barndstad character is not even coming close. I’m not either, but I’m well aware of the difference between a debate and posting comments on a forum.
            You need to get into a civics class. Oh I know, stop telling you what to think…. so 6th grade level of discourse.

          • Gregg

            Feel free to advise me what to think if it floats your boat. Just don’t tell me what I think. Brandstad did not say what you attributed to him.

          • Don_B1

            You probably are right, but, unless you are Brandstad, you are doing just what you are accusing Jeffe68 of doing.

            But on the issue of presidential “retreats,” read Jonah Lehrer’s “Imagine; How Creativity Works” for the concept of how the brain needs to stop overt thinking about a problem, more so the more difficult the problem, to let subconscious parts of the brain make the connections that “solve the problem.”

          • Gregg

            I deny the charge.

        • Brandstad

          Please tell me Jeffe, how many of the 77 days GWB was away from the white house and not at his ranch in Texas where he had a home office?

          You need to get your facts straight if you’re going to post dirt. Now you look like a fool.

          • J__o__h__n

            He “worked from home” as much as most people do. 

          • jefe68

            You have to be kidding.
            So because GW Bush had an office he gets a pass from you.
            Do you have any idea what a president does?

      • JGC

        Since Gov. Romney also knows the necessity of a restful vacation, it would be a fine gesture of civility if he was to invite President Obama for a relaxing ride on his yacht.  (Just don’t stand too close to the railing, Pres. Obama.)

    • Chris B

      Three years as CEO in name only at $100K a year?  Now THAT’S what I call welfare!

  • Brandstad

    Americans Will Work Over 7 Months to Pay for Govt Spending in ’12…

  • Brandstad

    Because of the Obamacare ruling, POLL: Supreme Court Approval Lowest on Record…

    • Don_B1

      Maybe Chief Justice Roberts will come to realize that he can’t take “advantage” of his one deviation from ideology to change this country from the semi-democracy it is today to a full (fascist?) plutocracy in the torrent of cases that could, in a purely ideological court that would not reflect the diversity of its founders, bring this country to its knees and make it unable to compete in the current world.

  • Patrik

    The story this week is, as everyone has mentioned already, Mitt “Moneybags” Romney hiding his money overseas and still controlling Bain after having said he left penning the ok to suck the life out of companines. 

    There’s news buzz now that he may not have even paid taxes for a couple of years because of his money moving wizardry.  I’d like to see him talk/lie his way out of this, you can always tell; he looks up and too the right just before he speaks accessing the creative part of his brain. 

    Where are the Mitt MEMEs when you need them.

    • Don_B1

      You have to wonder about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s remark that it is “patriotic to avoid paying taxes, legally.” He is/was close to Sen. John McCain, whose campaign received at least 12 years of Romney’s Income Tax forms. How much does he know?

      Today “Morning Joe” Scarborough stated that he thought the Romney team was afraid that there were a lot of years when Romney paid NO taxes.After all, even Romney would have been better than Palin. Except that Romney was the most hated of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates by the other Republican candidates.

      • TFRX

        Patriotic to avoid paying taxes (legally)?

        I’ve read a ton of books about the Depression. They had the sense to keep their mouths shut and at least give lip service to the idea that “we’re all in this together”, lest the radical ideas actually topple capitalism in this country.

        • Don_B1

          From Jonathan Alter’s 2006 book, “The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope,” some of his advisors counseled that he should declare marshal law to avoid a Communist take-over; fortunately he did not follow that counsel and for that people rightly say that he saved capitalism for everyone by putting limits on capitalism.

          • TFRX

            One more coat of paint on the argument that “capitalism will bury every economic system known to man…including capitalism”.

      • Patrik

        That’s interesting, it sounds like Sen. Graham was trying to get out in front of this and soften the reaction when…if… these years are revealed.

  • Brandstad

    WH closes nine border stations in four states!

    America spends a reported $100 billion per year on costs related to illegal immigration. Border violence is on the rise as hundreds of elaborate tunnels continue to be unearthed. Despite all of this the Obama administration has decided the best course of action is to start shutting down border stations.

    • Don_B1

      Where is your evidence for this “reversal?” The last time I heard, which was only a couple months ago, the crime statistics for the “southern border states” was going down.

      If there is an increase in crime, it is probably the lengthening Lesser Depression which is putting people and their families in increasing dire states. And with long-term unemployment payments about to end, that will get worse.

      But this is the result of the Republican austerity that is being inflicted on this country by Republicans in Congress and in the State Houses.

  • Hidan

    Republican court Israeli republican voters while denying the right to vote for minorities. So people who left to become citizen of another country are being sought after by republicans and citizens of the U.S. are being prevented from voting.

    Only in america I guess.

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/latino-lawmakers-say-texas-voter-id-law-a-hardship-for-minorities/ 

    http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156651962/gop-courts-republicans-living-in-israel

    • Don_B1

      A joint group of Israelis and Palestinians has released a report through the U.N. that shows increasing attacks on Palestinians by Jewish settlers supported by Israeli troops, an increase of 150% over the last three years under Netanyahou’s Prime Ministership.

      • Hidan

         40% increase from 2010

  • Nancy

    Republicans lie and try to suppress voter turnout among the poor because they know they can’t win elections on their record or their absurd ideas…

    … so I’ve been looking for an organization to which I can donate money- one which helps the poor pay the “poll taxes” which Republicans are falling over themselves to try and put in place before the election.

    Does anyone know of such an organization which operates at a national level? I want an organization with  national reach, to ensure the money can go wherever it’s most needed.

    Thanks!

    • Gregg

      Are you one who believes requiring ID to vote is racist?

      • Nancy

        OH NO GREGG!

        Republicans are RIGHT!

         One should be able to use their concealed weapon ID to vote, BUT NOT their student ID cards!

        • Nancy

          BTW, did I say something about race, or did you, a Republican, just go there out of habit and self-interest?

          I thought I was talking about “the poor.”

          • Gregg

            I made no accusation, I just asked a question. An answer would have been nice.

          • Sean

            You got the answer, but I guess the sarcasm went over your head.

      • J__o__h__n

        There isn’t evidence of widespread voter fraud and requiring ID would disproportionately affect minority voters.  If the white sheet fits . . .

        • Gregg

          That’s sick.

          • Ray in VT

            Not nearly as sick as pushing policies that could suppress voter turnouts.  I’d be willing to bet that the GOP wouldn’t be pushing this if it was going to affect their base. 

            Given history, you might want to forgive those of us who have doubts about the intentions of old, white, conservatives when their actions or policies negatively affect minorities disproportionately.  I’m sure that that’s just a coincidence, though.

          • Gregg

            I disagree with the premise entirely. Asking for ID is common sense and the least that should be required. I see nothing racist about it in any way.

            What’s “sick” is J_O_H_N’s comment: “if the white sheet fits…”

            Please don’t condone that idiocy.

          • J__o__h__n

            That is your response to every incident of actual racism.  Just denying it doesn’t end it.  The party of the Southern Strategy is trying to disenfranchise black voters yet again.

          • Gregg

            What actual racism?

          • J__o__h__n

            Not being able to practice their right to vote.

          • Gregg

            Huh?

          • jefe68

            What’s sick is you’re complete denial that racism is an issue behind trying to control voting outcomes. You seem to live in denial that racism is an issue in this nation. You need to be schooled, and yes someone needs to put words in your head because what’s coming out is pretty vacant.

          • Gregg

            I don’t make blanket accusations without a shred of evidence. Sue me.

      • Yar

        Are you who believes preventing 1000 legitimate voters from voting to prevent one instance of voter fraud is worthwhile?

        • Gregg

           No, who is being prevented from voting?

          • Yar

            The worker with a 30 minute lunch and the 1 hour line at the voting booth in his neighborhood because the people in power decided that they could change the end result by introducing barriers to voting.
            Technically the worker is not prevented from voting but statistically the end results are skewed by these practices.  Why should voting be made difficult?  We should want every eligible voter to vote.  Voter fraud seldom happens at the voting booth, it occurs in the places of power.

          • Gregg

            Does your scenario discriminate by party or race? 

          • TFRX

            Now, let’s not pretend Gregg cares about the people with situations not exactly like him.

            If Gregg doesn’t need to spend a day and a good chunk of his income to get a voting card he never needed before, and take a day off from work, then, well, nobody who does need to do that simply to exercise their right to vote matters.

          • Gregg

            It’s harder to buy beer than to vote.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         Yup, the racists at TSA ask for photo id every time you fly.  Where is the outrage?

        • TFRX

          Flying is a right, like voting?

          Please stop with the ruse that you’re an undecided moderate.

          • Guest

            So, it’s OK to have racists policies for anything that isn’t a “right”?  That means TSA is racist for requiring an ID to fly, banks are racists for requiring an ID to open an account, the NAACP is racist for requiring an ID to hear Holder speak, Holder himself is racist for requiring an ID to enter the Justice Department, but since those aren’t rights the policy is OK.  Do you ever wonder how the poor ever manage to collect Social Security when the racist SSA requires an ID to apply for benefits?

          • TFRX

            Voting is a right. GOP governors all over are trying to scrub legal voters off the rolls because they’re afraid that the demographic changing of this country is sunsetting their old, white, less-educated electorate. Since there is little more getting out the vote they can do, success hinges on “keeping out the vote” of people who are not going to tilt to Republicans.

            And yes, a big chunk of voter fraud fraud is racist. If it were being done against 50-something whites, we’d never hear the end of it on Fox.

        • jefe68

          Amazing. Do you really think people are this dumb?

      • TFRX

        The slapdash, hell-bent for getting it done yesterday, doesn’t matter who’s scrubbed off the rolls manner that Scott is doing it has an obvious goal.

        You’re a fool or a knave.

        • Gregg

          Do you support dead people voting?

          • Don_B1

            So some of the lists have a few names of dead people on them; but no way is that number ANYWHERE near the total of the names on the list.

            Those others are people who don’t currently have the newly required documentation and for whom getting it will cost a significant amount of their monthly income which is already stretched to the breaking point.

    • Brandstad

      Is the NAACP racist?

      NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

      • TFRX

        I literally don’t know where to start laughing at you first.

        • jefe68

          It is amazing, is it not. This chap gets the nincompoop award for the day.

    • AC

      what do you think of this idea?
      “In the next few years, each man, woman and child will receive an “Aadhaar” (meaning: foundation) 12-digit unique identification number.  For the poor in India, this would end a vicious cycle where a person cannot prove who they are, and thus they are denied what they are supposed to receive.  Now, using the features of the body, technology can identify someone in a matter of seconds.  There will no longer be a need for passports, driver licenses, or other old school paper based identification”

      http://singularityhub.com/2012/07/10/india-to-biometrically-identify-all-of-its-1-2-billion-citizens/

      • Don_B1

        When the use of eye scans was being discussed, the question arose of how to recover your identity when someone steals your eye-scan and can thus pass as you. The more strongly something identifies a person, the harder it becomes to restore your identity when someone eventually does steal it.

        What having a more secure identification does is make it harder so that the thief likely will restrict his targets to those with something worth taking, but it will not give you total immunity.

        But that is why good identity preservation will never depend on just one thing. It will be a mix of three things: something you know (e.g., a name, number, etc.), something you are (e.g., gender, but more identifying like a fingerprint) and something you have (a key, card or, now, iPhone). When these things can be made time-dependent (e.g., encrypted with a time-varying code), identity protection is stronger.

  • Brandstad

    What is up with all of the Big Bank Financial Fraud ?

    JPM Admits CIO Group Consistently Mismarked Hundreds Of Billions In CDS In Effort To Artificially Boost Profits

    • Hidan

      little Regulations..

    • Don_B1

      I could infer that you now support an even stronger version of Dodd-Frank? Loss of all pension rights plus giveback of salary and bonuses for C-level employees of banks that perpetrate financial fraud, such as what Barclay’s just admitted and implied has been done by dozens of other banks? Since more than one of the e-mails Barclay’s released was from someone at another bank, that seems obvious.

  • nj_v2

    So pathetic was the Republican field that mega-tool Romney was the best they could come up with.

    The night after the boo-ing incident, Mr. Tool blew the welfare-queen race dog whistle, not to the faces of the people he was referring to lest they run him out of the run, but at a fundraiser in Montana: 

    “Remind them of this: if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy — more free stuff. But don’t forget, nothing is really free.” (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12700434-romney-naacp-members-want-free-stuff)

    Stuff like this inspires the Obamabots to cheer on their guy, no matter how much he lies and dissembles. 

    Hungry kids in Nevada bring home ketchup packages from school while Oilybomber continues to spend millions dropping drone bombs on innocent people as part of a useless occupation of Afghanistan/Pakistan…

    (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/americas_drone_sickness/)

    America’s drone sickness
    The U.S. slaughters at will, then shields its actions from all forms of judicial and democratic accountability”

    …and while his administration continues to move us further into a fascist police state.

    http://gizmodo.com/5923980/the-secret-government-laser-that-instantly-knows-everything-about-you

    Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away

    Three and a half more months of relentless political “coverage” that will mostly ignore overriding, big issues to focus on strategery, tactics, polling numbers…

    Wake me when it’s over.

    • Hidan

      Quite funny and sad at the same time. think about this out of all the people the Repubilcan to pick they pick the guy whose Obama model his health care plan after.

      Romney needs the racist if he hopes to win and it seems he’s not really cool with courting them(hench the oddness in his comments) but is told to go after them anyways.

      • nj_v2

        Pathos and irony all together. What more could one ask for?

        Obama puts in place a health-insurance bill conceived by a conservative think-tank (essentially the same one that Republicans proffered as an alternative to Hillary Care). 

        The whackdoodle right wing calls it “socialism” (while supporting Romney who signed essentially the same legislation when he was governor of Massachusetts) and the “liberal” Obamabots cheer it as “healthcare” reform.

        It’s Politics in Wonderland!

    • Kathy

      The Republican party is certifiably insane. There were “better” candidates, but their positions were so out of touch with reality that they couldn’t survive the light of day.

      • Don_B1

        Romney himself might have been able to be at least a better candidate without having so much of his “real” policies dictated from the looneybin. How much he really believes is unknowable without having access to an fMRI while he is asked questions on his policies.

        My fantasy for what would happen if he should be elected, would be that he would “pull a combined Teddy Roosevelt and FDR” and be a real “Traitor to his Class.” He certainly has the intelligence to figure out that that was necessary to preserve the country (note his remark to Mark Halperin of Time that the “Financial Cliff” the country faces on 1 January will drop GDP by 5% and put it in a big Recession if it is not prevented and spending is cut and taxes “increased” as specified in current law).

        However, an electorate that puts him in the presidency would also put more Tea/Republicans in the House and Senate, where he would be powerless to accomplish that; the best he could do would be to slow (by veto) the downward spiral until the next election when the voters, unless too many of the rational ones were suppressed from voting, would “throw the bums out.”

  • Sean

    Look at the photo of Romney above.

    It looks EXACTLY like every image of Republican candidates and their supporters in ANY race across the country.

    Faces of the old, white, and well-fed.

    No wonder Republicans are so worried they feel they have to resort to dispicable tactics to win any election anywhere!

    • Caruso

       They are all a bunch of compromised lying clowns…even the so-called democrats.  Elections in the US is one big choreographed charade, which the media favors from side to side to maintain a the close horse-race excitement.

      • Sblashill

        Funny how only one of the “lying parties” is restricted to the old, white, and well-fed.

        I wonder why that is, Caruso?

  • Gregg

    Kudos to Romney for calling a liar a liar. It’s refreshing to hear the “L” word.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6b9F9IiAZw

    • TFRX

      And yet another campaign where the WaPo shows itself to be the Beltway Inbred’s newspaper. All those real filings, all those incontrovertible facts, are gainsayed by one hack “fact checker”.

      No wonder you swallowed it whole.

      • Gregg

        No outsourcing occurred while Romney was at Bain. It’s a lie.

        • Don_B1

          Do you mean that Bain did not outsource any of its work? Outsourcing did occur by Romney’s administration while he was Governor of Massachusetts!

          • Gregg

            The charge is he outsourced while CEO of Bain. Bain did outsource but after he was gone. Now the new charge is he didn’t leave when he says but it’s documented. It’s a lie.

            Obama has outsourced billions.

  • Steve

    I’m confused by Tom’s phrase regarding Sandusky’s “alleged” child abuse. Alleged? Wasn’t he found guilty?

    • Don_B1

      Maybe it isn’t over until the appeal is ended? That is what saved the head of Enron: he died before his appeal was decided, so the conviction was vacated.

  • TomK in Boston

    It’s so funny to see the liar and chameleon dancing around when he left Bane.

    The point is, when he wanted to be gov of MA, he had to prove he really was a resident. So he then morphed into a romney who was always coming back to MA after 1999 for Bane business.

    Now that he doesn’t want to be tied to the vicious Bane class warfare, the etchasketch has shifted again, and he had absolutely nothing to do with Bane after 1999. SOP for the liar and chameleon, mind-boggling for a normal human being

    Too bad, Etcha, your name and signature are on too many Bane documents after 1999. You’re busted, maybe even should be prosecuted.

    Actually, I don’t care when Etcha left Bane, just like I don’t care if his “personal responsibility incentive” for health insurance is a tax or not. So what if some of the worst Bane class warfare only kicked in after 1999? He created the machine, he’s a poster child for the financial con man, what difference does it make if he hopped off before the worst damage was done? Give me a break.

    You can’t fix an economy damaged by financial con games by electing a financial con man, and it would be pathetic to respond to soaring inequality by electing an oligarch.

    • Brandstad

      My I remind you that the only societies that judge themselves on financial equality are communist.  I prefer a country that allows a person to make decisions on their own and suffer any consequences that might result from any bad decisions. 
       
      Should a janitor really make the same money a doctor makes?

      I hate to remind you of the facts, but we will ‘suffer’ from inequality as long as this is the case. LOL

      • TomK in Boston

        Do you always communicate in talking points? Nobody ever said anything about “financial equality”. Stop arguing with things you made up yourself!

        Of course we always will and should have inequality. The question is simply, how much? The 1% have only had over 20% of the income twice in our recorded history, 1928 and 2007 (note perfect leading indicator of major crash). 

        We had plenty of inequality, but also growing middle class prosperity, in the version of capitalism we had in the 50s and 60s, when taxes were much higher than they are now. Why not try what worked again?

        • Don_B1

          Both Brandstad and Gregg practice a form of debate called the “Gish Gallop” where they change the subject as soon as anyone begins a response to their last claim and thus they sound sophisticated and knowledgeable to the unsophisticated and less knowledgeable listeners.

          It is a great way to win a debate but not to impart real knowledge. It just gets people spinning their wheels in the mud they throw around, which is their object all along.

      • Tina

        The Social Democracies of Scandinavia also judge themselves on financial equality.  They are not communist, not even purely socialist.  We NEED to learn HOW they structure their successful, innovative economies because their societies are NOT plagued by inequities while they are also strong economies.  When these countries had to address the possibility of inequities with increased immigration, they each addressed the issues directly, and apparently very successfully, reportedly nipping most problems in the bud.  Lone outliers, like the mass murderer in Norway,  are counterbalanced by the great numbers of citizens who understand the need for respect for the immigration process.  The tax structures of these countries make sense in terms of the human life cycle and the needs of the natural environment.  Our economy seems to be based on the needs of The Economy only — an abstract, inhuman concept!!!  

        I make the call for us to study and understand how these Scandinavian economies work!

        • TomK in Boston

          Good one, Tina. If we were interested in facts and common sense, we’d see systems that are working better for the middle class and ask if there is a lesson for us. Ditto for health care systems with half our costs. However, the far right won’t let us. 

          The reason is clear: the righty agenda is redistribution of wealth to the top. If it doesn’t make the 0.1% richer, they’re against it. Of course they work through their pawns, with all the propaganda about big gub’mint and socialism, but it’s really all about our rising oligarchy.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    Let me see if I have this right.  Romney sets up an offshore Bermuda account for his Hedge Fund investment because the 15% tax rate is to high!  So that’s how he pays less than 15%!
    Great example for the rest of us.

    • Brandstad

      Full-Fledged Hypocrite Alert: Nancy Pelosi Made As Much As $5 Million Outsourcing Jobs To China, Obama Is The Outsourcer-In-Chief who sent millions of “stimuls dollars” to Finland to pay for Fisker electric cars that only the rich can afford, China for Solar  Panels, Mexico for other Green energy goodies , And DNC Chair Has Offshore Accounts

    • BHA in Vermont

       Yeah, I’m going to move my hundreds of millions to an offshore hedge fund ASAP. I can’t believe I’ve been so stupid all this time!

  • Voicelady1

    Tom, Just heard the open to your show.  I’ve always heard that it’s not “alleged” as in “alleged child abuse” after the guy has been convicted. Sandusky is a Convicted Child Abuser!  There is a difference!

  • Michael from Putney

    Obama should run against Congress, campaigning on a platform of change. This is the same change he ran on in 2008, but which was killed by the recalcitrant Congress. This gets at some of the real causes of the anemic economy, and has the extra benefit of making Romney irrelevant.

  • notafeminista
  • Jason

    I’ve listened to Romney, watched his body language, and heard all of his backstory… he really strikes me as a man who wants to be president because he feels that he deserves it–that it’s the pinnacle item for his resume. The idea that he wants to help the country just seems opposite to who the man seems to be.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    It’s not Bain Capital, it is “Bane Capital” from the perspective of his takeover targets and its employees.  Romney’s problem and the problem of the other wealthy who support him is that they really believe that the rules that apply to the rest of us, either shouldn’t or don’t apply to them.  In fact they think it is fair to use their money to influence and tailor our laws to benefit them solely.  It’s all about them “winning”, nothing else, no one else matters.

  • Brandstad

    Has everyone read the article showing 83% Of Doctors Are Considering Quitting Medicine Because Of ObamaCare

    • Adks12020

      oh sure, that makes sense…I live around the corner from a huge medical center and medical college and boy those doctors are running from there and never coming back!!! haha..give me a break.

    • TFRX

      It was shown as crap seconds after it debuted.

      I’d ask you to stop reading Drudge. Can you at least stop quoting him here?

    • Ray in VT

      Is that the one from the group that’s headed by the same person who used to head the group that Ron Paul belongs to and which has been “fighting socialized medicine since 1943″?  If so, then I have seen it, and their ties to crackpot climate deniers and intelligent design whackjobs makes me instantly distrust them.

    • Kathy

      They can join the 74% of the military who were going to quit after DADT was repealed. LOLZ

    • Gregg

      Yes, and it was foreseen by many long ago. I personally know more than one who will retire early.

    • jefe68

      Good, let the doctors who are more interested in getting rich leave the profession. We need doctors who are interested in caring for people. Such as those who believe in the Hippocratic oath.

      You really are posting some real winners today.
      Are you really into public humiliation?

    • Tina

      Every doctor I’ve talked to about this welcomes Obamacare, altho most ALSO wish that the President had promoted a single payer system instead.  

    • Kairos
  • Kathy

    Isn’t it sad that when stating no party would ever nominate a plutocrat like Romney, they don’t even comment that this is because the 1% plutocracy is so isolated from the rest of us and doesn’t play by the same rules?

  • JonS

    Tom ,

     The Globe charges are absolute garbage. Moreover, why focus on his wealth when it was never a problem for Kennedy , Roosevelt, John Kerry etc. all of whom had vast wealth that was inherited rather than earned as in Romney’s case. I guess it’s only an issue if you’re a Republican. Why not the focus on the liar in chief?

    • jim

      what did he lie? 

      at least Our President sticks with his principles. Romney has no principles… he and his wife will sleep with the devil if that helps him get elected.

      • Gregg

        He was lying when Joe Wilson called him out at the SOTU address. He lied about not lobbyist. He lied about Romney outsourcing. He lied about no tax hikes. He lied about being able to keep your ow insurance policy. He lied about Republicans wanting dirty air and water. And on and on.

        • J__o__h__n

          He wasn’t lying when Wilson rudely shouted at him.  I don’t know enough details about “not lobbyist” but I guess you mean that he wouldn’t hire anyone who had been one which I don’t think he acheived – you can’t just bring in outsiders or you end up like Carter.  Romney said the penalty wasn’t a tax until his base got him to flip flop.  The tax designation was just John Robert’s view, the commerce clause made it constitutional.  Republicans might not want dirty air and water but they don’t want to do anything to prevent it.

          • Gregg

            Obama said illegals would not be covered under Obamacare and Wilson yelled “You lie”. Obamacare covers illegals.

            Lobbyist

            Roberts ruling is not “just Robert’s view”, it’s the law of the land.

          • jim

            if you think results from the supreme court is ironclad… then i think you have a very narrow view to life.

            there are three lifetime senators in the supreme court (scalia, thomas, and alito). these people should not be judges in this great nation. to plainly direct this at the supreme court, they are basically ideologues.

          • Gregg

            The ideologues are Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagen but you’re entitled to your opinion. 

            Is Robert’s view the law of the land or not? It plainly is.

  • demwing

    Tom — re Romney’s past: “Oh, that’s just on paper.” Sounds like a guy trying to get me into a junk mortgage.

    In the end, paper matters. If you’re going to use it to run for governor, you’re going to have to own it as your run for the Presidency.

  • jim

    Can someone wake up the Romney voters? He is a CROOK and a LIAR!

    oh, right… ultra rich people get exemptions

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/?p1=News_links 

    • MrNutso

      But he is not Obama.

      • jim

        That is correct. Obama commits to his principles. I think he took unnecessary political risks to pass Obamacare with absolutely no benefit for his political career.

        why? because he passionately cares for the middle and working class citizens of America. and he does it even though he knows that might hurt his presidency… you know what i call that? COURAGE… Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney has NONE of it.

        for me, i am just glad i do not have to pay for freeloaders who do not have insurance and refuse to pay their medical costs.

  • Simon

    Everybody had accounts (and lots money) in Bermuda?? 

    • Ray in VT

       What?  There are people who don’t?

      • TFRX

        My gardener, maid, cook, au pair, footman…

  • TFRX

    Herbert Hoover got real bitter after losing in ’32, I’ve read.

    But before entering the White Housee, he chaired creating the FCC (nee FRC) to make sense of radio, and helmed the relief effort to keep Europe out of starvation after a war which destroyed plenty of their labor, farmland, infrastructure, and capital. (Sounds like the Marshall Plan, doesn’t it?)

    Think about that: The guy whose name is an epithet (“Hooverville”) had real world experience and could point to really doing things for people with government which the private sector was never able to handle.

    Boy, I miss normal Republicans who used to care about governance. Let me know if/when they return.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    As further evidence that Romney and people like him consider themselves above the rules we need only look to his father.  George Romney was born in Mexico, yet had the audacity to run for President!  Why isn’t this a source of ridicule, or at least news?

    • Gregg

      It’s not news because it’s irrelevant. Do you want to bring Obama’s dad into the discussion? Meanwhile we have a President who thwarted the law by decreeing certain illegals legal. He thwarted the law by ignoring the SCOTUS ruling on the Arizona law. The law requires a budget.

      • jefe68

        Funny I was thinking this entire comment was irrelevant.

        You know what is relevant, George Romney released 12 years of tax returns when he was seeking the GOP nomination for president.

      • Charles A. Bowsher

        Yes, let’s bring Obama’s father into the discussion.  Please remember though that Obama only met him once in his life.  His Father died when he was young, and his father’s life was a world away from the son’s upbringing.  Romney’s father was very much present, and a very influential figure in his life.

        As for Illegals, the Repubs had plenty of time and an adequate majority in both chambers to pass immigration reform under “Duh Buh Yuh”, but they chose not to because people like Romney liked the quality and especially the price of their gardening work.  Have you forgotten the recording of Romney saying something like, “my goodness, you can’t have any undocumented workers working on my grounds, I’m running for President!” Like father like son, his father is his “hero”.

        I think we are under-spending on social programs, and over-spending on arms,  you think we are under-spending on immigration programs and over-spending on social programs.  Welcome to democracy!

      • Ray in VT

        Hmmm, it seems that the place of birth of the President, and sometimes his father, certainly seems relevant to some segments of the population, who seem unwilling, despite any and all presented facts to accept that Barack Obama was born in America.

        Also, it is my understanding the the president did not “declare certain illegals legal”.  My understanding is that he, like his predecessors, both Democratic and Republican, took a temporary step to prioritize deportations.  The Daily Show did a nice piece on it.  Despite the fact that it’s a comedy show, they do some nice work.

        • Gregg

          I think the whole birther thing is hyped. Only kooks believe it. I know of no instance when someones father’s place of birth was a factor. You say “sometimes”. When?

          Obama did exactly what he said he could not do just over a year ago. Please watch this.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

          • TFRX

            “Only kooks”? Lot of fekking kooks on the right side of the aisle.

            Y’see, it doesn’t matter what you personally think. You, in all your needle-threading right-wingerness, can’t come to grips with your side needing birtherism and the racism underneath it.

          • Gregg

            That’s sick.

      • Still Here

        Let’s talk about Obama’s brother who lives in squalor back in the home country.

    • BHA in Vermont

       WHERE you are born is not relevant to your ability to run/serve as president of the USA. Being born an American citizen is the requirement. Plenty of U.S. citizens are born to U.S. citizens living “abroad”.

      • Charles A. Bowsher

         I always thought it said “natural born” and that that meant born on U.S soil which is why the McCain campaign was quick to point out that he was born in the “Canal Zone”. 

        • TFRX

          I’m still missing the days when the GOP had Ahnuld (who hadn’t run Cali into the ground, yet) and they wanted to get rid of that part of the Constitution.

        • BHA in Vermont

           “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to
          parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the
          United States”

  • Tdonsenf

    How many people do we know who have residences in Florida to avoid income tax, spending 6 months and a day there (supposedly) and yet use and have used resources – schools, roads, libraries, for instance – in CT or MA or wherever their primary residence is. Many of them are conservative, honest people who would never cheat on taxes, and  yet there they are contributing to the horrible education and services situation in Florida in their desire to avoid northern states income taxes.

    • BHA in Vermont

       They are cheating on their taxes with this tactic and they know it. They just don’t consider it cheating because they are using legal loopholes. I guess it is moral cheating as opposed to legal cheating.

  • Adks12020

    Is anyone else getting sick of all the “_______ and chief” stuff? Seriously, it’s coming from both sides and getting really annoying to listen to. How about rather than stupid nicknames people start speaking to us like intelligent human beings…not children calling eachother names on the playground.

    • Adks12020

      oops, typo… “______ in chief”

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    Don does not speak for all of Kentucky!

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    George W. Bush was hardly a businessman.  He was handed every job he ever had, and he failed at all of them.

    • TFRX

      I have it on the word of a Texan (as I’m from the northeast) that one can be an “oilman” if one drills for it but doesn’t find it.

      By that reasoning, he may well qualify as a “businessman”.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Ah, but that Texan would actually have to do some drilling–take the initiative.  What job did W. get by himself?

  • Firethemall

    A plague on both their houses.

  • Joe in Philly

    What is the “right” environment for job creation? If the corporate tax rate were zero would American companies locate manufacturing jobs in the US? Highly unlikely as the growth markets and low cost labor are all off-shore. Please comment.

  • Patrik

    Con-men and scavengers usually move in when their prey is at their weakest and/or desperate.  1931 Berlin?

    • Patrik

      We are finally progressing, if not slowly, out of this situation GWB had put us in.  We don’t need the con-man (Romney) to move in and ruin it.  Romney can’t run this country like its one of his accounts in his portfolio.

  • Scott B, Jamestown NY

    Romney said that he didn’t believe voters wanted their President to pay one more dime that the law will allow. But that’s based on US tax code. He went offshore to keep even more of his money, which isn’t paying his fair share. Poll after poll after poll shows that most Americans believe that the wealthy should be paying higher taxes, and considering that the 15% rate he should be paying as a US millionaire is lower than what the majority of middle income Americans pay, this is offshore tax shelter, something that most Americans cannot identify with, is a further affront to the 99%.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    To the 98% out there, 
    We are about to lose our political voices and our votes.
    our only hope is to;
    -Return the Democrat majority to the House
    -Strengthen the Democrat majority in the Senate
    -Re-elect Barack Obama

    “They may have all the money, but we have all the votes!”
    Charles A. Bowsher

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      And once stocked with democrats, vote to the left of THEM in the NEXT election!

  • JonS

    Why the program’s focus on Romney rather than the most incompetent person ever to occupy the oval office? The man is an unmitigated liar whose background has never been vetted by the mainstream media. What’s more relevant? Understanding about a Swiss bank account or Obama’s relationship with an avowed unrepentant terrorist in Bill Ayres?

    • MrNutso

      Unless I’m mistaken, George W. Bush has not been president for about 3 1/2 years.

      • Vasco DeGrabya

        Does a president’s influence and effect end the day he or she leaves office?  A little too simplistic, sir.

        • nj_v2

          I think you missed MrNutso’s sly wit.

          Read what he was responding to.

        • Gregg

          No, but 3 1/2 years into it yes.

    • BHA in Vermont

       Fool

  • Doug in Virginia

    The caller compared Romney with Nixon and Bush because they didn’t tell the truth. Unfortunately he must have been wearing his political party blinders. He conveniently left out the lies that Clinton told, as well.

    Every president, regardless of party, lies.

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      Clinton is equivalent to Dubya?  Are you sure?

  • Tina

    The Republicans who call themselves the “job creators” ALREADY HAVE THEIR TAX BREAK!!  So, WHY AREN’T THEY CURRENTLY CREATING JOBS WITH THE BREAK THEY CURRENTLY HAVE???!!!  

    Either their theory doesn’t hold; OR, they are refusing to create jobs just to make Obama look bad…. 

  • TFRX

    Tom,

    While we’re talking about speeches to the NAACP: Can we hear them booing Romney, or is that something which isn’t good radio, or not polite enough for NPR?

    (Before you answer, we got to hear some right-wing hack set up Romney this week with the label “liberal media”, and the full audience reaction to that.)

    • Tina

      NPR has been airing the boo-ing for several days now, repeatedly.

      • TFRX

        Good.

        It’ll help balance out how On Point played a good dose of the speech from Romney, then our host told us about the NAACP reaction, in this very space.

        Imagine a journo professor calling that “good radio”.

  • jim

    The list of people who became President and came from a business background is ugly… George W Bush, Herbert Hoover… 

    One led us to the Great Depression…

    The other led us to a revengeful war against his dad’s nemesis through lies and deceit, presided over a housing bubble repleted with fraud, committed treason exposing a CIA operative, and took away our civil liberty.

    Look, the last thing this country needs is a tax break for the super rich… 

    Lastly… Romney is a liar and a crook.

    • nj_v2

      Obama is just a liar. Clearly the better choice.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Romney blows with the wind, and he now is embarrassed by his riches.  Obama, by contrast, surrenders at the slightest opposition.  Why does anyone plan to vote for either?

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      Cuz one of ‘em will win?

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         One of them will win only because of that attitude.  They have to get a majority of votes.  If voters decide to give the majority to someone else, these two clowns won’t win.

  • BHA in Vermont

    It would be easier to revive the economy if the Republicans didn’t block any attempt to increase revenues.

    The “job creators” that won’t create jobs if they have to pay a SLIGHTLY higher tax rate DO NOT exist. If they did, they would be creating jobs RIGHT NOW when the taxes are lower and THEY ARE NOT. Why not, because there isn’t demand for more goods and services.

    Romney’s plan to further cut taxes on the rich IS NOT going to help the economy. The economy runs on people having jobs so they can buy products.
    MOST of the jobs are held by the 99%.
    MOST of the products and services are purchased by the 99%.
    If you want to sell more goods and services, cut the burden on the people who BUY them, not those who put their money in the stock market.

    • Simon

      Very well said. When Romney says we should not raise tax (or really revert the tax cut) for the wealthy because they are job creators, it tells us either he does not know how the economy works, or he is a liaer.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    The reason the NAACP attendees booed Mittens is because he called it Obamacare instead of the “Affordable Health Care Act”.  Calling it Obamacare is a way of saying it was the President’s ego that passed Healthcare for all, instead of the real reason, his concern for the uninsured.  It is far from perfect, but it is a start.

    • Yar

      Charles you hit the nail!
      In the context, it was a racist statement.  It would be like calling Rick Perry’s Texas retreat “Obamahead”

    • BHA in Vermont

       I don’t think they booed because of the ‘title’ he used. They booed because they vehemently disagree with repealing it. I suspect they would have booed just the same no matter what he called it.

      • Gregg

        They booed because they want more deficit spending and redistribution of wealth.

  • Drew Through

    Thirty minutes in and not one mention of LIBOR. No mention in News Of The week, no mention in discussion. No mention.

    I guess in addition to no longer being allowed to engage in discussion on the board I am no longer allowed to be presented with an accurate representation of the actual week in the news.
    Not only will I not be reading OP material anymore, I won’t be listening to it either. Years of loyal listening wiped out in one week. Thanks OP.

    Good luck everybody.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Which audience is Biden speaking to?  Obama cut a hundred billion dollars–can I get an amen?

  • Margaret

    Very glad your guest observed that Gov. Romney was responsible for Bain business ethic whether or not he was present or absent.

    Also, note Romney’s absence during 200+ days of his last year as governor. Should we say that he was not responsible for his governorship during that time? No.

  • BHA in Vermont

    The NAACP audience booed Romney on his plan to kill “Obamacare” because whether Romney, Boehner and all those who keep saying “Americans want it repealed” are WRONG. SOME do and SOME don’t but it is a lot closer to 50% on each side than “Americans” which suggests an overwhelming majority.

  • Brandstad

    Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, CBO

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/

    • jefe68

      You can skew this to make it seem that somehow people who are not wealthy are lesser than those who are wealthy. It’s a disgusting tactic and I’m here to call you on this. It’s old, tired and full of crap.

      • Gregg

        Do you dispute his fact or just what you think he thinks?

        • jefe68

          The way he’s using the numbers is bull.
          So, yes I take issue with the way he thinks, if you want to call it thinking.

          • Gregg

            So you can’t dispute the facts without divining “the way he thinks”. Gotcha.

    • Ray in VT

      … and yet under such a terrible tax burden the wealthiest Americans have been accumulating a larger and larger share of the total pie for the past 30+ years.  Under the current tax code, the highest earners have continued to see the wealth of the nation trickle up to them.

      • Charles A. Bowsher

         The wealthiest 20% now control or own 88% of our countries wealth.  Won’t be long now, won’t be long now.  I’m flying the white-flag on my front porch!

    • BHA in Vermont

       “In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the
      recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to
      $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900
      to $23,500 during that time.”

      My heart bleeds, just BLEEDS for those poor rich people. A few thousand have to try to figure out how to live on a mere $1.2M while those lucky millions and millions of poor people only have to figure how to make do with $400 less. Never mind that those 20% are already living in poverty.

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      Even if I grant your numbers…  Boo-hoo!

    • nj_v2

      Branny, in full right-wing troll mode, resorts to quoting the Moonie Times, the go-to source for cherry-picked data to bolster “free-market” policies to benefit the rich.

      Meanwhile, from the same CBO the Moonie Times cherry picked…

      In 2009, Americans paid lowest tax rates in 30 years to federal government

      “Still, at the very moment anti-tax protesters were emerging as the most powerful force in American politics, handing Republicans landslide control of the U.S. House, the data show that people were sending the smallest portion of their income to the federal government since 1979.”

    • Still Here

      It won’t be fair until they pay it all so the rest of us can shop at Whole Foods and Neiman Marcus, drive Bentleys, and vacation in San Tropez.  That’s Democracy!

    • Kairos

      Hey smarty-pants, thanks for proving the liberals’ point for us.  The middle class would love to have more tax burden because it would mean that the top isn’t sucking up most of the nation’s wealth.  Plus, the top 5% has over 65% of the nation’s wealth.  During the Clinton years, middle income rose despite higher tax rates, and they paid a higher tax burden, (which is a good thing because it means they have more wealth).  Quit being stupid. 

    • TomK in Boston

      Talking points again! Tax rates at the top are near post-1929 lows, and for con men like romney who can claim everything is a dividend or cap gain, rates are a tall-time lows of 15%. That’s our #1 problem. But hey, it’s no surprise. The far right told us all about “starve the beast” – cut taxes on the oligarchs, yell “OMG! A deficit!”, and cut everything that once made the USA such a paradise for the middle class. They said what what they would do, they’re doing it, and shame on us for voting for them.

    • jimino

      You’re right.  They’re getting the best deal in the history of our country. 

  • Bubba

    Tom;

    You might want to think about a vacation; October rapidly approaching. Being an Ostrich sounding pretty good. Appreciate being “well” informed.Great job !!!!

  • JIMTinSC

    Tom:

    There is no doubt in my mind, although I might be cynical, that Governor romney’s remarks and appearance at the NAACP convention were geared towards shoring up his base of white male voters in the GOP.  I say this given the reports that Romney’s folks flew in dozens of black GOP types to sit throughout the convention attendees.  Of course having followed Mitt Romney since 1994 I am not surprized.
    It is interesting to note that he still is trying to shore up support in the GOP base, not a good sign for the self described progressive Massachusetts Republican who was a one term Governor of Massachusetts with a healthcare mandate as his defining moment in his one term.

    • William

       The real question is why did Obama not address the NAACP, but had plenty of time to address the Gay community, 150 fund raising events?….but no time for the NAACP…

  • Michael

    I find it extraordinary and utterly bewildering that Mitt Romney makes any attempt to relate to what is considered the common man/woman in America while at the same time says our current president is out of touch. On what grounds does Mr. Mitt  think he is in touch with the likes of me? Does he have a 1998 Subaru in his fleet of cars? Who are these people that think that voting for him will benefit them? Other than the “one percent?” I know plenty of right of center people that seem to think that their lives would be different with a Mitt Wwhitehouse and strangely, not one of them has a six, let alone a seven+, figure income.

    Michael

    • Kairos

      Hey, FDR never lived a day outside the upper class but he helped create the middle class.  Of course, he was called a traitor to his own class….

      Mitt Romney has never lived a day out side the upper class and he is one more example of republicans voting for somebody who is not a self-made-man (even though they preach “hard work”).  But who’s to say that tax cuts for the rich, rising tuition, another war with a Muslim country based on speculation, dissolving unions and the New Deal (the very things that created the middle class) won’t make the middle class stronger?

      Obama is actually a self-made-man, achieving social mobility, but do you actually think that helping the middle class at the modest expense of the upper class would help?

  • Kathy

    If the elected right wingers won’t allow tax increases in Scranton, the solution is to cut the government down to size. Let the criminals romp in the streets. Let the houses burn to the ground. Let the trash pile up. 

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      Harsh, dude.  Even if righteous.

    • StillHere

      The criminals have been running the government, so I don’t think we’ll notice a difference.

    • AC

      they already tried this in Colorado. When a man went to pay the bill for the lights to remain on in his neighborhood, the mayor told him the bill would have been cheaper & turned on ALL the lights, but he didn’t care – he just hated the ‘city’ deciding where ‘his’ money went.
      I’m sorry if the details are sketchy – i believe it was a This American Life episode if you want to find it….

    • nj_v2

      ^ Obviously, not a resident of Scranton.

      • TFRX

        I dunno, I think it’s a “let’s not pretend there are reasonable half-measures” post. Hyperbole, but precise and pointed.

        And I sorta agree with the concept of “what’s it gonna take for one of our major parties to realize that this is what people pay taxes for, this is what we grew up calling 20th century America, and idly wishing for ‘less government’ gets you…this”.

    • William

       The mayor is a Democrat. The problem with Scranton goes back to their failed idea of burning garage and the disaster that project cost the city. This bankruptcy is long overdue.

  • Look at the Elephant

    Let’s talk about the Elephant in the Room:

    People talk as if Obama is personally in control of the economy.
    He inherited this mess from years of Republican misrule.  He is not an emperor and can’t issue commands.  Right wing Republicans (is there any other kind?) have tried to block every initiative he proposed for getting the economy on track and putting people back to work. It was their stated mission to deny Obama any success in order to limit him to one term (as Mitch Mconnell and Rush “I hope he fails” Limbaugh put it).

    So it’s utterly hypocritical and cynical for Romney and Republicans to blame him for the mess we’re in and for not doing enough to improve the situation. 

    • TFRX

      Actually, every time there’s a reliable poll, Americans know, and blame Bush II.

      And the record number of holds, filibusters and such are just something to live with, and aren’t going to be narrativized by our media uberlords.

      • Gregg

        Blaming Bush is lame as hell.

        • TFRX

          Too bad. Maybe if the GOP did anything but throw WATB tantrums, people might forget how awful Bush was.

          The GOP made their bed and also pissed in the punchbowl (most obstructionist Congress ever).

        • Look at the Elephant

          Not just blaming Bush. He was a pawn. Blaming right wing Republicans (and their corporate masters) for obstructionism and intransigence. 

          • Brandstad

            And I supppose you agree with Harry Reid’s blocking the vote on much of the legislation that has been passed by the republicans, like the repeal obamacare bill that just passed one house of congress.

          • Look at the Elephant

             Naturally

        • Kairos

          If Bush would have forced the banks to refinance bad mortgages and debts, restructured CEO wages and bonuses–the country would be in better shape today.  That’s hard to deny since Iceland actually did that and is better off today. 

        • John in Amherst

           Right you are Gregg.  Bush should be prosecuted.

    • Gregg

      Bush is history, in 2006 (after years of war and tax cuts) the deficit was $151B.  This mess is Obama’s. And yes Obama is an emperor, look at how he decreed illegals legal. He’s got a hit list. The Republican House has passed 25 jobs bills. Rush was wrong much to my dismay, Obama is succeeding in his mission to fundamentally transform America. He’s awful.

      • Charles A. Bowsher

         Gregg, are you really this clueless?  Bush’s wars were off the books and were never in the budget.  Only Obama had enough nerve and maturity to step forward and say the wars cost will be included in the budget while he was President.

        • D-gann

          What Budget Charles? The Democrats have’nt allowed a budget to be passed in all three years of Obama rule.

        • Gregg

          They were on budget attached to other bills. You’re spouting talking points. Nothing Obama has done is on budget because there is none. So no, I’m not clueless.

      • Look at the Elephant

         Bull ticky.  The national debit in 2008 when Obama took office was 9.9 trillion – up 4 trillion from when Bush took office.  Two trillion dollar Tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and two unfunded wars. Don’t forget TARP was a Republican move too.

        It’s Republicans who want to transform America into a Banana republic.

        • Gregg

          Bush was reckless for adding $4T in debt over 8 years but Obama added $5T in 3. Obama voted for TARP. Bush implemented only half of it and Obama the other half. Obama did not return the paid back money to the treasury. EVERYONE got a tax cut under Bush not just the rich. The poor fared much better as 6 million of the poorest saw their liability disappear altogether. The rich ended up paying a larger percentage of the overall bill because of it. The bottom rate was cut more than the top rate. Record revenues came in with 2007 still holding the trophy.

      • Kairos

        Obama was handed a trillion dollar deficit.  Bush was handed a surplus.  Half of the deficit is caused by the Bush Tax Cuts says the Congressional Budget Office (but perhaps you know more than they).

        • Gregg

          The CBO projections are just that. They are static. The CBO projected $200B deficits as far as the eye could see in 1993 under Clinton. How’d that work out?

          • Kairos

            Projections change when policy changes.  CBO says the Bush Tax Cuts are the leading driver of the deficit and will continue to be so until policy changes.  You have seen the charts.  You have seen the projections with and without the Bush Tax Cuts.  They say that the tax cuts have caused deficits every year.  It is now a denial of reality on your part.

          • Gregg

            No, static projections are a “denial of reality”. I tried to make that clear with Clinton. The projections did not factor in the ’94 revolution or the tech bubble. They could not have been more wrong about the $200B deficits which actually turned out to be a surplus.

            That the CBO assumes revenue would have been constant ignores the bursting tech bubble and 9/11.

          • Kairos

            I think you also forget that the internet was the direct result of government subsidies for new technologies.

            Plus, CBO projections from 2000 are irrelevant to the reality that the CBO now says that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the country trillions of dollars over the last decade.  I know you don’t believe that because you only look at the superficial numbers without taking into account population growth, inflation, and GDP to Revenue percentage, but perhaps you will stop believing politicians and right wing news outlets and get your information from our most authoritative source: CBO. 

          • Gregg

            I don’t think you got my point and in fact you bolstered it. And please, I look at all of it.

            Please show me where the CBO projection factored in Obamcare, the Clinton recession, 9/11, $46 billion/year in new regulations and trillion dollar deficits. It’s not possible.

            If that theory were true then any company, despite the economy, could simply raise prices (ignoring the market) and project the surpluses (10 years out) assuming sales would remain the same. Then they could blame all their woes on not raising prices. It’s silly.

      • Ray in VT

         Your $151 billion figure is misleading.  The on the books figure was $151, but there were the emergency supplementals and such which were off the books, so that year the number added to the deficit was closer to $400 billion.  I also take issue with pretty much everything else that you’ve said.

        • Gregg

          I will take your word as you are usually reliable but I am a bit dubious. so call it $400B and compare it with trillion dollar deficits year after year after year under Obama.
           
          Please feel free to take issue but Obama did decree illegals legal after saying he did not have the authority. He does have a hit list. Republicans have passed 25+ jobs bills and Obama is fundamentally transforming America.

          • Ray in VT

            A lot of that has to do with reduced federal revenues.  We currently have the lowest amount of federal tax collection as a share of the GDP since about 1950.  I may be off by a year or two one way or another on that one.  While federal spending is high relative to GDP, partly that is due to decreased GDP, but also decreased rates play into that.  There hasn’t been a spending glut under Obama.  Some areas of the federal budget have ballooned, such as unemployment insurance.  Some of those are tied to the recession, and some of it is in part due to changing age demographics.

            As for declaring illegals legal, I don’t think that they have been legalized, just not currently high on the deportation priority list.  Also, if one watches the video past which it has been cropped some of the media, then he goes on to say that he can do just want he did.

            Hit list.  Are you talking about people being identified as terrorists operating in foreign countries?  I assume that you aren’t talking about some domestic enemies list.  If the former, then do you condemn the blowing up of the guy in Yemen?  Do we take them out in the field, or do we attempt to capture and detain indefinitely?  I don’t think that either option is necessarily a good one in a perfect world.

            I wonder about the jobs bills.  What is in them?  Tax cuts/breaks?  Easing of environmental and/or labor regulations.  I don’t know, but, as I’m sure you know, I’m pretty suspect of just about anything that the GOP does.

            What do you mean regarding fundamentally transforming America.  I think that certainly that has been done over the past 30 years.  Reagonomics has done a lot there.  Technology has had a great impact.  Changing social values and norms have occurred.  There are some ways that I would like to see the President fundamentally transform America, and there are ways that his predecessors have done it that I very much dislike.

          • Gregg

            the shrinking GDP is on Obam IMO, I’m sure you disagree.

            Hit list.

            Obama was unequivocal in what he said on univision. If he directly contradicted himself moments later then it’s just mishmash. I’d have to see it.

            “Cut, cap and balance” is one of the many jobs bills. It was supported by 63% of the public, S&P said it would have prevented the downgrade and it gained bi-partisan support in the House.

      • John in Amherst

         Bush decided to run the trillion dollar wars in south Asia off the books, and Obama brought them back on.  Bush’s deficit was due by en large to the tax cuts that did nothing to free all those “job creators” to stoke the economy.  Furthermore, Bush’s recession is unique in that it involved the financial sector, which, even after accepting a huge tax-payer bail-out, has decided to sit on their assets rather than resume lending that would have helped spur a recovery.  Add to this scenario the disintegrating EU currency, the natural/nuclear disaster that has hobbled Japan, and a slowly bursting real estate bubble and growing environmental concerns that are slowing China’s growth. 
        You do know that Obama is a human, and not capable of magic, right??
        As for declaring illegals legal, Obama is way ahead of Bush when it comes to deporting illegals. 

      • J__o__h__n

        They weren’t jobs bills any more than Karl Rove’s shady groups are social welfare organizations.  It was just what they called their agenda to cut taxes and regulations. 

  • nj_v2

    Meanwhile, amongst the blather, anthropogenic climate proceeds unabated.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimatereport.html

    Back-to-back La Niñas cooled globe and influenced extreme weather in 2011
    New NOAA-led report examines climate conditions experienced around the world”

    “2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2011-peterson-et-al.pdf
    EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS
    OF 2011 FROM A CLIMATE
    PERSPECTIVE

  • Don_B1

    @Gregg

    The WAY Republicans are passing these bills IS racist and anti-democratic as well as anti-Democratic.

  • Brandstad

    This chart shows how great the Obama recovery is!  With this evadence, do we want to change corse?

    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50000673ecad049c2e000008-915/bill-mcbride-calculated-risk-blog.jpg

    • Don

      If you want to blame Obama, you should have let him do what he wants to do. If you block everything he wants to do, then you have no ground to blame him. 

      • Still Here

        If he can’t figure out how to govern, why continue with this disaster.

        • nj_v2

          If you can’t say anything worthwhile, why continue posting?

          • Still Here

            Live by your own words.
            You have never ever made the slightest contribution.

        • Don

          It’s like you tied someone the hands, then complain he is not doing his job. He would be able to govern if only he could fire the entire congress. 

          • Still Here

            Gee, didn’t he know he would have to work with Congress or did he think the election was for dictator.  He’s forced his will from day one and done everything he can to antagonize the opposition while failing to build any consensus.  Reagan, Bush I and Bush II governed with Dems, Clinton with Repubs.  His presidency’s failure is his fault alone!

          • Don

            The difference is the DEMs compromised during those years, but not a single GOP in this congress would compromise anything. Remember none of them would even take a deal with 10 spending cut with 1 tax increase?

          • Gregg

            Not true, Boehner offered the President everything he wanted and Obama refused because he wanted an issue.

          • J__o__h__n

            Be more specific.  Also Boehner has often made offers that he then didn’t have the teabegger votes to deliver.

          • Gregg
          • Gregg
          • J__o__h__n

            I read the Post and that wasn’t what ist said.  I’m not reading the Limbaugh link.

          • jefe68

            Bunk alert, the BS is really flying with this comment.
             

          • Gregg

            The record is clear, your comment is not.

        • TFRX

          An anonymous hold has been placed on your comment. It will not appear until a majority (now 60%) vote for it.

          • Gregg

            A little leadership could get passed the 60% thing. Repealing Obamacare will take only 51 Senate votes.

      • Brandstad

        When Obama doesn’t get what he wants, he just bypasses congress and issues an executive order or creates a regulation. 

        Don’t believe that Obama isn’t getting much of what he wants done.  The sad part is congress is too dumb to realize that the entire branch of government has been allowed to be avoided by this administration.

    • Newton Whale

      That chart proves 4 things:

      1) the Bush crash was the worst since the Great Depression
      2) Obama turned the economy around
      3) the stimulus worked, and
      4) it would have worked better if it had been bigger

      Coming into office, President Obama was faced with the Bush-Republican debacle that had job losses approaching 800,000 per month. Since then, Obama has returned the nation to positive job growth and he has enjoyed a job-creation rate that exceeds the first-term job creation record of any Republican President in history. 

      Under President Obama an average of more than 157,000 jobs have been created each month. During the first term of President Reagan, the most successful of the Republicans, job creation was an anemic 109,000 per month. 

      http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20120710/NJOPINION02/307100002/Obama-measures-up-well-on-job-creation 

    • Kairos

      I don’t understand how republicans can complain at all about unemployment since they are responsible for over 700,000 lay offs of public employees.  Instead of laying off public employees, we should have kept up with population growth and if we had stayed on the same trend as Clinton and Bush, we would have a net gain of 1.5 or so million jobs.  And it was all payed for by the ballooning bank accounts of the top and closed loopholes for corporations–theoretically, according to the republicans, those ever-increasing top incomes should have created jobs by now.  Gee, and I wonder what kind of multiplier effect 1.5 million jobs would have on the private market….

      And I know what you are going to say, but Greece’s public sector is 60% of their economy; America’s public sector is around 15% and shrinking.  I think we have room for new employment there. But seriously, republicans shouldn’t cry about jobs since they are responsible for blocking a massive jobs bill.

      • William

        There is nothing wrong with laying off public employees when times are difficult. There is no money to pay them so why take on debt? When the economy recovers rehire those personnel that are necessary.

        • Kairos

          I guess you skipped over the part about paying for public employment with new taxes and closed loopholes…?  I don’t see what is wrong with taxing “Creators of Jobs” to actually create jobs.  Then the “Creators” will have to high more people to produce enough to cover the new demand.

          This is a much better alternative than the faith-based policy of making the rich a little richer so they feel it in their heart to higher more people (without the promise of demand) instead of buying their kids BMWs. 

          • William

            Why raise taxes in a bad economy? Taking money out of the economy to create a public sector job accomplishes nothing. Every company over hires during the good times and cuts back during the bad times. The public sector is going to have to realize that is how life is and get used to it. Even Obama has pushed his own tax cuts. Layoffs don’t kill anyone and it is a part of our economy. Going forward we will see a much more mobile work force chasing the jobs. It is not a nice picture, but that is the reality and we have to accept it. 

          • Kairos

            Money is already out of the economy and pooling in the bank accounts of a thin minority of rich people.  Again, moneys got to flow.  The nice thing about Romney running for president is that you can see that about 10% of his wealth goes back to investments and he parlays his wealth.  80% or so of his wealth sits in bank accounts.  I’m pretty sure you can look up the quantitative numbers about how much income goes back to the economy: poor people have about 98% of their income going back to the market, middle income is less, and the top saves the majority of their income.  This is common knowledge. 

          • TFRX

            You make some good points, but asking William to look up anything is folly.

          • William

            Money does not sit in a bank account. The bank or investment firm will put it to work. This is how our economy works.

          • Kairos

            Is it better for money to sit in a few bank accounts or is it better for that money to be taxed and spread to the majority of bank accounts and to drive down the deficit?  I have yet to see a republicans answer that.  And it will never happen because the answer is obvious.  But what do you care about right and wrong–if it doesn’t fit your ideology, then the hell with America.

        • TFRX

          That’s bassackwards from every right winger who says “Trim government spending when the economy recovers and people can get jobs in the private sector.” You think all that stuff reading 193X or 195X is going to stay there

          And it flies in the face of keeping demand afloat.

          Hey, let’s let the next Republican president try ruining the economy during a recession that way. (Hint: They won’t.)

  • Tina

    Can you imagine how PAINFUL it must be to have just given birth to a child with major health issues and then to hear Mitt Romney BRAG, “When I’m President, the first thing I will do is to REPEAL OBAMACARE.”  He is totally tone-deaf to the ramifications of his position!!!

    Then we have the caller today who spoke in much the same way with some insidious ideas about how to execute his position…

    • Kairos

      At least 20,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have a doctor for regular check-ups.  

      • Brandstad

        Where did you get this information from?  Your local drug dealer?

        • Kairos

           http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html

          What do you think happens?  You think people can sense cancer developing at early stages, can sense on overabundance of iron in the blood…?

          • TFRX

            And when the spit hits the fan and someone who, a month after that non-existant checkup, gets to an ER with a real bad situation, guess who’s the first in line to complain about “poor people in the ER”?

            Yep. Branny and his ilk.

          • Kairos

            I wouldn’t call Brandstand a murder because he’s ignorant.  But a republican who willfully fights against healthcare knowing that it would save at least 20,000 lives a year but fights against it anyways because it raises taxes on the rich 4%…I have trouble deciding if they are murderers or not.  Jesus would certainly think so. 

          • TFRX

            (I didn’t say he’s a murderer.

            But it takes a heap of twisting to pretend that the ER is “free for po’ folks” and the set of circumstances that led to that belief benefits anyone else–like middle class people such as Branny and I, who get Ordinary, Crappy Insurance from work.)

          • Kairos

            Sorry, I didn’t word my comment correctly.  I know you didn’t suggest that.  I was just ruminating on the issue: how someone could cut healthcare knowing that people will die…. How could Brandstand or anyone continue to be against health reform knowing that people are dying.  One would have to be an ideological freak to hold human life so cheaply. 

          • TFRX

            I thought not; thanks for clarifying.

            There is something weird about how Branny and everyone he knows has The World’s Greatest Healthcare (which the ACA will ruin), but everyone who doesn’t needs to get a job with better benefits, compete in the “singular market” for HC insurance, and when they’re ill, get the hell out of his way, those freeloaders.

  • Don_B1

    @Gregg

    The WAY Republicans are passing these bills IS racist and anti-democratic as well as anti-Democratic.

    Can’t seem to get this to appear under Gregg’s post.

    • Gregg

       How so?

  • nj_v2

    No one’s mentioned the made-in-China Olympic uniforms the U.S. team will be wearing in London. 

    Kind of a fitting summary of the current state of affairs.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    What a bunch of cowards.  It’s not as though life as an ex-senator is so bad.  They can always go into lobbying if they get voted out of office.

  • MrNutso

    They aren’t really tax cuts anymore, they are the tax rates.

  • MrNutso

    It’s not can’t pay more taxes, it’ won’t pay taxes.

    • Brandstad

      Are you talking about Warren Buffet?

      • Still Here

        Exactly, can’t, won’t and will whine about not paying more when he could just right a check.

        • jefe68

          Load of bunk alert.
           

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    Quit referring to the “Temporary Bush Tax Cuts” as the Bush Tax Cuts or the Obama Tax Cuts.  They were supposed to expire after ten years and they should have.  

    • Brandstad

      Why exactly should they expire? 

      • Don

        Because it’s proven to be bad for the country as a whole. The debt has increased. The gap between the poor and rich has widened to historical high. 

        • Still Here

          It would make more sense to cut spending and let people keep what they worked so hard to earn.

          • Kairos

            Why would Romney’s bank accounts need to get larger?  Around 85% of his income just sits in the banks.  And it’s not like he was a self-made-man or anything.  Tax the spoiled brat.

          • Brandstad

            If you knew anything about banks, you would realize that any money he does have sitting in a bank allows the bank to loan more money out.  So if you want banks to have less money sitting in them, you will also get less loans for cars, boats, houses (wait, 90% of home loans are made by GSE’s now so scratch that)

          • Kairos

            Can you possibly say that Romney’s interests are doing more good for the economy, than taxing it to reduce the deficits and higher some people to increase consumerism?

            Plus, banks have more money in them right now but are giving out less loans….  Nobody is doing business because there is bad consumerism right now.  Nobody has money except the top!  And demand is the number one reason why people higher.  When money flows, economies work.  Supply and demand must be somewhat balanced.  A toddler can understand this.

          • Still Here

            Bank accounts don’t pay anything so I don’t think he has much income from his bank accounts; therefore nothing to tax.

          • Kairos

            He has a quarter of a billion but invests around $10 million a year.  To tax Mitt Romney is to get money flowing again.  You think Romney is going to quit capitalism if we raise his taxes 3%.  Get over yourself and wake up.

          • Don

            30 years ago, average CEO made 40 times of an average worker. Today that is 400. So the CEO is now working 10 times harder than before and 400 times harder than an average worker?

          • Still Here

            Yes, at least in the minds of shareholders.

      • Yar

        They were set to expire so they did not show their full effect on the debt.  It is a way for congress to avoid the truth in GAO reports.
        What should happen, is anytime a tax policy is put in place it’s accounting by the GAO is as if it is permanent.  That is closer to the truth than the current system of accounting.

        • Gregg

          They would have been allowed to expire but there were not the Democrat votes.

          • J__o__h__n

            The Democrats wanted them to expire for the rich but the Republicans demanded that all be renewed. 

          • Gregg

            The Dems had the numbers for two years and Republicans could have done nothing to stop it.

          • Kairos

            How many times did republicans filibuster?

            And not to mention, just because republicans got some power in 2010 doesn’t mean they should keep this country from doing the right thing.  Every time you lose an argument you say that democrats had two years ignoring the fact that what us liberals are saying is correct!

            Also, Obama had to spend much of his time and political capital cleaning up two wars, GDP contracting at 8% and the dark markets on Wall Street.  They’re still pretty dark. 

          • Gregg

            Obama had 60 vote to beat the filibuster for the first 2 years but Democrats were not on board… as I said.

            Obama didn’t clean up wars, he started a new one, he escalated in Afghanistan and he did not accelerate Bush’s SOFA in Iraq one iota.

    • Gregg

      They are the law of the land.

  • AC

    Dont’t worry San Bernadino, I’m sure the drug cartels are ready to step right in and help out!!

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    What’s going on with the Jackson family?  That’s easy.  It has to be soul-destroying when a person’s only talent is whining.

    • StillHere

      His dad is a ignorant bully who’s weaseled good jobs and money for his family through threats.

  • Charles A. Bowsher

    Junior Jackson problem is likely to be Manic Depression or Bi-Polar.  Can be handled with meds, if he is willing to take them….

    • Still Here

      If he’s depressed, maybe it’s about the cloud that hangs over him since he tried to buy Obama’s senate seat.  Hopefully the Fed’s are circling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1270475378 Ellen Blanchette

    In answer to what can be done to restore our economy, the federal government needs to give more money back to the states. Whether they call it a stimulus or whatever they need to NAME IT to make it politically acceptable, the states are starved for income and the feds collect taxes from all of us so they need to give some of it back, now. This is what Paul Krugman said a few weeks ago and made a very credible argument for how this would restore the economy. States have very few options. they can’t raise taxes sufficient to fill the hole and they can’t run a deficit. I think everyone knows this and the Republicans would have been in favor of this if they weren’t trying to use this to win the election. Just more proof they don’t care about average Americans.

    • Brandstad

      I agree with you, but the problem is the Federal government is already spending far more money than it brings in. 

      What should be cut from the federal government spending to allow the States to keep more of their money and take responsibility for spending it efficiently for the good of the people of the state?

      • Kairos

        We got to make cuts that will not influence consumerism.  And we need to tax incomes where the majority of the money sits in bank accounts.  Once consumerism beefs up, then we should make more cuts.  

    • TFRX

      The federal government is already giving money back to the states.

      Blue states largely pay more taxes than the fed govt gives them, and red states largely get more back.

      And the Obama admin has been pushing (you know, all those bridges and such with “193x” or “195x” cornerstones which won’t last forever) infrastructure spending. Surprise! A lot of GOP governors don’t want to do it.

      “Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.”

    • William

       Why should the taxpayers in a well managed state bail out a state like CA that just refuse to control their spending?

      • Ray in VT

         California only receives 79 cents back on the dollar that it sends to the Federal government.  Most of the largest taking states (relative to their giving) are red states.  If California was going 1:1, then they could certainly do more to address their state issues, but they’re busy subsidizing Mississippi and Alabama.  It’s my understanding that part of California’s problems are due to approved propositions that have handicapped the state government’s ability to tax and spend in ways that would be more logical and useful.

        • William

           Should CA or any state expect to receive back 100 percent of what the Federal government takes? Ca has an huge amount of oil off shore but won’t all drilling. There are forests, minerals that can be mined but it is not allowed. Now it has decided to shut off farming to save a small fish. It appears to a reasonable person CA is not willing to do much to help itself.

          • jefe68

            You failed to answer to the comment which is typical of right wing blowhards. Then you try to change the subject about California’s right to manage their own assets which is rich coming from a right winger. Are you not one of those who goes on about states rights. Seems to me that either the state has the right to mange their natural resources or they don’t.

          • TFRX

            Saying “You failed to answer” to William–that’s on autotext, isn’t it?

            I mean, it’s his raisin doo etray.

          • William

             Does the state have the right to ignore economic development, create jobs and then demand the feds bail them out when they mismanage their funds? What sense does that make?

        • Brandstad

          So let me get this straight.  California, a rich state, is only getting 0.79 back from the feds of every dollar it sends.  This sounds a lot like a rich American.  Where is the problem with this?
           
          What is even funnier is the state always votes for Dems that want to raise the tax rates resulting in CA sending even more money to the Feds and getting 79% back!  If CA residents had half a brain cell they would vote for a Republican that would decrease their taxes resulting in more of their money staying in individuals pockets and in their state!

  • Curt Peterson

    Hi, Tom, and guests. Here’s the problem and a logical solution regarding taxes, government debt and the cost of vital services.
    Since the first Reagan term, real wages have been stagnant, other than for the upper income brackets. However, the American economy has been able to continue to report growth in sales and corporate revenue through most of these years. How? By loosening credit and encouraging people to take on enormous amounts of personal debt. Ergo, now that we’ve hit the inevitable ceiling and growth is stagnant, consumers literally can’t adjust their lifestyles to pay for the services they demand. For a time the solution has been to lower taxes, and now the government is also encouraging “funky” car and home loans, for example. But there is no juice left – the cost of these items is beyond the reasonable ability of consumers to pay for them. The problem isn’t taxes, it’s the debt that has removed all safety nets, all room for adjustment, all disposable income that could be invested in taxes. The solution, in my mind, is to let the lenders take the “hit” – lending is a risk, interest rates should reflect that risk (when government doesn’t artificially lower them), and it is time for the risk to become the reality.
    In Iceland, for example, the government struck a deal with the banks to solve their housing bust – all mortgage loan balances, current or in arrears, were reduced by 30% on a given date; banks knew how much they were going to lose, they were going to lose it over the balance of time on the loans and most homeowners were able to stay in their homes, thus maintaining stability in neighborhoods and the relative real estate markets.
    A true leader would consider this possibility and take charge of trying to make it happen. 

    • Don

      Problem is we have these ‘too big to fail’ banks.

  • Still Here

    Did you hear about the guy who same-day registered to vote in DC and said his name was Eric Holder?  He didn’t have to show an ID.  He didn’t vote or else it would have been fraud…

    • Guest

      Nearly every state requires that you register to vote prior to election day.  I wonder how the people who are so traumatized and intimidated by getting a Voter ID, if these people really exist, mustered the courage to register to vote in the first place.  For all the comments about there being no evidence of widespread vote fraud, I’ve never seen evidence that anyone is intimidated by requiring an ID.

      • TFRX

        Try harder. Or at all.

        And you don’t even have to self-identify as a white “center-right” male, I’m guessing.

  • guest

    Hi Tom,
    I have a request.  When someone calls in and says that they will not vote for Obama because the economy is doing poorly, could you ask them the following questions? 1) Do the qualifications of the opponent not matter at all as long as they are not Obama?  Would you vote for Snooki?  2) Do you not consider that the policies proposed by the opponent at all?  Might they make the economy do even worse? 

    • Brandstad

      It is funny you mention Snooki, since Snooki has the same level of experience creating jobs as Obama did the day he was elected president.  While Romney is far from the best possible Republican candidate, he does have 1000X Obama’s experience at creating jobs, management, creating budgets, and leadership skills.

      To your question”Might they make the economy do even worse?  ” History shows that no one has done worse than Obama has done so far, so it is safe to say chances are 99 out of 100 oponents would do better than Obama.

      • Ray in VT

         I thought that Snooki was funny to mention because I think that she was born in Peru.

        I don’t know, though, I think that given who the GOP ran out this time around, I think that Romney is probably about as good as they could get. 

        While his business experience does count for something, it’s not quite the same as running the country and serving as a representative of the American people.  The government isn’t a business, and in some ways it can’t and shouldn’t be run like one.  If you want to take the entirety of his business experience into account, then he also had 1000X more experience than Obama in laying people off and rehiring them for less; he had more experience raiding employee pension funds to pay executives; he had more experience shipping jobs overseas in order to boost corporate and shareholder profits; he had more experience supporting the sort of big box and chain retail that had greatly hurt small and independent business in America.

        I would disagree that no one has done worse on the economy than Obama.  There were significant economic difficulties under Hoover, Taft and Cleveland.  Let’s see what has happened under Obama’s watch?  Over two straight years of positive job numbers.  How terrible.  11 straight quarters of GDP growth.  Just awful.

        • Brandstad

          At Obama’s current rate, he could have another 4 year term and still not have anywhere near the same number of Americans working as Bush did on his last day of office!  This doesn’t even account for population growth. 

          Who cares about GDP when increasingly more Americans don’t have jobs

          • TFRX

            More horsecrap from the guy who can’t admit that Obama has more jobs created in 3 1/2 years (much in recession) than Shrub did in 8 (with a 5 1/2 year “expansion” kicker).

            And that’s even counting the nose-cutting face spiter GOP governors hacking their states to bits.

      • Kairos

        Romney would have let the auto industry go under.  Obama saved it and it is now at the top of the market, and the companies are on schedule to pay back America in full, and the unionized workers are making more money due to the stipulations Obama laid out.  That right there is more than Romney has ever done. 

        • Brandstad

          GM has been padding their production numbers by stuffing extra inventory on dealers all year long since they count cars as sold once they arrive on a dealers lot.

           
          It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the “success” of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.

          • Kairos

            You talk out of your butt, but do you eat food with your butt as well?

  • Brandstad

    The following are 27 things that every American should know about the national debt….

    #1 It took more than 200 years for the U.S. national debt to reach 1 trillion dollars.  In 1986, the U.S. national debt reached 2 trillion dollars.  In 1992, the U.S. national debt reached 4 trillion dollars.  In 2005, the U.S. national debt doubled again and reached 8 trillion dollars.  Now the U.S. national debt is about to cross the 16 trillion dollar mark.  How long can this kind of exponential growth go on?

    #2 If the average interest rate on U.S. government debt rises to just 7 percent, the U.S. government will find itself spending more than a trillion dollars per year just on interest on the national debt.

    #3 If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.

    #4 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the U.S. national debt has increased by an average of more than $64,000 per taxpayer.

    #5 Barack Obama will become the first president to run deficits of more than a trillion dollars during each of his first four years in office.

    #6 If you were alive when Jesus Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now.

    #7 The U.S. national debt has increased by more than 1.6 trillion dollars since the Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  So far, this Congress has added more to the national debt than the first 97 Congresses combined.

    #8 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more new debt than it did from the time that George Washington became president to the time that Bill Clinton became president.

    #9 If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days.

    #10 As Bill Whittle has shown, you could take every single penny that every American earns above $250,000 and it would only fund about 38 percent of the federal budget.

    #11 Today, the government debt to GDP ratio in the United States is well over 100 percent.

    #12 A recently revised IMF policy paper entitled “An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?” projects that U.S. government debt will rise to about 400 percent of GDP by the year 2050.

    #13 The United States already has more government debt per capita than Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland or Spain does.

    #14 At this point, the United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt in the entire world.

    #15 The amount of U.S. government debt held by foreigners is about 5 times largerthan it was just a decade ago.

    #16 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president.

    #17 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will surpass 23 trillion dollars in 2015.

    #18 Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011.  That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.

    #19 Between 2007 and 2010, U.S. GDP grew by only 4.26%, but the U.S. national debt soared by 61% during that same time period.

    #20 The U.S. government has total assets of 2.7 trillion dollars and has total liabilities of17.5 trillion dollars.  The liabilities do not even count 4.7 trillion dollars of intragovernmental debt that is currently outstanding.

    #21 U.S. households are now actually receiving more money directly from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

    #22 The U.S. government is wasting your money on some of the stupidest things imaginable.  For example, in 2011 the National Institutes of Health spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.

    #23 If the federal government used GAAP accounting standards like publicly traded corporations do, the real federal budget deficit for last year would have been 5 trillion dollars instead of 1.3 trillion dollars.

    #24 The Federal Reserve purchased approximately 61 percent of all government debt issued by the U.S. Treasury Department during 2011.

    #25 At this point, the U.S. national debt is more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was first created.

    #26 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 480,000 years to completely pay off the national debt.

    #27 The official government debt figure does not even account for massive unfunded liabilities that the U.S. government will be hit with in the years ahead.  According to Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the U.S. government is facing a future “fiscal gap” ofmore than 200 trillion dollars.

    • Kairos

       http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

      If you click on the first table 1.1, you can see the history of deficits and surpluses.  Perhaps, you can align the types of policy with the budget year.  And then you by chance will rethink what you wrote.  I especially like #9 because it is a beautiful nugget of propaganda: nobody says we should tax the rich 100%, but you cannot deny that nothing will reduce the deficit faster and safer than raising taxes on the rich 5 or 6 per cent.  If we got out of the wars, cleaned up the fraud on medicare part D, and taxed the top at 44%, we would bloody likely have a surplus within two years.

      • Brandstad

        How would it help raising the tax rate on the rich when all recent data except once shows that cutting the tax rate for the rich has resulted in increased federal tax receipts!

  • InTuit77

    Stan: Mr Romney would you allow you religious beliefs to take
    presidence over your commitment to America and Humanity?

    Romney: The problem is too much government. Government doesn’t make any money and the people are getting tired of it.

    Stan: Mr. Romney would you please answer the questions that you are asked.

    Romney: It is your right to ask the questions you want, and it is my right to answer the questions I want.

    Stan: Mr. Romney it is not a right to answer the questions you want, it is a clear example of your disregard for the intelligence and significance of the voters.  This is not an interrogation.  There is no need to withhold pertinent information, unless you are attempting to hide something.

    Romney: That’s your opinion. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

    Stan: Could you give it a try just this once?

    Romney: No, Stan I would not allow my religious beliefs to take presidence over what is best for America and Humanity.

    Stan:  In the light of this assertion could you please justify producing the number of children that you have fathered?

    Romney: It is written right in our Constitution that “The rich shall inherit the earth.”

    Stan: No it’s not.

    Romney: You have the right to interpret the Constitution the way you want and I have the right to interpret it the way I want.

    • Clemtone

       I remember him giving that ridiculous answer during the Republican debates.  What a offensive dick.

  • TomK in Boston

    And another thing: How did Etchasketch get $100,000,000 in an IRA that allows contributions of $6,000/yr? Where are the corporate media on this scam? 

    • Guest

      For many individuals, most of the money in their IRA accounts comes from rollovers of other pension plans, not year to year IRA contributions.

      • TomK in Boston

        OK, could be – or it could be that he misrepresented the real value of his contributions by factors of hundreds or thousands, and then, amazingly, they appreciated by factors of hundreds or thousands. I guess I’ll never know, since the corporate media don’t seem interested.

        • Still Here

          Your questions, beyond a doubt, show how ignorant you are.  Your envy drives your irrationality.  It’s pitiful.

          • TomK in Boston

            Go ahead and clarify my ignorance, Mr Talking Point. Feel free to explain….if you can express anything that is not a righty bumpersticker.

          • Still Here

            Really, it’s my job to educate you about tax policy.  Research Cash Balance Plans once you get home from your public sector job, because there is no way someone as ignorant as you could possibly work in the private sector in any meaningful capacity. 

          • TomK in Boston

            OK, Still Here, thanks for admitting you have no idea how Etchasketch got $100,000,000 in his IRA.
            I know you only parrot righty scripts and don’t do dialog, so I’m wasting my time, but the reality is that Etcha could have got his monster IRA legitimately or by a con. We don’t know which, but he IS a financial con man….
            As for your constant drivel about “envy” and “public sector jobs”, I make trades bigger than your entire net worth when I’m just fine tuning my portfolio. It really is possible to be well off and care about the USA. Try thinking about someone besides yourself, you might find it more satisfying that Randism.

          • Still Here

            You are a terrible liar, but it makes sense, you have no intellect to work with.

          • Brandstad

            or research 401K to Roth IRA rollovers.  They have no limits and result in high balances in IRA accounts. 

            Wow you should limit your discussion to things you know about like dog catching.

        • Brandstad

          and you could be Pee-wee Herman, but I wouldn’t waste any time looking into either possibility because they are slim to none.

          Did we ever  look into the slum loard that baught an empty lot beside the house Obama bought.  The empty lot sold for over the asking price and the Obama mansion was bought for far less than market value.

          Both parcels were bought on the same day and the empty lot was rendered unbuildable after the slum loard sold Obama half of it for a huge financial loss.

  • Kathy Holmes

     a statement was made toward the end of the program, that something fundamentally must change with the tax code.  In my opinion, what must change is the wealthiest few in this country being able to legally put their assets in the Caymans etc, so that they don’t have to pay their fair share of taxes.  When I see somewhere in print that Romney only pays 14% of his income in taxes and I earn about $100k and pay about 30% there is something seriously wrong with our system.  Someone running for the highest office in the country should be contributing more to our economy and not looking for ways to “rob” our economy.
    They should be held to the highest standard if they’re seeking the highest office. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to live in our country if they don’t pay their full measure of taxes.. No more hiding the wealth in foreign countries.. period..

  • Michael T.

    Somebody show me where Romney created jobs — show me the data on a non-partisan organization’s website.   And while you’re at it send me a link to data that shows cutting taxes on the very rich creates jobs.  Romney is a classic Reagan-era corporate raider “not concerned about the very-poor” who won’t allow transparency on his dough because he knows damned well that many people (including swing voters) won’t like what they see.  There is *no* good reason why a person vying for the most important elected position on Earth should not be forthcoming with how he obtained and grows his wealth. 

    • Gregg

      Romney’s job at Bain was not to crate jobs, it was to save them.

      I don’t know how it’s possible to prove the relationship between cutting taxes on the rich and creating jobs. I can tell you the unemployment rate went down for 53 months after the tax rates were lowered. Coincidence?

      • TomK in Boston

        What nonsense! His job was to make $ in a no-risk financial con game without caring what happened to the workers.
        He did “crate” jobs, tho….off to india and china.

        When he was gov of MA he offshored call answering on state business to a call center in india! A MA resident could call to find out about unemployment and be answered by an indian who had taken his neighbor’s job! What a guy.

      • Michael T.

         Take a look at this debate between Maddow and WJS’s Steve Moore and how PolitiFact.com truth-tested Maddow’s statements.

        They give a number of stats that basically support the view that tax cuts have been much more favorable for the rich than anyone else.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/03/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-tanglles-wall-street-journals-steve-/

        The last paragraph (quoting PolitiFact.com):

        “. . . Maddow’s point that the 1980s were much more of a boon for the very rich than everyone else is valid. And so we rate Maddow’s statement Mostly True. “

      • Michael T.

         Romney was accountable *only* to the shareholders — the only thing that mattered in those Reagan-era Roaring 80s leveraged buyouts was the shareholders’ bottom-line.  *nothing* else mattered (except his own pocketbook, of course) — not jobs, not pensions, not health care, not 30 years on the job.

        • Gregg

          If companies (and by extension jobs) were not saved then Bain’s stock would be worthless and the shareholders would not be happy.

          • jimino

            If you think that’s true  you would be a lousy capitalist.

          • Gregg

            I’ve done fine.

          • Still Here

            This from a parasite, nice.

          • TFRX

            You forgot to call him a young buck driving his Cadillac on the way to the welfare office.

      • jimino

        It is against the law for a corporation to care about how its decisions affect jobs to the detriment of its bottom line and value to its owners.  His actions at Bain had NOTHING to do with saving or creating jobs.

        • Gregg

          Saving companies saves jobs.

        • Still Here

          Where in the public sector or academia do you work because you are too clueless to be working in the private sector in a meaningful capacity?

          • jimino

            Your newest ignorant response to anyone who disagrees with you is yet another display of you identifying north as south.  I and everyone in my household is a business owner employed in the private sector, and not at a business or on land we inherited from our family (sound familiar?), and knows full well how much taxes, health insurance premiums , etc. cost for ourselves an our employees.  But I wouldn’t expect anything else from someone literally wrong about everything like you.

          • Still Here

            You are a terrible liar, saddled with a poor intellect.

    • TomK in Boston

      That’s right. He plays the same financial con games that crashed the economy in 2008. His con was called “leveraged buyout” until it started to smell bad, so they sanitized it into “private equity”.

      The facts are that the middle class was better off when taxes at the top were high. All tax cuts at the top do is redistribute wealth to the top.

      • Still Here

        The peak of the middle class came when life expectancy was about 60 years old, maybe we should just start offing the old people so we can get back to that nirvana.  Nevermind, I believe that’s part of Obamacare.

        • TomK in Boston

          Wrong, that’s what will happen when seniors try to deal with WellPoint with Ryan Groupons in their hands.

        • jimino

           You’re not even a good liar.

          • Still Here

            Death panels, rationing, whatever you want to call it.  How can you be so dense?

          • TFRX

            Death panels?

            You aren’t even a servicable liar. You’re like my nephew who hasn’t wiped the cookie crumbs off his face before he tells me he hasn’t emptied the cookie jar.

        • Kairos

          No, but we can staple green cards to graduate degrees to increase the young population, but right wing nationalism seems to stand in the way.   

      • Brandstad

        Exactly what year was the nervana you speak of when the middle class was best off?

        • TomK in Boston

          You really don’t know? I didn’t mention a single year of “nervana”, but in the 50s and 60s, when taxes were high at the top, and gvt regulation and Unions were strong, the middle class was getting more prosperous every year. When GDP went up, the average wage went up, not like now when everything goes to the romneys. Single worker families sent kid to college with no debt.

        • Kairos

          Ha!  Seriously…?  I would like to add to what TomK said.  Go look at what happened to average middle income during the Bush years before the recession.  It dropped $2,000, while top income increased. 

    • Hennorama

      This nonsense about so-called “job creators” being more likely to hire more people if they only paid lower taxes is just so much hooey.  NO ONE hires more employees just because they might pay lower taxes.  The ONLY reason to hire someone is that your business has either more demand for your products and services, or you need more support staff to manage and administer the business.

      Republicans claim that lower taxes will magically improve the economy through increased hiring is simply nonsensical.  Is is simplyt untrue, regardless of how often they repeat the lie.

      The other HUGE lie they tell is that the Affordable Care Act is a “government takeover of health care.”  This is also untrue on its face.  The ACA is a middle ground between the “you’re on your own” philosophy of the so-called “free market” approach of the Republican/Tea Party and the “single payer” concept put forward by Democrats and Progressives.

      The ACA should be loved by Republicans, since it requires everyone to take responsibility for health costs by purchasing insurance through PRIVATE COMPANIES.  They hate it only because it is President Obama’s signature accomplishment, and their oft-stated goal is to make the first African-American President a one-termer.

  • TomK in Boston

    Hey, remember when republicans made sense? Parade mag interviewed Bush senior and wife Barbara. Refreshing:

     PARADE: During your presidency you gave in on your “no new taxes” pledge. You’ve been vindicated in many respects for that decision. I wonder how you view the “no new tax” pledge from Grover Norquist that seems to be requisite for GOP political candidates. GB: The rigidity of those pledges is something I don’t like. The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s—who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway? BB: I think he ought to go back to Alaska. [laughs] Don’t quote me! [A reference to a comment Mrs. Bush made about Sarah Palin in a 2010 interview, in which she said, “I think she’s very happy in Alaska—and I hope she’ll stay there.”]

  • Guest

    I found this interesting.  A very small excerpt of investments held by John Kerry:
    Bain Capital Asia Fund I -  $500,001 to $1,000,000
    Bain Capital Europe Fund III -  $1,000,001
    Bain Capital Fund IX LP  -  $1,000,001
    Bain Capital Fund VII LP -  $250,001 to $500,000
    Bain Capital Fund VIII LP -  $1,000,001
    Bain Capital Fund X LP -  $1,000,001

    • jefe68

      He’s not running for president.
      But what do you expect from a Wall Street democrat.

      • Gregg

        That’s the point, when he WAS running no one cared.

        • jefe68

          He also disclosed all of his financial information and tax returns. That’s why it was not an issue. Man are you really this dense? 

  • Gregg

    Emperor Obama just gutted Clinton’s welfare reform by removing the work requirement. It was reformed by the Legislature and the Presidents signature but Obama undid it by executive order.

    • Michael T.

       Oh, you mean a single-mom with three kids won’t have to hold a job that requires a car, car insurance, and day-care (where I live it’s near impossible for her to work without those) to qualify for assistance?  How shameful!!

      • Gregg

        No, that’s not what I mean.

        • jimino

           Well, what do you mean then?

          • Gregg

            I mean exactly what I wrote. I’m not going to entertain the notion of an emotional hypothetical pulled out of Michael T.’s butt. 

            Welfare reform was a signature achievement of Bill Clinton. The will of the people was made clear in 1994 and Clinton was pragmatic enough to pivot. He vetoed the bill umpteen times but in the end he and Newt worked it out. It was a huge success and people went from welfare to work. It was Democracy at it’s best. 

            Do you think Obama’s EO will help the unemployment rate? 

          • Sam Walworth

             come on Gregg, you can quench poor Michael’s thirst. Do him a favor, write what it will do, not what it used to do.

            you can do it..

          • Gregg

            What what will do? Do you mean Obama’s EO? It circumvents the appropriate legislative  process that made a signature achievement of Clinton the law of the land. It certainly has nothing to do with Michael’s imaginary tale.

          • Kairos

            Clinton pushed for Hilliarycare while the republicans created a different version of health care reform to combat Hilliarycare.  Fast forward, Obama uses not Hilliarycare but the republicans’ creation.  So when you talk about being pragmatic and a willingness to bend, think again.  Giving John Boehner 98% of what he wanted wasn’t ideological–Obama isn’t willing to shut down the government and hurt millions of Americans if he doesn’t get 98% of what he wanted.  Obama cared more about not shutting down the government than anything else and the republicans seized on it because they have no problem hurting Americans to get their way.

            So get a little perspective.

          • Gregg

            I disagree completely.

          • Kairos

            Of course you do.  But if you read a history book and got a global perspective, you would see that Obama is clearly categorized as a pragmatic progressive.

  • Ray in VT

    Before I head out for the weekend, I did want to say something to Gregg as a response to something that he said below.  You said the the shrinking GDP was on Obama in your opinion, but this says otherwise:

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

    GDP went negative in the second quarter of 2008, rebounded one quarter, and then it took a nose dive and didn’t return to positive territory until maybe 3rd quarter 2009.

    • Gregg

      GDP is in the crapper and Bush is long gone. It rebounded and crashed again years later. That points to Obama. But as I said, I’m sure you disagree.

      Have a good weekend Ray.

      • Kairos

        The weakest GDP got under Obama was during the debt ceiling debates and the height of the Euro-crisis. 

        • Gregg

          Fair enough but Obama advised Europe to up the ante on the policies that led them to the brink. Only Merkel told him to pound sand.

          • Kairos

             Up the ante on the policies that led them to the brink…huh?

            All I remember is Obama asking for a grand bargain. You can’t cut Greece down to barely anything, but they do need some supply side economics.  Greece needs to get public employment below 60% and cut some of the state pension rates.  But they also need a lot of debt forgiven.  So don’t give me that bs that Obama said Greece should increase public employment.  That is obvious bs.  I was alive then and I have always listen to the BBC. 

            By the way, don’t act like Merkel is of the same ilk of America’s idiot republicans.  I would be center right in Germany: they already have free college and free health care, why wouldn’t I be insensitive to people who can’t make it through the social ranks…there’s equal opportunity there.  Much different and better than America.

        • TFRX

          Ah, the debt ceiilng “crisis”.

          The thing which wasn’t a crisis til GOP congresscritters realized a black Democrat was elected to the White House.

          Good times. As  S+P noted, “The GOP’s little shit fit caused us to downgrade the US’ credit rating. Nobody can govern those right-wingers in Congress.”

          • Gregg

             That’s sick.

      • Brandstad

        President Obama’s own budget plan, which didn’t get even one democrat to vote for it, continued his current plicies of increasing government spending.  His projections put the Federal debt wall above 100% of GDP before 2020.

        • Gregg

          It’s embarrassing.

      • jimino

        To be perfectly blunt, if all of the growth in GDP goes to the tiniest, wealthiest fraction of the population, who the hell cares?

        • Gregg

          Certainly not me, assuming it’s true.

  • Adualaz

    I want to believe that Mr. Romney had no role in the management of Bain Capital after 1999.  The sticky point for me, though, is that I cannot understand why Mr. Romney was paid $100,000 as Chief Executive of Bain Capital when he had no role in its management.  Did he really receive this money, and when?

  • Gregg

    CNN is reporting Obama’s tax plan would cut GDP by 1%. Terrific.

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/12/cnn-obama-tax-plan-cut-gdp-percent/

    • Kairos

      What a joke!  She cited a banker.  And it is not going to slow down GDP because the income the top earns stays largely in their personal bank accounts instead of going to the market.  If you raise taxes on the middle class, the middle class would spend less money in the market because the majority of their income already goes to the market.  You would have people buying more quarts of oil instead of going to the mechanic for an oil change, etc. 

      • Gregg

        Assuming it’s true the rich leave their money in the bank (it’s not) that money is still working to the benefit of all. Even Nancy Pelosi is opposed to raising taxes on the top bracket. Bill clinton is too. It’s a horrible idea with all kinds of downside and no upside except for making people believe they are getting even.

        • Sam Walworth

           If taxes are raised on Rich People then, where are they going to go? Europe or Singapore? Let them go where ever they want..  there is no other country on the face of the earth where they have healthy business environment and such low tax rates except USA.

          • Gregg

            New York is hemorrhaging millionaires because of taxes. They move to Florida where there is no State tax. Raising taxes does not increase revenue.

        • Kairos

          How many times have I asked you republicans to explain how vast amounts of money sitting in a few people’s bank accounts is better for the economy than hiring people (who will become consumers for the very institutions the rich run) and driving down the deficit?  Answer that!  Answer!  What down side?  Like the down side it had during the 90s…?  

          You are obviously lying about Clinton; I heard this crap before, play the whole video, he believes we can get away with extending the Bush Tax Cuts but there is no reason to not tax the rich more.  In fact, Ronald Reagan’s budget director said we should raise taxes on the rich.  Bush’s budget director, Paulson, said we should raise taxes on the rich along with the majority of economists.  (But god knows what Pelosi says.)

          But answer that question!  I dare you.

          • Kairos

            P.S., Henry Ford had trouble selling his cars for several months or so–he gave all of his employees a 100% raise, and many of them ended up buying a Ford car.  Obviously, it is a little different today, but hopefully, hopefully, please try to understand the main point.

          • Gregg

            I fail to see the link between a private company and the federal government regarding income.

          • Gregg

            First, I’m not a Republican. Secondly, it’s not your business what anyone does with their own money. Third, it doesn’t sit idle, it’s working. Forth, I do not lie. Clinton is opposed to letting any of the cuts expire in this economy. Fifth, a majority of economist certainly do not advocate raising taxes in this economy.

          • Kairos

            Just answer the question: is it better for money to sit in a few bank accounts or be spreed across the country to middle class bank accounts and drive down the deficit?

          • Gregg

            It is far better for people to keep what they have earned than to have it confiscated and redistributed. That helps no one and is the downfall of our culture.

          • Kairos

            How so?

          • Kairos

            Seriously, how so?  Explain why you think that.  Explain why 35% tax rate is moral, but a 39% tax rate is immoral. 

            Did you come to your believes based on history, what other countries are doing, evidence?  Or do you believe what you believe simply because democrats believe the opposite?

          • Gregg

            I don’t draw a moral line at an arbitrary rate. I just think people own their money. I agree with many Democrat  issues.

      • Brandstad

        You show your ignorance of banks once again.

        Money sitting in banks is used as colateral to meet federal regulations and increases in deposits allow the bank to lend out more money.  Often the bank will lend 6-10X more money out than they have as deposits.  So if the rich puts another $10K in the bank, the bank can make two more auto loans to the middle class! 

        • Sam Walworth

           LOL.. you seriously think that Rich people put their money in bank accounts?

          Tell me the bank names, I have got few dollar bills, I will deposit too..

        • Kairos

          First off, we are in a depression because everybody has debts and they are no longer spending their money.  This is what happens when you try to keep consumerism going while financial inequality grows: you lend and lend until people decide to stop spending in the market and save their money. 

          And you shouldn’t be so quick to call me ignorant.  (1) Bank profits are increasing even after Obama got rid of the middle man, (2) if college graduates have more money, they keep it in the bank or market place, (3) but instead of keeping interest rates low, the banks get more money, which decreases the wealth of millions to increase the wages and bonuses of the CEOs and Executives of the banks.  If the rich is taxed 10K and the money is used to raise a police officers salary, the police officer still puts his 10k extra salary in the bank just like the rich guy but the difference is is that the police officer now has money to buy a new washier and dryer and still feels good about his savings, his retirment, etc., whereas the other money would be stagnating.

          What you just said defies history.  America’s best economies had high taxes, strong unions, and far more rigid banking laws than Dodd-Frank.  Look up Romney’s dad tax returns: the guy payed like 70% and were the banks lending…?  Was Romney’s father’s freedoms denied…?  Was America considered a capitalist country at the time…? 

          Seriously dude!  What gives?  Why are you for measure that hurt millions while serving a few bankers.  The student loan bubble is going to burst, and Romney’s policy will only make things worse.  When will you get it through your head that the health of the majority 99% is more important than the health of the 1%.  Banks are like cockroaches: they will always survive.

          Alright?  Do you get it now? 

    • jimino

      Wow!  Her 27 second “analysis” was airtight.  If this is the type of information you rely on it’s no wonder you come to the conclusions  you do.

      • Gregg

        The numbers came from JP Morgan as well as others not the anchor. If it’s so unrealistic why does Clinton and Pelosi oppose letting the top rate expire? Why didn’t Obama let them expire when he had the votes? 

        • jimino

          Aren’t they the ones who in 2001 forecast federal surpluses as far in to the future as we could see if we just cut taxes?  The days of any intelligent person relying on JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Moodys, etc. to provide anything but self serving information have long passed.

          • Gregg

            Feel free to disagree but I cannot imagine a tax hike on the rich being good for this economy. A drop in GDP sounds logical to me but it’s all a guess. Anything can happen.

          • Sam Walworth

             Please enlighten me how a tax cut on Rich people help economy in general.

            Tax cuts on the businesses may be a different story, but tax cuts on rich people? Please give some evidence to back your claim as well.

          • Gregg

            I’m reluctant to go there because I did not make that claim. For one thing I don’t know of a tax cut for the rich on the table. Just a hike, which I think would hurt. 

          • Sam Walworth

             Here is what I take, that tax cut from a 90% on Income Tax to 40% makes pure sense. A tax cut from 20% to 10% doesnt make any sense, esp if its given to the Rich people (making 1 million + per year on their wages and Capital Gains)

            Most small business people file their taxes as a corporation and give themselves a salary, and that significantly reduces their Income Tax bracket, hence has almost Zero effect on the current Income Tax levels.

            If anyone disagrees, that means they need to change their tax consultant.

          • Gregg

            Many many small businesses file as individuals. But again, who is talking about a tax cut?

  • Kairos

    Anybody hear that Romney said he would let the banks be the middle man between government loans and students, causing student loan interest rate to go up and exacerbating the student debt bubble…?  What a genius!  God knows the banks were doing fine even though Obama disallowed them from being the middle man, but apparently, the banks aren’t rich enough and the 99% ain’t poor enough. 

    Have you ever seen a better example of the republicans hurting the middle class for the benefit of bankers (besides Bush goosestepping us into Iraq and sending thousands of Americans to a useless death)…?

    • Still Here

      Right now there is $1 T of outstanding student loan debt and the Federal government has absolutely no lending standards.  Delinquency and default rates are rising.  This bubble is about to burst and taxpayers will be on the hook. 

      • Kairos

        You know, there is not student loan bubble in Canada, the Nordic Countries, Germany because there is no tuition.

  • Brandstad

    The Obama Administration is gutting the welfare reform law signed by president Clinton!

    It happened yesterday!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/

    Have you heard this on a NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC news broadcast? 

    Why do you rely on these news organizations when they fail to give you the important news and instead focus on fully legal bank acounts of an out of office politician.

    • GMG

      Fox new is propaganda and you should stop listening to it.  Forget the others too.  BBC is better than all of them at covering US politics.  When it shows up on BBC, I’ll believe it.

      • Gregg

        BBC? Thanks for the belly laugh!

        Will the official policy directive from HHS do?

        http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

        • GMG

          If you can provide some context and background for your link that is not right-wing propaganda, it would be interesting. The link by itself isn’t very informative without a real understanding of the relevant law and policy.

          • Gregg

            It’s straight from the horses mouth. I don’t know what else you want.

            Obama (by executive order) has removed the work requirement from welfare. It’s true.

          • GMG

            Well I’m not qualified to draw any conclusions from your link, and I am certainly not going to get worked up into a lather about it because Fox News and the House Republicans tell me to. 

          • Steve_T

             Good for him if it is!
             Let’s see, how many families out of work? And how many jobs available?

            DUH..

          • Hidan

             Greg doesn’t provide context cause when such is done it exposes his right-wing propaganda

      • Hidan

         Your right. The BBC by far is one of the best news sources out there when covering U.S. Politics. What’s amazing(and shouldn’t be) is that BBC journalist will actually challenge or call out the politician clearly lying about what there claiming/stating/saying.

    • Still Here

      This feeds right into the second hour showing on loafing.  

      Millions of unemployed sitting around waiting for their handout with their skillset diminishing and we can’t even make them do some busywork.  Well at least they’ll be available to vote, wonder who they’re going to want to vote for.  The guy who let’s them stay on the couch or the guy who says they need to get off their arses.

  • Michele

    TAXMEGEDDON – give me a break!  The President makes a speech reaching out to the Republicans and he is called weak, he makes a speech supposedly painting them into a corner and he is shooting off his own foot? The pundits kill me – in one breath they indite and in the next speak with reverence.

    Congress needs to stop playing politics and start working for the electorate and standup to ONE MAN: Grover Norquist. 

    • Still Here

      Who stands for the taxpayer?  Who sees spending growing exponentially and says enough is enough in Washington?

      • TFRX

        Your ideas of govt spending w.r.t. fact are out of kilter.

        Given your media consumption, I’m not surprised.

  • TomK in Boston

    The liar and chameleon can always take it to the next level:

    2002, when he wanted to be a MA resident so he cd run for Gov:  “There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, BOARD MEETINGS, Thanksgiving and so forth.”

    2012, when he wants out of Bane: “I was in Salt Lake City for three straight years. I DON’T RECALL EVEN COMING BACK ONCE  to go to a Bain or management meeting. We were, I was out there running the Olympics and it was a full time job, I can tell you that.”

    No serial liars in the WH, please.

    • Kairos

      I want to be CEO of a company without doing anything for a few years.  What’s the likelihood of that happening…?

      • Still Here

        For you, zero. The do-nothing part you’ve got down.

        • Kairos

          The essence of nothingness is found in your comments.  All things seem to have identity and individual talent compared to the parroting-mouthpiece that is Still Here. 

      • TomK in Boston

        It’s interesting to have a CEO and sole shareholder who is not responsible for what his company does for 3 years and is attacking and denying his one and only accomplishment while MA Gov, Romneycare. The logical conclusion is that president etchasketch would seek to avoid responsibility for whatever happened “on his watch”. Sorry, no thanks.

        • Hidan

           Romney is going to loss cause even the Fox News Sheep find it hard believing him(Even with the Spin Machine running 24/7)

    • JonS

      The biggest liar already occupies the white house. His campaign of distortions , misrepresentations, and outright lies knows no boundaries. You can dislike Romney all you want but the guy was a decent governor ( but I liked Bill Weld even more), honest as the day is long, very bright and an extremely competent businessman. The truth is that Bain is one of the most highly regarded private equity companies in America , enormously successful and widely admired (even by many prominent democrats) and ethical. Left wing ideologues will easily dismiss my comments but even  Obama supporters at Bain back up Romney’s comments.

      I happened to hear Obama’s interview on CBS with Charley Rose wherein he questioned Romney’s qualifications for president. What was truly startling was Obama’s total lack of understanding of the private sector, how the economy grows and most troubling , the nature of the capitalist system. I have always dismissed as crazy right wing comments that Obama is a socialist , blah-blah etc but if you listened to the interview, you have to have doubts. Obama criticized Bain for putting profits ahead of  jobs. Duh! There’s not a single for profit enterprise in this country , and I would venture to include also non-profits, whose primary purpose is jobs over success of the venture. If the enterprise succeeds , then you hire. It’s not the reverse situation.

      Obama is a left wing ideologue who, rather than tack to the center in order to appeal to moderates, is tacking even farther left. He is divisive, extremely partisan, and a demagogue in the worst sense. His appeal is to the worst instincts in people , he breeds resentments , and he has reinforced the dangerous and misguided belief that successful people are the cause for those having less in our country. This is disgusting and unworthy of anyone seeking the office of the presidency.

      Please enlighten me. I look at Obama’s record over the past 3 and a half years and I see nothing but failed policies , little or no growth in GDP, and 40 months of 8+ unemployment ( it’s closer to 14-15%).  Worst of all , I see someone more comfortable with “leading from behind” then leading this country from the front. His record of voting present in the Illinois legislature can now be better understood. His appeal generally is to the most uninformed and naive citizenry (witness his campaign stops only to schools and colleges), to public and private unions, or to those dependant on the welfare state. He lacks any coherent policy to promote economic growth which at the end of the day, is what creates real sustainable jobs. To him , the only real job is a public sector job. He talks about wanting to help the middle class but offers no solutions other than I feel your pain. His is a failed presidency.

      • TomK in Boston

        JonS, Bane is the poster child for what is wrong with our economy, financial con games instead of producing a product. A successful background in the casino aspect, the “financialization” of the economy is an absolute disqualification for high office. He is the worst liar and flipflopper I have ever seen. The current ado about when he left Bane is typical. When he wanted to be a MA resident, he said he stayed involved after 1999. When he wants to say he was out of Bane when they did all those nasty things, he says he never came back to MA. Disgusting. Not as bad, however, as his contortions in attacking the only thing he accomplished as governor, ie, Romenycare. You couldn’t make that up.

        I remember “abortion should be safe and legal”, too. The man is a joke.

        I actually don’t care when he left. He set the machine in motion, he profited, and if he happened to take his hand off the wheel before it did all that damage, so what?I agree that Obama is weak, but that’s a hell of a lot better then doubling down on the tax cuts and deregulation that are destroying the middle class. The economy needs massive gvt spending right now, a crackdown on the financial casino, foreclosure relief, etc. IOW, something like our response to the 1929 crash. Between Obama being at heart a timid centrist and the vicious TeaOP blocking everything he tries, we’re not getting what we need, but a Romney presidency will be a quantum leap in our transformation into an oligarchy.

        • JonS

          TomK,
          Private equity uses funds often provided by pension funds , university endowments , and other sources of capital. What they do is invest in struggling companies that lack other sources of capital to undertake necessary restructuring. Without the funding provided by private equity, many of these companies would die , jobs would be lost , and families harmed. Sure there are times when the investment fails , jobs are lost , etc. and ,yes,  the private equity may still come out ahead. But without the availability of their funds, many more companies would liquidate and jobs lost. You can’t have a capitalist economy without capital and private equity is a great source of capital. 

          So what if Romney has struggled with abortion and Obamacare. I happen to be pro-choice but can appreciate that many people , politicians etc, have struggled with abortion. You may not recall, but Ted Kennedy was originally ardently opposed to abortion but evolved over the years to be pro-choice. As far as the ACA, I happen to support what we have in Mass but oppose the Obamacare. Neither act addresses the cost issue –rather they provide universal care which is a noble idea. However , with stubbornly high unemployment and record high deficits and national debt , we just can’t afford it now.  No matter what you may believe, employers are hesitant to hire now for fear that the costs could be significant. Yes lack of demand is the most important driver but if you increase the cost of hiring an employee, then demand must be that much greater to justify the risk/cost of hiring a new employee.

          We currently have a $3.4 trillion budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit. 40cents of every dollar is borrowed. Government spending represents almost 25% of our GDP against an historical average of 18%. Money spent by the government siphons available capital to the private sector. Without a thriving private sector, then the welfare state promoted by progressives cannot be sustained..That’s just the way it is.

          • TomK in Boston

            JonS, “Private equity” as practiced by Romney is a sanitized renaming of the more accurate “Leveraged Buyout”: You buy the company and immediately load it up with the max possible debt to cover your costs and pay yourself. You get absurdly favorable tax treatment on your costs and profits. You fire employees, cut benefits  and cut corners to max out the bottom line for a few yrs, then you dump the company. It’s nice if you can sell at a profit, but no matter, you have already won. I don’t want a practitioner of that con in the WH.

            Gvt spending as a % of GDP rises after a crash because GDP falls – the division thing – and more people need the safety net. That’s not a reason to cut spending. With spending falling in the pvt sector, it’s econ 101 that the gvt needs to keep spending.

            It makes no sense to repeat the maxim about gvt borrowing crowding out the private sector when the pvt sector is flush with cash and the 10 yr bond just hit 1.48%. The problem is as you say (but then seem to dismiss), lack of demand because the middle class is busted, not competition with the gvt for funds. Every employer I know says all these abstractions like “uncertainty” wd vanish like tears in the rain if a flood of customers appeared.

            It’s true that we need a thriving private sector to have a 21′st century first world nation (“welfare state”??), and the way to get the pvt sector going is to kick start demand with gvt spending.

            I’m shocked at the bad spin that has been put on gvt spending. The interstates, the moon project, the support of science that led to biotech and the internet, have paid for themselves millions of times over. Hell, WW2 sparked an explosion in technology that powered the 50s and 60s, and the debt melted away. We need some of that now.

      • Kairos

        You wrote: “If the enterprise succeeds , then you hire. It’s not the reverse situation.” 

        If you knew one iota about business, you would know that the goal is to keep employment as low as possible.  Hiring is a response to growing demand.  No employer hires flippantly because he or she has excess of capital.  If the demand isn’t there, businesses don’t expand.  If demand for product starts to be more than the business is able to produce, then employment increases.  Hiring is always a last resort. 

        You obviously know nothing about business and are just promoting ideology, or you do know something about business but couldn’t care less about what happens to America so long as more people vote republican.  Nonetheless, you are a moron.  

        • JonS

          I usually don’t bother responding to left wing idiots ( better a/k/a kook fringe). Your comments did give me a laugh if only because you sound  so stupid…

          • Jeffe

            Yeah, and your a f’n genus.

          • Gregg

            Mighty harsh language young man.

          • Kairos

            The only thing laughable is that republicans don’t believe in this thing called “demand” … there are no laws of supply and demand, it’s all supply side…right…?   But perhaps you should do a start-up and sell in an area where there is little money, where people save up for tuition before buying non-essential products.  See how that works out.

          • Kairos

            Oh, and good job on a counterargument.  I am always impressed by the substance and tight logic you offer.  It’s so hard to argue against faith-based economic theory: just make the rich a little richer and they will expand their companies (regardless of demand) and hire more people to high wage jobs with benefits.  I see it all now.

      • Jeffe

        When it smells like hyperbole it most likely is.
        Nice how you use all the Fox talking points in this right wing ideological diatribe. 

        • Gregg

          JonS won the argument as evidenced by your silly non-response. He could not be more correct.

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    If you want to understand people like Mitt R. you might want to read this article:

    How the Richest 400 People in America Got So Rich
    at:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/richest-400-people-america-got-201519751.html

    They do love their capital gains, don’t they ?

  • Kairos

    Republicans like to talk about how Obama leads from behind.  The phrase “lead from behind” came out of a New Yorker article that also talked about many presidents that had the lead for behind or in front style.  Lincoln was a leader from behind.  Eisenhower was a leader from behind.  Both successful and unsuccessful presidents had both styles.  Some right wing pundit read the article and took that line, made it a catchphrase, and then the puppet-people go wild.  So goes the world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1829112656 Pav Sterry

    please do a show on why another amnesty, more immigration and more work visas- which the President wants and is doing single-handedly in some cases is good- For Americans.
    The Washington Post, New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education have all reported that PhDs with STEM degrees (even recent grads) are doing temp office work. 1.8 million Americans with engineering degrees are not working in engineering, but the President showed Jennifer Wedell (and everyone else) he either doesn’t care or is clueless. Huffington Post-MBA mows lawns for a living. Chronicle of Higher Education- PhD comes with food stamps. Washington Post -U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there.

     Why does everyone focus on how “immigrants” will benefit from U.S. immigration policies but not not how Americans will be impacted; especially those of us at the bottom ?
    Shouldn’t the effects of  these policies on our own people, especially those who are already struggling, be our primary concern? Not how we can benefit foreign nationals.
    It’s immoral to have an immigration policy that hurts the poorest working , or trying to work, Americans. 

     What will help the unemployed and under employed more; enforcing our immigration laws or another illegal alien amnesty and more work permits? What Americans will this help? Recently
     released prisoners? Newly returned vets? High school grads? High school dropouts? College Grads, many of whom are doing survival jobs? The 1.8 million American engineers who do not work in engineering jobs?  Citizens who apply for work study jobs and loans to go to college? Older (over 40) experienced IT workers who are “let go”, through no fault of their own.

    What about the bottom half? Not the middle class, not the 1% but those who work, or try to,and do “those jobs Americans won’t do” even if they have a STEM degree.

  • TomK in Boston

    It’s interesting how romney wants to draw that hard line at 1999 with Bane. I don’t think that nest of vulture capitalists started behaving any differently in 1999. It’s true that some ugly job destruction came after 1999, but that’s the way it is in the LBO game – sometimes the commoners are collateral damage, sometimes they survive, it’s not something that the financial con artists worry about.

    So now I wonder if there is some really evil stuff (more evil than LBO SOP, that is) he’s running away from. Someone suggested it’s Stericycle, the bio-waste company that also cleans up for abortion clinics. Maybe. Maybe there’s more. Who knows?

    Thing is, Etchasketch can’t hide. He wanted to be MA gov, and he had to be a resident, so he morphed into a resident – easy for him! He shook the Etchasketch  and there he was, a guy who spent lots of time in MA for business, family, BOARD MEETINGS, etc. Now it’s all on the record. 

    OK, now he shakes the Etchasketch again and the current version is totally severed from Bane in 1999, despite being CEO, President, and sole shareholder. So what? I can’t imagine anyone voting for a President of the USA who was CEO, President, sole shareholder etc of a company after 1999 and takes no responsibility whatsoever for what they did. Isn’t this the same guy who says Obama is responsible for the wreckage of the Bush crash because the POTUS has no excuses?

    This is not petty politics. Romney’s only claim to office is his business experience. If that amounted to to job destroying vulture capitalism, it’s highly relevant.

    I don’t think business experience is the best qualification for POTUS. The USA is not a business. If I were to support a business person, however, it would be someone who had an idea, a dream, and turned it into a great product made in the USA. That is a far cry from a financial con man.

  • Michiganjf

    According to his filings with the SEC, Romney was the SOLE shareholder, sole Director, and sole CEO of Bain for the three years after he said he left.

    If Romney is not lying and he REALLY DID leave Bain by 1999, then he SURE WAS A CRAPPY businessman, leaving his own company without a Director and CEO for THREE YEARS!

    BAIN also would have been a TRULY STUPIDLY run company, paying Romney as CEO and sole Director for three years, even though he was absentee!!

    It must be nice for Romney, getting paid tens of millions a year as CEO and Director WHILE ABSENT for three years!!!!

    So Romney LOSES either way:

     He’s either LYING to Americans and feels he has to HIDE his business record, OR he owned a company which was really stupidly managed, AND he got paid tens of millions for being absentee, which makes him a typical RICH PARASITE who siphons millions from companies while having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with them in reality!!!

  • Michiganjf

    Conservative George Will says Romney is “impolitic” in his decision to not release more than two years of tax returns.

    Will claims Romney could have begun to “clean up” his finances after McCain lost, knowing he would be running for President in 2012.

    Romney gave McCain 23 YEARS worth of tax returns when McCain was vetting Romney as a Vice President candidate, and they ended up choosing Palin over Romney, indicating there was some problem with Romney in the vetting process.

    George Will is right… Romney didn’t “clean up” his finances in time to prepare for a 2012 Presidential bid, and now (too late) Romney only has two years worth of “cleaned up” tax returns to release to the public… THAT is why Romney will release no more than two years of returns before the election, unlike his Father, who had enough integrity in his dealings to release 12 years of returns without embarrassment!

    • Jeffe

      My understanding is that the McCain campaign did not like what they found in Romney’ finances or that there was just to much baggage in this area.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         Who told you that?   Axelrod?

    • TomK in Boston

      And his father, who actually made a product, paid taxes at OVER TWICE the rate of the son.

  • mikey

    Who cares they are the same candidate. They are both just public relations companies for Wall Street. Wall Street is robbing us blind. Every kind of debt government, student loan debt, credit card debt, mortgage debt, state debt, private equity, 401k is complete fraud. The financial services industry owns, pays and directs Obama and Romney. Obama has Jack Lew – the derivatives guy from Citigroup as his chief of staff. He reconfirmed Bernanke as Fed Chief. He appointed Tim Geithnar as Treasury Secretary after he oversaw the New York Fed during the crash. We had one thousand prosecutions for the Savings and Loan Crisis. No one has gone to jail for the mortgage crash. Each month we have a new mess financial mess from J.P Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Barkclays, M.F Global. Client funds disappear,  

    Any Dem that votes for Obama is an idiot. He has the smallest number of SEC prosecutions in US history! (Look it up) One thousand finance executives were prosecuted for the Savings and Loan crash in the 80s by Williams Black. Obama gives these guys a free pass on national television, won’t talk to William Black, and then has the nerve to talk about Wall Street reform. Romney is in Wall Streets pocket too.  We need to find an honest leader but voting for these two is a waste of time. When the dark days of the crash come put a brick through the window of J.P Morgan and let them call out the National Guard. It worked in the 30s and it will work today. The systems will be cleaned up when unemployment and anger is so high that no one will have any other choice. The Republicans need to learn that crime and entrepreneurship are too different things. The Democrats need to wake up and look at the people Obama is putting in power. We need to quit talking about Socialism and Capitalism because neither philosophy supports simple graft, theft and fraud. 

    • Sean

      According to you, Obama is a REPUBLICAN DREAM CANDIDATE!

      • TomK in Boston

        By the standards I grew up with, Obama is in fact a moderate republican.

        I agree with Mikey that he is way too tight with the financial sector that is devouring the USA. 
        The finance monster is one of the greatest threats to the middle class. It’s 30-40% of our economy doing nothing but diverting wealth to itself. No products, no jobs, just scams.

        But romney is a finance con man himself, a poster child for the monster, would take the current class warfare to a new level, and I have to vote for Obama.

      • mikey

        He is a Republican dream candidate. He implements Wall Street policy under the flag of reform. How could it get any better?

    • mikey

      GIVE US JUSTICE!!!!

      Put some of these finance people in jail! The legal and political systems if failing miserably. Why can you get away with all of this! What do you expect the public to do when our justice is sold to Wall Street. They are creating a system that will rip us apart when the next financial crash comes. Stand up for what is right. When crime and fraud become the law we have no other choice but to disobey. Wall Street does not own America, America owns Wall Street. Do not give them a choice this time. I’m sure our founding fathers would agree. The American Casino-Gulag needs to be ripped down and honest business needs to be restored. 

      • MJames

         The people whose money and interests write the laws laugh at your plea for justice, and have been laughing at it their whole lives.

    • Kairos

      Both are certainly corrupt, but there is a slight difference: Obama is reluctant to corporatocracy, whereas Romney believes in it. Obama has to face a political reality of not being ridiculously outspent.  But he gets a lot of political freedom if he is reelected simply because it will be his last term in all of political life.  Now if Obama is reelected and doesn’t fight like a lion to end corporate personhood and restructure the joke that is Dodd-Frank into something that looks like Glass-Steagall–the democrat party is finished, and we should move to a more liberal progressive party. 

      Obama seems to understand that the corruption must end, and hopefully he has the spine to at least fight.  But, again, we have to recognize the political reality now and the political freedom he would have if reelected; if he doesn’t use that political freedom, it’s over: both parties have been bought by the same interests, the puppet people will think there is a difference when in reality the democrat and the republican will be the two acceptable candidates seen in the eyes of a few dozen rich guys who are financing their campaigns.  If that happens, I’ll vote for anybody who makes campaign financing the only issue, but that person will always be drowned out with advertising. 

      • TomK in Boston

        Right. But Romney is beyond “believing” in the finance con game, he IS the finance con game, heart and soul. How can anyone who sees what financial scams did to us in 2008 vote for him?

        • mikey

          Romney is the finance con game! I fully agree but so is Obama. In a strange way Romney is more honest about it. Obama kills the regulatory system and his fake reform is even worse. People think they are getting something they are not. They are both worthless and useless. The system needs to be forced to reform the way it was in the 30s when people refused to take it any more.

          • TomK in Boston

            It does, but how, without “2′nd amendment solutions”?

          • mikey

            It will happen. When the next big shock occurs people will have no choice. Iowa farmers were smashing produce trucks and almost hung a judge in 1933. People will notice a bunch of rich criminal bankers are the only people with health care, homes or anything else. This country could turn into El Salvador in a very short time. We are a law abiding people but no one is take it when real desperation sets in. I just want someone to call Obama on his sell out system so we can get a chance to get a real reform. A fake reformer is the worst kind of enemy. He needs to get voted out.

      • mikey

        “Obama seems to understand that corruption must end” I strongly disagree with this. His rhetoric would suggest that he would implement reform but his appointments suggest that he only cares about cashing checks. It is not just Jack Lew from Citigroup – look at his former chief of staff  Daley. He is from J.P. Morgan! So he picks two guys from TARP bailed out banks, while talking about reform??? J.P. Morgan are the same criminals that pulled all the silver from M.F. Global and then had a multi-billion dollar trading loss the next week. Where is Elizabeth Warren, Sheila Bair, William Black or Paul Volcker. Where is Glass Steagall? Why does Obama’s SEC have the fewest prosecutions in history? Every week Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal etc are full of new crimes. They should just open up the paper. Sorry but I don’t buy it. Obama never makes the case against the banks the way Roosevelt did in the 30s. Crimes is the economy and hope is lost. We have to get rid of Obama before we loose any chance of  reform.

        • Kairos

          Like I said, there is a political reality Obama has to face with all the money in politics–he can’t lose all the Wall Street money, he has to play ball with Wall Street at least for the first term.  FDR didn’t have to deal with the same plutocracy: there were campaign finance laws back then and FDR was far and away the best politician of his time. 

          As somebody once said, “Politics is the art of getting money from the rich and votes from the poor with the promise of protecting them from each other.”  He has to play the game for at least one term.  (If the rich were not allowed to donate more than the average American could, the Obama presidency would look a lot different to the liberal progressives (the right wouldn’t notice the different because they got their heads up their rears, thinking he is a secret socialist Muslim)).

          You are preaching to the choir, but he has my vote–if he doesn’t fight in the second term when he will have the most political liberty, I’m done with democrats.  But you have to recognize the political reality corporatocracy has created.

          • mikey

            Roosevelt knew how to fight. He took his case to the people with his fireside chats. What would have happened to America if Roosevelt just came on the Radio and said. “No crime was committed.” What if he took the Robber Barons of the 20s and loaded his administration with them? 

    • Gregg

      I can’t say you don’t make some good points but your first sentence is over the top. They most certainly are not the same.

  • Orlando Vidali

    I thought the point by the attorney in bermuda was interesting - as long as that path is freely available what do you expect someone to do? Obama’s team’s angle of trying to vilify these practices is a bit hollow – where’s the follow-up saying how they’d address this situation legislatively? Well, there isn’t one because you can bet that they and a bunch of their constituents engage in the same practices. It’s character assassination with no real substance – which is unfortunate because it could lead to more interesting conversations about the state of the financial system, economy, etc.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       I was thinking the same thing about the attacks.  This shouldn’t be about what Mitt Romney did.  If the tax code encourages foreign investing then it should have been reformed.  If the the tax code encourages out sourcing of jobs then it should have been reformed.

      Obama’s been in power for four years but they’ve done nothing to simplify the tax code.  In fact, they’ve only made it more complicated.

      If you think about it, these attacks are incredibly weak and hollow.

      • TomK in Boston

        Yeah? When I think about it, I’m very happy that the reasons why Etchasketch is not qualified to be president are being highlighted.

        • Gregg

          Obama is the outsourcer in chief. 

  • ABC

    I am much better off than I was 4 years ago … I was laid off, no job, didn’t know if I could keep my house. I now have a job, am starting to pay off bills, and am SCARED TO DEATH that the right will set us back again on the wrong economic track. Why on earth would any middle class or working class person want us to go back to the failed economic policies, the deregulation, and strategies of the Repubs that got us in this mess? And why would anyone of reason think that we could get out of the deepest hole ever in a mere 3 years, especially when the right has stood in the way of making progress every single damned step of the way?

    • Gregg

      Congratulations but do you really think the country is in better shape than it was 4 years ago? There are many many more people out of work now. Trillion dollar deficits are the norm. For what, this? Emperor Obama has zero regard for the legislative process and is perfectly willing to thwart it to the detriment of the economy as evidenced by his EO to end the work requirement regarding welfare just to buy votes. It’s disgusting.  Obama is an unmitigated disaster.

      • Sean

        The Republican caused mess you describe is EXACTLY why we can’t let the Right be ascendant (descendant) yet again!

        • Gregg

          The meme of “Republican caused mess” is really becoming laughable. It’s nothing but a talking point. It cannot be articulated except with other talking points or lies. Our problems certainly have zero to do with tax cuts or wars. The deception requires vague and meaningless terms like “fair share”, “the rich”, “corporations”, “regulations” and many more. But try and put some meat on the bone and actually connect dots between specific examples with actual numbers and it all becomes a joke. Meanwhile, I can give you chapter and verse with dots connected about the destruction Obama has wrought.

    • TomK in Boston

      That is a mystery all right. The financial con men crash the economy, the GoP nominates a financial com man who promises to double down on the policies that caused the crash and our soaring inequality, and some non-oligarchs actually support him. Go figure.

  • TomK in Boston

    The interesting thing is that romney is running away from Bane at all. He is admitting that something is rotten in the vulture capitalism game. 

    And how about his taxes? What is he afraid of? Maybe he paid no taxes some years? 

    • Kairos

      I think if he releases his taxes he will spur what I think is a necessary debate: should people like him pay lower tax rates than the average American…should we have a regressive tax code?  The answer is obvious to people whose brains aren’t located in their rears.  If that discussion happens, Obama will win for sure.  

  • Gregg

    Corporations ARE people. It’s sad that it even needs to be said.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524823306803692.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    • TomK in Boston

      What garbage. Every time a righty opens their mouth, a lie comes out. Welch’s lie, which is SOP, is that anyone  attacking the current VERSION of capitalism is attacking capitalism, so he must be a socialist. 

      The reality is that we were capitalists when the romneys of the world were in the 80-90% tax bracket and Glass-Stegall was in place and banking was boring. The middle class was a hell of a lot better off, too. Eisenhower was not a socialist. Wanting to return from hunger games capitalism to capitalism that worked is not attacking capitalism, but attempting to save it and the middle class.

      • Gregg

        That’s quite a tangent. Corporations are people, that’s all.

        BTW, revenue as a percentage of GDP was on average less under Eisenhour than under GWB. So I don’t get your point about tax rates. Higher rates don’t bring in more revenue.

        • TomK in Boston

          Interesting idea, that replying to your link is a tangent.

          Your friend Jack Welch said:

          “We know capitalism isn’t perfect. But free markets are the best system there is to provide opportunity to those with an idea, or simply the motivation to work their butts off to make their lives better. We also know capitalism can spawn bad behavior; greed is part of the human condition and always will be. That’s why regulations and controls exist, as they should.
          But this movement afoot that hates on business is craziness. It will destroy America as we know it because very few jobs get created in an environment that’s outright hostile to business. And without jobs, the whole thing falls down. It becomes a welfare state. We become a welfare state.”

          Guess what: I, and President Obama, think capitalism is the best system too. Nobody is hostile to business. So what is this stupid straw-man argument? What we hate is the 1900 era hunger games version of capitalism. We used to have a much better version, with high taxes and strong regulation. That was capitalism and free markets too. Jobs were created and new tech was created and the middle class got richer when GDP rose. Advocating a version of capitalism with an infinitely better track record than voodoo econ is not socialism or anti business.

          Anyone who thinks “corporations are people” because people create and work at corporations needs a little Logic 101.

          I know that “Higher rates don’t bring in more revenue.” is the Official Party Line, and may be true in an alt universe, but not this one.

          On the topic of serial lying, today we have the righty media editing the President’s speech so he’s saying to business owners “You didn’t build that”, meaning the business, when he was actually, transparently,  referring to the infrastructure that supported the business. Sick. 

          • TomK in Boston

            Oh and one more lie. How about romney advisor gillespie saying on meet the press that kerry released only 2 yrs of tax returns when he really released 20 years? Won’t all this lying eventually make voters sick of  them?

          • Gregg

            What is it with the accusations of lying? Here’s what Gillespie said from the MTP transcript:

            “Well, as you know, the standard of– of releasing fully two years of returns, which goes above what the law requires, was a standard that Senator John McCain had adhered to as the Republican nominee in the last presidential campaign. This is standard Senator Kerry adhered to as the Democratic nominee in the– in the election before that. And– and the fact is, that Governor Romney is putting– has put out already 2010 and will put out 2011 before this election. ”

            Where is the lie?

          • Gregg

            Did Welch (I don’t know him so he’s not my friend) say anyone was attacking capitalism? No. It’s hideous to falsely accuse someone of lying. Did anyone say we did not have capitalism under Eisenhower? No. It’s a tangent.

            Here is the quote I have seen:”[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”That was from HotAir:http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/16/obama-if-youve-been-successful-you-didnt-get-there-on-your-own/Rush had the same quote and also had Elizabeth Warren saying the same thing. That’s where Obama got it. It seems clear to me. Where is the edit, smarty pants?The cut and paste formating looks like it will translate weird, if it does my apologies. I’ll address revenue below.

          • Gregg

            Do yourself a favor and look at OMB’s historical table 1.3:

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

            There is a column for the revenue to GDP ratio as a percentage. The average under Eisenhower was 17.525% of GDP. Under Bush it was higher at 18.875%… as I said. Feel free to check my math and then you can apologize and thank me for educating you.  

            Understand that I am just proving what I said was true. I am not saying it means much as you seem to be implying. To imply tax rates are the only factor (or even the most important factor) for revenue is a shallow analysis. Extremely so. My point is that even if you do, it still contradicts your notion. 

          • Gregg

            Should read: “Rush had the same quote…”

        • Dan B.

          Corporations are legal entities that employ people. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FRFMASE7UDGFMWKQLXSUBIZOY Angel

    KEEPING
    IT THOUGHTFULLY HONEST:  After viewing
    Sunday’s FACE the Nation, I found Ms. Cutter’s comments, “ Either you’re the
    CEO, president, chairman of the board of Bain Capital as you attest to the SEC
    or he’s telling the American people he bears no responsibility for that,”
    deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said. “Both those things can’t be
    true. Either you’re in charge or you’re not.” to be quite creditable!
    Romney now says he “only had ownership of his company that he created (to built
    his billion-dollar financial empire bankrupting companies that
    sends our American jobs to Communist China)!” Could this mean that he was only
    concerned with collecting his money ($100K salary plus stock profits)
    regardless of what his company was doing? Now I wonder if releasing all his
    taxes returns like his father did, is a major concern?  The new fact most of us Americans were not aware
    of, that in 08 the VP nomination came down to two people Romney or Palin. Did
    Mr. McCain decide on Palin after seeing Romney’s tax returns? Meanwhile, now it
    has been reported by David Corn in Mother Jones that in 1988 Romney “acquired
    6.13 percent of Hong Kong-based Global-Tech Appliances, which manufactured
    household appliances in a production facility in the industrial city of
    Dongguan, China.” Based upon SEC filing, it identified Romney as the person in
    control of this investment in “Brookside that upped its interest in Global-Tech
    to 10.3 percent. And again, “Romney was the sole shareholder, sole
    director, President and Chief Executive Officer and thus the controlling person
    of Brookside Inc!” Hum…THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH: These patterns sound familiar
    that Chinese Company whose operational model was to displace American jobs and
    to import “Made in China” appliances with cheap labor that profited Romney!
    Although Romney now talks tough that “We will not let China continue to
    steal jobs from the United States of America,” Yet again his past investments reflect
    his money making priorities from a foreign company that banked on American
    firms outsourcing manufacturing overseas.” So let’s be clear, Mr. Romney, please
    stop insulting the intelligence of thinking Americans! Your lack of
    transparency by inconsistent and/or lying hypocrite statements of past record only
    brings increase question of your integrity! Do you honestly expects us to have
    confidence to even consider voting for such a person that leaves behind broken families and neighborhoods with
    thousands of lay-offs, jobless Americans by closing factories that used to
    provide employment to thousands of Americans struggling to feed and raise their
    families.
    This is not a Distraction, but it is unfortunate common sense and decency are
    lost values for some!

    • Gregg

      He saved companies and jobs. No factory closed that wasn’t already doomed. His record is impeccable. You make it sound like Romney went around pillaging otherwise successful companies so he could buy a yacht. It’s Chicago style thuggery to so blatantly lie. Don’t fall for it.

      • Gregg

        Also realize Obama closed several plants costing thousands and thousands of jobs to save GM. 

  • Gregg

    It’s a sad day when the Secretary of State is humiliated in front of the world because her husband has no respect for their marriage and Americans can say nothing about it because it’s true.

  • Gregg

    After replying (at 6:08 below) to TomK with a quote from President Obama I realized he was a lot like many commenters here. He is telling his adversaries what they think and then criticizing them for thinking it. I am amazed at how common this incoherent method has become.

    • Kairos

      You mean like republican politicians telling conservatives that all dems want to do is tax “hard working” (white) Americans and “hand out checks” to “lazy” (black) Americans…instead of taxing the top to drive down the deficit, hire enough teachers, police officers, fire fighters to keep up with population growth, and keep tuition low…? 

      • Gregg

        No one said any of that. Give me a quote. You’re doing it too.

        • Gregg

          Taxing the top will NOT drive down the deficit one dime. Everybody know it. Where do you get your info?

          • Kairos

            The CBO says that the Bush Tax Cuts are the leading drive of the deficits.  Congressional Budget Office; that’s where.  The denial of reality is on your side.  With due respect (seriously), get over whatever identity attachments you have with the republican party, go to the CBO website and do some thorough research.  Data should trump ideology–that is my main principle. 

          • Gregg

            I have explained myself blue in the face over that. In a nutshell, the CBO projects a static world. The world is dynamic. Things happen like inflating and bursting bubbles, wars, 9/11, new technologies, geo-politics and much more, none of which are factored by the CBO. Say you struggled to sell 100 widgets for a profit of $1 a piece and then cut the price so you only made 50 cents profit. Then sold 250 because of the price cut. Would it be logical to say the price cut was a driver of  debt because if you had sold 250 widgets at a dollar profit you would have less debt? It’s all a fantasy. Revenue went up dramatically after the tax cuts, not down.

            Forget all of that, let’s say the CBO was right. BTW they were wrong about Clinton’s projected $200 billion deficits which did not foresee the tech bubble or the ’94 revolution but I digress. The CBO saying the tax cuts have been the leading driver of deficits is a far different statement than saying raising tax rates at the top would reduce the deficit. Further, the CBO was basing their projection across the board not just the top rate so the comparison is not valid. The bottom rate cuts (every rate was cut) along with the tax credits created more debt than the cuts at the top. The rich actually paid a larger percentage of the overall bill because of it.

            Finally, if you want to go by the CBO, they did look at the numbers and concluded a hike on the top rate would not help in any significant way to generate revenue. I’m happy to look it up for you but it will mean more if you do it yourself.

          • Kairos

            How is the CBO static, when it is looking at the last ten years?  The economic data is in.  Revenue went down after the Bush Tax Cuts, top income increased, while middle income decreased, and poverty went up all before the recession.

            Look at the GDP to Revenue percentage: the only time it went up after a tax cut was in 1981.  That is the clearest indicator whether or not cutting taxes actually raised revenue.  In fact, it defies the Laffer Curve: it is only possible to raise revenue by lowering taxes if the rate is around 70%.  Everybody in economics and business knows this–it is an absolute lie to say otherwise.

            Here, I posted these websites a few days ago to another reality-denier:

            http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/29/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-bush-tax-cuts-caused-subs/

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/

            You and I do not know more than the economists at the CBO!  Plus, you again proved the liberals point when you mentioned that the top have a higher tax burden–of course, the top has a higher tax burden because the top, year after year, gain a higher percentage of the nation’s wealth.  The middle class would love to have a higher tax burden because it would mean that they have more wealth.  Don’t confuse tax burden with tax rate.

            The Bush Tax Cuts did not work!  I would still be a republican if it were so.  It would be reasonable and perhaps correct to be a right winger in Germany, Sweden, etc., but here in America, in this moment of history, republicans are the problem.  There is nothing wrong with looking at what the CBO says and voting to the party that adheres to it the best at any given moment in history.  Be pragmatic, not ideological. 

          • Gregg

            You never gave a link for the CBO report. The only one I have seen (many times) is a projection from 2001. It’s trotted out endlessly. If you have another please feel free to post. I explained my logic.

            There is no way in hell you can possibly refute the FACT that revenue increased by over a half a trillion dollars from 2003
            (when the tax rates were lowered) to 2007 which is the year that holds the record for the most revenue in the history of the universe. Look it up.

          • Kairos

            I’ve posted around twenty charts over the last year.  I hate digging up info that I’ve already dug up.  The site I just published shows the Heritage Institute agreeing with Krugman, and they cannot prove that the Bush Tax Cuts created economic activity. 

        • Kairos

          Rick Santorum said it a couple of months ago.  You remember that don’t you.  Plus, we know what is being that language of “hard working” and “Lazy” Americans.  It is obviously social Darwinism, and social Darwinism is never lacking racism. 

          • Gregg

            I reject that and will need a quote to change my mind. The injection of race is sick. When you write, “Plus, we know…”, speak for yourself. Do you equate being poor with being black? It seems so unless you can find me that quote using those terms. Otherwise you inferred it based on your own biases. 

          • Kairos

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdfZmcuomcE

            This is the propaganda: dems want to tax hard working (white) Americans and hand checks out to lazy (black) Americans.  I wish you would wake out of it–it is obvious that middle to lower class republicans are voting against their economic interests because republicans blow racist dog-whistles.  This time Santorum blurted it out, forgetting to use his dog-whistle. 

          • Gregg

            Okay, first things first, we have essentially the same beef. Our difference is with who. I appreciate your response because it recognizes that. I have to respect your viewpoint if I am to believe in mine… and I do.

            In the clip Santorum did not use the words lazy, white, tax, checks or hard working. You inferred them, as I said. I stand by it.

            He did use the phrase “black people” but I do not know the context. In the link within your link Santorum introduced the topic of race. If he did the same in the comment on your link then the case could be made he equated being poor with being black. It sure seems so but I can’t tell from the clip. I doubt it, as it’s not his thing.

            The point he was making is empowering blacks is not accomplished by giving them money for nothing.

  • Sara

    Love the lady who trusts Michelle Obama because she’s upper middle class and not untrustworthy like Barrack who was raised by a single mother.  She typifies the boundaries in place for those of us who didn’t have a privileged upbringing. 

  • Slipstream

    33 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act!  What nonsense.  The righteous anger of the Republicans today is pretty ludicrous.  You would think they were talking about some sort of hugely momentous issue – war, slavery, progressive taxation – and not a set of regulations designed to help average and poor people get affordable health insurance.  I submit that the Republican Party will be wasting their time if they make this the centerpiece of their campaign.  The American people are accepting Obamacare and moving on.  The Republicans have issues they can win on, like creating jobs and lowering taxes, but they are now flogging a dead horse and looking pretty foolish.

  • Pingback: Mitt Romney’s Lost Sauce, Oops, Cause | वसुधैव कुटुंबकम

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 2, 2014
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., talks with Mark Wilson, event political speaker chairperson, with his wife Elain Chao, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Fancy Farm, Ky., Saturday, August 4, 2012. (AP)

Nine weeks counting now to the midterm elections. We’ll look at the key races and the stakes.

Sep 2, 2014
Confederate spymaster Rose O'Neal Greenhow, pictured with her daughter "Little" Rose in Washington, D.C.'s Old Capitol Prison in 1862. (Wikimedia / Creative Commons)

True stories of daring women during the Civil War. Best-selling author Karen Abbott shares their exploits in a new book: “Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy.”

RECENT
SHOWS
Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

 
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment