Incomes Have Fallen $3,040

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No. Tax cuts are BS. Political bubble gum.

We need to eliminate all forms of income and payrool tax, capital gains tax or any other form of tax on income and replace it with the FAIR TAX. Anything else is political games that nt only does not help the economy it threatens the income source for our country.

The bush tax cuts have not been as damaging as the Obama tax cuts. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts (making them his own, even insisting they be extended) PLUS added the reduction of the income stream for Social Security by reducing the payroll tax AND extending that. Democrats are just as guilty of manipulating taxes for political gain as Republicans. The FAIR TAX would eliminate the involvement of politicians in the source of revenue for the government. THAT is it's best feature. It would also create millions of jobs by making the US a tax haven for foreign businesses, offshore funds and business in general

Comparisons to landlocked, infrastructure starved states such as Nevada are assinine. The UNITED STATES would SURGE if the FAIR TAX were implemented and politicians would have the door slammed in their face.

Shhh the truth might rattle some in here ll

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, the housing market would have bottomed and re-bound eventually one way or the other. The question is what the bottom would have been in an alternate scenario. All I know is that thanks to actions taken by this administration, I was able to refinance my mortgage at historically low rates even with that mortgage being underwater. This saves me thousands of dollars a year. A Romney administration would not have taken such action. Mitt was very clear about that.

All you can ever tell us is what might have happened. The economy sucks. Obamer said he would make it better. He did not. We have lost more troops spent more money. Incurred more debt. Added millions more to the public dole. Than bush could dream of. You live in a fantasy world

[Danno 1,228]

It's you that needs to put down the kool-aid. Firstly, you either do not know what a veto proof majority is or you have no idea what the seat distribution in both chambers of Congress was over the course of Obama's first term. Secondly, assuming that you meant a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, that is incorrect as well. He never had one. What he did have was 58 Democratic Senators from early July to late August 2009 and then again from late September through early February 2010. Yes, two independent Senators caucused with the Democrats over the first two years but one of them actually supported Obama's 2008 opposing ticket. To count that Senator in as solid support for Obama requires a lot of kool-aid.

Bottom line, Obama never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If you want to stick with your kool-aid induced version, then he had a filibuster proof Senate for a few weeks during his first year in office. Those are the facts. I know you don't do facts but they're the facts all the same.

Bottom line: Few Presidents had his same party Rule.

Reagan not only brought a real recovery to the country but is credited with ending the cold war as well.

The Clown we have now can't even keep the American flag up in the middle East.

While half the country is on food stamps or out of work this President focused on the 6% of people without cheap health insurance.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All you can ever tell us is what might have happened. The economy sucks.

The economy doesn't suck nearly as bad as it did 4 years ago. Period.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bottom line: Few Presidents had his same party Rule.

Bottom line, you don't know what you're talking about. Bottom line, you echo the right wing nut chamber's lie that Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the first two years of his Presidency. Bottom line, few Presidents were facing a minority party in Congress who were less concerned about America and the American people in a time of economic crisis than about how many terms the sitting President would have.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The economy doesn't suck nearly as bad as it did 4 years ago. Period.

It sucks, but not as bad!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!! Vote for Obama so the economy sucks LESS!

Morons. Complete morons.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Bottom line, you don't know what you're talking about. Bottom line, you echo the right wing nut chamber's lie that Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the first two years of his Presidency. Bottom line, few Presidents were facing a minority party in Congress who were less concerned about America and the American people in a time of economic crisis than about how many terms the sitting President would have.

For the first two years of his term Obama did not need ANY votes from any minority party for ANY reason. He could not get anything done because...

1. He cannot get anything done, he is not a do-er

2. He could not get the Democrats to vote for his ideas. He didn't need any Republicans to vote for them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Bottom line, you don't know what you're talking about. Bottom line, you echo the right wing nut chamber's lie that Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the first two years of his Presidency. Bottom line, few Presidents were facing a minority party in Congress who were less concerned about America and the American people in a time of economic crisis than about how many terms the sitting President would have.

He had an absolute LOCK on congress for two years. They (congress) took office 2 weeks before Obama. There was NO REASON they could not have Health Care passed in 2 weeks, 2 DAYS for that matter, it could all have been worked out between the election and congress taking taking office, Obama could have taken the oath of office on the 20th, turned around and signed health care while still on the podium. He couldn't get it done because his own party did nothing but bicker, grab, fight, squeeze and try to get as much for themselves and their contributors as they could. It has been the most disgusting display of what politicians will do if left on their own. We ended up with a completely unworkable, expensive pork-u-lous filled piece of trash that has little to offer anyone but feeds the insurance companies. What a disgrace!

If government is going to do health care, there is but one way that even has a prayer of working...Single Payer. Period. We already have that in Medicare, why not just extend that to everyone? No, that would be too fvcking easy and would wipe out insurance companies. What a shame that would be for campaign contributions. But when our good Senator Bernie Sanders from VT offered that, it was shot down and trashed by Democrats trying to line the pockets of the insurance companies that contributed to them.

[mawilson 2,133]

Your problem is, folks, you were unable to recruit even one viable candidate among close to 300 million Americans. You could not find one. So you elected the Mormon to be your leader.

We have? Wow, that was a long nap, missed the election.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We have? Wow, that was a long nap, missed the election.

Romney is the GOP nominee, is he not?

[mawilson 2,133]

Romney is the GOP nominee, is he not?

The GOP nominee is our leader?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It sucks, but not as bad!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!! Vote for Obama so the economy sucks LESS!

Well, a little bit of perspective might be in order. How many jobs did Republican economic policies create from Jan 2001 - Late 2004? That's right. Not one. In fact, there were fewer jobs at the end of the first term of the previous President than there were when he took office. All Republican economics. No jobs. How many jobs did Democratic policies create from Jan 2009 'til now? A few hundred thousand. And that is net job creation with the 4.3 million jobs lost during the great recession which this President inherited. If you ask me, I take a few hundred thousand new net jobs over none any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

The GOP nominee is our leader?

He was talking about the Republicans.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He had an absolute LOCK on congress for two years. They (congress) took office 2 weeks before Obama.

And at no point could they have gotten anything through the Senate because they never had a filibuster proof majority. Ever. The closest they ever came lasted for a few weeks and those 60 votes included Sen. Liebermann who supported the Republican ticket in the 2008 election.

[mawilson 2,133]

And at no point could they have gotten anything through the Senate because they never had a filibuster proof majority.

Why do they need a filibuster proof majority? It's not in the Constitution.

If Republicans wanted to filibuster, the Dems should have called their bluff and let them filibuster. How long do you think they would have lasted?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And at no point could they have gotten anything through the Senate because they never had a filibuster proof majority. Ever. The closest they ever came lasted for a few weeks and those 60 votes included Sen. Liebermann who supported the Republican ticket in the 2008 election.

excuses. The only people standing in the way of the health care bill were democrats. Period.

Well, a little bit of perspective might be in order. How many jobs did Republican economic policies create from Jan 2001 - Late 2004? That's right. Not one. In fact, there were fewer jobs at the end of the first term of the previous President than there were when he took office. All Republican economics. No jobs. How many jobs did Democratic policies create from Jan 2009 'til now? A few hundred thousand. And that is net job creation with the 4.3 million jobs lost during the great recession which this President inherited. If you ask me, I take a few hundred thousand new net jobs over none any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

He was talking about the Republicans.

I do not look to the government to create jobs. I look to the government to get out of the way so private business can create jobs. FAIR TAX would do it.