- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Obama announces debt plan built on taxes on the rich

Published: Mon, September 19, 2011 @ 1:43 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes today, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion.

He vowed to veto any deficit-reduction package that cuts benefits to Medicare recipients but does not raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.

"We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said.

The president's proposal would predominantly hit upper income taxpayers but would also reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The deficit reduction plan represents an economic bookend to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that Obama has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

And it gives the president a voice in a process that will be dominated by a joint congressional committee charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion.

His plan served as a sharp counterpoint to Republican lawmakers, who have insisted that tax increases should play no part in taming the nation's escalating national debt. Obama's plan would end Bush-era tax cuts for top earners and would limit their deductions


1AnotherAverageCitizen(1183 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Its the 1,000s of millionaires that paid no taxes last year. They should pay their share. Not find a way to write everything off.

Suggest removal:

2cambridge(3979 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

dodge....Obama wants the top 3% to pay 4% more in income tax, close loop holes big business and the wealthy use to avoid paying taxes and stop giving tax credits to companies that pay no tax while making record profits.

Obama has lowered taxes on the bottom 97% and taxes in this country are at their lowest in 58 years. The wealthy and big business that avoid paying taxes and the morons that try and justify it is the reason we have a budget deficit in this country.

Suggest removal:

3cambridge(3979 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

dodge....Great reasoning. Lets eliminate taxes for the wealthy and big business altogether so then they will lower prices for the rest of us. Thanks for helping me see the light.

Suggest removal:

4walter_sobchak(2635 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Our two unnecessary wars should have been paid by the top wage earners by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire years ago. I'm not for increasing taxes on anyone, but it is common knowledge that the wealthy will always turn a profit off of war. However, the entire tax code needs to be addressed. Eliminate corporate loopholes and corporate welfare. Keep the mortgage and charity deductions but enact a small consumption tax of about 3% on everybody. That way the drug dealers and people making money under the table would also pay some taxes. But, to continue with these targeted tax cuts and special-interest handouts the way Obama wants to is more of the same garbage that won't work.

Suggest removal:

5cambridge(3979 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

GTX66....The bush tax cuts for the rich and his deregulation have been around for more than ten years. Tell me exactly which jobs those tax cuts and the deregulation created.

Suggest removal:

6cambridge(3979 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Just some facts on job creation. More private sector jobs have been created during the Obama administration than during the eight year bush administration.

Public sector jobs have been reduced during the Obama administration but increased during the bush administration.

More Jobs were created during the Clinton administration than the reagan and both bush administrations combined.

So tell me which party is better for the country when it comes to creating private sector jobs and which party is better at creating big government?



Suggest removal:

7DwightK(1531 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Dodge, what taxes has Obama raised since he's been in office? If I recall correctly, the Bush tax cuts were carrierd over and the stimulus cut SS payroll taxes.

I don't recall any increases.

Suggest removal:

8Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

With high fuel prices during his term it is only natural that Obama slams the suckers with more taxes . We had seen Bill Clinton tax unemployment benefits and social security so Obama has a paved road on which to travel . The productive wil be penalized with a vengence . . .. It's gonna be a long cold winter . . ..

Suggest removal:

9redvert(2231 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Dwight, tell me, if obowser had not signed the bill the Bush tax cuts would of ended. Like it or not, they are now the obowser tax cuts.

I love how cambridge claims that the reason we have a deficit is because "The wealthy and big business that avoid paying taxes and the morons that try and justify it is the reason we have a budget deficit in this country." And who are these people that "avoid paying taxes", employers for the most part.

The top 10% pay already pay ~70% of the taxes. Remember if you get back all that you pay in, you are not really a taxpayer.

I thought you had a budget deficit when you spent more money than you took in. So you spend the money regardless of whether or not you have it. That is the lib way isn't it? Nail the successful people!

I think cambridge is sniffing too much of something out there in "the land of the fruits and nuts"

Suggest removal:

10Tigerlily(509 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

It's "social sacrifice" when they want to balance the deficit on the backs of working people.

It's "class warfare" when they ask the wealthy to pay the same taxes on their investment-earned income as a laboring person pays on their paycheck.

Screw the rich. They've had it good in this country for long enough. Time for the "meek to inherit the earth," as the good Lord declares they will.

Suggest removal:

11Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

How dare those rich slobs retain enough money to buy new equipment to maintain productivity, pay their taxes and labor costs . Let's take all of their money and run them out of business .


Suggest removal:

12300(573 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Yes, Stan, and no rich man has ever built anything with his hands.

Not to mention, no rich man's ever given most people their job. The consumers who bought their product did.

Suggest removal:

13300(573 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

The reason why economies don't do well when the wealthiest aren't taxed appropriately is because the money circulation is slowed down. Only increased demand leads to higher employment, tax cuts at the top end do nothing to increase employment because those at the top end don't need to spend much of it.

Right now we're at a pretty pitiful wealth disparity in this country, and until we bring that under control the overall economy will stay where it is or possibly get worse. By taxing the top wealth we increase money circulation throughout the overall economy, and since consumption is like 70% of the economy, it's the best approach.

What I don't understand are those people making $10/hour (while their boss is raking in 200-300K/year) who support this idea that the wealthy already pay their fair share. It's either stupidity, or they truly feel that the working man really isn't worth much inherently and deserves exploitation.

Suggest removal:

14300(573 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

GTX66, you really think that reading the WSJ is indicative of economic understanding? That poor people are crack dealers?

My oh my, someone wasn't exposed to any proper education.

Suggest removal:

15lumper(300 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

you give money to poor people and are lax on immigration so those people will vote for you. now, somebody has to pay for it. and the working class has no power to prevent their earnings from being taken. the next step is taxing your ira/roth accounts because you have something other people don't.

Suggest removal:

16cambridge(3979 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Taxes in the United States are lower than they have been in more than 50 years.


More private sector jobs were created in the first eight months of 2010 than the entire eight years of the bush administration. Public sector jobs have been reduced during the Obama administration but increased dramatically during the bush administration.


More jobs were created during the Clinton administration than during the reagan and both bush administrations combined.


I'm against a welfare state also and that includes the teabagger/republican red states.

It's the red states with their hand out and the blue states doing the paying. Always has been and always will be.

Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47. Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12.

The citizens of California - hit harder by the recession than most - receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in. Massachusetts, 82 cents. Oregon, 98 cents.

In other words, blue states are subsidizing red states. The federal government is like a giant sump pump - pulling dollars out of liberal enclaves like California, New York, Massachusetts and Oregon and sending them to conservative places like Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska and the Old South.

About the only thing I agree with the teabagger/republicans on is let the states take care of themselves and keep my tax dollars in California rater than sending it to a bunch of inbred hillbillies.


25 of the top 100 CEO's earned more than their companies paid in income tax.

Many of the top 100 companies paid more to lobbyist than they paid in income tax.

Two-thirds of the 100 companies studied kept their taxes low by using offshore subsidiaries as tax havens such as Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg. There are trillions of dollars sheltered from taxes in those countries.


As always i have provided proof of everything i said in my posts and the teabagger/republicans have provided nothing to backup their BS.

Suggest removal:

17rocky14(818 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


It was not Bill Clinton who started taxing Unemployment and S.S.It was Ronnie Reagan.


The wealthy don't create jobs--consumers do.
By the way,what jobs? Don't see any.

Suggest removal:

18DOLE2(595 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

I am now convinced that any moron (including me) can be President and coast for 4 years! Think about it.......

Suggest removal:

19rocky14(818 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


The only degree you hold is in Basket Weaving.
The wealthy DON'T create jobs.
The consumer does!

Suggest removal:

20Klink(36 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Stan, Obama reduced the unemployment taxable amount that Reagan started. If you read the tax laws, Obama exempted the first $2,400 from taxable income starting with the 2009 year.

Suggest removal:

21candystriper(575 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

if the government can pay your neighbors rent and utilities now why not increase taxes and bail out her bar tab as well...


Suggest removal:

22Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Just a one shot deal for 2009 . . .. We are now in prosperity . . .. The rich are taxed to the hilt !

Klink :

"Stan, Obama reduced the unemployment taxable amount that Reagan started. If you read the tax laws, Obama exempted the first $2,400 from taxable income starting with the 2009 year."


2010 Income Taxes on Unemployment & IRS Form 1099-G
For the 2010 tax year, no unemployment benefits are exempt from federal income taxes unless Congress passes more legislation to this effect.

Suggest removal:

23Klink(36 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Stan, it got you to read the law. Maybe next time you will read it first before spreading misinformation that Clinton started the taxes. Next, what administrations had the largest increases in the gasoline taxes? Hint – look to Reagan and Bush.

Suggest removal:

24redvert(2231 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Great job cambridge, I know you had spent a lot of time putting your selective presentation together and were just chomping at the bit for a opportunity to unleash it.

Boy, those bad red states, taking all that money from those blue states. I got a feeling that California's problems run a little deeper, like all the undocumented democrats you are thrilled to support.

As for your comment on the inbred hillbillies, at least you do not have to worry about that kinda stuff in the San Francisco area now do you???

Suggest removal:

25Rockabilly(93 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

It seems that Cambridge made some excellent points and did back them up. Your response on the other hand said nothing.

Suggest removal:

26Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth
A favorite liberal argument is to attribute the economy’s strong performance during the 1990s to President Clinton’s economic policies, chief among which was a huge tax increase. Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of being capped to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3-cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.[1]

The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit strong economic growth during the 1990s, but rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time.

As for the overall economic recovery—that started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991.

In addition to coming into office in the midst of an economic expansion, Clinton also benefited from a very unusual confluence of events that created a remarkably favorable environment for rapid economic growth:

The end of the Cold War brought a sigh of relief to the world and a powerful dose of growth-enhancing certainty to the global economy.
The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping below $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel, versus $100 per barrel today.[2]

Suggest removal:

27andersonathan(683 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Shows what the meaning of a Harvard Law Degree is worth. [Nothing]

Vote YES on SB5

Suggest removal:

28AnotherAverageCitizen(1183 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

1,500 millionaires not paying taxes in the US.


Suggest removal:

29db(280 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

47% of America pays none and the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes; but we need to squeeze them more?? Obama is a socialist (they now like to be called progressive); is a plant from Bill Ayers & George Soros to destroy America, and uses class warfare as one of their weapons. Taxes? too many loopholes, too high for top wage earners, too low for the bottom.

Suggest removal:

30Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

The productive supply the tax revenue and the non productive are the liberal voting base . This says it all .

Suggest removal:

31andersonathan(683 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


it is simple

Or keep looking at Europe and say why can't we be like them

Suggest removal:

32300(573 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

GTX66, congratulations on your degrees, but a background in accounting doesn't mean that you understand economics in the least. And yes, telling people to read the WSJ is like these 60 year old tea party people just discovering who Ayn Rand is and what the Constitution says; it just means that you're late to the game and look foolish to those who actually work in the field.

As a bean counter, you should know that a corporation is not the same thing as a wealthy individual making a living off of interest paid on his intergenerational wealth. Corporations organize themselves as a means by which to supply consumers in most cases, without consumers or potential consumers there is no expansion regardless of tax cuts or hikes.

The major underlying problem with our system is that it rewards short-term gains, and has too few mechanisms for addressing long-term problems. Greed within corporate America is what is destroying our economy, the consolidation of wealth means that there is relatively less circulation, which will always lead to less relative consumption. While we should have had higher savings rates at the micro level, our economy is still based on consumption and needs that spending to be to be healthy. When a small group of business leaders take the approach of maximizing their wealth in the short-term, and at the expense of the middle and lower classes purchasing power in the long-term, the economic system will sputter. People like Warren Buffet understand this, people like the Koch brothers don't (or more likely, do understand the model yet despise average people to such an extent that they don't care). In other words, squeezing the middle and lower classes will in the end hurt everyone involved just like a nightclub that will shortchange a musical act for a short-term gain (rather than supporting the musical act and building a long-term relationship that is mutually beneficial).

So, yes, I do make fun of you for using the WSJ as evidence of your economic understanding. It might impress people who don't work in finance, but to most people who do, it's just the daily record of rumors and innuendo.

Suggest removal:

33howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Here is my two cents. I propose a flat 9% income tax on all income over $20,000 per individual and a flat 9% tax on all profit over $1,000,000 for all corporations. This in combination with the elimination of all deductions, tax credits, and tax rebates for individuals and corporations will basically eliminate the need for the IRS saving billions of dollars annually.

Suggest removal:

34candystriper(575 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

The Democrats have controlled Congress 69 years out of 79. Today's problems are from yesterday's solutions.

Suggest removal:

35DwightK(1531 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

No one answered my question from yesterday. What taxes has Obama raised since taking office? GTX tried but all he mentioned were tax breaks that were taken away and I don't recall that happening.

So, Stan, Dodge and anyone else who is claiming Obama raised taxes, I'm asking...when did this happen? And what taxes are you talking about?

Suggest removal:

36redvert(2231 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Rockabilly, sorry for not replying to your comment sooner. I don't always look back at previous day's posts but I did for some reason today.

Now as far as cambridge's well formatted post which I am sure he spent some time putting together, and I would guess has used on other forums or will in the future.

Now, the secret is the "data set"! let me explain, cambridge listed a number of different states Blue versus red but for some reason failed to list the top dog, New Mexico along with Virginia, Hawaii (which has made the biggest jump in recent years, wonder why) or West Virginia who the late Sen. Byrd (D) took real good care of and also Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont etc. If you are going to list states that receive more than they pay in, list all of them. Now did I possibly misname a state here, possibly but I think you get the idea.

So, when you cherry pick your data it causes you to lose credibility.

Nuff said.

ps: You obviously replied without doing any research, that is not good!

Suggest removal:

37joseph(58 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

I don't know who's worse when it comes to managing other people's money.....Obama or Jeff Cook.

Suggest removal:

38Klink(36 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Candystripe - You should do a little research on control of Congress. The Democrats controlled the 110th Congress, The Republicans controlled the 104th, 105th, 106th then there was split control for the 107th. Repulicans again controlled the 108th and 109th Congress. The Democrats controlled the 103rd. We have been living in a Replican controlled country lately.

Suggest removal:

39atownreader(34 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Well all those jobs that republicans think will not be created due to taxes on the rich....are you kidding? It's the rich corporations that sent all decent manufacturing jobs oversees to turn a heftier profit for them selves..Those are the job killers. Time to give back ,people. I am so sick of this hatred for Obama. Greed had ruined our economy...and politicians supported by it.

Suggest removal:

40DwightK(1531 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

If Obama is a classic tax and spend liberal, someone should be able to explain what taxes have been raised. I've been asking what taxes he raised for two days.

Could it be that this president hasn't raised taxes at all?

Suggest removal:

41peacelover(834 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

BINGO! DwightK.

Suggest removal:

42DwightK(1531 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

I do remember that. I still have my guns.

Suggest removal:

43walter_sobchak(2635 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


On April 1, 2009 the FEDERAL TAX on cigarettes went from .39 per pack to $1.01 per pack to pay for the S-CHIP program. In addition, the "Making Work Pay" tax credit was permitted to expire on Dec. 31, 2010. If the question is "did marginal tax rates increase under Obama?", the answer is no. If the question is "Have my total federal tax payments, as a percentage of my total income, increased under Obama?", then the answer could be a yes. I don't smoke but my taxes have increased slightly.

Suggest removal:

44DwightK(1531 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago


Thank you for that answer. I didn't know about the expiration of the Making Work Pay credit. Was that offset by the 2% drop in SS contribution?

Suggest removal:

45walter_sobchak(2635 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

That would depend on how much you made as the credit was a fixed sum but the 2% is on income up to somewhere around $125,000 or so.

Suggest removal:

46snydro0108(61 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Look, this is really simple. Obama sucks and the Mahoning Valley keeps voting for the Dems. They always have and always will. What has ANY President done for the Mahoning Valley that he said? Nothing. They come to Lordstown, make a bunch of promises to get the votes, but why even come here? Satan could run and this area would vote for him. If the candidate has a D next to their name, they are guaranteed at least 70% of the vote. Last time I checked, this area has gone down hill CONSIDERABLY year after year after year. It doesn't matter who the President is, actually. Ohio's tax rate is entirely too high and when this area is born and raised middle class, as I was, it's time to open up your eyes and get someone in office that matters. What has your boy, Timmy Ryan done for this area? NADA. But he has a D next to his name so being a Democrat GUARANTEES his re-election. Check him out on the weekends at McMennamies in Niles. That is YOUR representative at his finest!! Quit whining and crying and vote for CHANGE. Not the CHANGE that Obama promised (ZERO JOBS last month), the stock market is in the tank, the 401ks are MEANINGLESS, and people KEEP voting for these DEMS!! WAKE UP!!!

Suggest removal:

47thinkthentalk(310 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

duh snydro. where were you at in 2008? mmm, the R's cut taxes for the rich equal to todays deficit, "to create jobs". that didnt work, duh. GM and chrysler were going bankrupt, meaning, and let me keep this simple for your simple mind, NO MORE LORDSTOWN AND NO MORE GM JOBS. Get on your knees and thank Mr Obama, loser. if GM would have closed, you would have to abandon, not sell your house and move away. Go to Texas and get in line to compete with the illegal mexicans for a minimum wage job. That R governor is crowing about leading the nation in creating jobs. duh, how much stimulus $$$ did he accept to pay for those jobs. Duh. Have you driven past V&M steel? Would you tea potty idiots rather the govt not help them out with stimulus money to build that mill, and turn away those jobs? Then you would cry that the D's did nothing. You want it both ways. You cry either way regardless of the facts. You are the crybaby snyd. Thank God 70% of this valley has more brains than you. Address your crying to Boehner and McConnell, your fellow idiots that dont want anybody to have a job.

Suggest removal:

48snydro0108(61 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

ThinkThenTalk....Obviously you dont think before talking. Lordstown....did I say ANYTHING about Lordstown closing??? No, I said he went to Lordstown to use that as a platform for his Puppet Show. There is nothing in my post about LORDSTOWN CLOSING. DUH! Oh and for the record, in my post, you should READ before you talk too. I also said "It doesn't matter who the President is, actually". I am neither Republican, Democrat, or what you call TEA Party. I am an American. I have seen Youngstown, Ohio go from Cream of the Crop to one of the worst areas in the COUNTRY to live. Yes, its INEXPENSIVE to live here, per the news, but the cost of living HAS to be low here. Thank God that 70% of this valley has more brains than me? How did V&M get the money for that? Stimulus? No. Mayor Williams. Maybe. OVERSEAS OWNERSHIP wanting to come to an area where its workers can work for beans and peanuts? YES!!! So please don't call me a Republican, Democrat, or Tea Party backer. I am simply an American. Oh, and I bet you work at GM, don't you?

Suggest removal:

49snydro0108(61 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

And in 2008, did you make more or less money? Did you vote YES on the upcoming levies that EVERYONE wanted on the ballot. Property taxes go up, property values go down, 401k's go down, and health insurance goes up. I understand that you are like the rest of the liberals in this area....you don't want to actually admit that your life has taken a turn for the worse, but you and I could be neighbors and have two TOTALLY different views. All I know is I made more in 2008 than I did last year and in 2010. My taxes increased, my healthcare costs went up, and the CostOfLiving has increased dramatically. What has Good Ole' Tim Ryan done for this area? Honestly. You could completely destroy me on that one, if you wanted, but what has he done??? And you are 100% correct, if Lordstown closed, then this area would die. I agree with you. But that can't happen because this is a Battle Ground state EVERY election and from Columbus WEST and SOUTH, they are really RED when it comes to voting. The NorthEastern portion of the state is really BLUE. Just admit....Obama and the Dems have done nothing for us and NEITHER DID GW Bush. We need MORE candidates to vote for and we need MORE candidates that understand where YOU AND I are coming from!

Suggest removal:

50southsidedave(5185 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

This is a spirited discussion group!

Suggest removal:

51thinkthentalk(310 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Mr Obama cant fix overnight what it took Bush/Cheney(R) 10 years to screw up. Especially when the (R)s block every effort he makes. BLAME THEM for your sorry state. Tax cuts for the rich resulted in deficits. What level in math did you make it too in grade school? Tax cut=less revenue=deficit. Obama did nothing? Again, Stimulus dollars paid for the earthwork and moving the railroad for V&M Star steel mill. NO STIMULUS $$$, NO MILL. No loan to GM, NO LORDSTOWN. Dont you dare say Obama and the Dems did nothing. Did Bill Johnson (R) or LaTourette(R) lift a finger? Why dont you call them out?
Are we better off today, making more money today? 1. Ask any teacher,safety forces, public employee. Kasich(R) wants your support to pay them less. Again, Sny, do you think they are better off? Will you be better off if they take a pay cut? Is that what you want? 2. If Paul Ryan,Boehner, and McConnell take away YOUR future SS and Medicare, will you be better off?
GTX, you have 0/2 brain.

Suggest removal:

52Politico(28 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

The ignorance of many people regarding their knowledge of the tax system and who actually pays is breathtaking. Ever meet a poor person who created a job? Is it "fair" that almost 50% of the people don't pay ANY income taxes, while the top 10% are paying 60% of all income taxes. If you live here, you should pay income taxes, even if it's just a little bit since you are reaping the benefits like everyone else.

Suggest removal:

53snydro0108(61 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Bill Johnson and LaTourette....Are they on your ballot? They arent on mine. I know you are a die-hard, lifelong Dem, Think, but thats ok. And read the bill, the ENTIRE bill about teachers, police officers, etc getting paid LESS. Read the last 15 pages and get back to me! SB 5 doesnt want to pay teachers less. It wants to pay teachers BASED ON PERFORMANCE, tenure, student performance, etc. Then get into the last 15 pages of the 300 page proposal and get back to me! Like I said, I am neither Dem, Rep, or Tea Party. I'm an American and this President is un-American in more ways than I care to count. Yes, tax cuts=less revenue, but are tax INCREASES good right NOW? Right around the time of a potential Double Dip Recession? Yeah, that's pretty smart.

Suggest removal:

54slappysmith(55 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

has stan ever been right? his fox news and rush limbaugh based facts are comical at best

Suggest removal:

55slappysmith(55 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

gtx? what in gods name are you babbling about? gw bush was the worst president in history. his administration is directly responsible for the economy you cant deny facts. you and stan are two of the best reasons to vote democrat i can think of. two cavemen with distorted facts that do not even know that the majority of democrats are not liberal

Suggest removal:

56thinkthentalk(310 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

Two corrections slappy. 1. fox "news"? Its fox (R)entertainment. there is nothing newsworthy about it. 2.cheney was the worst president in history.

Suggest removal:

57MARGEOMATIC(128 comments)posted 4 years, 8 months ago

why not tax the bernie madoff solar panel programs- green energy cons thatFaux-bama and co passed out billions to? hmmm yea ok ...

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes