I like the way you think Hillbilly.

It works for me. I somehow think this world would run a lot smoother if only we could. :)

And Charles Manson would love the teabaggers. You have too much in common.

Hillbilly finally said something that makes sense.....

His get rid of republicans remark not anything else he says...

so the only SCUM BAG here appears to be you hillbilly

And also all this voter supression crap that the GOP is trying to use to STEAL some states.

Exactly Sarge.

And 'Hillbilly' is your teabagger handle, correct? Disgusting ppl.

Offensive mr bill.

I think we know what Billy's gay handle is.

Wow fron the tolerant fake liberals slamming somebidy by using a slur that their own party would cry foul on.

Yep real bunch of two faced kool aid drinkers, it is only a slur when a conservative uses the word right???

Get off the blog, idiots.

Having a civil discussion with a tea bagged republican is like having a civil discussion with your dog about why you don't want it eating cat poop, the dog don't listen and continues to eat cat poop, the same goes for the tea bagged republican.

I think your dog might give you a better answer based on truth and facts. However, boys, starting with bill's comment, and my statement of how I felt about what he said, and John..... you are all guilty of debasing the conversation from there. You all need to clean up your acts. Remember don't engage in the insults, just REPORT! ! !

it appears by the insulting name callers here today is CANADIAN LIBERTY AND RIGHTY/WRONGY ONLY WITH DIFFERENT NAMES.

they really show their intelligence here don't they?

President Barack Obama has not met with his jobs council for six months because he has too much on his plate, White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Wednesday.

"There’s no specific reason, except the president has obviously got a lot on his plate," Carney said during the daily White House briefing. "But he continues to solicit and receive advice from numerous folks outside the administration about the economy about ideas that he can act on with Congress or administratively to help the economy grow and help create jobs."

The 26-member President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has not officially met since January, according to a Politico report. That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign heats up.

"In the last six months, he has held 100 fundraisers," Romney said. "And guess how many meetings he's had with his jobs council? None. Zero. Zero, in the last six months. So it makes it very clear where his priorities are. His priority is not creating jobs for you, his priority is trying to keep his own job and that's why he's going to lose it."

robert~ Or to paprphrase Grover Norquist, weaken them enough that you can drag them in the bathroom and drown them in the tub. :)

Re: #6.1

It took me about 1 split second to debunk your NONSENSE.

The Phony Outrage Over Obama's Jobs Council

Article by Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback to Success.

http:/ /www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/07/20/the-phony-outrage-over-obamas-jobs-council {delete space between first two //}

Quoted from article - emphasis added:

Obama's jobs council, headed by General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, has actually done what it was supposed to do. It has issued a couple of reports with about 90 recommendations, in total, for ways to boost hiring and energize the economy. These are mostly sensible ideas, including many that businesses have favored for a long time, such as streamlining regulation, improving education, and reforming the corporate tax code.

A few of these ideas have even been implemented. The JOBS Act passed earlier this year contained measures to aid small, fast-growing companies, just as the jobs council recommended. Obama used an executive order to fulfill another council recommendation, speeding up the process for foreigners requesting a visa for travel to the United States. That has apparently worked, with visa approvals far higher than they were last year, and more foreigners visiting America.

But many of the council's recommendations require the kind of congressional action that's not likely in the current climate of hostility, especially in an election year. One good example: allowing more highly skilled immigrants to remain in the United States, which many economists consider a no-brainer. Yet Congress has dithered on the necessary approvals, which is a shameful abdication of responsibility.

Other big priorities, such as education and tax reform, will require years of work and deep compromise. As with many other challenges affecting the U.S. economy, the problem isn't figuring out what needs to be done. It's doing it. Obama could even credibly respond to critics of his moribund jobs council by saying that the time for meetings is over. There's a plan. It makes sense. Holding more meetings isn't the way to generate action.

Meanwhile, it's well-known what Washington politicians need to do if they really want to fix the economy: resolve the big questions about tax and spending policy that need to be addressed by the end of the year. Develop a credible plan for reducing the national debt. Get started on tax and entitlement reform. And do it now, instead of waiting till the last minute and subjecting everybody to needless drama. When all that is done, maybe we can have more meetings about what to do next.

Of course you like the ideal of a civil war until it is you having to fight it that is. One thing about tea bagged republicans they always talk big then run away. We have proof when 9/11 happened every tea bagged republican was hiding under their beds wetting themselves and begging the government to protect them.

Figures, bill, and you are the one who said it. Not very AMERICAN. I love the country, and realize we also have a bunch of fools in this country, like the judge that aren't very lovable.

Billy. You pay no attention to anything do you? The Democrats have "compromised". It's the Republicans that said " I won't compromise". Remember Boehner saying that? Didn't think your selective memory would allow you to. And it is the Republicans that have tried and are trying everything they can to get out of every deal they have made. Try reading some of the legislation. If you can.

willy has Lesdixia - it is a common ailment amongst the gop-neo-con-nazi's -- its just in their blood .............................. he he heeeeee ........................ GOMERS ..........

Md/MI/ Larry, TM, and others. They're out there, aren't they. The genetically deficient conspiracy theorists. The UN is going to invade Texas. Virginia is going to start an armed revolution!!

Oh, my....it is ...I don't even know what it is..........let's ignore it. Let them go back to drinking out of their jelly jars. OK? They'll eventually pass out.

That is strong stuff they make down there in them thar hills,Billy!

http://pabair.com/HomeBuying/HomeBuyingTimeline/tabid/645/Default.aspx

Q. Is it true that a provision in the new federal health care law will put a new 4% tax on all home sales?

A. No. The following directly addresses the issue:

An opinion piece in the Spokane, Wash, Spokesman-Review last month FALSELY reported that the health care bill contained a provision for a 4% "sales tax" or "transfer tax" on the sale of a home. This e-mail was and is inaccurate. The analysis by FACTCHECK.ORG: The claim is False. The health bill included a provision that imposes a new 3.8% Medicare tax for some high-income households that have "net investment income". Any revenue collected by the tax is dedicated to the Medicare hospital insurance program. This new tax applies only to households with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of more than $200K for individuals or more than $250K for married couples. Since capital gains are included in the definition of net investment income, an additional tax obligation might result from the sale of real property. Even if the AGI limits are met, the new tax would not be applied to capital gains that result from the sale of a home, since the existing home sale capital gains exclusion rule still applies - $250K (individual)/$500K (couple). So if the gain from the sale of the primary residence is below that amount, then NO Medicare tax will have to be paid on the gain. The new Medicare tax would apply only to a home sale gain realized in excess of the $250K/$500k that pushes the filer's AGI over $200K/$250K income limits.

It is so easy to debunk tea bagged republicans lying on Ed's blog.

metoo........thanks for the heads up Ya know I dont remember Edd or Maddow telling us about this. Wonder why? They probably just forgot!

To bad that it is a lie.

whomi........ Im sure everyone who makes a gain of over 200k will appreciate this. Do you understand how much houses sell for today.?

999 wrong again. Stop the lies......

http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/

Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home?

A: No, with very few exceptions. The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.

FULL QUESTION

I received this e-mail:

This should help stimulate the Real Estate market!

UNDER THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL – DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A 3.8% “SALES TAX”?

YOU CAN THANK NANCY, HARRY & BARACK (AND YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN) FOR THIS ONE.

IF YOU SELL YOUR $400,000 HOME, THIS WILL BE A $15,200 TAX.

Verified

Higher taxes on real estate investments. The 3.8% Medicare surtax would hit average, middle-class investors in real estate. A middle-class taxpayer who happens to sell real estate for a gain in a particular year would be liable for this new tax, regardless of how low her income might be in other, more typical years.

Click the factcheck link above to read the truth. Liar, liar pants on fire.

mom.........so test it out. Sell your house and lets see what happens.

Lets cut your head open and see if theres anything in there.

Hahahahahaha! That's an empty threat!

I have no reason to sell my house but you have forced my hand to finish the job on the lies being spread here.

http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/

FULL ANSWER

We’ve been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on "net gain … attributable to the disposition of property." That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: "Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence."

And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. "Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill," Ahern told us, "but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple)."

So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:

• A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
• An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.

Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) "will hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families" when it takes effect in 2013.

Footnote: Some of the chain e-mails that claim ordinary home sales will be taxed include a copy of an article written by Paul Guppy, a policy analyst with the conservative Washington Policy Institute (that’s Washington state, not Washington, D.C.). The article appeared March 28 as an op-ed in the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review, and Guppy claimed that "[m]iddle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are ‘rich’ for only one day." That brought a quick rebuttal from Sara Orrange, the government affairs director of the local Realtors association. She wrote a letter to the newspaper calling Guppy’s article "inaccurate" and saying, "Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made." In a news article the next day, business reporter Bert Caldwell confirmed that only "a very few" home sellers would pay the 3.8 percent tax

The Internal Revenue Service says that to qualify for the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion, a seller must have owned the home and lived there as the seller’s "main home" for at least two years out of the five years prior to the sale.

– Brooks Jackson

Correction, Sept. 2: We originally said that the footnote of the JCT report appeared on page 139. It’s on page 135.

Sources

Joint Committee on Taxation. "Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the ‘Reconciliation Act of 2010,’ As Amended, In Combination with the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’" 21 Mar 2010.

Ahern, William. E-mail to FactCheck.org, 22 Apr 2010.

National Association of Realtors. "Existing-Home Sales Rise on Home Buyer Tax Credit and Favorable Market Conditions." Press release. 22 Apr 2010.

Fleenor, Patrick and Gerald Prante. "Health Care Reform: How Much Does It Redistribute Income?" The Tax Foundation. 15 Apr 2010.

Guppy, Paul. "Health Law’s Heavy Impact." Spokesman-Review. 28 Mar 2010.

Orrange, Sara. "Home sales tax clarified." Letter. Spokesman-Review. 1 Apr 2010.

Caldwell, Bert. "Realtors take aim at health care tax claim." Spokesman-Review. 4 Apr 2010.

Being a laughing fool as you are I would'nt think you could understand the fact that your boy george is going down in history as the worst president this nation has ever had. And you voted for him not once, but twice! Tell that to your grandkids. But there you are.

There you go John, just calling people names. That is all you progressive people on the left can do. Call names, down people, make fun of people.

You have nothing else to run on. NOTHING. Your party and platford and Obama are in such sad shape...you don't even know what to do but lash out and try to slander people on the right.

So long come November. Try standing up for Obama rather than just call people names.............oooopps....nothing to stand up for. Sad!!

mary... nice try but, could and maybe isnt fact.

Still waiting on your "Fact' about Sen Boxer.

Johnny Boy - it is called the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. Link is at the bottom of the page.

Read the second paragraph and you will understand what thereugoagain is talking about (Boxer's support is mentioned in the first paragraph). Although the UN is such a corrupt and incompetent organization I don't see how they could actually enforce it. Sounds like a huge waste of money...so naturally a liberal Democrat supports it.

{C483C563-EBDC-40F1-A33B-D2819B6230A6}

{C483C563-EBDC-40F1-A33B-D2819B6230A6}

Can't post the link...here is the the 2nd paragraph I discussed. You could also do a quick internet search.

"Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect."

Source: www.parentalrights.org

amen brother!

John, You'll bwe waiting a long, long, long time. A teabagger give facts. Surely you jest. And please don't expect them to give links or sources. At least not credible ones. Has never happened and I doubt it will for you. I've been waiting for over 6 months. lol

Larry, surely you can't be referring to me? If I am wrong about Sen. Boxer supporting this UN resolution please let me know, I presented my case now you can present yours (if you are too lazy to do your own research, too bad). Of course I do expect sources and they must be sources that I personally consider credible...I would expect to be extended the same courtesy you expect.

Supporters say it’s about time that the United States start taking lessons from other nations on how to accommodate those with needs, and its ratification would work to ensure the equality and protection of disabled children who are vulnerable to mistreatment and discrimination.

You mean this don't you?

So you take a UN resolution that makes sure disabled children get the best care and education if it's warranted to step in and help that disabled child and turn it into a monsterous plan to take away all parental rights huh? I knew you drama queens were full of sh**. You Jackasses are a waste of time.

Don't get mad at me Tommy Toughguy, I just did the research you demanded.

Like I said before, I do not see any way the UN could effectively enforce this resolution, so I really don't think think it is a massive parental rights takeover - maybe others do, but I am not speaking for them and their opinions. Like most things the UN does it seems like a waste of time and money - so, again, not surprisingly a liberal Democrat supports it.

And Loose nut, the UN is all about human rights, something the teabaggers have never been concerned about.

I am not against human rights, only failed liberal policies.

The best, most consistent plagiarist on the blog.

Never a source for anything. 'Cause it's all made up.

Chris, That's my favourite one of Patricia's pulp fiction posts. I give that a 5 hairball rating!

India

Why don't you try something original

Look up what i posted for yourself then try to dispute it

Now that would be a real challenege for you

Are you up for the task

Maybe if you do I will give you a 5 hairball rating!

Can'tor won't?

They can't honestly or legitimately make the claim that they did not realize the consequences of their actions. Their attempts to push the blame onto the President is ridiculously juvenile. Everyone knows that the budget ball is the bailiwick of the House and that a budget bill is the duty of Congress.

Except the righties and the teabaggers, who conveniently forget when there's a Democratic president.

SO....the budgets from 2007, 2008, 2009 2010 are the fault of the Democrats...right?

And the budgets from 2009, 2010, 2011 would be Obama's fault because he signed them into law...right? Instead of having the backbone to veto it and tell them to go back to square one and start again...right?

just saying

Leave it to capt re reg to try to show that no matter how clueless the tea bagged republican appears to be it is nothing but the tip of the iceberg when you realize just how clueless they are .

Stormguy has a problem with basic facts. President Bush was responsible for the budget up to the end of fiscal year 2010 (Oct, 2009-Oct, 2010). The budget is always worked out a year ahead of time. So Obama never had a chance to influence anything until his budget proposal was put forward for October, 2010. The other problem to remember was that the Bush tax cuts were in law until the end of fiscal 2010 but were extended for two years in a good faith effort by President Obama to get the GOP in the House and Senate to work with him to solve the dire economic problems faced by our country. Instead, all President Obama got for his trouble was GOP obstructionism and radical Tea Party reluctance to want to pay for the bills of the country. We also have to remember those pesky shooting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Horn of Africa region that won't go away. We have spent long term at least $4 trillion on Afghanistan and Iraq. The bills for Iraq and Afghanistan plus the Bush tax cuts and the 2008 Great Recession mean we have lots of bills to pay for GOP financial irresponsibility. There was no way that President Obama could have avoided trillion dollar deficits under these extreme circumstances. If anyone out there knows how to stop paying for trillions of dollars for the Bush tax cuts for the rich and $4 trillion for the two wars started under Bush come and let us all know. We all would love to see the plan.

Actually Rex, a budget is a guide...the President and the congress can change the actual expenditures..and guess what...that was when the Democrats controlled all the WH, the Senate and the HOR...and that is when the spending spiral began...what a coincidence. Bush's budget for 2009 did not include a trillion dollar deficit, but wild ass spending by the Democrats combined with a lower revenue combined to make it happen.

Rex...how come you have never whined about Obama's payroll tax cut? Oh, that's right, it has to be good because it was done by Democrats...

Stop the whining and man up...This president has created every excuse possible other than taking responsibility for his own failed policies.

the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date is approx. $1.3 trillion. Your pie in the sky figure is based on anticipated expenses and could easily change up or down.

BTW...revenues into the Treasury INCREASED after the Bush tax rates went into effect. If the Democrats...who have controlled the HOR And the Senate for approximately 65% of the time over the last 50-60 years...had shown prudent fiscal responsibility in 2007-2019, the deficits would not be nearly as high as they are and our debt would be much less. But, thanks to them and Obama, our country is now approx. $16 trillion.

Thanks a bunch...

just saying...

Stormguy: The figure you give for the wars is entirely about the current cost so far for combat operations. Long term costs are something totally and completely different because you are talking about reset costs for worn down units, care for wounded and disabled veterans, and the huge interest costs for the borrowed money for the debts we incur. One thing you need to remember is that I have a lot of insight into these figures for the wars. I was in Desert Storm and packed and unpacked then reloaded all this equipment and fixed the equipment as it came home again, for a whole division's worth of equipment into huge ships. The reset costs for deployed units are absolutely huge. The figure you gave for Afghanistan and Iraq are only the costs for beans, bullets, and other logistical aspects of combat operations in theater for a war while its going on. The long term costs are interest on the national debt from borrowing, the reset costs of refurbishing ground combat units with totally shot equipment, plus the unknown costs of having to take care of wounded veterans, hundreds of thousands with PTSD and brain trauma, pensions for widows and disabled veterans. These costs are absolutely enormous meaning that the $1.3 to $1.5 trillion so far will easily double over the next decade plus. The real long term costs of Iraq and Afghanistan have been put together by Professor Linda Bilmes and Joe Stiglitz. Linda Bilmes teaches at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. She was also a budget expert for the Clinton administration and prepared budgets for the Clinton administration to be sent to Congress and other offices in the federal government. Joe Stiglitz is a professor of economics who won the Nobel prize in economic research. Go read the "Three Trillion Dollar War" for a more complete cost picture of the war in Iraq.

"....threetrilliondollarwar.org/"

This video has Professors Linda Bilmes and Joe Stiglitz talking about the costs of the Iraq war that starts after about 3 minutes into the video.

"...www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLuAW12kAU"

The desert environment is especially brutal on equipment and most trucks, vehicles, and equipment are shot. Heavy weapons systems like tanks, and helicopters go to depots and get completely stripped down and completely rebuilt from the inside out. These costs alone are easily going to be several hundred billion dollars for active duty forces in the Army and Marine Corps. These same costs get multiplied again for the Guard and Reserve units. If you belittle the reset costs for our ground combat units alone we are looking at $400 to $500 billion dollars alone just to refurbish the units over the next five to seven years. It will take the military almost five to seven years to reach the level of equipment readiness alone. We have been at war for ten years and lots of equipment will just get junked and we can buy all new to replace it. Plus thousands of road side bombs have damage equipment that was patched up and immediately sent back into combat again. The public does not see these costs but I have. I saw over a many hundreds of helicopters perhaps a thousand helicopters after the Persian Gulf war that were being totally stripped down and overhauled because the sand in the engines had turned to glass despite measure taken to try and minimize this. How much would all of this cost? No one except a logistics officer and the commanding general in the Pentagon will ever really know.

The $4 trillion figure for both Iraq and Afghanistan have been recited in the Associated Press and talked about by military analysts and journalists. We tend to forget about the interest, the reset costs for ground combat units of the Army and the Marine Corps. There are also huge reset costs for National Guard and Army Reserve units. An Inspector Generals report back about four years ago for the Army National Guard reported that about 90% of Guard units would fail to be able to meet a natural disaster like Katrina without lots of help from other units borrowing Peter to pay Paul. This is bleak and know ever seems to report about it.

"...www.voanews.com/content/report-iraq-afghanistan-wars-cost-us-nearly-4-trillion-124716249/141514.html."

"....ra.defense.gov/documents/publications/NGRER%20FY2013%20Final%20with%20covers%20-%20FEB%2012.pdf."

The Obama administration has pushed for the payroll tax as a short term stimulus to give the $50K and under folks a break on taxes in the hope that demand in the Main Street economy would pick up. I have never been a big fan of tax cuts whether under Bush or Obama but they persist. One of the reasons for this has been 30 years of GOP hogwash called supply side economics. If you believe in Santa Claus then you believe that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs for the middle class and poor working classes in America. Targeted tax cuts for businesses that hire new workers or build plants in America have some chance of working to grow the economy. The Bush tax cuts have created greater wealth inequality, drained the Main Street economy of demand by reducing middle class incomes, and have led to a stagnant economy with no job growth.

We had record corporate profits last year at $2 trillion and this year also is on track for record profits for corporations. The Dow Jones Industrial average has closed at 13,000 today up from a low of 6,000 in 2009. Record tax cuts under President Bush that disproportionately went to the upper three percent or so of American households have created the lowest income taxes and the lowest corporate taxes since the 1950's. So according to supply side economics we should be swimming in jobs right now with America being at full employment. So where are all those jobs that the GOP bragged and boasted about for the last 30 years?

Here is a website from the Center for Budget Policy Priorities that talks about the budget deficit. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are still hobbling the government revenues and exacerbating the long term deficit. The $4 trillion long term debt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also pulling down the economy. The GOP's Medicare Prescription drug or "Part D" was a giveaway to big Pharma creating the infamous doughnut hole that Seniors have to pay that was mostly corrected by the Obama Administrations Affordable Care Act. The long term budget deficit is systemic in nature because when you have multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich combined with two prolonged expensive wars all on borrowed money from Asia you get multi-trillions of dollars added to the national debt and trillion dollar budget deficits. Checkout this report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that talks about the long term budget problems caused by the Bush era wars and tax cuts:

"...www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036"

We all would love to see the plan from the critics on the right for what exactly President Obama was supposed to have done to correct these huge problems and pull off a miracle to balance the budget. The trouble is that until we eliminate the Bush tax cuts, pull out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus raise taxes significantly on the wealthy, shut down all corporate tax loopholes, shutdown the Cayman Island tax shelters, we will have deficits are far as the eye can see courtesy of the GOP Bush era policies that are still wrapped around the federal budget like a boa constrictor.

Wars can not be shut off like a tap faucet of water. Wars have a life all of their own completely estranged from domestic politics and economics. The Bush tax cuts were extended by the Obama administration in 2010 to try and get cooperation with the Republican controlled House and the GOP in the Senate to come up with a bipartisan solution to solve the nation's economic problem. The Obama Administration has bent over backwards trying to work with the GOP to solve our country's problems. All we get from the GOP in Congress are more obstructionism, holds on qualified judges, one hundred filibusters and counting, and excuses for failing to pass things like the Farm Bill that always passed with bipartisan support in not so many years passed. A President has to have a partnership with the Congress to pass new spending bills too. The American jobs Act and the Small Business tax credit bill would have saved or created three million jobs. Yet all we get from the "do nothing" GOP/Tea Party Congress are excuses, bitching, and obfuscation while millions of Americans are out of work. The GOP is worried about tax cuts for the rich and corporations while not giving a damn about middle class families who need jobs. If Mitt Romney is so concerned about creating jobs in America why does he hide huge sums of money in the offshore Cayman Islands, Bermuda, or Switzerland? Could it be the Mitt Romney is just trying to avoid paying taxes? I am quite sure that Romney only wants to give tax cuts to the rich while letting the middle class and poor working classes fend for themselves while gutting the social safety net. Go read the Ryan budget plan that calls for $ 5 trillion in cuts and guts Medicare all so the rich get more tax cuts.

What Akins said was totally dumb but it was Akins that said it. No one else. Funny, I dont remember such outrage from the Dems when Paula Jones, Brodrick and Jenifer Flowers filed the suit against Clinton for raping them. Double standard maybe?

No you already taken that title.

PolitiFact N.J.: Paul Ryan, Todd Akin backed bill limiting funding for abortions to victims of 'forcible rape,' N.J. Democratic Party chairman says

Published: Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 10:50 AM Updated: Wednesday, August 22, 2012, 10:50 AM

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, have sought to distance themselves in recent days from the "legitimate rape" claim made by a Missouri congressman.

But according to the chairman of the New Jersey Democratic Party, Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, and Missouri Rep. Todd Akin co-sponsored legislation limiting federal funding for abortions to victims of "forcible rape."

"While Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan rushed to throw Congressman Akin under the bus following his repugnant comments, we know that in reality, Republicans share many of Akin’s most offensive views on the issue of choice," John Wisniewski, a state assemblyman, said in a news release on Tuesday.

"Ryan co-sponsored legislation with Akin to limit federal funding for abortion to victims of 'forcible rape' - as if there is any other kind of rape?"

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/politifact_nj_paul_ryan_todd_a.html

Of course he did, now show us the cancelled check, put up or shut up. I mean really you should be able to show the check that Obama used to seal his records, oh yeah thats right you can't because you know you are repeating a lie that has been debunked more times then Robme hood changed his mind about what he was for before he was against it.

That's why Romney got a whiteboard; so he could easily erase it when he's told what he thinks.

nice drive-by whomi. Actually, he paid cash, with mine & your money. smile!

This is from factcheck.org:

Q: Are Obama’s early records “sealed”?

A: No. Many records that presidential candidates don’t ordinarily release do remain confidential, but they are not “sealed” by a court.

I wasn't able to copy and paste the entire article, but it did go on to say that it is illegal under Federal law (the Family and Educational Rights & Privacy Act of 1974) for any college or university to give a former student's records to anyone without that person's specific written permission. No other presidential candidate has released their college records. George W. Bush refused to release his records from Yale, but someone did leak them to the New Yorker magazine.

thereugoagain-Please furnish a reliable source for your claim that Obama paid $4 million to have records sealed, because I for one believe the facts and not your accusations.

Damn thereugoagain, you're batting 1000 tonight.

Typical tea bagged republican gets shown his talking point is bull@!$%# and he runs away.

Then we get the usual racist tea bagged republican re reg reply trying to use that good old Reagan lie that Affirmative Action gave blacks an unfair advantage over whites. Just leave out the fact that blacks had to be equal in training to their white counter parts who had enjoyed years of having an unfair advantage for being born white. But hey why let fact get in the way of your bigotry.

whomitmay: XEP belongs to the John Birch Society because he is an outcast from regular society. This John Bircher has no empathy for regular average Americans who work for a living and raise families. He has contempt for anyone who does not become a "get rich quick" millionaire playing the stock market or some other get rich quick money scheme. He also believes in cheating the country out of every tax dollar he can. Building up the country is not a priority for stupid, selfish, unpatriotic right wingers like him. XEP is filled with hatred for regular Americans who work hard for a living, pay taxes into the system, and raise families like me and most other ordinary Americans.

Yes, you're right, it can always get worse. Under the Ryan tax plan Romney would pay, on his unearned income, a rate of .87%.

Right its a shame that the wealthy can find tax loop holes that let them get away with paying 0% taxes. It's good to see that a tea bagged republican acknowledges the unfair tax laws the GOP created for the wealthy.

XEP: I see you are still spreading your John Birch Society filth all over this blog. Why do you hate ordinary working Americans who pay taxes, support their families, and who make the whole society called "America" function? All you do is bitch and whine about taxes well your taxes under President Obama are as low has they have been since the 1950's. You can look this fact up yourself but its been reported by the news wire services repeatedly over the years. No one on this blog would miss a right winged hatred monger like you if you left permanently. If you hate average Americans with families so much why do you live here? Go to the Cayman Islands I hear they have excellent tax shelters for offshore companies. Maybe you could go live in one of those post office boxes where 12,000 U.S. corporations have their corporate headquarters that we you can live with all your friends.

How would you know robme hood never released enough taxes for you to make that assumption. As far as your personal attack really is that the best you can come up with is a lie made up on your own financial failures, see projection is all you know how to do, you assume because you are a failure then everyone else must be too.

oh MY GOD!!! you poor misinformed tea baggers are really becoming the scum bags just like the repuke party of hate, bigotry, and racism and you are only getting worse.

you spout all these "FACTS/LIES" coming straight from the repukes themselves then want to say it's the dem's/liberals lying. PLEASE TAKE YOUR HATE AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'RE SPOUTING AND GO TALK TO RUSH AND OTHERS LIKE YOU. THE WORLD IS TIRED OF IT.

So cow did you finally get someone to help you cheat on your 8th grade math yet or are you still begging on left leaning blogs for help. Rather telling you don't beg for help on right wing nut sites.

Typical that a tea bagged republican doesn't know Boxer already released her tax information as did all the rest of congress.

Greg. Please learn something out how elected official work. She releases her tax returns every year. ALL elected officals are requried to. But hell, why let facts stand in the way of your right wing BS?

#19 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^GOMER Alert^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Projecting again xe/jerry.

XEP: You continue to hate ordinary average Americans who aren't in the millionaire class. Actually I have very few bills and save money each month on what I earn. I also can never remember a year that I ever paid less than 30% taxes and when you throw in property taxes and sales taxes its closer to 40% like most other Americans. So if you think I am a loser for being in the under $50k class,you obviously have proven my point that you hate and despise well over 150 million Americans across the country. Plus you probably are not impressed with two income families who are barely in the $80k to $100K or less crowd either so now we can assume you have utter contempt and hatred for over 90% of all Americans who work, pay most of the taxes, and raise families. If you hate all of us average people so much Jerry/XEP, why don't you go stuff yourself in a Cayman Islands postal box where you can go rot for all anyone cares.

xe/jerry can't grasp the concept of enjoying your work because that is what you like doing. The world according to xe/jerry is all about how much pay is involved which then causes xe/jerry to take jobs he despises to work at meaning xe/jerrys performance suffers and causes xe/jerry to be miserable so he tries to push his misery off on others which he fails at doing because misery is an internal thing that external solutions won't cure.

Whom, the Senate has not passed a budget in three years. The Democrats even voted down Obama's proposed budget, and you blame Republicans. Time for the Democrats to go back to Romney's Dog.

gjelly, don't forget about the layest GOP SCUM BAGS that came out today with their latest stupid remarks. one made the statement that you can't get aids from hetorosexuals only from gays screwing monkeys, then the other one said minority children in school are always whinning. I MEAN MY GOD HOW MUCH LOWER AND HATEFUL CAN THESE IDIOTS GET? everyday some new scum bag from the repukes makes one more derogatory,hateful, and bigoted remark and yet people like the ones here on this page still believe and follow them. it just boggles the mind how these people can get away with this crap. COME ON TROLLS, STAR THROWING YOUR HATEFUL REMARKS AT ME NOW, I'M READY!

i know you dont sir.. but some us of do<<>> where are the jobs that what the congress got in for<<<<>>>>>but wait:::you sir dont you have no shame all our congress did for two years was to pass a abortion bill -----dont you keep up on what happening<<<>>> stay away from up women dresses and body parts=== you know what they call THAT stop ((( HATEING bro. where the JOBS----- john

Weird, we have the "Job Czar to the President of the United States" General Electric CEO, Jeffery Immelt and company pays ZERO taxes on 5 billion dollars of 2010 profit( all booked in overseas accounts) and there is no outrage from the President nor the media. Where is Ed Schultz on this? How does it get anymore blatantly hypocritical than that? So, it's okay to speculate about Romney's past tax returns, yet right in front of the American public with the blessing of President, GE cheats the IRS out of about 750 million dollars of tax revenue. Wow, you people really need to get your priorities straight.

Ronnie called he said it is ok to call admin without titles Czars because its a slap in the face to the old Ruskies who formed the USSR, which is why Reagan decided to call his Drug law enforcement people DRUG CZARS. To bad for you that Obama can't cut a check or else the GOP wouldn't have anything to whine about.

I did not see any blatant hypocrisy with the "Drug Czar" under Reagan. Tell me, did the "Drug Czar" snort cocaine and smoke weed with President Reagan? Probably not, but the "Job Czar" currently reporting to President Obama is paying no taxes on a WHOPPING 5 billion dollars and shipping jobs to China and India with tax payer dollars.(American Recovery and ReInvestment Act). Once again, no outrage from the President, just capitulatioin with General Electric's way of creating jobs elswhere.