Davec,

I'm a democrat and I do agree with many of your points. Personally, I think SS for seniors should not be joined with disability. They are two separate things.
I don't believe in the earned income credit. No one should get back more than they paid in and it just makes people who cannot afford more kids, have more kids so their credit is higher.
Medicaid is good on one hand and terribly misused on the other hand. Some people really do need it, but I think it should be handled by the counties in the form of county clinics. ER's should have a nurse on hand that evaluates the need right then and there. If it isn't an emergency, those people should be turned away and told to go to the county clinic during daytime hours.
Food stamps, another sore spot for me. Many use them responsibly, but many do not. We need to find a way to make sure healthy foods are the only thing that can be bought with them. That's probably impossible to regulate, though.
Free lunches. It used to be embarrassing for kids to get free lunches, but not anymore. When I was going to school many years ago, the kids that were on free lunches had to work in the cafeteria to earn it. Do we see that anymore?

The issue boils down to party line. The democrats simply want to raise taxes to pay for entitlements. Please note....I'm not saying that all entitlements are bad. Some responsible people truly need help. We should continue to help seniors and those with disabilities. However, we should focus on solutions to the money pit that we are digging in many ways . Examples are rampant medicaid abuse. Ever talked with a nurse that works the ER? I know a woman who has a kid on medicaid and she takes him to the ER for minor, routine issues. Things that those of us who actually pay their bills would make an appointment with our kid's doctor for. What about grocery stores? I have a friend who manages a store and says the lone star card enables irresponsibility by paying for necessities while the "buyer" pulls out lots of cash for other things. What about federal spending on lunch subsidies in schools. I've heard over half of our student population gets a free lunch. Before I'm attacked by the left, let me state that I'm not saying that buying lunch for a poor kid is "bad." It simply frustrates me because I know some of those families can afford a few bucks to feed their kid. Maybe they shouldn't have bought the iphone. I don't have all the answers, I just know we can't keep spending our way into oblivion. The only reason the Democrats have agreed to ANY spending cuts is to try to hamper the republican argument. I am not wealthy and therefore I don't fall into the president's definition of those who would see their taxes go up. However, it deeply offends me when democrats mislead average voters on the tax issue. They are diliberately vague to play on the common misperception that somehow the "rich" escape taxation. If you simply ask the question "should the rich pay more?" most say yes. However, if you actually educate people and explain that the "rich," by the president's definition, pay the overwhelming share of taxes to begin with, folks realize the rich already pay more. What are we really trying to do through our tax system? I'm for a flat rate. Yes the rich would still pay "more" but it would be fair by way of an equal percentage. So when the president talks of people paying their "fair share," some would argue the math. Fair is a relative term.

Suib.

You are the one who isn't reading. I never said you are a memeber of a party. I never said you are hill billy. I never said you are this oi that.

I SAID YOU SOUND LIKE ONE WITH THE BUZZ WORDS !!!!!!!!!! There is a differnce between me calling you something and me telling you sounding like something.

Siub.

You have yourself to blame on this. When you shout WAKE UP, FREEDOM, and LIBERTY...you sound like a hill billy tea partier.

Ok. I have been converted. Where do I sigh up with the Wigs? Or was it Tories? Maybe it was the Twigs!

I remember as a youth my Dad and Grandfather fighting over Harry S. Truman. I ask my Dad and he said the county was being overrun by Commies. I ask my Granddad and he handed me a couple of newspapers and a couple of history books. He said "read for a while, then think about what your question should answer".

I came back a few days later and told my Dad he was wrong and President Truman did the right thing canning McArthur.

Let's think about what our questions should answer and not waste valuble time in wizzing contests.

siub

You act as thou I follow a set of instructions; I'm just an opinionated lowly poster who happens to vote for democrats. I've liked the platform since the civil rights legislation, its stance on an embryonic stem cell research, a woman's right to choose, Health Care, alternative energy, climate change, and others. Belonging to a political party does not keep me from reading about the issues.

Have you noticed that I have not tried to persuade you to change your beliefs but you feel that it's your duty to try and change mine as if I was some adolescent?

People's words and actions is what enhances or hamper a civil discussion; not ideology or a political party. I've had some great discussion with conservatives, republicans, and libertarians.

siub

I'll accept any label because I know who I am, but in your case I was fishing. You know I'm a democrat so it's easy for you to criticize while staying above the fray. I believe in leveling the playing field as soon as possible. Then we can go on to the issues.

If I was falsely imprisoned by the state, I believe I would be let out on my own recognizance because I think I've earned that. I would have to get a lawyer, but I'm 65 years; what trouble could I cause? If you think that's naive; then that's your prerogative....But I'm not paranoid.

I believe in repairing a political party from within. I don't believe independents, republicans, democrats or libertarians have a lock on the truth. I will not cover up the mistakes of my party nor back away from them nor will I leave it just because it's down sometimes.

Is the word" hippie" still being used?

The United States use to be the leader in new startups and a leader in the issuing of IPO's by new entrepreneurs. Now? Not so much and we can thank the mountain of regulations that new businesses have to face in this country because of Sarbanes Oxley and Frank n, Dodd. Wall street use to be the leader now all this business is going overseas driven there by the idiots that run this country.

This period of low economic growth is very similar to the way things were during the Great Depression because of FDR's new deal. He, like Obuma was an idiot - neither ever held a real job. Pretty much everything FDR did led to more economic uncertainty due to regulations, taxes, and screwing around with the money supply. This made it almost impossible for anyone to invest or hire workers. Investment is a major component of our GDP, without investment it is much harder to dig out of an economic hole - like we are currently in.

Raising taxes will not necessarily raise revenue. In 2000 the top ten percent paid $660 billion in income taxes. By 2005 they were paying almost the same amount and in 2006 they paid $724 billion. This is after the Bush tax cuts, ENRON, 9/11, Katrina and the worst hurricane seasons in memory. This is because the economy grew.

Everyone benefited from this prosperity some more than others, but a robust economy allows people to get a start and the opportunity to get ahead. Now people can't even get started. Unemployment among intercity minorities is 25% and among teenagers it's 40% - mainly due to the minimum wage. So what we are getting is a vast number of people almost completely dependent on government handouts, and that's the system we want to see grow and get bigger?

LIBERTY! Free Humanity..Please,I bet you are a Ron Paulite.

I'm awake and I have not seen any revelations in your statements that I haven't seen before....I'm as free as I want to be but it doesn't come from politics...It's a state of mind.

siub said "And for those of you who think "others" should pay more, why don't you just fill in the box on your returns where you are allowed to send in more than what you are required? Lead by example and quit asking for others to contribute more."

And how would that help anything if income redistribution in our tax code is geared to the wealthy? So we send extra money to the wealthy? How is that leading or is that just another excuse for the " I've got mine" crowd.

I've heard the " a pox on both houses" from those who pretend to sit above the fray. As long as there are human beings in both political parties; ideology and disagreement will be the status quo. It sounded just like another lecture without solutions.

Tell us your political affiliations ,So it can get equal criticism

siub - post of the year right there!

Brings back the old saying. "An honest days pint of blood/pound of flesh for and honest days $5 pay". I would suggest our commenters find a copy of The Houston Chronicle Business Section for yeaterday July 24th. It had a very detailed article on the highest-paid executives in public held companies. Then there are the CEO's of the companies that are not traded publicly that arn't public information. How much do they make? Hummmmmmm?

newcowboyintown

Shouldn't come as a surprise that I disagree with every point you made. I do understand where you're coming from, even though I don't approve.

Outsourcing has been going on for 30 years and buying American will not stop it. I was taking down the serial numbers of some equipment that I own(all American) and guess what I found common. My computer (Gateway)was made in China, my American printer was assembled in Taiwan, and at the end of the day I realized there's no such thing as buying American. Thing is, will will never be able to compete with countries that pay really low wages with no benefits and no concern for their environment.
Your 401K also depends on how much money the company makes overseas because we're it we are in a world wide economy.

I don't hold out the multinational corporations as the bogeyman, but I don't bow down to them either.

I read about a good plan that might work before partisan politics rears its head.

Instead of paying unemployment compensation to the laid off worker, perhaps we could give the worker some money and send the company that employs that worker a voucher for training. That's what's being overlooked; right now; we have a lot of unemployed people who are losing losing their job skills or don't have the necessary skills for the new jobs that will be created.
It's all about the jobs, decent wages, and benefits.

Hicktoria said
Mike, I think it is fair to say that it is the rich people that create jobs. Would you not agree?

That's true, but who would they need to create jobs for if there is no one to buy their products or services?

Everything is out of balance. Workers need livable wages to cover their basic needs, but they need a little more to buy extras. This is where it is going all wrong. Wages are dropping for the worker bees, so CEO's can get bigger compensation packages, and the stockholders get more in returns. Problem is they are trying to take the very ones that keep the money coming in, out of the equation.
That can only go on for so long before everything comes crashing down. Is that happening now? You have a equation that is working and you don't just decide take one part out of it and expect the outcome to be the same.

waywardwind

I have a couple stocks and from which I get an invitation to go a yearly board meeting or I could vote by proxy but that's not the point I was trying to make. Even if I did go to meetings, my vote would not amount to much. I was making a broader point that it doesn't matter what a CEO makes but workers can and do have a complaint when they're asked to pick up more of the benefit package, settled for stagnant wages and in some cases double up on their work to make the CEO look good. I know we can't legally bind the company's CEO pay even thou we bailed them out but I think it's unfair that they were given record bonuses while main street struggles.

As for your last question; I don't think we care what the compensation package is as long as we get our dividends in the value our stock goes up. It's a shell game.

"A CEO's pay is based on what the shareholders think he's worth..."

I'm a shareholder, too. I don't ever remember being asked if I think the CEO is worth what he's paid. His compensation is set by the board -- an incestuous bunch at best. Boards of directors are made up of people who usually sit on more than one board. The I'll watch your compensation package any you watch mine is rampant. Will you agree that there are companies that have lost millions while the CEO made hundreds of thousands or milliions? Do you think the shareholders approve of that compensation package?

Mike,
I am the working middle class and would like to keep a lot more of my salary rather than pay taxes. Because of that I don't begrudge the rich and ultra rich from wanting to keep all they can of theirs.

vet43
As for sending the jobs overseas - when Americans will buy American - then the jobs will begin to come home. I do my best to not buy items that aren't made in the USA. I pay a premium for them or I keep using what I have. Problem is there are somethings you can't buy American - so not sure how we get from where we are to where we need to be. Maybe if no one buys anymore Wranglers they will bring them home. Of if no one buys another pair of Justin boots or most other boots say for a couple of brands - boot manufacture will come home.
As Americans we want to be paid high wages with benefits but pay the bottom dollar price as if all our goods were made in China. It is very hard to get to where we want to be.
On top of that, our 401Ks and returns depends on the CEOs doing a good job - so they bring all the jobs back to the US - the prices go up or profits go to zero and our 401Ks go down.

Newcowboy,

They produce about as much as a moviestar, rockstar, football/baseball/basketball player. The only jobs thay create are on their legal/investment staff. How much did Rupert Murdoch make last year? Then we have the hard working management at Enron.

A CEO's pay is based on what the shareholders think he's worth, so it's subjective but their pay has risen 23% while workers has only gone up .05% in the same period. I think that's the framed argument...... The CEO earns his money by sending jobs overseas and cutting employee benefits and making the bottom line profitable for their shareholders. I'm a shareholder, so one side of me is pulling for the CEO.

I don't think a rich person has ever commented on this forum. I think this forum is comprised of people that make or made less than $100,000, so I'm continually amazed as to why some posters always take their side over those that are the same boat...I rarely hear anything about the working middle class;it's always rich v poor.

Always interesting to me how people feel CEOs don't earn or deserve the money they make.

Let's look at a 15% flat tax and how it impacts people:

$25,000/yr Tax= $3750 Left: $21,250

$50,000/yr Tax= $750 Left: $42,500

$1,000,000/yr Tax=150,000 Left: $850,000

Now price food, transportation, clothing, healtcare, education and retirement savings for a family of 4.

Who is making the greater sacrifice? The CEO that managed to take home 85% of his income (if I call it earnings I throwup a little). Or the family that buys the products that produced profits that wound up in the CEO's pocket?

Hictoria

That just the latest talking point created by Frank Luntz because republicans were taking a beating for always standing up for the rich...I was just mocking that tactic.

If my memory is correct, 80% of of our jobs are created by entrepreneurs and small business owners that make less than $250,000 .

Inside that rich group are hedge fund managers, heirs, and entertainers....Not job creators.

I hope that answers your question but I'm afraid we will leave like we always do; it all depends on what the meaning of is ...is...:-)

Have a good one

Mike, I think it is fair to say that it is the rich people that create jobs. Would you not agree?

newcowboytown

How does 15% across the board score with the Congressional Budget Office? I think that's just an arbitrary number.

The rich ("job creators" in republican speak) would love to pay just 15%.

A progressive tax system like we have is supposed to ensure that the more you make, the more you pay.

I don't think you can compare what the rich (job creators) get in tax incentives, no-bid contracts to what the poor get off welfare or EITC. That's more about class warfare than

anything else. It's one of those apples to oranges.

Nevertheless that's my opinion but I think the budget battles are more than arbitrary numbers and class warfare

Newcowboyintown,

I agree

>>>>BLAME BUSH, BLAME BUSH, BLAME BUSH>>>>>>THIS COULD ONLY MEAN ONE THING, OBAMA HAS BEEN AN

ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE FAILURE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES>>>BLAME BUSH, BLAME BUSH 1.2 BILLION A DAY YEAH, YEAH, YEAH>>>OBAMA, OBAMA CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE 4.6 BILLION A DAY AND WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT>>> OBAMA, OBAMA CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE 4.6 BILLION A DAY AND WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT<<<<

“That’s all folks!”
….Just passing thru with facts….

Budget cuts and increased revenue - I can go for that - why not a flat tax - 15% of income regardless of income - sounds fair to me. That way people that don't pay any tax don't get a refund and the highest earners pay the same 15% as everyone else. To this day I can't understand someone getting back all they pay in or even more. That doesn't sound any more fair than the richest getting all the breaks.
As for budget cuts - why not 15% across the board - if everything is on the table - just cut it all 15%. You could even cut 25% of the aid to countries that don't even like us.
I know - to simple but it makes me feel good to say it!

rollinstone,

Did the cost of Bush's policies magically end when he left office? The wars he started are still costing us money, lives, reconstruction costs, and whatever other costs are associated with it. The tax cuts that weren't paid for, etc. That is not Obama's fault, although it is being added to what is being spent during his term.
Add that to the interest being paid for his messups, the Medicare Part (whatever..it's late and I can't think).
We wouldn't be in the dire straights that we are now if those 8 years of Bush wouldn't have happened.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but you need to figure out where that blame starts and the continuing impact it is having on our economy.

I remember well the famous "trickle down" theory that would mean the top tier of wealth would spend, spend, spend and the middleclass would reap the gold. Sadly the trickle was yellow and not gold. But they still love the little people. We buy what they make and we pay what they demand (at the pump).

The auto workers would not have necessarily lost their jobs if GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. A judge would have protected their assets until the companies could have been sold for whatever. The unions were against this because they would have lost their collective bargaining agreement – Obuma stepped in to prevent that.

And then there’s the Bush bashing, not that I care but the truth needs to be told. In 2008 the federal deficit in September of that year was projected to be “only” $407 billion dollars, the actual deficit was $1.02 trillion dollars because of all the bailouts - a lot of that has been paid back and generally spent by Obuma during his administration.

Even so during Bush’s administration he increased the debt by $543 billion per year - nothing to write home about - while Obuma has gleefully increased it by $1.54 trillion per year. Obuma is also getting help from the Fed to reduce his borrowing. Any “profit” the Fed makes is automatically transferred to the Treasury Department. The Fed has been making some money on the trillion dollar investments in mortgage backed securities and it has kept interest rates on the new debt very low – but that can’t last, push will become shove soon enough.

And finally eliminating the Bush tax cuts will increase revenue maybe $100 billion per year. But how is increasing taxes going to reduce spending? Never mind I don’t care anymore. Tax the rich, let’s just get it over with, then we can all see what happens and maybe then everyone will just shut up – please, I’m begging you.

Well,Fiat was the only one to step up to the plate;not the same as outsourcing....Or were you joking?
Bottom line bailouts are not desirable but I hate to see what would have happened if Bush didn't do it....I saw the stock market drop when the GOP voteded it down initially.

Contracts vary,that's a given but not all come with a guarantee but I believe it's safe to assume company debts are part of the deal.The Obama administration was split on the deals but all were on board for keeping the car industry and the related jobs....Bad idea,to each it's own....I still say the right is trying to exploit this but what goes around..Well you know.

But what the right won't say is that President Bush would have done the same thing but his term ran out.

I am not arguing against tarp, to late now anyway, I was just pointing out that not all buyers assume the debt of the company they buy.

Heck, Fiat, a Italian company got a h3ll of a deal, did some one say something about outsourcing?

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Including the $1.3 billion loss on its Chrysler investment, announced Thursday, the United States government has lost about $14 billion on the auto industry bail-out.

Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone,"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos...

My point was that not all buyers of a company assume all the debt of the company purchased.

I have even heard of a purchaser neglecting to specify that accounts receivable will be theirs.

You can't send all the money straight to the top and let them sit on it, or move their operations overseas. We should give tax breaks "only" to the companies that show their support for America by keeping the jobs here.
All of these companies got all the breaks while Bush was in office and did they open plants over here or hire American workers? NO!! They don't deserve a danged thing from the American Taxpayers

I think Democrats want shared sacrifice because as it is ,the 400 richest Americans own more in total assets than the bottom 60% and 1% of the wealthiest own 20% of the wealth.....what's not being heard discussed in the debt ceiling talks? The middle class workers....

The right likes to point out the failure of Chrysler but not a peep when GM(another bailout)had a $3.4 billion profit in the 1st qtr.  o f this year.

Bailouts are not popular(rightly so) but the other option was the loss of a lot of jobs when the country could least afford it....It was an unpopular gamble that paid off like TARP.

The Democrats want more taxes to clean up the mess caused by baby Bush and his cronies. Republican politics is responsible for most of this mess, so they should have to take the cuts...not people who have nothing more to give.

But what the H3ll, $1 billion here or there, it takes 1000 billions to make a trillion right? $1.3 B? chump change.

Chrysler declared bankruptcy, was bailed out by us taxpayers,then Fiat bought them... for less than what Chrysler owed us taxpayers.

The Chrysler Group bailout officially ended Thursday when the Treasury Department sold off its remaining stake in the automaker, and the final tally shows the taxpayers lost $1.3 billion.

Italian automaker Fiat purchased the U.S. government's 6% stake in Chrysler for $560 million, formally concluding the $12.5-billion bailout in 2008 and 2009, Treasury announced. Including Chrysler's payment of loans from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the government received $11.2 billion of the money back.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money...

Sooo not every-time a company is bought does the debt pass to the buyer.

The democrats want more taxes so they can spend more, they'll lie to get there way!

I look at it like this. When one comapny buys out another, they take on the debt of the other company...(new President takes on debt of all past Presidents). Does that debt magically disappear? Is there a restart botton? Is it the fault of the new owners? No, but it becomes their problem.
Companies are in the business of profit, so is their only plan to cut spending? I holy doubt it. They pass the problem onto the consumer, by raising prices (revenue). You cannot balance a danged thing without bringing in more money.
We can only cut spending so much before it starts having the opposite effect. At least the Democrats understand this principle.

Eric Cantor voted 4 times to raise the debt ceiling. When we quit giving money to the Oil Companies, closing loopholes for international Corps then maybe you can hold the Dems responsible.

Too bad our Speaker of the Houseis a wus and is probably crying about it now.

I hoped for a third Party. I would vote for Ron PAul, but no Bachman or Palin. They are too ignorant and do not have the Country's interest at heart.

Maybe we can just blame it on Bush or if not that, you must be a raciest