Obama 2012! YES WE CAN again! Support Obama and keep working for american prosperity! (756)
Hot_Single_Dude: I definately understand you are worried a bout Switzerland is going to loose billions of dollers of americans and other nations stolen money Back soon Grump head... Being a part of Mafia supporting these horrible actions of the Swiss for too freaking many years is not some thing you possibly could count on for ever you see?
you showing more and more how limited you really are!
Paldi5: Thanks... don't know what contribution I can make, being an Obama voter but also admiring teh Trump I suppose I'm conflicted. Maybe you'll learn me sumpthin?
My feeling on Obama is he's progressing nicely, needs to post some light on his achievements and get more people behind him. He's almost shy. Trump is the opposite of shy.
I wonder how the vote would go if they were the two candidates? Might be a close race.
You could help Dude,if you were to enumerate some of The Anointed One's Achievements!My feeling on Obama is he's progressing nicely, needs to post some light on his achievements and get more people behind him. He's almost shy. Trump is the opposite of shy.
I wonder how the vote would go if they were the two candidates? Might be a close race.
Do public employees get a better deal? It depends
By MICHAEL HILL Associated Press The Associated Press
Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:07 PM EDT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A prosecutor in California collects $118,000 in unused sick days. A police officer in New York rings up $125,000 in overtime the year before retiring and "spikes" his pension payments. An Ohio school superintendent is hired for the same job from which he just retired and takes in more than $100,000 annually in salary and pension.
The headlines feed a stereotype of fat-cat public workers with the kind of cushy benefits that most private-sector workers can only dream about. With the economy still wobbly, governors are looking hard at employee pay and benefits, and taxpayers are asking whether state and local governments can remain so generous to public workers.
The issue has risen to national prominence as Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have sought not only to make public employees pay more for their benefits but also prohibit many aspects of collective bargaining for the unions that represent them.
———
EDITOR'S NOTE — This story is the latest installment in a joint initiative by The Associated Press and Associated Press Managing Editors on the fiscal crisis facing U.S. states and cities, how state and local governments are dealing with severe budget cuts, and how American lives will change because of it.
———
Just how accurate is the portrayal of lavish compensation and benefits for public workers?
Researchers disagree over whether public workers in different states do better when it comes to the larger picture of total compensation — that is, earnings plus benefits. But there's little debate that when it comes to benefits alone, it's better on the public side.
"Because of the economic problems, we've suddenly hit upon the fact that public workers have better benefits. But they've always had them, even previous to collective bargaining. That was one of the reasons people took a government job," said Jeffrey Keefe, a labor and employment relations associate professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who argues that state and local workers are generally undercompensated.
By MICHAEL HILL Associated Press The Associated Press
Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:07 PM EDT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A prosecutor in California collects $118,000 in unused sick days. A police officer in New York rings up $125,000 in overtime the year before retiring and "spikes" his pension payments. An Ohio school superintendent is hired for the same job from which he just retired and takes in more than $100,000 annually in salary and pension.
The headlines feed a stereotype of fat-cat public workers with the kind of cushy benefits that most private-sector workers can only dream about. With the economy still wobbly, governors are looking hard at employee pay and benefits, and taxpayers are asking whether state and local governments can remain so generous to public workers.
The issue has risen to national prominence as Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have sought not only to make public employees pay more for their benefits but also prohibit many aspects of collective bargaining for the unions that represent them.
———
EDITOR'S NOTE — This story is the latest installment in a joint initiative by The Associated Press and Associated Press Managing Editors on the fiscal crisis facing U.S. states and cities, how state and local governments are dealing with severe budget cuts, and how American lives will change because of it.
———
Just how accurate is the portrayal of lavish compensation and benefits for public workers?
Researchers disagree over whether public workers in different states do better when it comes to the larger picture of total compensation — that is, earnings plus benefits. But there's little debate that when it comes to benefits alone, it's better on the public side.
"Because of the economic problems, we've suddenly hit upon the fact that public workers have better benefits. But they've always had them, even previous to collective bargaining. That was one of the reasons people took a government job," said Jeffrey Keefe, a labor and employment relations associate professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who argues that state and local workers are generally undercompensated.
ttom500: For you that have been and and angry about GE not paying any tax. Warren Buffet in 2009 was in the 17.7% tax rate.
Buffet has been in a acquisition mode of recent. Jusr acuired 100% of Luzazoil, a chmeical company. Buffet has a high percent ownership of Dow Chemical as well.
Chemical companies tend to do well when war are going on. They make most of the materials needed for explosives, fuels and other military fluids.
Maybe Buffet knows something that we don't?
we know he is a Raider,an Opportunist!Buffet has been in a acquisition mode of recent. Jusr acuired 100% of Luzazoil, a chmeical company. Buffet has a high percent ownership of Dow Chemical as well.
Chemical companies tend to do well when war are going on. They make most of the materials needed for explosives, fuels and other military fluids.
Maybe Buffet knows something that we don't?
Gas at $4 in nation's capital, 5 states; NY next
By The Associated Press The Associated Press
Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) — NEW YORK (AP) — Drivers in Washington, D.C., on Saturday joined motorists in five states who are paying more than $4 per gallon for gasoline.
The average price for gas in New York could top $4 by early next week. Hawaii, Alaska, California, Illinois and Connecticut already have pump prices above that mark, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge. Hawaii has the highest price in the U.S. at $4.47 per gallon.
The national average for gas has increased for 25 straight days, and is now $3.82 per gallon. Retail surveys suggest motorists are reacting to higher prices now by buying less fuel. Still, the government expects pump prices to keep climbing this summer as vacationers take to the highways.
The average price of gas rose to $4.003 per gallon in the nation's capital Saturday. The New York average is $3.996.
For American drivers, the $4 mark harkens back to the summer of 2008, when oil rose to $147 per barrel and gas prices topped out at $4.11 per gallon before the economy went into a tailspin.
The rapid increase at the pump follows a parallel rise in oil. Since Labor Day, oil has risen 48 percent and U.S. gas prices have gone up 42 percent. The increases gained momentum in Mid-February when a popular rebellion built in Libya, eventually turning violent and shutting down the country's exports. Crude has jumped 30 percent since then, with gas prices gaining 22 percent.
By The Associated Press The Associated Press
Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) — NEW YORK (AP) — Drivers in Washington, D.C., on Saturday joined motorists in five states who are paying more than $4 per gallon for gasoline.
The average price for gas in New York could top $4 by early next week. Hawaii, Alaska, California, Illinois and Connecticut already have pump prices above that mark, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge. Hawaii has the highest price in the U.S. at $4.47 per gallon.
The national average for gas has increased for 25 straight days, and is now $3.82 per gallon. Retail surveys suggest motorists are reacting to higher prices now by buying less fuel. Still, the government expects pump prices to keep climbing this summer as vacationers take to the highways.
The average price of gas rose to $4.003 per gallon in the nation's capital Saturday. The New York average is $3.996.
For American drivers, the $4 mark harkens back to the summer of 2008, when oil rose to $147 per barrel and gas prices topped out at $4.11 per gallon before the economy went into a tailspin.
The rapid increase at the pump follows a parallel rise in oil. Since Labor Day, oil has risen 48 percent and U.S. gas prices have gone up 42 percent. The increases gained momentum in Mid-February when a popular rebellion built in Libya, eventually turning violent and shutting down the country's exports. Crude has jumped 30 percent since then, with gas prices gaining 22 percent.
Faithfulness: Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.
The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.
President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.
The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.
President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.
Good grief! Not enough people paying taxes. Where do they come up with stuff? Look! if someone in your famiily is snorting coke, the way to cure them is not give them more coke. If they raise taxes they will spend more, and it's not only politicians that are delighted at the idea. Those persons who have sapped the system for years see for the first time that their lunch money might be going away.
6 banks shuttered; makes 34 closed in '11
By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 8:49 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators on Friday shut down a total of six banks in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota and Mississippi, boosting the number of U.S. bank failures this year to 34. There were 157 bank closures in 2010 amid the shattered economy and piles of bad loans.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. seized the banks, the largest by far being Superior Bank, based in Birmingham, Ala., with $3 billion in assets and about 70 branches in Alabama and Florida.
A newly chartered bank subsidiary of Houston-based Community Bancorp LLC was set up to take over Superior Bank's assets and deposits. The new subsidiary is called Superior Bank NA.
In addition, the FDIC and Superior Bank NA agreed to share losses on $1.84 billion of the failed bank's loans and other assets.
Superior Bank received $69 million in taxpayer funds in December 2008 under the government's financial bailout program, Treasury Department data show.
Its failure is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $259.6 million.
Also shuttered were Birmingham-based Nexity Bank, with $793.7 million in assets; Bartow County Bank of Cartersville, Ga., with $330.2 million in assets; New Horizons Bank in East Ellijay, Ga., with $110.7 million in assets; Rosemount National Bank in Rosemount, Minn., with $37.6 million in assets; and Heritage Banking Group, based in Carthage, Miss., with $224 million in assets.
AloStar Bank of Commerce, also based in Birmingham, agreed to assume the assets and deposits of Nexity Bank. Hamilton State Bank, based in Hoschton, Ga., is assuming the assets and deposits of Bartow County Bank. Citizens South Bank, based in Gastonia, N.C., is acquiring the assets and deposits of New Horizons Bank. Central Bank, based in Stillwater, Minn., is assuming those of Rosemount National Bank. Trustmark National Bank, based in Jackson, Miss., is taking those of Heritage Banking Group.
In addition, the FDIC and AloStar Bank of Commerce agreed to share losses on $384.2 million of Nexity Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Hamilton State Bank are sharing losses on $247.5 million of Bartow County Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Citizens South Bank are sharing losses on $84.7 million of New Horizons Bank's assets. The FDIC and Trustmark National Bank are sharing losses on $156.4 million of Heritage Banking Group's assets.
By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 8:49 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators on Friday shut down a total of six banks in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota and Mississippi, boosting the number of U.S. bank failures this year to 34. There were 157 bank closures in 2010 amid the shattered economy and piles of bad loans.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. seized the banks, the largest by far being Superior Bank, based in Birmingham, Ala., with $3 billion in assets and about 70 branches in Alabama and Florida.
A newly chartered bank subsidiary of Houston-based Community Bancorp LLC was set up to take over Superior Bank's assets and deposits. The new subsidiary is called Superior Bank NA.
In addition, the FDIC and Superior Bank NA agreed to share losses on $1.84 billion of the failed bank's loans and other assets.
Superior Bank received $69 million in taxpayer funds in December 2008 under the government's financial bailout program, Treasury Department data show.
Its failure is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $259.6 million.
Also shuttered were Birmingham-based Nexity Bank, with $793.7 million in assets; Bartow County Bank of Cartersville, Ga., with $330.2 million in assets; New Horizons Bank in East Ellijay, Ga., with $110.7 million in assets; Rosemount National Bank in Rosemount, Minn., with $37.6 million in assets; and Heritage Banking Group, based in Carthage, Miss., with $224 million in assets.
AloStar Bank of Commerce, also based in Birmingham, agreed to assume the assets and deposits of Nexity Bank. Hamilton State Bank, based in Hoschton, Ga., is assuming the assets and deposits of Bartow County Bank. Citizens South Bank, based in Gastonia, N.C., is acquiring the assets and deposits of New Horizons Bank. Central Bank, based in Stillwater, Minn., is assuming those of Rosemount National Bank. Trustmark National Bank, based in Jackson, Miss., is taking those of Heritage Banking Group.
In addition, the FDIC and AloStar Bank of Commerce agreed to share losses on $384.2 million of Nexity Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Hamilton State Bank are sharing losses on $247.5 million of Bartow County Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Citizens South Bank are sharing losses on $84.7 million of New Horizons Bank's assets. The FDIC and Trustmark National Bank are sharing losses on $156.4 million of Heritage Banking Group's assets.
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a prelude to a summer showdown with President Barack Obama, Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.
The nonbinding plan lays out a fiscal vision cutting $6.2 trillion from yearly federal deficits over the coming decade and calls for transforming Medicare from a program in which the government directly pays medical bills into a voucher-like system that subsidizes purchases of private insurance plans
The GOP budget passed 235-193 with every Democrat voting "no." Obama said in an Associated Press interview that it would "make Medicare into a voucher program. That's something that we strongly object to."
The vote sets up the Republicans' next round of confrontation with Obama and Democrats over must-pass legislation to allow the government to borrow more money to finance its operations and obligations to holders of U.S. bonds. For the first time, Obama acknowledged that raising the debt limit is "not going to happen without some spending cuts" insisted upon by Republicans and some Democrats.
The vote came on the same day Obama signed a hard-fought six-month spending bill that averted a government shutdown while cutting $38 billion from the government. Struck last week, the compromise was the first between the White House and the emboldened Republican majority in the House.
Under the House Republican plan approved Friday, deficits requiring the federal government to borrow more than 40 cents for every dollar it spends would be cut by the end of the decade to 8 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent.
"If the president won't lead, we will," Boehner said as he closed debate. "No more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. Now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the American people and we will."
Obama saw the situation differently. In the AP interview, he said the Republicans' "pessimistic vision ... says that America can no longer do some of the big things that made us great, that made us the envy of the world."
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a prelude to a summer showdown with President Barack Obama, Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.
The nonbinding plan lays out a fiscal vision cutting $6.2 trillion from yearly federal deficits over the coming decade and calls for transforming Medicare from a program in which the government directly pays medical bills into a voucher-like system that subsidizes purchases of private insurance plans
The GOP budget passed 235-193 with every Democrat voting "no." Obama said in an Associated Press interview that it would "make Medicare into a voucher program. That's something that we strongly object to."
The vote sets up the Republicans' next round of confrontation with Obama and Democrats over must-pass legislation to allow the government to borrow more money to finance its operations and obligations to holders of U.S. bonds. For the first time, Obama acknowledged that raising the debt limit is "not going to happen without some spending cuts" insisted upon by Republicans and some Democrats.
The vote came on the same day Obama signed a hard-fought six-month spending bill that averted a government shutdown while cutting $38 billion from the government. Struck last week, the compromise was the first between the White House and the emboldened Republican majority in the House.
Under the House Republican plan approved Friday, deficits requiring the federal government to borrow more than 40 cents for every dollar it spends would be cut by the end of the decade to 8 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent.
"If the president won't lead, we will," Boehner said as he closed debate. "No more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. Now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the American people and we will."
Obama saw the situation differently. In the AP interview, he said the Republicans' "pessimistic vision ... says that America can no longer do some of the big things that made us great, that made us the envy of the world."
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
Page 2
The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., exposes Republicans to political risk. Its Medicare proposal would give people presently 54 or younger health insurance subsidies that would steadily lose value over time — even as current beneficiaries and people 55 and older would stay in the current system.
The budget measure is nonbinding but lays out a vision to fundamentally reshape government benefit programs for the poor and elderly, programs whose spiraling costs threaten to crowd out other spending and produce a crippling debt burden that could put a major drag on the economy in the future.
"Which future do you want your children to have? One where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future?" Ryan asked. "Or this budget ... that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt?"
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while leaving Bush-era tax cuts intact. It calls for tax changes that would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences, but it parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit commission, which proposed devoting about $100 billion a year in new revenue to easing the deficit.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach is fundamentally unbalanced, targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say bestows too many benefits on the wealthy. The GOP blueprint would cut almost $800 million from the federal-state Medicaid program — which provides health care to the poor and disabled and pays for nursing home care for millions of indigent senior citizens — into a block grant program run by the states.
Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
Page 2
The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., exposes Republicans to political risk. Its Medicare proposal would give people presently 54 or younger health insurance subsidies that would steadily lose value over time — even as current beneficiaries and people 55 and older would stay in the current system.
The budget measure is nonbinding but lays out a vision to fundamentally reshape government benefit programs for the poor and elderly, programs whose spiraling costs threaten to crowd out other spending and produce a crippling debt burden that could put a major drag on the economy in the future.
"Which future do you want your children to have? One where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future?" Ryan asked. "Or this budget ... that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt?"
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while leaving Bush-era tax cuts intact. It calls for tax changes that would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences, but it parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit commission, which proposed devoting about $100 billion a year in new revenue to easing the deficit.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach is fundamentally unbalanced, targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say bestows too many benefits on the wealthy. The GOP blueprint would cut almost $800 million from the federal-state Medicaid program — which provides health care to the poor and disabled and pays for nursing home care for millions of indigent senior citizens — into a block grant program run by the states.
Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.
Faithfulness: House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
Page 2
The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., exposes Republicans to political risk. Its Medicare proposal would give people presently 54 or younger health insurance subsidies that would steadily lose value over time — even as current beneficiaries and people 55 and older would stay in the current system.
The budget measure is nonbinding but lays out a vision to fundamentally reshape government benefit programs for the poor and elderly, programs whose spiraling costs threaten to crowd out other spending and produce a crippling debt burden that could put a major drag on the economy in the future.
"Which future do you want your children to have? One where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future?" Ryan asked. "Or this budget ... that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt?"
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while leaving Bush-era tax cuts intact. It calls for tax changes that would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences, but it parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit commission, which proposed devoting about $100 billion a year in new revenue to easing the deficit.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach is fundamentally unbalanced, targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say bestows too many benefits on the wealthy. The GOP blueprint would cut almost $800 million from the federal-state Medicaid program — which provides health care to the poor and disabled and pays for nursing home care for millions of indigent senior citizens — into a block grant program run by the states.
Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
Page 2
The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., exposes Republicans to political risk. Its Medicare proposal would give people presently 54 or younger health insurance subsidies that would steadily lose value over time — even as current beneficiaries and people 55 and older would stay in the current system.
The budget measure is nonbinding but lays out a vision to fundamentally reshape government benefit programs for the poor and elderly, programs whose spiraling costs threaten to crowd out other spending and produce a crippling debt burden that could put a major drag on the economy in the future.
"Which future do you want your children to have? One where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future?" Ryan asked. "Or this budget ... that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt?"
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while leaving Bush-era tax cuts intact. It calls for tax changes that would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences, but it parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit commission, which proposed devoting about $100 billion a year in new revenue to easing the deficit.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach is fundamentally unbalanced, targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say bestows too many benefits on the wealthy. The GOP blueprint would cut almost $800 million from the federal-state Medicaid program — which provides health care to the poor and disabled and pays for nursing home care for millions of indigent senior citizens — into a block grant program run by the states.
Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
"The Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old tired formula we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America," said top Budget panel Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "Except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-smelling talk of reform."
In their budget, Republicans shied away from tackling Social Security shortfalls, steering clear of what pundits sometimes call the "third rail of American politics."
Virtually every budget expert in Washington agrees that projected Medicare cost increases are unsustainable, but the GOP initiative has brought heated disagreement.
"We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark. "Well, unfortunately Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo with regard to Medicare, you are on the side of the elimination of Medicare as we know it."
Democrats countered with official estimates showing the GOP plan would provide vouchers whose value would steadily erode.
"The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors — that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "The Republicans' plan forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit."
Also Friday, the House easily defeated two liberal budget alternatives. A plan offered by the conservative Republican Policy Committee failed as well, while a Democratic alternative that called for higher taxes on the wealthy and special interests fell on a 259-166 vote.
The GOP plan isn't actual legislation. Instead, under the arcane congressional budget process, the measure sketches out a nonbinding blueprint each year for running the government. The resolution doesn't require the president's signature, but it does set the framework for changes to spending or tax policy in follow-up legislation.
The most immediate impact of the GOP plan would be to cut the $1 trillion-plus budget for appropriated programs next year by $30 billion, following on the $38 billion in cuts just adopted. That would return domestic agency accounts below levels when George W. Bush left office.
Food stamps would also be cut sharply and turned into a block grant program.
For the long term, Ryan's 10-year plan still can't claim a balanced budget by the end of the decade because of promises to not increase taxes or change Medicare and Social Security benefits for people 55 and over.
But eventually annual deficits are projected to fall to the $400 billion range, enough to stabilize the nation's finances.
The Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to produce its alternative plan. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and other members of Obama's independent fiscal commission are pursuing a bipartisan "grand bargain" blending big spending curbs with new revenues flowing from a simplified tax code.
The budget deficit is projected at an enormous $1.6 trillion this year, and, more ominously, current projections show an even worse mismatch in coming decades as the baby boom generation retires and Medicare costs consume an ever-growing share of the budget.
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
"The Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old tired formula we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America," said top Budget panel Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "Except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-smelling talk of reform."
In their budget, Republicans shied away from tackling Social Security shortfalls, steering clear of what pundits sometimes call the "third rail of American politics."
Virtually every budget expert in Washington agrees that projected Medicare cost increases are unsustainable, but the GOP initiative has brought heated disagreement.
"We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark. "Well, unfortunately Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo with regard to Medicare, you are on the side of the elimination of Medicare as we know it."
Democrats countered with official estimates showing the GOP plan would provide vouchers whose value would steadily erode.
"The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors — that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "The Republicans' plan forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit."
Also Friday, the House easily defeated two liberal budget alternatives. A plan offered by the conservative Republican Policy Committee failed as well, while a Democratic alternative that called for higher taxes on the wealthy and special interests fell on a 259-166 vote.
The GOP plan isn't actual legislation. Instead, under the arcane congressional budget process, the measure sketches out a nonbinding blueprint each year for running the government. The resolution doesn't require the president's signature, but it does set the framework for changes to spending or tax policy in follow-up legislation.
The most immediate impact of the GOP plan would be to cut the $1 trillion-plus budget for appropriated programs next year by $30 billion, following on the $38 billion in cuts just adopted. That would return domestic agency accounts below levels when George W. Bush left office.
Food stamps would also be cut sharply and turned into a block grant program.
For the long term, Ryan's 10-year plan still can't claim a balanced budget by the end of the decade because of promises to not increase taxes or change Medicare and Social Security benefits for people 55 and over.
But eventually annual deficits are projected to fall to the $400 billion range, enough to stabilize the nation's finances.
The Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to produce its alternative plan. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and other members of Obama's independent fiscal commission are pursuing a bipartisan "grand bargain" blending big spending curbs with new revenues flowing from a simplified tax code.
The budget deficit is projected at an enormous $1.6 trillion this year, and, more ominously, current projections show an even worse mismatch in coming decades as the baby boom generation retires and Medicare costs consume an ever-growing share of the budget.
leigh2154: Yeah, but Trump will probably say he is gonna fix that problem too....just as soon as his hair spray dries!!!!
Thought he's using Elmer's Glue!But look what it did to Elmer!
Sparky55: Damn right, I'm right. Those able to see the condition of the country compared to what it was and what it is today will hopefully make informed choices. Those persons will of course not be from Denmark and will have the luxury of haveing a clear field of vision because their eyes will not be obstructed by President Obama's colon like your's are.
And you better getting back to the US of A... ASAP... no need for your negative attitude against the president of your country in the very hard and dangerous working environmnet in Afghanistan... if americans abroad who are working for benefits of the United States are not behind the politics of the ameircan administration during the terrible time of war then their participation is rather waiste of time and destroying the morality of folks risking lives in a troubled atmospher full of hatered and anger already !
Just my oponion Sparkey... you do not even have to care a bout what I mean of course but I am trying to look upon you as an employee in a company which is working against the basics of the same company and against the benefots of the company... leadership is every thing now on days and of you are against the leader,s decisions... then leave it now because you do not really like ur job any way.
Being inside and then working against the benefits is not that appriciated I am certain. am I a liberal facist because I think so? Then hey... knock ur self out... Still you are not feeling that well working for some thing you do not even beleive in... an skilled guy as ur self can do much better working for some place else where you can get along with the leadership at least!
I hate to bring this little dittie to you rattention......but guess what is happening in Iraq?
Well were President Obama ordered that force reduction some two years ago?
al-Sydr...that fire breathing cleric that took refuse in Iran....still in Iran..... Is making waves, heat, and hate speech
against Americans.
To the point....were American envoys in Basra....his home town....are afraid for their safety and lives.
Twice during the the previous administration the US military engaged al-Sydr Mightie Militia. Forcing him from the country.
He went to Iran.....were his Shia faith was well accepted by the
Supreme Leader and he continued 'religious studies'. All the time his military received Iranian weapons and IEDs.
How bad is it?
A quote from a recent read message from al-Sdyr to 1000s of his followers in a recent Baghdad rally.
"What if American forces and other stay in our beloved lands? What if their companies and embassies headquarters will continue to exist with American flags hoisted on them? Will you be silent? Will you overlook this?"
al-Sydr is clearly playing for a embassy take over in Iraq, like occurred in Iran under Khomenie.
Hillary had better have her rapid deployment force of 2000 ready to go here soon for the protection of the Green zone and American embassy. President Obama has restricted most of the Iraqi troops to the bases. Halted combat operations. And is soon to take the remaining combat forces out of Iraq. Leaving the cooks, communications, and clerks to fend for themselves.
And the embassy staff.
The American President has made again a decision effecting Americans and American lives to the wishes of the international community. Iraqi leaders wanted the withdrawal. Iranian leaders wanted the withdrawal. Europe wanted the withdrawal. Liberals in America wanted the withdrawal. They got it. Now the US embassy staff and support staff in Iraq will get it.
Will someone please send the White House a copy of John Wayne's Fort Apache. For President Obama's viewing.
Well were President Obama ordered that force reduction some two years ago?
al-Sydr...that fire breathing cleric that took refuse in Iran....still in Iran..... Is making waves, heat, and hate speech
against Americans.
To the point....were American envoys in Basra....his home town....are afraid for their safety and lives.
Twice during the the previous administration the US military engaged al-Sydr Mightie Militia. Forcing him from the country.
He went to Iran.....were his Shia faith was well accepted by the
Supreme Leader and he continued 'religious studies'. All the time his military received Iranian weapons and IEDs.
How bad is it?
A quote from a recent read message from al-Sdyr to 1000s of his followers in a recent Baghdad rally.
"What if American forces and other stay in our beloved lands? What if their companies and embassies headquarters will continue to exist with American flags hoisted on them? Will you be silent? Will you overlook this?"
al-Sydr is clearly playing for a embassy take over in Iraq, like occurred in Iran under Khomenie.
Hillary had better have her rapid deployment force of 2000 ready to go here soon for the protection of the Green zone and American embassy. President Obama has restricted most of the Iraqi troops to the bases. Halted combat operations. And is soon to take the remaining combat forces out of Iraq. Leaving the cooks, communications, and clerks to fend for themselves.
And the embassy staff.
The American President has made again a decision effecting Americans and American lives to the wishes of the international community. Iraqi leaders wanted the withdrawal. Iranian leaders wanted the withdrawal. Europe wanted the withdrawal. Liberals in America wanted the withdrawal. They got it. Now the US embassy staff and support staff in Iraq will get it.
Will someone please send the White House a copy of John Wayne's Fort Apache. For President Obama's viewing.
Conrad73: we know he is a Raider,an Opportunist!
good one! lmao!
Just so you don't think that I am talking thru my hat on prior post....the site for the quote
ttom500: Come to the US around November,2012....Dmire.....find a ACORN voter registration group.....and you to can vote in the next Presidential election of the US.
Says the guy who knows his all entire GOP BS is supported by same kind of funders supporting the Damn Alqueda as well
Hot_Single_Dude: Says the guy who knows his all entire GOP BS is supported by same kind of funders supporting the Damn Alqueda as well
Hell, Obama's supporting Al Queda by bombing Libya.
On the taxpayers dime, at that! ttom500: For you that have been and and angry about GE not paying any tax. Warren Buffet in 2009 was in the 17.7% tax rate.
Buffet has been in a acquisition mode of recent. Jusr acuired 100% of Luzazoil, a chmeical company. Buffet has a high percent ownership of Dow Chemical as well.
Chemical companies tend to do well when war are going on. They make most of the materials needed for explosives, fuels and other military fluids.
Maybe Buffet knows something that we don't?
Buffet has been in a acquisition mode of recent. Jusr acuired 100% of Luzazoil, a chmeical company. Buffet has a high percent ownership of Dow Chemical as well.
Chemical companies tend to do well when war are going on. They make most of the materials needed for explosives, fuels and other military fluids.
Maybe Buffet knows something that we don't?
Law is law and responsibly made laws making sure rich America paying much more fair part of their income back to the country. Warren Buffet was one of those 40 ameircan billioners who wrote to president Obama and asked him trying to make sure the Stupid Buhney,s tax cuts expiring and him paying more taxes because he earns this much. What happened after the Stupid results of November 2010 disabled president Obama expring those tax cuts because GOP hold America as hostige as usual and then the presidnet had to accept countinuation of these Stupid tax cuts. When loopholes mainly created by the damn Bushney,s are there and lwful to use then companies using those being Warren Buffet or any body else. ''
Him paying less than he can afford is a result of the Stupid Republican majority in the House of Representatives and because America went partly nutts and sent some greedy hillibillies to the house because of desperation and lack of necessary patientce.
Buffet is paying a lot for charity but expecting his companies more than the law requiers is utopia because no body does that unfortunatily
ttom500: Just so you don't think that I am talking thru my hat on prior post....the site for the quote
Ty for the link TT and it actually works Iraqicurrent leader that Maliki some thingis a dang buzo and a stupid employee of the iranian regim in the area unfortunatily... it is so disapointing that Alawi lost it even he actually won 
One thing is certain... Iraq is no free placwhat so ever a lot shi* is going on but still staying there for ever militarily is not the answer and not even doable...
Better making sure good relations with Iraqi government is demanded propper behaviour regarding human rights and making real corts of law and propper legislations and freedom and eqaulity for nationalities and relegions living over there and so on... I am definate since their economy is really shakey then talking a bout how sanctions can become more effctive punishing governments not behaving propperly. Beside next time Iraq makes an election... their election shall be controlled by UN and making sure some how being real. Election cheaters always making a horrible Mess in Iraq or in America or any where else... remember how GWB destroyed a whole world because of the great cheat of year 2000 for example... Maliki cheated him self to victory and then shi* like that happens even more in Iraq of course... Karsai have done the same and iranian so called president have done the same ... no matter what, elections mustbe real and fair and results respected and applied.
Part 2
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed that the United States had been talking with Gaddafi's opposition in Libya regarding the Al Qaida threat, saying , "We are aware of these reports too and it has been one of the topics of our conversation with ... the opposition forces."
Western leaders join the concern of leaders in northern Africa that if Gaddafi steps down in Libya, Al Qaida will be ready to step into the power vacuum left behind.
In the meanwhile, Al Qaida made Baghdad a particularly dangerous place on Monday.
Gunmen stormed a house in the village of Zumbraniya, 25 miles from Baghdad, killing six men and wounding three women in one family.
Also Monday, bombs went off at the homes of three separate officials in Baghdad. A bomb killed one of the bodyguards of Razzaq Marzouq, a director general at Iraq's Industrial Ministry. Three of his other bodyguards were wounded in the explosion. The director general of the government-owned Iraqi Investments Board, Bahser Muhssan, and a bystander were wounded in an explosion at Muhssan's home in southern Baghdad. Abed Majwal, a member of a consortium of counter-terrorist paramilitary groups, was killed in an explosion outside his house in western Baghdad.
Finally, gunmen killed an Iraqi police officer at a checkpoint in southwestern Baghdad.
The West is not alone in a desire to keep Al Qaida from gaining power. The nations in the Middle East have a vested interest in holding down the terrorist organization as well. Unfortunately, the uprisings have greatly opened opportunities for Al Qaida - opportunities that the group's leaders are willing to exploit.
Distributed by
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed that the United States had been talking with Gaddafi's opposition in Libya regarding the Al Qaida threat, saying , "We are aware of these reports too and it has been one of the topics of our conversation with ... the opposition forces."
Western leaders join the concern of leaders in northern Africa that if Gaddafi steps down in Libya, Al Qaida will be ready to step into the power vacuum left behind.
In the meanwhile, Al Qaida made Baghdad a particularly dangerous place on Monday.
Gunmen stormed a house in the village of Zumbraniya, 25 miles from Baghdad, killing six men and wounding three women in one family.
Also Monday, bombs went off at the homes of three separate officials in Baghdad. A bomb killed one of the bodyguards of Razzaq Marzouq, a director general at Iraq's Industrial Ministry. Three of his other bodyguards were wounded in the explosion. The director general of the government-owned Iraqi Investments Board, Bahser Muhssan, and a bystander were wounded in an explosion at Muhssan's home in southern Baghdad. Abed Majwal, a member of a consortium of counter-terrorist paramilitary groups, was killed in an explosion outside his house in western Baghdad.
Finally, gunmen killed an Iraqi police officer at a checkpoint in southwestern Baghdad.
The West is not alone in a desire to keep Al Qaida from gaining power. The nations in the Middle East have a vested interest in holding down the terrorist organization as well. Unfortunately, the uprisings have greatly opened opportunities for Al Qaida - opportunities that the group's leaders are willing to exploit.
Distributed by
Posted: 03/21/11
OBAMA – a Traitor, and a War Criminal? – WHERE'S CONGRESS?
Published on 03/20/11
By JB Williams
Jbwilliams09@gmail.com
On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the US Congress and majority support from the UN Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the UN and without even consulting congress.
Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.
He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.
Article II – Section II of the US Constitution identifies the US President as the civilian oversight of the US Military and Commander-in-Chief. But it gives the US President no authority to use military might to enforce its political will upon foreign nations.
Article I – Section VIII of the US Constitution rests the power to declare war solely with the US Congress. It requires both the Commander-in-Chief and Congress to commit US troops to combat, without which the act is wholly unconstitutional.
Even the Washington Times managed to get this one right in its editorial – Obama's Illegal War.
The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a US President from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
A US Commander-in-Chief can order use of military force in only three specific conditions…
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The US Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII. But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, he not only consulted congress in advance, he sought and received specific statutory authorization from congress before ordering troops into combat. Bush complied with the constitution and War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3). He also had a broad coalition of UN partners backed by years of Iraqi broken UN resolutions.
In the case of Obama and Libya, none of these conditions exist.
1) Congress did not declare war.
2) Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
3) The US was not attacked in any way by Libya which presented no threat to the US or US assets.
Distributed by
OBAMA – a Traitor, and a War Criminal? – WHERE'S CONGRESS?
Published on 03/20/11
By JB Williams
Jbwilliams09@gmail.com
On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the US Congress and majority support from the UN Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the UN and without even consulting congress.
Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.
He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.
Article II – Section II of the US Constitution identifies the US President as the civilian oversight of the US Military and Commander-in-Chief. But it gives the US President no authority to use military might to enforce its political will upon foreign nations.
Article I – Section VIII of the US Constitution rests the power to declare war solely with the US Congress. It requires both the Commander-in-Chief and Congress to commit US troops to combat, without which the act is wholly unconstitutional.
Even the Washington Times managed to get this one right in its editorial – Obama's Illegal War.
The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a US President from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
A US Commander-in-Chief can order use of military force in only three specific conditions…
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The US Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII. But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, he not only consulted congress in advance, he sought and received specific statutory authorization from congress before ordering troops into combat. Bush complied with the constitution and War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3). He also had a broad coalition of UN partners backed by years of Iraqi broken UN resolutions.
In the case of Obama and Libya, none of these conditions exist.
1) Congress did not declare war.
2) Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
3) The US was not attacked in any way by Libya which presented no threat to the US or US assets.
Distributed by
Hot_Single_Dude: I am in dreamland then Cciny BUT! Still I am right and I am going to to be right regarding presidential election of 2012 as well
Lied lied lied... come on Cciny... it is not possibleto do what ever he wantedto do that easy... america is a democracy and not a dictatorship where a Quaddafi or a King Abdullah thing is the mighty one and doing what ever they decide you see?
One thing is promisses of the campain and the other thing is the state of the reality and they way the preisidnet of the country have been forced to cooporate with his opposers in houses in order to necessary concidrations for the sake of the country.
Ain,t that easy Cciny...
Lied lied lied... come on Cciny... it is not possibleto do what ever he wantedto do that easy... america is a democracy and not a dictatorship where a Quaddafi or a King Abdullah thing is the mighty one and doing what ever they decide you see?
One thing is promisses of the campain and the other thing is the state of the reality and they way the preisidnet of the country have been forced to cooporate with his opposers in houses in order to necessary concidrations for the sake of the country.
Ain,t that easy Cciny...
It's real easy to have an open government, he promised that, it's been the most closed, most hidden agenda, government we've ever had. Not high school, what about middle school?
duckrew: It's real easy to have an open government, he promised that, it's been the most closed, most hidden agenda, government we've ever had. Not high school, what about middle school?
How easy is it having even more open government in America and how? Has there not been any more openness in america since Obama took over compairing to GWB governmnet for example? Not even one single example what so ever?
I only got one comment Dude! You don't look like you're prospering so well! What are you still backing this loser for?
Hot_Single_Dude: How easy is it having even more open government in America and how? Has there not been any more openness in america since Obama took over compairing to GWB governmnet for example? Not even one single example what so ever?
George W. Bush didn't pay millions to hide his birth certificate. Obama did. George W. didn't go behind the back of Congress to go to war. Obama did.
So, tell us again how open Obama has been?
Faithfulness: George W. Bush didn't pay millions to hide his birth certificate. Obama did. George W. didn't go behind the back of Congress to go to war. Obama did.
So, tell us again how open Obama has been?
So, tell us again how open Obama has been?
As far as I'm concerned Bush and Obama were cut from the same fabric.
Same wars, Same scuttling of the economy, Same policies. Same abuses. Same lies.
Change????????
Got to sleep! May the force be with u all! 
Faithfulness: Bush also got permission from the government for the Iraqi War. Obama hassn't even come close to asking the goverment anything.
Constitutionally speaking, the president has no right whatsoever to make war. Only the Congress has the right to decide to declare war, and then the President, as Commander in Chief is supposed to apply that decision.
But now it's always the presidents who start the wars and then they try to get a rubber-stamp approval from Congress if they can.
The constitutional republic is dead.
What we have now is some sort of dysfunctional "empire" with a supposedly elected temporary dictator.
More Threads
A question
What Clothes Do You Feel Comfortable Wearing?
Reality Check
What's going on
It's been a long time....
Too many fake profiles here ...
Your Mental Health
Heavy Bass In The PM
Note
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.
The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.
President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.