In Fishersville: Romney rallies troops after debate victory

Fewer than 24 hours after what was widely hailed as a decisive victory over Barack Obama at a nationally televised debate, White House contender Mitt Romney rallied in Fishersville before a crowd his campaign reportedly estimated at 5,700. Aerial photographer Skip Degan witnessed massive traffic backups on nearby Interstate 64, and the Staunton News Leader reported an overflow crowd that included throngs of eager attendees peering through the chain-link fence at the October 4 event.

Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, who also appeared at the rally, reportedly arrived two days earlier at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Airport to spend time at Wintergreen Resort for some strategy sessions intended to ready the vice-presidential candidate for his own nationally televised debate on October 11 at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

Citing a CNN poll of viewers who found 67 percent for Romney to 25 percent for Obama, UVA pundit Larry Sabato called the first presidential debate a "blowout." Virginia, however, remains an impediment to victory. One of the so-called "battleground states," Virginia offers 13 electoral votes, all of which will go to President Obama if pre-election polls prove accurate.

Read more on: Mitt Romney


Curious to know what the working folk thought of the debate I polled all the service people I encountered the following day at stores and restaurants. I was surprised how many had watched and also surprised by their reaction when asked their opinion. To a person they found the debate boring and were lost as to the meaning of the numbers and mention of specific laws, but what they did say was, they thought Romney acted mean, and on the split screen he smirked a lot and looked arrogant, while Obama looked serious and thoughtful while listening and taking notes - interesting maybe the pundits missed the forest for a few trees.

The 1st commenter comes accross as adomineering, left wing facist. She is from the extreme left asnd I'm not sure why the hook permits her free run of the comments page.

@remi. You've not met Haws, have you?

Nancy Drew is pretty funny. She is definitely in denial.


Have you met Hawes?


I don't know why so many are saying NancyDrew is a liar without anything to back up your assertion. What she said was very interesting.
And I wonder just how many people switched candidates after hearing this debate. I'd guess very few.Romney was passionate , give him that.

Before guessing my political leanings from my post-day poll consider this. It was taken in the city of Charlottesville. If I had taken the same poll asking Waynesboro working folks, there might have been an entirely different response. Just trying to report the facts.

@NancyDrew...I guess it boils down to what filter your looking through.

@WN that is why I would rather go directly to the people and hear their opinions. I don't trust the adds or the telephone polls either, because I think they are clearly biased ( adds ) or miss many people who don't answer their phone ( me) , hang up, are at work and not taking calls, or have cell phones not part of the call lists. Interestingly, I never get calls on my cell only my land line, so if the pollsters are depending on polling only land lines that misses a whole demographic.

Nancy Drew's comments are interesting to me since the emails I got from my sister and my wife were similar to what she heard. My wife is non-political and my sister (in Alabama) will vote the GOP ticket. What was interesting to me was the concerns from an associate who works in human resources. I'll cut and paste:
"Romney said pre-existing conditions are covered under his plan. That runs counter to every analysis I've read up to now about what the Republican ticket has said they will do. But, Obama didn't call him on it."

food for thought....

5700 people? Really Hawes? Go back and look at the real estimates. 12,000.

Mitt says at the debate his healthcare laws would cover pre-existing conditions. After the debate his campaign said only for those who already have coverage. This is not the first time they played this game.

Yes, Nancy Drew, Mitt Romney did appear arrogant in the first debate. And he lied repeatedly, serially. Here is an example:

"Obama says Romney's tax plan would cut taxes by $5 trillion over 10 years, inflating the deficit...The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has contended that middle-class families would see taxes rise $2,000 a year under Romney's plan...Romney wants to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama would eliminate...Romney said Obama's health care law cuts $716 billion from Medicare which will hurt beneficiaries, but his claim that Obama's health care law cuts $716 billion in benefits for current Medicare beneficiaries is not true."

Romney and Ryan will, indeed, make the budget deficits much worse than they are. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center evaluated the Romney-Ryan plan and found that it would "reduce revenue by $456 billion in 2015." Over a ten-year period, "multiply by 10, and account for costs rising each year, and the $5 trillion estimate is probably low." Moreover, "the Tax Policy Center’s baseline is favorable to the Republican plan because it assumes the extension of all Bush tax cuts. A more realistic, or at least equally plausible, set of assumptions would add another $1trillion to its cost."

But Romney blatantly lied about it. He recited the same old phony argument that Reagan and George W. Bush told the public...that they could cut taxes, fail to fund massive defense spending, and "balance" the budget. Above, Ponce de Leon provides a goofy YouTube video of Reagan spouting off about deficits. When Reagan took office the national debt was less than $1 trillion, accumulated over 200 years. After 12 years of Reagan and Bush1, the debt had more than quadrupled, trade deficits exploded, and the U.S. became the biggest debtor nation in the world. Oh yeah, and Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, breaking U.S. laws and violating the Constitution in the ensuing Iran-Contra cover-up. Reagan would likely have been prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh – a Republican and former judge appointed to investigate the weapons sales – but Reagan was already suffering the full effects of Alzheimer's disease. As Walsh wrote, Reagan was "disabled...He was cordial and offered everybody licorice jelly beans but he remembered almost nothing."

There WERE a number of convictions in the Iran-Contra scandal. But Bush1 gave presidential pardons to all of the crooks. As Lawrence Walsh wrote in Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up, "George Bush's misuse of the pardon power made the cover-up complete. What set Iran-contra apart from previous political scandals was the fact that a cover-up engineered in the White House of one president and completed by his successor prevented the rule of law from being applied to the perpetrators of criminal activity of constitutional dimension." As I've noted before, Republicans dearly love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they have absolutely no respect and esteem for the Constitution or for the values and principles embedded in it.

Romney is the perfect Republican nominee. He made money by loading companies up with debt and gutting them. He pays far less in taxes than most of the people he fired and laid off. He keeps money in Swiss and Cayman Islands accounts. He supports huge multi-billion-dollar tax breaks and give-aways for corporations and the already-rich, but he'll cut funding for public broadcasting that amounts to "one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget." And, he lies about almost everything. Again and again and again.

In fact, that appears to be the Republican "strategy." Just keep lying...even to Fox "news." Here's Paul Ryan with Fox's Chris Wallace, lying with a smile on his face:

And people are supposed to take these guys seriously? Please.

The only loser in the debate was the moderator! Mittens came across as a bully. I have read that he LIED 37 times in the course of the debate. Maybe we should call him "Quick Draw Romney" I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a thoughtful and calm person to be the one with the finger on the button that could launch World War III. If the President looked tired, it is, perhaps, because in addition to running for office, unlike Romney, the President has a very important full-time job. Look at where the money is coming from to support Romney. These givers are people with dangerous agendas. If we didn't have 24/7 news, the debate issue would be history by now. Check the Jobs report! That's news.

About the only thing the appearance at the Republician owned fair grounds did was to cause massive traffic jams on I-64 and I-81. Why have a rally in a area that is clearly going to vote for the right wing, no matter what. It was a waste of time, resources and dollars. I hope the Romney campaign pays for the overtime and other costs incurred by the State Police, the Augusta County Law Enforcement and any other costs incurred by the Rally. Why come to a place where the local Democrats could meet in a phone booth?As far as numbers, the crowd looks to be less than half of what was put out by the right wing spin machine.

When a group of animals organize against Mittens, "Dogs Against Romney" and "Kittens Against Mittens", it is time to see this man for who he is. He is the King of Flip-Flop. How can you have been the creator of the health plan that is the clear parent of Obamacare and be opposed ot it????? Think folks, too much is at stake here.

So, it looks like most people have come to 3 conclusions from the debate. Obama supporters thought Romney was a bully because he won. Romney supporters were encouraged to see Romney call the president out on all of his failures. Many Independents (and democrats for that matter) were surprised to find that Romney is not the man that the democrats and the main stream media had portrayed him as for the last 6 months. The president lost the debate because he just doesn't have the experience for the job. Romney has been successful as a turn around specialist. If America ever needed a turn around specialist, the time is now. I am amazed how the main stream and democrats are spinning this debate now. They are saying the president lost the debate because Romney lied. Well, both of them exaggerated pretty much to an equal degree. As far as Romney being an uncaring person. The life history of both if anyone chooses to research it shows Romney to be way ahead of Obama in that category. As far as smirking goes…lol.

I asked a different question to the shop keepers yesterday - have you ever been polled - answer NO
Then I asked what they thought of the debate now and they said Romney just wants to help the rich get richer and he lied during the debate to get elected so he can do that .
Remember these are Charlottesville workers -
I'll try to get to Waynesboro this week and ask the same questions.

No, WN, Obama did not loose the debate because he doesn't have the experience to do the job. He lost the debate because he didn't call Romney on things like he should have, and he wasn't really engaged like he should have been. Romney was engaged, and he won. He was still also a bully, so I found that while I thought he debated better, I had a lower opinion of him than I did before. I thought he was a better person than his candidacy showed, and now I think his candidacy is an accurate reflection; he is not interested in those who don't don't come from his class, or things that appear ...broken. When challenged or on the losing side, Romney's attitude is to bully and break the rules.

Then there is the dishonesty, and the fact that Romney did not have much to show for his years as governor in MA. He was piddly poor in job creation. I think that's why he didn't run again. He knew he would never win.

Basically, as now an ex-Repubilcan, I feel that the GOP really has nothing to offer in integrity, honesty, or solving problems.

The one number these people seem to know and care about is 14% - tha amount Romney says he paid in taxes last year . I don't watch TV but that must be one add they understand - the rich pay less of their income in taxes than these workers - at least that's what they believe.

As usual, Whoa Nelly just continues to make things up. this, from a guy who has said that "I have always been a republican because I believe in personal responsibility" (BIG wink).

Of course, Who Nelly has also written that "an army of Republican poll watchers...will be needed to prevent liberals from once again stuffing ballot boxes and gaming the system." But it is Republicans across the country who are trying desperately to suppress voting, and it is Republicans who are engaged in (and getting caught at) voting fraud. Witness the multi-state fraud reported in the New York Times (and elsewhere) alleged against Nathan Sproul, "a former executive director of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Republican Party in Arizona, is well known in political circles there. Since 2004, Mr. Sproul’s companies — he has operated under several corporate names — have collected more than $17.6 million from Republican committees, candidates and the “super PAC” American Crossroads, mostly for voter registration operations." Investigations are underway in Florida, Nevada, and Colorado.

Who Nelly says that Romney only "exaggerated" in his debate comments. Not true. He flat-out lied. Romney said his tax cuts would NOT yield a $5 trillion additional deficit over 10 years, but the non-partisan Tax Policy Center analysis finds it will indeed do so. Romney lied in saying that the Affordable Care Act will put "in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." That's patently false. As the LA Times reported, the "Independent Payment Advisory Board – was set up to recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending if it increases too rapidly...the panel is explicitly prohibited from cutting benefits for people on Medicare. And there is no provision in the law that empowers the advisory board to make any decisions about what treatments doctors may provide for their patients."

Romney also lied in saying that his health care plan covered pre-existing conditions. Untrue. In fact, AFTER the debate, a Romney spokesman said that "people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance." But Romney just keeps repeating the lie. And, he lied in saying that the Affordable Care Act will "bankrupt" the country. The Congressional Budget Office says it will decrease health care cost increases and reduce the deficit.

Romney lied in saying that Obama cut Medicare by $716 billion. Flat. Out. Lie. As USA Today (and others) noted, the "claim that Obama's health care law cuts $716 billion in benefits for current Medicare beneficiaries is not true. The health care law will limit payments to health care providers and insurers — not senior citizens' benefits — as part of an effort to rein in costs over the course of the next decade."

Romney lied in saying that "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." But Romney wants to cut the top rate to 28 percent, he wants to eliminate the estate tax entirely, and he wants to abolish taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains. The only people to benefit from all of those cuts are the rich. And he's going to make everybody else pay for it.

In essence, Mitt Romney proposes a third George W. Bush term. He uses many of the same advisors. He touts the same failed supply-side policies that piled up deficits and debt under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, that aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption on Wall Street, and that broke the economy under W. He just won't use the Bush name.

This summer "Gangnam Style" by South Korean rapper PSy was a video hit on YouTube. Here's "Romney Style." It's comedic, but it's also got a heavy dose of truth in it:

Now this is a debate and D has provided us with fact checked false statements by Romney during the debate so WN now it's your turn - using non partIsan fact checkers what falsehoods did the President put forward ?
Please facts only not opinion.

What I don't understand is this...... 14% of $5 million is a lot more paid in taxes than 30% of $55,000.

In other words, $700,000 vs $16,500.

What's the problem here?

It's the Warren Buffet story . It 's the % that matters, not the dollar amount .

I have an idea. I will take the falsehoods listed by d and those hopefully coming from WN and put them on one sheet of paper to hand out to the service people I come in contact with and let them be the judge of which candidate they can trust to best support them and their families. Then I will report back with the results .

Nancy, I did provide the link to fact on my last post.
Mitt Romney has not paid income tax for many years because he has for many years worked without pay in many different enterprises. He pays capital gains tax on his investments which is taxed at a different rate than income tax. For some reason the media seems to keep forgeting the distinction. Romney is a compassionate and very successful businessman.
After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney. As a venture-capitalist, Romney’s first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. Romney or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the “Bain Way”) would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others...
He was a Volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign – 1 year. Unpaid intern in Governor’s office – 8 years. Mormon missionary in Paris – 2 years. Unpaid bishop and stake president for his church – 10 years. No salary as president of the Olympics – 3 years. No salary as MA governor – 4 years. That’s a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community and his church. Why? Because that’s the kind of man Mitt Romney is. He donates to charities more in any given tear than Obama, Biden, Pelosi or Harry reod have in their entire lives combined. People who say he only cares about the rich and certainly not done their home work.

Correction..."have" certainly not done their homework...

Nancy, and if you will notice, the media rarely writes about all of these accomplishments, they have been doing nothing but trying to tear down his character. Harry Reid saying he heard from an anonomous source that Romney has not paid income taxes for 10 years. Technically he was correct, he has worked without pay but he has paid “capitol gains” tax on his many successful ventures. Harry Reid saying that Romney has sullied his faith...where did that venomous statement come from? Democratic ads saying that Bain killed jobs when the truth is that his company created hundreds of thousands of jobs. They have tried again and again to sully Romney’s character when Romney is probably the cleanest candidate for president to come along for a long time. It's a shame really.

Thank you WN . I have heard that much of Romney's giving goes to the Mormon Church. Of course anyone can avoid taxes by giving to their church, but I would like see Mr. Romney's last decade of taxes to determIne what % goes to hIs church. Don't you think we should be able to examine any candidates last decade of taxes. That is perhaps one of the best ways to judge their character available .

Why wouldn't he release his last decade of taxes ?

Giving is a personal decision. Whether it is to his church or other charities says something about the individual. He shouldn't release his tax returns because the democratic spin machine will run amok with it. You know, the greedy rich...he has been incredibly successful with his business ventures. He did it on his own, he did not accept his father’s inheritance, deciding to give it to charity instead.
I would like to see democracy list accomplishments that Obama has had before becoming president that come anywhere close to what Romney has done during his life time.

Thank you WN for putting the truth out. The MSM has been so dishonest in spinning things that really are not true. So much out there on Obama that never gets mentioned and when he is found out they spin it again to protect him. I have never seen anything like it. Very disheartening. I just wish every citizen would research both candidates on their own. Not just through partisan sources but many different ones. It is a shame that we have to do that but to be fully informed everyone has too and should. ND, does it bother you that the President won't release his school records or his medical records. Does it bother you that he has paid thousands of dollars to hide them and keep them sealed. Why is more than 2 years of Romney's tax returns more important that that? I think WN gave a pretty good picture of how Romney deals with his money so really.....lets move on. I will throw in though that when he and Ann inherited their families money they gave every dime of it away. He gave around $4 million to charity last year alone. ND, although I am not a Mormon I do know that the money given to the church goes to help many not just Mormons which is commendable. Check out Joe Biden's record of giving. It is shameful

Nancy D, if you take the time you will find many humanitarian efforts that Romney has put forth during his life. One instance that hits home with me, because I have 4 daughters, is when one of his employees lost track of his daughter in NY City. Romney instructed all of his offices across the country to shut, put all business on hold and, at Romney’s expense fly to NY City to search for his employee’s daughter. Passing out fliers and creating search parties, Romney was right there on the street with them. This is not a man who cares only about money, far from it. The old saying is that makes does not make the man.

Hey Ice Dog, insurance is something you buy BEFORE you need it...not after. If insurance companies had to insure people after they got sick, they would not be able to pay the costs for those who bought insurance in the first place, the insurance companies would not last a year, and hundreds of thousands of people would be looking for a job.

Thank you WN and Elaine . That is good information about Mr Romney . Personally I am sure he is a fine man, but what I have read of his record as Governor in Mass. Does not give me confidence in his ability in the public sphere .

Many say this election is all about influencing the economy , and jobs, my own bias is that neither candidate has much control over this in the global economy we now live in .

As a woman what it hey do have control over is out personal lifestyle choices and I tend toward the libertarian scale an could n

Hey Demo, come on with your rants but don't put words in my mouth, please...thank you.

As a woman I feel what they do have control over is out personal lifestyle choices and I tend toward the libertarian scale and could not vote for a candidate who opposed abortion. I also have many gay friends who
are long-term couples and some with children . I firmly believe they should have the same rights that I have,and so, respecting that others feel differently these are the issues that will determine my

Ok Nancy I can understand your emotional approach. But when we see 100...200 percent inflation over night, and yes, if we continue with the status quo, that will happen soon…..all will suffer.

ND, If you are a Libertarian than how could you ever vote for someone that wants to control everything including what you eat, what your insurance going to be what you will be paying for even if you don't agree. I am also tired of the spin that Republicans are taking away women's rights. They are not doing that. While many believe that abortion is murder they are not going to tell women they can't. They simply don't think that the citizens tax money should pay for it. As a Libertarian, how do you think the Catholic church feels being told they have to break with their beliefs and conscience because Obama has decided that is what he wants? Is that the American way? I find that scary. Another example of how the administration and the press have spun things around. The current administration is through executive orders and regulations taking away the rights of the American people more than any other. I think Obama has signed behind the scenes over 900 executive orders! Contrast that with the past administrations Of Clinton (I read around 15) and Bush ...around 95. It is alarming and most people don't even know what they are yet.

As I said WN, I don't see either candidate having control over that . I am grateful that we can have a respectful difference of opinion.

Elaine, the 900 executive orders email circulating is bogus.

Namcy Drew, no one is advocating taking away a womans right to birth control.... the very thought of a law like that being constitutional is absurd.... The taxpayers should simply not be FORCED to pay for it through increased, MANDATED insurance premiums. Let the coverage be like any other prescription and the argument and terrible legal precedent goes away. (whats next mandated free sex change operations? )

Abortion has been ruled legal by the supreme court. Overturning that would first entail a federal law prohibiting it signed by the President, In order to make it to his desk you would need both houses of congress to agree. These congressmen are not about to give up their gravy train for a law that would be overturned by the court anyway. So if you want to choose a President based on that it makes very little sense unless you think anyone that thinks abortions are bad is unqualified in all other areas (which is very unlikely.)

Mitt Romney did not CREATE a large NUMBER of jobs when he was government because his state had a reasonable unemployment rate of 6.2 percent and jobs were not even part of the debates when he ran. The country was doing fine.

He did pass romneycare and did so without bankrupting the state because he believes healthcare should be a local issue without a giant federal government in washington controlling everything like a puppet. Look at "no cjild left behind" it was a good idea on paper to help all the poor and special needs kids but look what happened when they tied federal monies to a bunch of federal rules.... it was a disaster.

Romney wants to aid the states to help themselves but not "interfere" in their choices. He wants to remove the most expensive and cumbersome layer in the process and let the states do what they want. He does not want to "prevent" people from getting prexisiting condition protections he just wants it handled by the states. (like over a dozen already do)
(In Maryland all that needs to be done is for two people to form a business and get a business policy and the rates cannot consider prexisting conditions.)

and one last thing... Romney wants to cut tax rates and end lopholes so we all pay closer to the same rates.. thats what Democracy has been bellyaching for forever and now that its proposed his true colors come out... he doesn't want the same rates he wants the rich to pay a much higher rate (even though the top 1% already pay 40% of the taxes). Democracy is simply jealous because he doesn't have what it takes to compete with people who are wiling to work harder and smarter than him to get ahead and thinks that that fact justifies redistribution of wealth. Sad very Sad

Nelly, I agree to a point. You are avoiding the fact though that Mitt mislead the American people on this issue. But also there are instances when someone losses their insurance due to no fault of their own. I don't think they should just die.

@ Nancy Drew, this statement you made is patently false. “I have heard that much of Romney's giving goes to the Mormon Church. Of course anyone can avoid taxes by giving to their church"
People don't net a savings by giving to charity, it is quite the opposite. People give to charity solely for humanitarian reasons, there are no savings in doing so.
Please read this short article so that you will understand why it was the wrong thing to say. Thanks...

Nancy..sorry, one last thing to answer your question. Romney has given through the years twice as much to charities. Out of every dollar he has given, 65% has gone to charities other than his church.

@ WN Maybe I am wrong, but my account has told me that my charitable deductions lower the taxes I owe.

Yes, you are not taxed on legitimate charitable contributions. But, if you would have kept that money instead, and paid tax on it, you would still have what is left, about 65% of it if you are in Romney’s bracket. In a chritable contribution you are lowering your taxes because you are giving your money away.

I guess Chris Mathews lost that thrill up his leg.

I don't know what Romney's motivation is for his charitable giving or anyone else's for that matter, but maybe this will help clear up the charitable deduction question. I think all these questions could be put to rest if he would release his returns, and yes I do think that is pertinent to the election.

Romney's use of the charitable deduction

His 2011 tax liability topped 13 percent only because he didn't claim the full amount.

September 23, 2012|By Tom Raum, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney has given Democrats plenty of support for their claim that he manipulated his deductions to keep his overall 2011 federal income tax rate above a certain threshold for political purposes.
The Republican presidential nominee, whose wealth is estimated as high as $250 million, seems hemmed in by a comment to reporters in August that he had never paid less than 13 percent in taxes in any single year over the last 10. Had he taken the full charitable deduction last year, it would have pushed his tax liability below 13 percent.

The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, could have claimed more in deductions, the trustee of Romney's blind trust said when the candidate's 2011 tax returns were released.

But, Brad Malt acknowledged, the couple "limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."

Reid's claim

The tax returns had become a distraction for his campaign, with Democrats and even some fellow Republicans this summer urging Romney, who earlier had released 2010 data and a preliminary 2011 return, to disclose more than two years of information. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) had kept the issue alive by making an unsubstantiated and roundly criticized claim that Romney had not paid any taxes for 10 years. Romney's statement about the 13 percent level had come in reaction to Reid's assertion.
Romney probably also will be reminded by the Democrats by something else he said in August. Defending his right to pay no more taxes than he owed, he said: "I don't pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."

The decision of Romney's trustee to limit the use of charitable deductions in 2011 to adhere to the candidate's claim raised the eyebrows of several tax-law experts. They noted that the trustee's use of numerous tax strategies gives Romney the rare ability to loosen or limit his tax payments at will.

'What else?'

The Romneys donated roughly $4 million to charities last year, but only claimed a deduction of $2.25 million on their tax return, filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Friday.
That information, Reid said, "reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he's seen fit to show the American people - and then only to 'conform' with his public statements. That raises the question: What else in those returns has Romney manipulated?"

Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. That was a bit above the 13.9 percent rate paid on 2010 income.

More precisely, the returns showed that the couple paid $1,935,708 in taxes on income of $13,696,951.

Romney released his 2010 returns in January, but he continues to decline to disclose returns from previous years.

The Romney campaign has released a letter from his accountants saying that in the 20 years prior to 2010 the Romneys paid an average annual effective rate of 20.2 percent, never lower than 13.66

Read this and you will understand his motivation to be a deep comitment to his faith.

We learned yesterday that last year Mitt Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes on an income of $14 million — and gave $4 million to charity.

The year before, he made $21.6 million, paid $3 million in taxes and gave $3 million to charity.

So, to recap: Mitt Romney has, in the past two years, paid almost $5 million in taxes while giving away $7 million. And, as he said, he has paid the taxes he was supposed to pay according to the laws of the United States, which is all that is required — legally, morally and practically — of anyone.

If you’ve been reading my columns for the past couple of years, you know I’m perfectly capable of being critical of Romney. I did so the other day, and radio host Mark Levin called me a “trash-mouther” who was “giving aid and comfort to Obama.”

APWith open arms: Mitt Romney has given $7 million to charity the last two years, while paying $5 million in taxes.But the release of these tax records leaves no doubt about one thing: Mitt Romney is an extraordinarily, remarkably, astonishingly generous man. A good man. Maybe even a great man.

That is all. There is no “but.” Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid or a liar.

It’s important to talk about how charitable deductions work, because there is great confusion about them and their effect on the amount people pay in tax as a result.

You will hear it said, by people who are either ignorant or have an axe to grind, that the charitable deduction is a tax shelter. It is anything but.

Shelters are investments that work to protect money from being taxed by the government. In effect, every dollar in them is put there either so that it can earn money or so that it can be used to lower a person’s tax burden.

Now consider the dollar given to charity. If you’re Mitt Romney, your dollar would be taxed at a rate of 35 percent by the federal government — the highest rate. When you give that dollar to charity, you are, in effect, excused from paying 35 cents of it to the government.

But here’s the key: You don’t get the other 65 cents back.

If you simply kept that dollar for yourself and paid tax on it, you’d still have 65 cents of it in the bank.

By giving that dollar away to charity, you lose that 65 cents entirely. It goes to the charity, as does the 35 cents you’d have paid to the IRS.

It’s likely, given these numbers, that over the past 20 years the Romneys have donated more than $50 million to charity. Do the math: Under current tax law, if he’d kept the money, he’d have $30 million more than he has now. (That’s extremely inexact, but you get the idea.)

As a member of the Mormon church, Romney is instructed to tithe 10 percent of his income. That’s in keeping with most charitable giving: Religious institutions get about one-third of all contributions, according to The American magazine.

In 2011, his tithe would have been $1.4 million — which means in that year alone he gave more than twice as much to other charities through his own foundation and through other means.

This may be a reflection of his deep faith. As Arthur C. Brooks, the head of the American Enterprise Institute, has written, “Religious people are more charitable with secular causes, too.

“For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household.”

Brooks’ groundbreaking academic work on charity at Syracuse University (presented in his 2006 book, “Who Really Cares”) demonstrated, in stunning fashion, that conservatives are far more likely to be generous with their own dollars than liberals.

“Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income) and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills — all of these factors determine how likely one is to give,” Brooks wrote.

Conservatives have long been suspicious that Romney isn’t truly one of them. The release of his tax returns should settle the matter once and for all: He’s not only to be accepted, but admired and emulated — and by liberals as well as conservatives

@WhoaNelly-Your Kidding Me! I am subsidizing Romney's tax write off to his church? This is not right! Tax code must be fair to non-believers too!

@WN - I don't want a Mormon President because of your statements.

Romney only reduced his taxable income to the amount most American Republicans would swallow. Closed door session.

@WN - this means Mormon's like Romney can get away with paying very little in taxes based on their FAITH. This is wrong and the tax code should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. There is a line to be drawn between government and religion. There should be NO right off for religious affiliations or donations to religious entities.

Right, the 50 million he and his wife have given through the years was for what you said, eyeroll...

That's a private concern between the Romney's - I should not be subsidizing their religious beliefs! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

I am so disgusted that there is no separation between church and state when it comes to the Romney's tax returns.

And out of that 35 million went to charities other than their church. Man, you guys are something else.

All USA tax payers must be treated as if they were non believers. This is ridiculous to subsidize a religious faith!

@WN - I could care less where the money went. There should be fixed tax rate above the poverty level. The wealthy have lobbied their way into the middle class income and that's a fact.

@Nancydrew - the reason the Romney's didn't claim all they could have is that the Romney campaign determines what American's would tolerate. And, their focus groups found that the 11-14% in Federal taxes was tolerable. WRONG!

further, Nancy, when Romney loses the election, he has years to amend his taxes and claim full reduction for his Mormon Church donations. I am not funding the Mormon Church or his charitable interests. I want a fixed tax rate.

I prefer the way Bill and Melinda Gates manage their affairs.

@WN - I donating is in the interest of the tax right off; I am not supporting such a donation. A donation should be without ties to a tax right off. Scandalous at best.

I should be IF

Stephen Colbert's interview with Terry Gross is an excellent discussion of Romney and the mixture of religion and politics . Did any of you hear the Colbert interview about Pulpit freedom Sunday ?

Separation of Church and State October 6th, 2012 | 9:50pm
All USA tax payers must be treated as if they were non believers. This is ridiculous to subsidize a religious faith!
Church's feed and house the hungry in America and around the world. I'm not religious, but I don't deny the good it does.
Indeed, it should be the government feeding and housing the hungry at the tax payers expense...right??
Oh wait...same outcome.

Why don't the 4or five of you go out to breakfast one day and have the whole conversation face to face?

@Mr. Silk - bravo!

I can't believe that no one here is talking about Obama and the mess he has gotten our country in. The cover ups with fast and furious, the ambassadors murder and the way they lied to cover it up. Obama lying and then leaving for Las Vegas the next day and partying all week. The skipping of the UN meetings and going on the view. He is a disgrace people. Picking apart Mitt Romney's taxes when he followed every law correctly is ridiculous. There are much more serious offenses occurring daily in this administration. Mitt Romney is much more qualified and he is going to be our next president.

Lol silk...then you wouldn't have had anything to do in the last 45 mins...

@E - Obama saved the USA from a depression brought on by the Bush's. What are you thinking?

Repub. propaganda at best - WN & E - go back the the Rep headquarters and find a story that actually makes sense.

Ginginch is to fault for the lack of compromise in Washington. While speaker, Gingrinch dictated to all republican lawmakers - go home, do not compromise with fellow lawmakers. Work your 3 days a week and go home to your states. Compromise gets things done in Washington you fools. Get over G. tactics and work together. America is very frustrated by your stupidity and we see what is happening.

@wN- Yes. Romney's should give without a tax deduction in mind. What losers the Romney's have proven to be. Yuck!

No church or religious contribution should be tax deductible. What a conflict between church and state. Whoa Nelly and Elaine are the same person.

I can't believe that no one here is talking about ROMNEY and the mess he has gotten the state of Massachussetts in. The cover ups with fast and furious, the ambassadors murder and the way they lied to cover it up. ROMNEY lying and then leaving for Massachussetts the next day and partying all week. The skipping of the Governor's meetings and going on the Live with Kelly & whoever show. Romney is a disgrace to Americans. Picking apart the President about his support for middle class Americans. Romney skirts taxes. His wife is out of touch. There are much more serious offenses occurring daily in Mitt Romney's campaign office. President Obama is much more qualified and he will continue to be our president.

Bravo President Obama! Well done, getting American's back to work!

@WN - the hungry should be fed by the churches and non-profits without tax deductions. How selfish that Romney thinks he should give just for a tax deduction. He and Ann need a reality check.

Just to set the record straight, I have not put any words into Whoa Nelly's mouth. I've only cited (quoted) things he's written. For example (and these are real classics), Who Nelly has written that:

• " I have always been a republican because I believe in personal responsibility." But, if that's the case, then why does Whoa Nelly keep refuses to take any responsibility for Republican policies that piled up deficits and debt and that broke the economy?

• Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist, has a good head on his shoulders and " some of his reporting has done a service to this country." Um....seriously? Alex Jones? Huh?

• "In the last election there were indictments all over the country over voter fraud by ACORN and the like...
mass voter fraud can continue without fear of legal reprisal." The evidence that keeps accumulating shows that the only genuine voter fraud out there is that which is perpetrated by Republicans. And, in fact, it is the Republican party that has made every effort to suppress voting in states across the country. In Pennsylvania, for example, Republicans imposed voting restrictions even though state officials (as stipulated in court papers) were
"not aware of any incidents of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania," and had "no direct knowledge of in-person voter fraud elsewhere." And, Republicans could not present a single piece of evidence to show that "in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the photo ID law."

• "Why don't you give us one of your exposé’s on Obama and his socialist connections..." This bizarre statement shows where Whoa Nelly picks up his "news." The fact is Obama not a "socialist." Nor did Obama give the big bankers who broke the economy a $700 billion cash bailout...that was George W. Bush.

• "The liberal policies for the last 40 years have brought this country to its knees, created more poverty, strangled industry..." This inane statement goes back to the first one about "personal responsibility." It is Republican laissez-faire supply-side policies that piled up deficits and debt, aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption on Wall Street, and brought on the Great Recession. But Whoa Nelly and Mitt Romney and their crew refuse to take any "responsibility" for it. Instead, they make things up (and lie) and blame Obama. Romney wants even MORE of those disastrous supply-side policies (more tax cuts for corporations and the rich with the bill going to everybody else).

If Obama's policies are so bad (and the are not), then why is the economy on the upswing? Why has the unemployment rate dropped? Why has the Dow Jones average jumped from 7949 (on Jan, 20, 2009) to 13,620, an increase of 71 percent? Why has the Standard & Poor moved from 805 (on Jam.20, 2009) to 1461, a jump of 81.5 percent? And why has the Nasdaq more than doubled?

Let's be clear here. CNN/Money reported on Jan, 20, 2009, the day of Obama's inauguration, "The scope and intensity of problems facing President Obama are similar only to those that Franklin D. Roosevelt faced in 1933." Worse, Republicans pledged to obstruct him at every turn, even if it hurt the nation (and it did). Yet, Obama's policies are working, and Republicans hate him for it. But this is nothing new for them.

No matter how much they rhetorically cloak themselves in the flag, don't really believe in constitutional values (that's why they tout "conservative" or "traditional" values). They don't believe in popular sovereignty (which explains their incessant efforts to curtail voting). They don't believe in equality or tolerance. And they sure don't believe that "We the People" did "ordain and establish" the "Constitution for the United States of America" to " promote the general Welfare." Conservatives (Republicans) do not want a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." They prefer oligarchy; their adherence to supply-side economics amounts to taxpayer-subsidized socialism for corporations and the rich. Indeed, supply-side dogma is that "a successful economy depends on the proliferation of the rich." We've witnessed – still – the deleterious effects.

Conservatives (Republicans) are the biggest obstacle to democratic governance that represents the ideals on which the United States was founded, and that implements policies that promote the general welfare of its citizenry. As Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein recently wrote, conservative Republicans are " ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

Supply-sider Mitt Romney and Ayn Rand acolyte Paul Ryan are the "perfect" Republican nominees. And they are very dangerous to the future of the country.

Obama losing the debate because.......excuses, excuses.....face it, he lost period.

Mitt Romney lied repeatedly and serially in the first debate. Fact checkers have documented the lies (see my comments above).

As Ezra Klein of The Post noted, "during the first presidential debate, Romney presented himself as a candidate uninterested in tax cuts, in love with Medicare, in support of economic regulations, confident in the government’s role in the health-care system, and interested in few spending cuts beyond PBS."

Except for the cuts to PBS, which amount to one hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget, Romney's debate positions do not square with his previous ones (staked out in the Republican primary and in campaign statements), nor with the official Republican party platform, nor with Tea Party nonsense.

So why are conservatives applauding him now? Are they overtly advocating unrepentant dishonesty and blatant lying?

Democracy, You are quoting the Washington Post. All they do is put out Obama's daily propaganda. They have lost all credibility. Ezra Klein? Sheesh!! First of all he did not say that. He used That as one example of things he would cut to bring this country back from the cliff it will fall off if O stays in office. He clearly said he would be cutting anything that is not necessary and that is being paid for by BORROWED money from China. As usual the WP has spun it to make Romney look bad.
Every pundit admits Obama LOST the debate. You need to get over it. Romney has gained in all the polls because for once the American people saw him as a leader and not the person that the spinning MSM (and you) try to make him out to be. They also saw a President that was ill informed, arrogant and uninterested and that is why he lost.
You an not compare Romney going on the TV show with Obama skipping speaking with world leaders that requested to meet with him. HE is the president and that is his job. As soon as O heard Romney was going to meet with Netanyahu all of a sudden he called. His handling of the mid east is frightening. Please read around. Not just the WP or the NYT. Even read the British press and you will get the truth and not just the propaganda.

Elaine, you must understand that Democracy is Charlottesville's poor excuse of Michael Moore. You will never get him to agree with you on issues of too much government, too much entitlement, too much wasted tax money, too many people on unemployment and food stamps, too much government debt, and eroded individual rights and family values. One's lifestyle choices has much to do with their political orientation.( BIG Wink). Is that not right Mr. Boot?

Elaine/WN -

Daggone those Liberals and hippies. Picking on all us white folk who ae just folowing the law when we make those black people use separate bathrooms and water fountains. nobody's breaking the rules when they make them sit at the back of the bus.

After all, if it's the law, we must know it's right. Now you want to pick on Romney for paying a much smaller % of his income in taxes while taking the lion's share of the nations income and all the benefits from worker productivity.


You keep saying that the republicans ran up the debt and that caused the crash... but the government spending did NOT cause the crash, they paid their bills.. It was the PEOPLE who defaulted on thier loans that caused everything to collapse. Are you saying that it was only Republicans that bought houses they could not afford? It was only Republicans that ran up credit card debt they stopped paying on? Congress made credit easy.... democrats did it to "spread the wealth around" and Republicans to make money on the deal.... So we now know what happens when we try and "spread the wealth" to people who can't repay their loans don't we? (whos policys failed now?)

If you want to see Romneys tax returns then have Obama offer to exchange his college transcripts and records that he has paid millions to hide. (that might also offer some insight into his socialist leanings)

The stock market is on the upswing because speculators are borrowing money at near zero percent and gambling with it which is just another bubble. If you studied economics you would find that the economy does best when real estate and other non stock equities are growing. People have nowhere else to put their money because Obama is 1) stemming legitamate foreclosures and 2) loaning banks money at near zero percent so they can just sit on thier inventory of empty homes waiting for the market to climb so they can reduce their losses from thier stupid lending practices. Obama is BAILING THEM OUT as the rest of us suffer snails growth from a housing recovery. if he would simply make them shed inventory by not allowing them to borrow so low then they would dump inventory, people could buy a house cheap, the inventory would be reduced and real estate values would stabilize.

PBS may be 1/10,000th of the federal budget but if there are 20,000 programs like that (which there are) then not only could we save 2% of thr budget but probably another 3% for the beaureucrats dispensing, evaluating and accoouting for then. Big Bird is 40 years old, has his own brand name and more marketing deals than Michael Jordan. Let him pick up the tab.... hell between him and elmo they probably make enough to pay for the Endowments for the Arts too so we don't need the taxpayers paying to have jesus on a cross in a bottle of urine displayed as artwork.

We now live in a country where we are told what light bulbs to use, what words we can say or be arrested for a hate crime, where if you think gutting as womans privates is nasty you are a soldier in the war on women and people are so stupid that they think that it is more efficent to tax people,and run the money through a gigantic unaccountable beauracracy so that MAYBE ten cents actually goes to food, then to donate it to a church food bank who buys food with it and uses volunteeers and the church basement to dispense it.

Personal responibility is out the window. We give people free education and because of the progressive cradle to grave entitlement mentality we are also expected to feed and house them for life if the decide they want to sit in the back of the class for a dozen years.

There are "entitlements" that people earned or deserve because of disability, but there are a lot of "unentitled" cretins on the public dole and if you want them to live the life without contributing then YOU donate YOUR money to YOUR (non religious) charity and take care of them.Being a worthless bum and getting free healthcasre food and housing is not a "right" and it is surely not good public policy.

People like you call the fire department because there is a cat in a tree.... but no one has ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree because even a cat gets hungry and does what it takes to survive. You have too little faith in your fellow man and want to rob the rich to ease your queasy stomach.

Dear Elaine,

You repeat the same old tired, worn-out conservative cliche' about the "liberal" mainstream media. There is NO liberal media "conspiracy." It's simply another lie. And did you forget that The Post endorsed the war in Iraq? By the way, Elaine, here were those "weapons of mass destruction?" And why did Bush and his Republican brethren refuse to pay for the war in Afghanistan or in Iraq? Why did Bush refuse to pay for his tax cuts? Or for his Medicare expansion? If you want to see where the more recent origins of our debt problem are look here:

By the way, Elaine, please point out exactly where Ezra Klein is wrong. Did you not watch the debate? Where, pray tell, do you get your "news?"

Dear County Farmer: You are the perfect conservative....virtually immune to factual information...taking your county land use subsidy, because, well, you "deserve" it, because you think you are "entitled to it...supporting people and policies that are opposed to the core values (popular sovereignty, equality, justice, tolerance, promoting the general welfare) and principles embedded in the Constitution...

Of course, County Farmer, you are like your brethren. You whined previously about real estate revenue increases between 2001-07...yet those increases were brought about by "market" forces that conservatives say they tried to blame the Bush-generated broken economy on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet every study finds this: "Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis."

Read more here:

You claim that taxes in the U.S. are too high, yet tax rates are at 60-year lows and the U.S. already has one of the very lowest tax rates in the developed world.


County Farmer could care less about facts or about anybody else, as long as they subsidize him. Don't you call that "socialism" if it's for the little guy, Farmer?

oops...."where were those weapons.....


So how about this? Is this a right wing conspiracy also Demo?

Annenberg: “Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”

Me: But Romney has NOT detailed how he will offset the tax cuts. His promise is hollow. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says Romney’s tax cuts will add almost $ 5 trillion to the nation’s debt...and that’s IF the Bush tax cuts expire...otherwise it’s $6 trillion.

Annennberg: “Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.”

Me: Duh!

Annenberg: “Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is ‘going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. Not true.”

Me: Yep

Annenberg: “Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.”

Me: Okay, ALMOST 5 million jobs were added.

@ Whoa Nelly...and your point is what?

No liberal bias in the media...are you deaf and blind man?
This copied from wikipedia...

A study cited frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[23] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[24] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

@ Caesonia...I think this guy is talking to you...

So, you are saying that the Democratic Party should put forth a black man for election from now to eternity or they are racists? That's absurd.
And, you are saying that Mitt Romney, because he has more money than you, should pay more in taxes than the law requires? How shameful of him to give so much to charities rather than give it to the government to waste...
You guy's are grasping at straws.

They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

Had to laugh when I read this. Describes Democracy to a "T" in one sentence.


The community reinvesment act signed by Clintion allowed fannie mae and freddie mac to buy loans that were previously too risky. (These are taxpayer backed loans) The purpose was to create more diversity amongst the homeowner class.They then FORCED banks to give out riskier loans or be charged with discrimination. Banks gave out the loans and when they went south banks were forced to redo the loans because they were foreclosing on too many miniorties. with the rules relaxed greedy bankers (some I hear were even democrats) got in on the gravy train and the lkiar loans were created. The problem is that it takes two to tango and as greedy as the bankers and brokers were there werre lots of people who LIED on their applications (and to themselves) on the assumption that housing values would always escalate and wages would climb and enable them to meet the payments. Say what you want it was george bush who tried and tried to reign in the GOVERNMENTS end of the deal. when it all went bad the private sector had screwed up so bad that the feds had to bail them out or have the economy freeze like a popcicle. all of your braying notwithstanding if it was not for progressives crying "lifes not fair" and pasing laws to give unqualified people loans the bankers would not have had the OPPORTUNITY to make the risky loans with a taxpayer backstop.

as for the land use tax "subsidy" your braying does not change the fact that while th entiore program "costs" the county 20 nillion a year in "forgiven" revenue it saves many times that in infrastucure costs. For instance Elementary School 20 million, middle school 30 million, high school 60 million, firehouse 5 million, library 3 million, not to mention all the roads needed to get to the new developments. The land use is fair in that every "farmer" pays full realeste taxes on his home and surround 3 acres at FULL MARKET VALUE and is given a lower tax rate on the pastureland forest and trees that all help to preserve the envrionment.
If you take the subsidy away and a farmer divied his land up "by right" then the people that buy the lots can build and do not have to pay all the proffers etc that big developers pay.
If you ended the subsidy then your taxes would go up not down right along with the traffic congestion. So one again... life is not fair.. get a helmet...(or an education and work ethic)

When you add in the cost to busineses of supplying employee mandated benefits and healthcare then the taxes in the US are the highest in the developed world. It is just smoke and mirrors to say otherwise. Plus if it were as low as you proclaim then those greedy republicans would be moving jobs over here not sending them away... unless of course you think they just moved them for the fun of it and don't care about money.

Your arguments are thin and defy common sense. you are just like obama... everybody gets a trophy...

- My my my aren't we quick to jump to conclusions about being called a racist. You aren't really quite that dense, are you? I think my point was abundantly clear; just because something happens to be legal doesn't make it right, or correct. Interracial marriages were banned for a long time in Virginia, and women were legally denied admittance to state schools like UVA as undergrads. Did that make it right? Or correct, or good for the nation?

Just so; it does not matter if current tax policy allows the Romneys to legally pay only 10% of their income while small business owners get put on the stick for 30+%. It's not right. And it's not good for the nation.

What you happen to want PDL, is not good for the economy, or the nation, and 30 years of trickle down voodoo economics shows it. We can't afford to even defend ourselves anymore. We can't fill the needs of the military in personnel because of poor health.

Caseonia, The "percentage" of income is crap. The US government spends trillions of dollars and sends 40% of the bill to 1 percent of the population. How much would be enough? Mitt romney DOES pay the EXACT same rate as others... He gets a stock dividend and it is taxed at 15%. If you get a tax dividend you pay 15%. The only difference is that Romney most probably pays way more than you since he ownws a lot more stock. If you donate some of your dividends to charity you can have the same net rate as him.

If you want to tax dividends a s regular income then go for it and prepare to be broke in your old age as you lose the benefits of compund interest over the years.

Besides that Romneys "net" tax rate IS higher than the average americans. People like democracy like to compare Romneys "effective" rate (the amount AFTER deductions) with other peoples "tax bracket". After a family of four making 70k a year "deducts" their mortgage interest, basic deductions, child care write offs etc etc their "effective rate is most probably BELOW ten percent . So if that is the case it Mitt paying his "fair share" or not?

By the way.the US pays about 12,500 dollars per person per year so that family of four is consuming 50k. If they had to pay their "fair share" based on consumption they would only have 20k left over to live on for the year instead of 50k.

Obamacare recipients: here is your future


"The US government spends trillions of dollars and sends 40% of the bill to 1 percent of the population."

That's true but it's a bit of a deceptive statistic. 40% of government spending is deficit spending, which without going into a long spiel about why, essentially manifests itself as inflation, which acts as a regressive tax (everyone's money buys less) and hurts those more with smaller/non-existent incomes. So the one sided tax burden of the rich is a bit of a myth - it's certainly shared.

Cruncher.... you are correct but the solution is not to double down on the spending and the debt... it is to stop the spending, reduce the debt, lower the cost of doing business, get workable trade agreements and stop giving away money to non workers who are lazy. (not the retired disabled etc)

You talk about a regressive tax on the lower end workers and I will ask about how much the government handing out section 8 housing and rent assistance drives up rents for the working poor? I will ask if a guy makes 20k a year and has to buy his own health insurance and a bum gets food stamps and obamacare worth 10k a year how much does the guy making 20k REALLY make...

I am not opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy, but even if Obama got his wish the money collected covers less than three weeks of the overspending and once that proposal is off the table obamas GOT NUTHIN.

Romney should concede a tax hike and watch Obama try and close the rest of the gap...

Ponce you are so right...He has got NUTHIN!

@ PonceDl - You are wrong, the mortgage backed securities you reference were promoted by Wall Street Bankers who saw a quick buck on the backs of individuals who lenders should have vetted out. Bankers and Wall Street. Countrywide and Wall Street wanted to bundle this mess and sell it internationally. The Republican "rip off the poor" scheme failed. Tax payers had to bail out the stupid bankers and WS.

Bain Capital, Wall Street, Jones', Countrywide, Bank of America, all colluded and accepted paper that was not up to 'standards' due to Republican deregulation. That really worked didn't it? Do you think we are stupid!?


"Romney should concede a tax hike and watch Obama try and close the rest of the gap..."

You know there's no way he's going to do that. You know there's also no way he's going to cut back spending. Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree about cutting back on $90 billion of spending, when the national budget is $2.4 trillion. A vote for fiscal responsibility has no direction in this election.

Also Section 8 costs aren't particularly daunting in terms of overall cost, the real cost is turning neighborhoods into slums. Medicaid, wars (and Romney is clearly bucking for one against Iran), and upcoming social security costs all dwarf them by a considerable margin. Look at the numbers in the budget if you don't believe me. There's no reason to think Romney is going to be particularly helpful, and there's certainly no reason to argue with Obamatards who can't work out basic percentages without a calculator.

"Republican deregulation"

The community reinvestment act was signed by Clinton
Glass Steagal was repealed by Clinton

People who bought houses they could not afford were not lambs led to slaughter they hopped on the greed train for what they thought was a free ride and got burned. The resultant meltdown was because they took out loans they could not afford and defaulted. If they had not felt so "entitled" then none of this would have happened.

It is not section 8 or food stamps it is the unentitled demanding entitlments and the boat will capsize from the weight. It is college students expecting student loans to be forgiven so that they can compete salarywise with somebody who worked their way through instead of taking on debt .It is the Universities that jacked up rates past the subsidized student loans and put us in a finacial envrionment where students cannot afford to enter the housing market until they are forty which does not leave them enough time to save for thier own retirement , much less help with their kids education....It is obamacare that has frozen job creation because busineses are afarid of the new taxes and rules... it is about all of the people at the bottom of the financial scale making babies at a rate of two to one over people who can actually afford then.

If you look forward twenty years under the current progressive scenario we will have a country of uneducated baby mommas, deadbeat dads, and stoners consuming more and more which will require a tax rate so high that people will not even see the point in trying to move up the ladder. Does anyone realize that in 2014 the bums on the downtown mall will have healthcare and food stamps? all they need is a place to crash and your money for booze or drugs and they are set... In fact the odds are they will get rent money by selling the free vicodin they will get for the fake back pain. The only thing they will need to worry about is finding a place to beg on the mall because once this is in place there will be a lot more stoners choosing the free ride instead of working.....

I am for cutting defense spending by hiring the military to spend half their time training and the other half working regular government jobs. I am for cutting down the size of government with the rule that any government program has to be effective or justify the expense socially. We need to look at every expense and make some changes.

If we simply let planned parenthood gets its own funding then it can do what it wants and the problem is solved... half the wealth in this country is controlled by women.. let them donate it and write it off their taxes....

We need smaller more accountable government.

Ponce de Leon is like his man, Mitt Romney. He just cannot tell the truth. And facts are most certainly not his friend, or even his casual acquaintance. Ponce ends his last screed with this gem: "We need smaller more accountable government."

But the fact is that under Republican presidents (Reagan Bush1, Bush2), both spending and the size of government have increased. Greatly. Besides balancing budgets (multiple times) Bill Clinton shrunk the size of government, and government jobs under Obama have declined too.

Ponce continues with the conservative lie of a "liberal media bias." Seriously? He cites the book, The Media Elite. But he overlooked this: "The book is based on a survey, completed in 1980, of 238 journalists...Problems with the methodology included: a low sample size; poor randomization; the failure to include media owners, managers, or editors in the samples; the inadequate use of proper polling techniques; the use of biased questions; point of view assertions by the studies authors that arbitrarily qualified some things as conservative or liberal; the failure to adequately measure the general public's attitudes; and poor statistical analysis of the results."

This is what passes for "proof"to conservatives like Ponce. But let's look more deeply.

A year or two after the war in Iraq (Elaine: where are those WMDs?), real honest-to-goodness researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks set out to find out what people "knew" about the war, and where they got their information. And the results were:

“...the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.”

Then, the research delved into where people got their "information." Fox was the "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions. Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.”

Now consider, Fox has more viewers than the "mainstream" networks. Rush Limbaugh, liar extraordinaire, has an audience of between 15-20 million. Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage have millions of listeners (about 14m, 9m, and 5m respectively). Nine of the top ten talk radio shows are conservative. And then there's the Wall Street Journal, owned by Fox's Rupert Murdoch (who's been proved a sleaze bag pseudo "journalist"). Not to mention WorldNetDaily, Breitbart, Drudge and the obtusely-named NewsBusters. All are spouting out drivel mixed with incessant lying.

And Ponce says there's a "liberal media bias." Dude, go back on the meds.

Ponce de Leon also claims that the county's land use policy is good "common sense? Huh? Let's call it what it is, a huge subsidy to big and mostly wealthy landowners, many if not most of whom cannot develop any of their land anyway. No county in Virginia uses the land use subsidy more than Albemarle County does. SIxty percent of the land parcels in the county are in the subsidy program, yet Albemarle is not known as an "agricultural" county, and its agricultural production and jobs have been in decline for quite some time and make up a very small part of overall economic activity in the county. What are these "farmers" doing with all that land?

Ponce makes the false claim –– common to conservatives –– that Fannie Mae aad Freddie Mac were the cause of the mortgage meltdown. Unequivocally untrue. As McClatchy noted, conservatives "targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis."

There's much more. "Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

And to put all the nails in the coffin, there's this:

"at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership."

"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble."

"During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."

"In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages."

Now, who allowed all of this to happen? Why, it was Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve, and it was George W. Bush and his laissez-faire regulatory policies. (Note to Whoa Nelly: When are you going to 'fess up and take "personal responsibility" for the failure of conservative policies?).

Ponce de Leon is like other conservatives who post here. To them, hard facts represent "bias." But the truth is,
if they really want to know the source of our nation's most serious problems, they need not go far. They need only to take a peek in the mirror.

Democracy, you keep blaming bush for everything but what has your boy done but make it worse? Sure it was rampant greed that drove us into the ditch but Obama doesn't even know how to hook up jumper cables much less get the car back on the road.

The man lost the debate because he has nothing to offer except raise taxes to cover poor spending habits. Anybody can do that, but that found money is robbed from peter to pay paul. Obama has no clue how to create an envrionment where we can be self sufficent.

The US economy flourished when we were an exporting nation. When you invent things and have them produced overseas the inventor gets rich but the country does not. Obamas way to solve this is to punish people for producing overseas instead of lowering the cost of production here which can never be accomplished by forcing employers to provide mandatory healthcare, union wages and excessive government regulation. He is a simpleton with a socialist agenda and his experiment is failing miserably. Suppose instead of Obamacare he had simply proposed a 1% increase in the medicare deductions and given that money directly to the states to open wellness clinics and to provide medications for the indigent chronically ill. No muss, no fuss.

The man has proven himself to be nothing more than an empty chair.

You know Bill, while I can easily agree with your statements about the fact that the US doesn't make anything anymore, your scapegoating of the unions and the attempt to mandate healthcare - a right wing plan - just doesn't fly anymore. Other countries, like Germany, have mandatory healthcare and strong unions and lots of regulations and they are hue exporters. Unions have been in gret decline in the US over the last 30 years, and it hasn't slowed the decline of manufacturing.

The difference is that in countries like Germany, healthcare insurers and providers are kept under strict eye, and they do not get away with the crappy fee for service, fragmented service so that healthcare costs are kept down. Insurers are not allowed to profit off of the mandated services, though they are welcome to profit off of the additional services and other forms of insurance. It makes Germany a lot more competitive.

The way we do healthcare damages our economy because it traps workers in jobs that might not be the best fit, and denies younger or smaller companies from perhaps getting better employees. It increases frictional unemployment and lowers productivity. Smaller companies, who simply can't get the same rates as a global like IBM, find themselves geatly hampered and have to waste much time on healthcare plans versus actually making a product. A small company in Britain, Germany, or Canada siply doesn't have to spend their time worrying or diddling with the healthcare gougers. They can open a job and get on with the training and finding the best employee.

But what's your solution Bill? Like Mitt, let's just blame the small guy/employee, tell them they should work for less, and then say how you shouldn't have to deal with their healthcare costs, and yes, they should just die. You aren't interested in solving the problem at all, you are just interested in denying people, cutting them off.

IN fact, you live in denial. You can't understand the policies you support are in direct conflict with the results that you claim you want. All that deregulation didn't create the wonderful utopia of jobs and infrastructure investment and gleaming cities. It just brought one financial crisis after another and the difference is those not responsible were expected to pick up the tab, while the very wealthy got wealthier. At least in 1900 the wealthy didnt find all Street getting bailed out.

Yes, Bill, wealthy people in the US are sitting on 40 Trillion dollars that they could invest in the US, and haven't, and you seem to think that giving the more will do the trick, forget the last 30 years. Yes, if they live in the US and want to enjoy the access to a vibrant community that keeps them wealthy, they should be required to contribute to it.

It's time for you and your like thinkers on this board to have a few come to Jesus moments about the direct conflict between the results you want, and the ideology you cling to.


You want to slay the messenger (me) for the very factual message (Republican economic policies are disastrous).

All I keep doing is citing the data, as in the case above where all the data on housing points the finger of blame at the private sector and not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Or where I point out that the studies find Fox viewers are not just misinformed but they are even more ignorant than those who don't watch any news at all.

I understand that it an be difficult to admit that you're wrong....but do conservatives no longer have any shred of honesty and decency left at all?

The American Revolution was a "liberal" movement. The conservatives of the era (the Tories) were opposed. The Articles of Confederation government (small,decentralized) led to economic chaos. The Constitution replaced it, and in Article I, Section 8 of that document the legislative branch was given broad, specific powers (among them taxing, borrowing money, regulating commerce, coining money and regulating its value, etc.). Clause 18 of Section 8 stipulates that Congress had the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Two Supreme Court decisions early in the republic's history –– both unanimous –– supported and cemented a broad – liberal – interpretation of the implied powers of Congress.

For example in 1819 (McCullough v. Maryland) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the U.S. government was "a Government of the people. In form and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." Thus one of the purposes of government is to promote the general welfare. Chief Justice Marshall wrote this about the necessary and proper clause: "the clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers." And he added this: "Its terms purport to enlarge, not to diminish, the powers vested in the Government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction."

In Gibbons v Ogden (1824) Chief Justice Marshall wrote this about the Congressional commerce power: "This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution."

These were "liberal" interpretations, very early on.

Conservatives were opposed to the American Revolution; they were against the Constitution; they opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments; they didn't want the people to directly elect U.S. Senators (17th amendment) they were against letting women vote (19th amendment), they didn't want residents of D.C. to vote in presidential elections (and they are still against full representation in Congress for D.C.); they were in opposition to getting rid of the poll tax (and they still seek to suppress voting); they were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; they do not like the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment.... 
But, they apparently do believe in torture and subverting the Constitution and U.S. Law ( and they apparently think the president has unlimited powers (if he's a Republican) and can do what he wants ( 
And they apparently believe it's okay to run up a huge debt and blame somebody else for it. 

You know Bill (and Whoa Nelly and Ponce, etc.), you are entitled to your own unsubstantiated opinion, but you are not entitled to just make up your own facts. The more you watch Fox and listen to Hannity and Limbaugh and the other crazies, the more fearful and distrusting – and dogmatic – you become.

But there's still hope. You can still unlearn the disinformation that you think you "know." Click on the link it some ducks who've never been in water (think of it as enlightenment) are introduced to it...their first tendency is to run away (sort of like in Plato's allegory, The Cave)....but then, one finally takes the plunge and begins to revel in it.

If they can do it......

Thank you for this vigorous debate of 2 visions for the future of our country.

Unfortunately, the lessons of history are quickly forgotten.
I do believe those debating these issues are convinced that their candidate's plan is the one that will re-establish American prosperity, but even though much has changed much has also remained the same. I continue to view the Obama plan as more likely to bring more Americans into the workforce, and impact the devastating trend of the wealth gap.

There will only be one winner at the end of the day. Let us hope civility and a desire to all work for the greater good will prevail.

We are in this predicament because Americans DO want to be paid too much for the work they do. People think that if they have a job answering phones or stocking shelves that that should pay enough to feed a family of four. It shouldn't . Those jobs should be for college students or stay at home moms who need to work part time or people who are down and out. They are dead end jobs and not careers. Every job needs to justify its existence moneywise and if you have to pay 30k a year for a guy to take out the trash then you need to pay 40k a year for a guy to mount and balance tires, then you need to pay 60k a year for the guy to do tune ups and 80k a year for the guy to fix the transmission and 100k a year for his manager. That is what happens at a lot of urban car dealers and the prices are through the roof causing people to do what? Look for alternatives.... so someone on the outside pays less and lowers his prices to compete for work.. That is the only way it can work.

Germany in a tiny country. If we could consolidate the state of Virgina we could run circles around germany and most other countries. We are an entirely different animal.

I am not for "deregulation" I am for proper regulation. I am for breaking off health insurance from employment altogether so that everyone will have their own policy free from their job so that they can change jobs if they want. I am for a taxpayer funded catastophic policy that helps those among us who get the really bad diseases. I am for individuals having the right to open a business without tens of thousands of dollars in red tape and unresponsive government employees delaying things. Trader Joes is finally hiring but was delayed becuase Albemarle county could not decide what color bricks they wanted on the building that will be hidden by mandated trees anyway.

There are lots of people who would love to invest in America but they will not do it if the reward ratio is too low. Obama has spent three years making that threshold HIGHER.
It was not "republicans" who defaulted on the houses they could not afford and the credit cards they could not repay. It was americans. If you want that money off the sidlenes then provide a reason to put it at risk... Obamacare and more regulations are not incentives they are deterrents.

80 percent of america is doing OK. They will continue to do OK. If you want the other 20% to thrive then YOU need to recognise that Democracies numbers don't work and never will.
Obamas numbers don't work and never will.

I have stated at least ten times to Democracy that the Bush tax cuts will fill the coffers for only three weeks and challenged him to show where the rest of the money will come from. All he does is run around chiming "bushes fault, bushes fault" like the parrot outside of the Oval Office does.

When credit is easy people get lazy, so when they started giving out student loans like candy people didn't question the tuition costs, just like their parents didn't question the cost of the house they are underwater in. The realtors drove up houses because people would pay and Universities did the same thing. AND healthcare prices have skyrockets as more and more people got insurance. We need to spend more time on WHY it costs 1500 dollars to have a stitch put in a cut instread of figuring out how to pay the bill.

The truth about the civil rights act...

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October, 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[7] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.
The bill is filibustered by prominate democrats until the Johnson administration.

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor.
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[10] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[

Votes by party, for and against the civil rights act:

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Democracy caught in another lie.

Womans Rights
Just one year prior, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who had strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to both civil rights for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[18][19][20][21] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[22] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[23]

Democracy, do you just make this stuff up???
As far as going back 200 years and talking about liberals...the liberals of 200 years ago would be far right wing today.

The above was copied from wikipedia...not some right wing site...

Speaking of republican vs. democrat policies. I remember towards the end of the Carter administration, we missed work because my boss could not get gas to power his equipment. My father liked it because he was earning 16% interest on his savings account. Mortgage rates were pushing 20%, hundreds of our diplomats were sill, 2 years later being held hostage in Iran.
Then Reagan get elected, the prisoners were released immediately because the Iranians knew Reagan was coming after them if they didn't. 23 million jobs were created in the next 8 years from what liberals now call voodoo economics. The Berlin wall fell due to the stanch footing of a republican president. We were constantly under threat from the USSR for the last 30 years, under Reagan we out spent them militarily, and the cold war ended. Prosperity was there for all who desired it. Obama is Carter version two.

Demo says..."What are these "farmers" doing with all that land?"
Well, out here the farmers are feeding their beef with it.

So it is Romney who is the liar?

This guy at Princeton has a problem with Obamas charcterization of his writings...

Oh poor Whoa Nelly.

I specifically said that conservatives were opposed to a whole slew of progressive measures:

"Conservatives were opposed to the American Revolution; they were against the Constitution; they opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments; they didn't want the people to directly elect U.S. Senators (17th amendment) they were against letting women vote (19th amendment), they didn't want residents of D.C. to vote in presidential elections (and they are still against full representation in Congress for D.C.); they were in opposition to getting rid of the poll tax (and they still seek to suppress voting); they were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; they do not like the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment.... "

And then Whoa Nelly goes to Wikipedia to examine in detail one piece of that list, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he provides a party vote....but he left this out purposefully:

"Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in theAmerican Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)"

Maybe Whoa Nelly really doesn't know that today's rabid Republicans have purged all the moderates from their ranks. They've even purged solid conservatives like Bob Bennett of Utah for a Tea Party crazy like Mike Lee. Or maybe Whoa Nelly knows, but like his pals MItt Romney and Paul Ryan he's trying to obfuscate the issue. Like I said earlier, do conservatives no longer have any shred of honesty and decency left at all?

As journalist Matthew Yglesias noted, "The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time."

And, as Jonathan Chait pointed out, "Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party."

Indeed, here's the father of the modern conservative movement, Barry Goldwater on the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

To be clear, those racist conservative Southern Democrats migrated to the Republican Party, where they were warmly received.

I notice Whoa Nelly picks out one small thing to harp on, misrepresents the issue, and throws out goofy stuff like "caught in a lie" when he's the one who distorts, misrepresents, and prevaricates. All signs of an unhealthy mental state.

There's still hope Whoa Nelly. Go ahead. Watch the ducks take to water in the video. It's still possible for you to break the bonds of conservative fear and paranoia and distrust. Stop hating on the core values of American democracy –– popular sovereignty, equality, justice, tolerance, freedoms for ALL citizens, and promoting the general welfare of society. Embrace them. Commit to them. Why, you might find them as agreeable (though you're pretty far gone) as ducks do the water.

Oh, so you are calling the democrats of the sixties should run for office, you can spin like a

Democracy, where is Obama gonna get the money for the other 49 weeks since the bush tax cuts only covers three?

You can keep harping on the past but this election is about the future and Obama has no thing for the economy except hang weights on it. (by the way what has he done for black america .. at least he gave the latinos the dream act....)

If Whoa Nelly and Ponce de Leon (and others) and Paul Ryan and MItt Romney are representative of what now constitutes the Republican Party – and it appears they are –– then I propose one of the following as the official Romney-Ryan campaign song and the Republican Party anthem (take your pick):

Democracy, why don't you reference your piece on youtube, " Battle of the Bushes" to show how ridiculous you really are?

@NancyDrew - I know you get free reign to post anything you want to, but please be factual. Biggest lie the Libs and the main stream media keeps trying to hammer home is the 14%. First, this is not an income tax, this is capital gains. You do realize that there are different kinds of taxes right? From reading your posts over several years, I'm thinking you don't know the difference. Also, if you look at the effective individual federal income tax rate for the highest earners, the number is 14%. The majority of Americans pay an effective federal income tax less that 5%.

Romney's 14% is only for Federal taxes. I'm sure you know that this does not include Social Security or Medicare. Why, because he is paying on CAPITAL GAINS, not INCOME TAX like when you get a paycheck.

Seriously, educate yourself.

Everytime we go to war it should be paid for or at least try to pay for it. You want to invade Iraq or X then there will be a 1 cent federal sales tax on everything to start with to pay for it. Everybody is going to pay it and if 1 cent is not enough then it goes to 2 cents etc. until the war is over. 1/3 of the American debt comes from Bush #2 (unfunded wars), and 1/3 from Obama (unfunded wars), and 1/3 from Washington to Bush # 2. I don't believe Romney or Obama can get a handle on the debt because neither wants to ask the voters to sacrifice because both sides want to give out unfunded mandates. I think it also going to be interesting on how C-ville handles a 3 million shortfall. We started by having a conference over it in a remodeled Staunton hotel.

An interesting take by a candidate...

How ARE we going to take care of ten million more insured people with lots of unmet problems without adding new Doctors? Oh thats right we will import Doctors from wherever and check thier credentials later....

Yes, PDL, that is a concern and certainly not one that others have been thinking about long before the right wing American Thinker blog site decided to write about it. In fact it's been written about before on this very site. So, seems like your side of the issue has a solution of " get sick, die quickly. " Don;t other us with being ill because there arent enough doctors anyways.

Of course, the AMA - a doctors' uion - has worked very hard to keep the numbers of doctors limited. But we don;t need doctors for a lot of routine care. Often nurses do better, especially Nurse Practitioners. there's a thought for a more efficient system. NP's handling a lot of your routine prescription work, and infant care, with a standard flat fee for yearly care, that sort of thing. It worked before why not now?

Covering 10 million more people really should not cost us a dime more, if we could just have that come to Jesus moment you and your like thinkers simply can't get beyond. Fee for service non-competitive in-network out of network care has proven beyond a doubt it is about the worst system possible.

cviller22 - talk about calling the kettle black. Sounds like you don;t know the difference between capital gains and different types of investment income either. And if you are taking a fee for investing management, you should expect to be taxed on it as earned income, not investment income.

Having said that, it is not a liberal lie, it a liberal point that not all types of income - and capital gains ARE income - are taxed fairly.

On your comments about the effective tax rate of 5%? Citation please. I know plenty of middle class folks whose effective FI tax rate is a lot more than 5%. Ask single professionals without children or yet about to buy a property.

In 2014 we will have ten million people get health insurance and they will jump to get everything handled. When the shortage arrives so will the foriegn Doctors with questionable credentials who will open "clinics" to skim the gravy (like CVS, walgreens and wal mart already have) which will leave the real problems for the real Doctors. The problem with the current pay system is that Real Doctors are underpaid for real problems and if they lose the easy jobs they will go broke. This is what happened to car dealers when jiffy lube came on the scene and they jacked their rates up to account for the loss of income from the easy brakes tune ups and oil changes. So when these Doctors raise their prices so they can make the same money as the clinic guy who skims the gravy the system will collapse under its own weight, Doctors will retire, the quality of healthcare will go down and all the people who were promised that Obamacare would not affect them will be affected in a big way.

In 2014 the homelses bums will be able to go to a "clinic" and feign back pain or a toothache and walk out with vicodin. They will do this on an ongoing basis and trade it for rent or booze and it will all be legal because if the clinic denies them then the ACLU will go to court and sue.

As for the tax "rates" we have a lowerinvestment tax rate so that people will investthier after tax money for their retirement and childrens college. If you buy a rental house when you are forty and sell it when you are 75 to go into a nursing home why does the government deserve 40 to 50 percent of YOUR profit? You paid taxes on the house, you paid taxes on the money you used to buy the house, you paid taxes on the rental income and you paidt ransfer taxes when you sell it. You also provide rental housing that is made more affordable to the renter because you do not have the need for such a large return. If his tax bill is higher than the rent will reflect it.

There are over three hundred million americans. There are 120 million taxpayers. The government spends 12.500 dollars per person. If we take those on social security and disability and add their share back in because they should not have to contribute (which is fair) then each persons burden is over 20k. So if you multiply your dependents by the 20k and compare that to your federal tax "owed" on your return you will see how "fair or "unfair" the taxes are. Romney covered his whole family and a thousand others....

You will also see that we are spending way too much even if we wiped out the debt....

We need smaller more accountable government.

cville makes the news


I think we can agree that the code for capital gains tax needs to be re written, but there is a difference between someone who invests in their home and has to sell to retire, and the flippers who flipper over the economy, and the swap/futures traders and psuedo 'investors' like at Bain Capital. I mean, consider that the person who actually starts a company is expected to pay higher income tax rates, than Romney, who supposedly was....running a business. If Bain Capital is a business, then it should be paying the same earned income tax rates as other companies.

I know you have a vested interest in why you think your industry should get special treatment, but it shouldn't.

Bain has to be paying a regular corporate tax. That is it pays ----% tax on its profit. ( probably the highest tax bracket of 39.6% on its profit). After the Company itself pays a 39% tax (that is a guess) of profit, some is kept as working capital and some of the profit left over after taxes get sent to the silent owner of the business (being Romney owning 100%) in the form of a dividend. Romney then pays a 15% tax rate on that dividend that was sent him. The business itself has to pay a regular corporate tax.

@Caesonia. Best to stay out of discussions you are clearly overmatched for:

@Caesonia - and if you are wondering, those are CBO numbers. Can't put the Liberal spin on those.

Old timer.... people thart "flip" houses pay short term capitol gains the same as people that "flip" stocks and keep them less thaa a year... short term rates are counted as "ordinary income"and taxed at the same rate as a salary is.

cville22, I think Caesonia is right on top of things, and you are the one who had best reevaluate what you say.

"The majority of Americans pay an effective federal income tax less that 5%."

That is not true, either by household or individual returns. The effective tax rate for even the lowest quintile of households is not less than 4%. The second quintile pays an effective rate of 10%, right on par with what the Romney household would have paid had they taken all their charitable deductions.

The effective individual rate is something else entirely, though what I see demonstrates how fewer and fewer people from the different groups are picking up all the taxes. However, it is worth noting that again, the top quintile gets off whereas the 4th quintile gets hit the hardest.

Something else worth noting that is VERY misleading, and I think meant to mislead, is that the effective tax rate for each income quintile is determined by the mean, whereas you will find a wide variety of actual effective tax rates. As with income, I think the median will show a much different picture. After all, a household with two children and mortgage has a lot more right offs than a single professional living in an apartment.

That would be 'write offs'.

"However, it is worth noting that again, the top quintile gets off whereas the 4th quintile gets hit the hardest." old timer how is that true under any secnario? The TOP quintile pay nearly 75% of the tab. The bottom quintile doesn't pay jack.

Also you talk about the family of four having "write offs" bringing down their rates well what was mitt romneys donations to chairty if they were not "write offs" ?

and cville 2 is correct if 50% of americans get back more than they pay in through tax credits and welfare than al is takes is one person over that 50% to pay about 5% to make his statement factual on its face.

It is very simple.. when a business pays more taxes it either pays less in salaries, buys inventory overseas, orraises its prices. So either way the populace are paying the "TAX" either through lower salaries or higher prices. for the simple fact that the money needs to come from somewhere.

Obamacare will raise taxes, tough regulations raise taxes, subsidized student loans that make it too easy for universities to jack up tuition raise taxes.

There is two trillion dolars in cash waiting to come off the sidlines when the marketplace looks like a buck can be made without significant risk. It wil stay right where it is until obama and his point of view are gone. People with money to invest don't want to "spread it around" any more than the average democrat wants to go to work everyday and have republicans take it and give it to bankers..

Romney knows how to create a workable marketplace with common sense rules and reasonable accountability. Obama knows how to make ambitious people with money to invest close their wallet and wait it out.

@Ponce, do you really believe all the rubbish you write?

There are no cat skeletons in the trees because they have fallen.

Perhaps if there were more gov. regulations to protect we, the people, no one would have died of fungal meningitis. It is ironic that there is no need for government until we need government!

Oh, and with an outbreak like this we do need universal healthcare, or should it be only the rich that deserve to receive medical attention? Mother Theresa pointed out that the measure of a society is seen in how it takes care of its least.
Why single out foreign doctors.? Do you really believe there are no U.S educated doctors with questionable credentials? They are called quacks and they abound. There are for your information very famous medical Centres and schools in other countries, Switzerland, Austria, England, Ireland, Cuba, Lebanon, Canada, Panama, Thailand, Australia to name just a few, and all their doctors were not trained in the US!

Also perhaps you have not realized that while 'half of the wealth in this country is controlled by women' ALL the birth rate is controlled by women, educated or otherwise. Don't be dissing women. we don't need you.
You and others defend a very, very rich, deceptive and callous politician arguing he pays more than his fair share of taxes, (what a saint) but you miss that even that amount is not enough. Christ instructed the rich man on how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Instructions that perhaps both you and Romney should follow. Remember the rich man turned away sorrowful. Just could not do it. Christ's admonitions and Mother Theresa's are socialist ideals.
You spout a lot of skewed facts and figures to disguise your real problem, which is that you cannot accept that Obama is a black man, who is the President of the United States and is more intelligent, more educated, more refined, than you could ever be, and is someone who above all cares for his fellow man. You cannot hold a candle to him. No amount of sophistry on your part can change that. Your hatred and rage will keep you strong.

Outraged... you need to take a chill pill and stop being so rude. First thing is you need to stop with the black President junk. That is just so ridiculous. I don't know anyone that wasn't proud to finally have a black president and all especially were hoping to have one that would be successful and help the American people. Unfortunately he has been one of the worse and most divisive Presidents our country has ever had. He cares only for his agenda and that is why people don't want him as president..not the color of his skin, so stop it.

Regarding Christ and Mother Theresa...their work was through charity and the church, not the government and taxation. They gave of themselves to help others and we are all called to do this.


1) obamacare will have MORE screwups causing more meningitus not less for the simple reason that we will be adding a minimum of ten million people to the rolls with "give me medicine free" cards. Why do you think the big pharmas rolled over like a kardashian in a mens locker room?

2) We already do take care of the least among us... and the republicans want the lazy among us to get off thier A$$ and start paying their own freight so we can have more money freed up to help those who truly need it.

3) I am singling out "foreign " doctors because there are instances where Doctors come from other countries (pakistan and india are two) with false or questionable credentials that are very hard to challenge (as opposed to harvard or UVA ) Talk to a doctor that has worked in a Hospital and ask him if he has met a doctor that he does not believe should be there or has proper training. The fraud WILL happen.

4) All the birthrate IS controlled by women unless men decide to keep their sperm. Whats your point?

5) Romney donated 4 million dollars to charity LAST YEAR how selfish are YOU that that is not enough?

6) Obamas skin color ihas nothing to do with his failures, those failures are not caused by his IQ or race they are caused by his upbringing by liberal (his words) parents and grandparents who told him that there are no cat skeletons in trees because they fell down and didn't have the survival instinct to come down and get food on their own. (the "everybody gets a trophy" doctrine)

7) Obama has had 3 and a half years to find "waste fraud and abuse" in medicare and medicaid and hasn't found anything worth braggging about... What makes anyone think he has the ability to find it in another term? If he had found some of the 716 billion then he might actually have earned some credibility. (but he didn't did he?)

8) Big bird has made millions in royalties and still wants a government handout... and obama wants him to and elmo and cookie monster to all get more still. Why can't they survive off of the toy royalties from worldwide sales of their products made in china?

If you are an allum it must have been a liberal arts degree....

Ponce and Bill might find this interesting:

Eagle-eye, why don't you just post a link to an Obama ad? Oh just did.
Truth -out, I mean, peace out man.

@ Outraged...If Jesus was running against Obama, you would call the Jesus backers racist for backing a white man.

Did you say rude? let me quote you

"Elaine October 7th, 2012 | 8:51pm
Ponce you are so right...He has got NUTHIN!
You were referring to the elected President of the United States of America, and you were agreeing with Ponce who was not courteous enough to spell the President's name with a capital O, as one would do in a polite society. This is a Democracy and in a democracy we accept the will of the people established by vote.
Black President junk? I do believe he is black. Does that make you uncomfortable?

I can believe you truly "don't know anyone who wasn't proud ...," rather than," you are not aware " of anyone who wasn't proud to finally have a black president.
If you don't know anyone, it could be that you do not get out much, nor read much , nor pay attention to what is going on around you, or maybe it is a comprehension problem. Wake up! But then you should know yourself, so you would be genuinely the first person you know, who was not proud to finally have a black President..." Are you oblivious to the incipient racism displayed in Ponce's disparagement of foreign doctors? Self knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Mother Theresa's comment was made in reference to the issue of abortion. Try to relate that point of view to the national discussion about available medical care for all, not just for the members of our society who can afford to pay for private medical insurance. If a mother knows that she can have medical care for her child and can take care of her child she will not take the desperate step of abortion. From a Capitalist/practical perspective, right now the US needs the birthrate to increase rapidly as the population is aging.
To compete on the world stage let every one get a college education, free or with student loans. To have a college education is not being snobby as Mr Santorum would have you believe. In 2012 it is a necessity and a right. Other countries with aging populations are offering our students tuition free or almost free college degrees if they stay in those countries afterwards, get jobs, marry and settle in those countries. They also offer housing benefits. And the University courses are offered in English. Where do you think they are getting the professors to teach these courses in English? So a brain and young talent drain ! Double whammy to the US.

In regards to the Theological concept of Charity, unlimited love and caring, you seem to consider Government separate from the people, but a democratic government is, we the people. It is us, it is our will, so if you think that the government should not be charitable think again. It is how Christ instructed us to live as people, regardless of the form of government. Our democratic government is only a reflection of our collective will .

Was it charitable for you to refer to the President the way you have?
I quote you once again,"They gave of themselves to help others and we are all called to do this." You are helping exactly whom? Or are you being divisive with your own agenda?

Rousseau in his discourse on inequality in a civil society reminds us that " you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

No we are not all born equal in circumstance, and if by accident of birth, opportunity, capability, etc we acquire more than others, then we should give more than others, whether it be in the form of taxes or donations, and we should do so humbly, anonymously, without any sense of superiority, for it is our duty to help our fellow man.
Matthew 25:35
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand,

"Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them,

"Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!"

Our individual choice of where we will stand, left or right hand determines how we will vote, and the collective vote is a reflection of our society. The wealthy man went away sorrowful because he could not choose the hand he knew would require he give up his wealth. The sound and the fury coming from the GOP fans echo his sorrow.

@outrage...two things you might want to look into.
First, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a difference; you should take the time to learn what it is.
Second, this nation is broke. If we do not cut back somewhere, we are going to one day soon pay an enormous price for it.
Did you know...Romney has given roughly 50 million to charities in his life? Did you know that in any given year (go back and pick any year going back twenty years), Romey has given more to charity than Obama, Pelosi, Biden and Ried have, combined, in their entire lives?
And they are trying to paint him as selfish?

Jesus did not say "give up $4 million", or "stash your wealth in off shore tax havens",he said give up All.
For those who have much, much will be asked.

Your attack on foreign doctors is unjustified.
There are bad and good doctors everywhere. If you ever do venture off these shores do you take your personal American born US trained physician with you? Otherwise you may just have to rely on foreign help. Are all mal- practice suits in the US against foreign doctors or are there some US born and educated ones in the mix? Many people from the US go to Cuba for superior/advanced medical treatment . Did you know that? Has an American trained doctor never made a mistake?
A very famous Indian Surgeon, educated in India, & knighted by the Queen of England for his outstanding achievements, saved my life when I was 8 yrs old.
I can recognize racism when it abounds.
I have met US born and educated high school graduates who can barely read and write, yet they go onto enroll in universities in the US. Many pass through the Community College system as a route to getting into a 4 yr university, but they are not much improved by the Community College experience. Our educational system is appalling. Many of the students who are bolstering the Ivy leagues are foreigners. Take a walk on any Ivy League campus and see for yourself.

What makes you think Jesus was white? Renaissance painters? He was a Semite. Next i am going to hear that Adam and Eve were white. This is ludicrous.

Ok in a constitutional republic the officials are elected by the people to be their representatives and must govern according to the existing laws. Laws represent the will of the people.

Now about democracy, a Constitutional Republic and the US, did you remember to remind President Bush of the distinction when he invaded Iraq with the intention of spreading democracy, against the Iraqis' will? Perhaps it was the will/law of the USA that other nations must do as the USA, a constitutional republic decrees!
Is that really why we elect our representatives to impose our will on other nations?

If there is a need for butter one does not go to a farrier, if there is a need for medicine one does not go to a car salesman. Romney has given $50 million because he has it to give. The only way I know this is that he and people like you boast about it. Giving is not a opportunity for boasting. People give what they can. I do not know wealth of the other people you named, but if they do not have $50 million then they cannot be expected to give $50 million. If Romney has more to give then he can do so, on the other hand he has taken away. The history of Bain Capital has been well documented. Perhaps you missed that. If the country is broke, help out.

I don't see a lot af americans heading over to Nigeria for treatment.... Orpakistan. botswana or Yemin.... but I have seen people rape and pillage the US treasury by legally milking the system and Obamacare will be no different... (hopefully Hasliburton won't get in on the deal)

For all of your talk about Jesus and charity it sounds was a simpe man in simple times preaching to an uneducated populace about helping out your fellow man. People in those daysa had bounty because the weather was good to them and they had a healthy crop or bountiful fruits on trees. They did not work three jobs so all Of JCs buddies could sit around and drink wine at thier expense like happens today.

Your pontification about Obama being black is utter BS. The racisim in america is based on african-americans and the decendants of slavery. It exists because people who were believed to be inferieor were suddenly legislated to be equal and that did not sit well with people in power who believed otherwise. Those people may hold prejiduce against Barack Obama but they are way fewer than people like you will admit. Barack Obama is not an "african american " in that sense.. he is half white american and half african kenyan and has no roots in the true black american experince as he himself admits in his books. He has done nothing for the black american community and his only true black friends are hollywood celebrities, sports figures and the reverend wright who hates america. That dog not only don't hunt, but is asleep on the porch.

and the Christian ethic says "follow me to prosperity and salvation" NOT "have a seat while I force others to work and bring it to you"

Although I've documented many of Whoa Nelly's out-and-out lies in my comments above, it's important to document and to debunk at least one more.

Who Nelly writes this (above): "Then Reagan get elected...23 million jobs were created in the next 8 years from what liberals now call voodoo economics."

Actually, Nelly, it was George H.W. Bush who termed Reagan's economic nuttiness "voodoo economics" in 1980.
You can see it here, at about the 1:29 mark:

And as for those 23 million jobs? That's the number of jobs created (it's 22.7 million to be more precise) during the Clinton years. As I cited before, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993 without a SINGLE Republican vote of support in Congress. They said it would cost millions of job losses and ruin the economy. But that wasn't true. The economy boomed. Conversely, during the Reagan years about 16 million jobs were created...and they came with a cost: big budget and trade deficits, a tripling of the national debt (and more than a quadrupling of it adding in Bush1's term), a morphing of the U.S. into the world's biggest debtor, and the deterioration of the American standard of living.

That changed during Clinton's two terms. And budgets were balanced. Multiple times. And surpluses were generated to preserve social programs. All squandered with the supply-side shenanigans of Bush2.

While Republicans like Romney and Ryan (and posters here) continue to lie about "job creation," it's a fact that the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans, Supply-side policies pile up debt, transfer huge sums from public treasuries to the rich, and stick everybody else with the bill. Indeed, the central idea of supply-side policy, outlined in George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty, is "the proliferation of the rich."

But Democrats create the jobs. As CNN reported, over the last fifty years "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures...A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations."

Do the math. 44.7 + 23.3 = 68 million jobs.

The 44.7 million jobs created under Democratic presidents and policies is 66 percent of the total. Thus 2 of every 3 jobs created in the U.S. over the last 50 years –– the vast majority –– were NOT acquired through trickle down policies.

Yes, lose again. And yes Romney is selfish.


"it is worth noting that again, the top quintile gets off whereas the 4th quintile gets hit the hardest,"

I meant to say second quintile, not 4th. The second carries the lions share of professionals, and portions of the upper middle class, with the upper middle class carried in the 1st quintile as well. They pay the highest %. That's a problem.

The top quintile picks up the biggest tab, because the class of people who have benefited economically so much over th last 30 years have been people in that quintile. All the benefits from productivity, except during the Clinton years, have gone to the likes of Mitt Romney. Of course they will be paying more taxes. You know, it always amazes me that people think that because one segment gets a larger and larger % of the pie, that those with a declining % should be paying more.

Read carefully. I objected to Ponce's derogatory blanket statements about foreign doctors, which implied that the US has no ill -trained doctors. Now you have reduced the foreign doctor problem to some African and Middle Eastern countries as well as Pakistan. We are getting somewhere. Have you proof that these countries have no well trained doctors?
That Jesus was a simple man is moot. A great philosopher perhaps?
What nonsense is this that in those days people had bounty because the weather was good? The economic divide was there then as it is now. Jesus told us that the poor we will always have with us. How do you think the Jews dietary laws came about? Economic necessity.

Re pontification about President Obama being black. I questioned Elaine's statement,"Black president junk". Thats not pontification. Did she not know that he is black? I also never stated that The President is an African American. The racism I pointed to is from the comments made by two people in this discussion so the number is far fewer than you infer. The racism abounds in their comments.
My point about Ponce and Elaine is that they are uncomfortable with someone as accomplished as Mr. Obama is, only because he is black. What ever color he is, he is way beyond their ken.
I also wouldn't presume to state whom his friends. are.

Outraged, I did not make a blanket statement about foreign doctors, I said that it would be foriegn doctors who come here to milk the system like they already have. They are here to make money , not to help americans, They will open clinics and make the easy money like a mcdonalds sells cheeseburgers,. They will become pill mills for homeless people and send real problems up the road like a lot of wellness clinics already do. It is already being talked about in india and pakistan as the next gold rush. The insurance companies will be quietlyy complicit because with the new law requiring them to only have 15% of the gross to manage and secure profit they will need a larger pie and will be more than happy to have that pie grow by allowing all of these claims to be made. If they pay out 100 million they get to keep 15 million for overhead and profit, if they pay out 200 million they get to keep 30 million for overhead and profit, and the new law guranteees that the government will pay the bill through subsidies with obamacare. Now I am not saying thaty it will be only foriegn doctors I am just telling you that there will be a huge doctor shortage and that it wil be filled by people with questionable credentials, many of whom will come here for the money.

"MR Obama" is accomplished alright... he got his three oppoments disqualified in his first run for office,on a technicality, he managed to get elected without releasing his college transcripts that may show how "accomplished" he really is. He was elected to lead the Hartard law review not as the best candidate but the best black person out of 5 in the class because it was "time' for Harvard to choose a person of color. It is obvious that when it counts he is asn empty suit. that was proven when Mitt romney mopped the floor with him in the debate and all Obama could do was claim mitt was picking on Big Bird and cite liberal sites to question his tax plan. Obama spenmt two years trying to get vicodin for the drunks on the downtown mall instead of jobs for the people at the unemployment office.. He need to go.

for all those who think voter fraud doesn't exist...

and for those who think people won't take advantage of well meaning government programs read this...

@democracy - I think you miss a crucial point. You probably believe that Obama has created 4.5 million jobs. You cite CNN and this is what they say. "CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009." Eric Pfeiffer - Yahoo! News, September 5, 2012.

Yes Ponce, lots of people are good at gaming the system - especially when they have plenty of economic power:

JS... which is why i am for less federal programs and have locals handle the needs of the community.

I am not against regulations but they should be few, clear, and concise. The banks should not have been bailed out other than iniitial liquididity, after that they should have been forced to divest....

Almost every government program runs amok with abuse... Thelatest article about the chemical plant might be more interesting if we could see where the 30 MILLION dollars went.... I am all for the clean up and federal help with the project but I doubt that all that money was spent wisely.

Ponce wrote: "i am for less federal programs and have locals handle the needs of the community. "

Aww. That's so cute and quaint. I'm touched. How, exactly, are local folks in their local communities supposed to handle a world dominated by massive multi-national corporations? The last time that the primary locus of political action in local communities was realistic was about the first half of the 19th century. Once our legal system made corporations, as we now know them, possible, and those corporations went massive and national and multi-national the prospects for local communities handling their own issues are pretty much nil.

You refer to the superfund article on Greenwood. That was a relatively small company with relatively well known issues and even there, this sums up the picture well:

"We realized we had a tiger by the tail that far exceeded our ability to handle it," says [Scott] Peyton (

This is the story of the political-economy of the US, and the world, over the past 150 years. If you want to know why the federal government has gotten big and powerful, then you have to follow the threads backwards. At every turn, the growth of the federal government has come on the heels of the growth of corporations and you can't whine about one while ignoring the other. And continuing to this day, if federal agencies such as the EPA get involved in things it is often from those small local Davids looking for some help in handling Goliaths.

The world where local communities can handle their own needs is now the same one where frogs have wings.


It is hardly efficient for the federal government to tax you 100 bucks to put into a food program for student lunches and spend 75 dollars on developng a program to send 25 bucks to the state or county who puts about 15 bucks worth of food on the table.

Tax the locals and subsidize with state funds for the differnece and colect 30 dollars and spend about 25 on food.

The savings could be used to fix the epa superfund sites.

@ Shaggy: CNN Fact Check: "A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations."

Do the math.....66 percent of jobs were created under Democratic presidents and policies...NOT Republican ones.

As to the first presidential debate, and the vice-presidential debate last night, like Joe BIden said, "Facts matter" (except to Republicans).

* "Ryan said President Obama took two weeks to acknowledge the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate. The Facts: This is mostly false."

* "Biden said sanctions are damaging Iran's economy as oil exports drop 50% and its currency falls. The Facts: This is mostly true."

* "Biden said Romney and Ryan are pushing a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. The Facts: checked the claim, those in the upper tax brackets would benefit (‘top fifth of earners got 65%’)."

* "Biden said Ryan has not been specific about how Romney could cut taxes without blowing up the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class. The Facts: The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has said tax rates can't be cut broadly without raising taxes on the middle class."

* "Biden said Ryan asked for stimulus funds while rallying against the program. The Facts: Ryan wrote at least four letters to the secretary of Energy in 2009 asking for millions of dollars."

* "Ryan said ‘Obamacare’ pays for abortions. The Facts: The 2010 health care law does not use taxpayer funds for abortions except in the instances of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life — the same restrictions implemented by the Hyde Amendment on other federal health care programs...Ryan said a Romney administration would oppose abortion rights except in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
The Facts: Ryan has supported legislation that would restrict abortion rights without those exceptions. Romney has also said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade."

Can Romney and Ryan not tell the truth about anything?

Fact: democracy is an operative for the democrats spin machine.
Benghazi will bring this administration down. The incompetence of their foreign policy is becoming quite apparent. Their decision to lie about it may get Obama impeached before he can be re-elected.

Ponce, wtf do school lunch programs have to do with what I said? A: Nothing. All you did was evade the whole thing. So if you have nothing of substance to say about it, then just leave it alone.

WhoaNelly, posting that fraudulent email about executive orders proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you mostly blow hot air form a paranoid and either dishonest or stupid or fully misinformed right wing fringe. after that I can't even believe that you still post anything. Its quite obvious that there is no reason to take anything that you say seriously.

JS- I thanked you for pointing out that bogus email. I then asked Hawes to remove the post. I have since pointed out to two other people who poste3d links to it that it is not true.
Again, JS...thanks.

Your inability to understand context does not make you right.

The government is too big and tries to do too many things. It micro manages things that are better left to locals to handle and because it is overwhelmed by these little things it utterly fails at protecting us from the big things.

Ask any teacher what they think of the the "no child left behind" law.

Ask the falilies of those that dies in Bengazi if the government did eniugh to protect thier families .. and if THEY think the US spending money fromm the emabssy security budget buying chevy volts was something the government should even be involved in.

Ask the county if they like all the buearacrcy the feds put in fromt of them to get funding for local programs when if the taxpayers didn't have such a large federal tax bill they could afford another few cents on the real estate taxes and do it ourselves and not have to go through layers and layers of wonks in Washington.

If the federal government slimmed down and took care of the big things properly then we would not be so screwed up as a country. I would bet money you cannot name a government program that works beyond a level 7 on a 1to 10 scale.

Do you realy think with three hundred plus million people one size fits all?

I "evaded" nothing, I gave a very specific example that a sixth grader could understand.
Sorry it was over your head.

So Bill is Ponce and Ponce is Bill?

It is not I that has an inability to handle context Bill. I made a point about how local communities are pitifully weak in today's world. And you went on to tell a tale of school lunch programs. So, ok. Maybe its not evasion? Its just changing the subject - to evade the main point? I'm not sure how else to see it. Its also funny, btw, that you just make off hand references to how "bad" govt is at everything. Why? Because you can find stupid and ridiculous and wasteful things? As if this is a province only of government organizations? You can find that with any kinds of organizations.

In any case, I was not making the point that big government is good. You are just going on to spout a conservative drum beat without considering what I was saying about the place of local communities in today's world.

In fact, big government sucks. But so does big business. And so does big labor. And so does big....well, anything. So I am opposed to bigness, and I don't pretend that government bigness is the only problem. And as I have mentioned, if you want to know why govt has gotten bigger and bigger then you have to look at the machinations of corporate capitalism. I'm not talking about market economies. Nor am I even talking about capitalism (those two are not the same thing). I am talking about *corporate* capitalism (which is also not a synonym of markets or of capitalism). The growth of massive bureaucratic corporations IS what grew the state, and much of what the state continues to do is try to mitigate messes created by economic bigness.

So, seeing power in the world as much more than just a matter of what politicians and state organizations do I am left in a pickle. I have no choice but to err on the side of big government - because if something big is going to rule the world and control conditions globally and in local communities I'd rather it be something I have a vote in - without having to BUY a vote. I'd rather it be something that at least, in principle, is supposed to act on behalf of "the people" - not "the shareholders."

You may continue to focus on big government if you wish. But if the world is ever again to become a place where power lies in local communities, the big business has to go first. When big business goes I'll be the first one in line to dismantle the federal level government. In the meantime - we're all just screwed one way or the other.

If you somehow think that corporate businesses are the fruit of all that is good and can't do any systematic harm because "markets" keep them honest over the long run - well...that koolaid works only in economics textbooks rather than in the real world, and is mostly influenced by advertising.