'Fewer and Fewer' People Doing Well Under Obama Economy

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Road-We-Are-On

Transcript: “The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle-class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Axe...4/15/id/435892

Democratic campaign strategist David Axelrod gave Republican Mitt Romney's campaign a boost Sunday when he said that the choice in the general election was between a dynamic growth economy or the current job-killing economy — the one overseen by his boss President Barack Obama over the last three years.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Axelrod told host Chris Wallace that “the choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on, where a fewer and fewer number of people do very well, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace.”

Republicans wasted no time in putting the clip on YouTube, titling the video “Obama adviser David Axelrod makes the case for Mitt Romney for President.”

Story continues below.



Read more on Newsmax.com: Axelrod Flub: 'Fewer and Fewer' People Doing Well Under Obama
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
A chastened Axelrod later elaborated on his statement, saying that the road he was talking about represented “the same failed policies that were so disastrous in the last decade” instead of those of the Obama administration.

In the same interview, Axelrod also conceded that Obama remains vulnerable to defeat by presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in November. He also faced a challenge from Wallace dealing with Obama's tax returns. Axelrod said the president was not going to donate the rest of his "fair share" of taxes to help pay down the deficit.

“Of course it’s [the election] going to be close, but at the end of the day, I think the American people want to choose a vision that holds out the greatest possible opportunity for them and for the middle class … that will give them their best chance,” Axelrod told Wallace.

Obama and wife Michelle paid a rate of 20.5 percent on their gross income of $789,674. This rate falls between the 30 percent that the “Buffett rule” proposes that those in similar economic situations pay, and the approximate 14 percent Romney paid last year.

Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker, was confirmed by the White House to have paid a rate slightly higher than that of the president, based on her $95,000 salary, the Chicago Tribune pointed out.

“I take it that he’s not going to contribute money to the Treasury to help with the deficit,” Wallace pointed out to Axelrod, referencing the gap between Obama’s proposals and the amount of taxes he paid.

“That’s not the way we operate our tax system, OK? We don’t run bake sales. It’s not about volunteerism. We all kick in according to the system,” Axelrod said. “. . . the issue is that the system permits it and he [Romney] would perpetuate that and he would enhance it.”

"The fact that Mitt Romney pays 14 percent on a $20 million income is not the issue. The issue is that the system permits it, and he [Romney] would perpetuate that, and he would enhance it," Axelrod said.

"Nobody can argue that it makes sense for people who are making $1 million a year or more to pay less than the average, middle-class worker in this country.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Axelrod Flub: 'Fewer and Fewer' People Doing Well Under Obama
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

[lonestar]

that deserve ONE MORE TIME..

[Smiling Assassin27]

as Jay Leno said, 'Even Obama's doing worse under Obama!'

[Rohirrim]

And unless the Right allows us change many things, including the tax code they've been tilting toward the rich for thirty years or the regulations on bankers and Wall Street they've been erasing for thirty years, nothing is going to change. In fact, it's going to get worse. What can Obama do to change it? Change the tax code? Change trade policies? Change the laws which reward companies for taking jobs offshore? Name one single law he could get through this Senate? Hell, they quashed the Buffett Rule before it even came up for discussion. Just remember this next time you go to the polls, little rightards:

Over the last year, 93% of the profit generated in America has gone to 7% of the population. You want more of the same?

Keep voting for McConnell, and Cantor, and Ryan, and Romney, etc. etc. etc.

Keep voting your "values."

This is what it looked like since Reagan:



http://acivilamericandebate.wordpres...me-inequality/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

The game is rigged, and the suckers keep voting for the riggers.

On the Left, we just sit around waiting for the suckers to wake up.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

You know how much revenue the "Buffett tax" would generate?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun

You know how much revenue the "Buffett tax" would generate?

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/legal...-buffett-rule/

Legalizing Pot Would Raise More Revenue Than Buffett Rule

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by alkemical

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/legal...-buffett-rule/

Legalizing Pot Would Raise More Revenue Than Buffett Rule

MIght even cut down illegal immigration some..

But then we would have to legalize Heroin and cocaine to stop that so maybe not..

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by lonestar

MIght even cut down illegal immigration some..

But then we would have to legalize Heroin and cocaine to stop that so maybe not..

Well, maybe not just even immigration. Could you imagine the cost savings for border issues, south american military expenditures, paying off dictators, pulling the $ right out from the cartels. etc. Why do benefits out weigh the cost?

Another question is: how much money does the war on drugs make compared to legalization? is it making more? I wonder what the projections would be.

When you look at what's going on in Spain, over the last ten years - they've noted successes.

Maybe the big issue is, why does the US gov't have a vested interest in making the drug market as dangerous as possible?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun

You know how much revenue the "Buffett tax" would generate?

Enough to give every school in America extra math, science, phys ed, and music programs with enough left over to improve schools structures as well. Enough for about 20 million scholarships to college per year and plenty left over for books. Enough to provide health insurance to about 30 million uninsured Americans (and the leftovers could be invested in stem cell research). Enough to start replacing a whole bunch of bridges so they don't collapse and kill people. Enough to give every hard pressed family in America a nice, big tax cut which they would reinvest in America, rather than, say, hide it in some Swiss bank account.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Enough to give every school in America extra math, science, phys ed, and music programs with enough left over to improve schools structures as well. Enough for about 20 million scholarships to college per year and plenty left over for books. Enough to provide health insurance to about 30 million uninsured Americans (and the leftovers could be invested in stem cell research). Enough to start replacing a whole bunch of bridges so they don't collapse and kill people. Enough to give every hard pressed family in America a nice, big tax cut which they would reinvest in America, rather than, say, hide it in some Swiss bank account.

You wish!

If you wanted to do that you could just cut 1% from the budget from everyother agency in the fedreal government. Since you're to lazy to find out.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ett-rule-.html

WSJ: Buffett Rule Would Reduce Federal Tax Revenues by $800 Billion
Wall Street Journal, The Buffett Tax Loss: It Turns Out This Obama Proposal Will Cost Federal Revenue:

The case for the Buffett tax keeps eroding. When President Obama announced the idea, he said it would help "stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade." Then came the inconvenient revelation that the new 30% millionaire's tax would raise only $46.7 billion over 10 years. ...

Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That's because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new "fairness" tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax. That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT....

The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, "This isn't politics, this is math."

The Buffett tax is losing any serious rationale by the day. Mr. Obama's position now is that we need a new fairness tax, because the old AMT fairness tax that was targeted at millionaires and billionaires isn't raising much money from the Warren Buffetts of the world. Instead it's siphoning income out of more and more nonmillionaires. So they argue it's time for a new Buffett rule, that is almost identical to the old Buffett rule, and no doubt in time will have the same unintended consequences.

The Buffett rule itself may die, but the name will live on as a metaphor for pointless public policy.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...nue/?mobile=nc

Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and claimed it showed that Whitehouse’s bill, S. 2059, would generate a “meager” $47 billion in revenue over ten years.

Keep trying.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Enough to give every school in America extra math, science, phys ed, and music programs with enough left over to improve schools structures as well. Enough for about 20 million scholarships to college per year and plenty left over for books. Enough to provide health insurance to about 30 million uninsured Americans (and the leftovers could be invested in stem cell research). Enough to start replacing a whole bunch of bridges so they don't collapse and kill people. Enough to give every hard pressed family in America a nice, big tax cut which they would reinvest in America, rather than, say, hide it in some Swiss bank account.

Have you ever thought that local schools are not something the federal government should be paying for?

Local schools should be paid for at best local taxpayers and at worst with some state funds.

Why have a board of education if they are not making decisions for their students?

Sorry but I want the feds out of our local schools..

If they want to help pay for some Military kids going to public schools more power to them, or if they feel the need to help with hunger programs fine. beyond that stay out of my schools..