Archive for Monday, September 19, 2011

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

September 19, 2011

Advertisement

— Drawing a bright line with congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama is proposing $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue as part of his long-term deficit reduction plan, according to senior administration officials.

The president today will announce a proposal that includes the new taxes, nearly $250 billion in reductions in Medicare spending, $330 billion in cuts in other mandatory benefit programs, and savings of $1 trillion from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan includes no changes in Social Security and does not include an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had considered this summer.

All in all, the president’s plan is as much an opening bid as it is a political statement designed to draw contrasts with Republicans, who control the House of Representatives.

The new taxes in particular have little or no chance of passing Congress as proposed. Republicans were already lining up against the president’s tax proposal before they even knew the magnitude of what he intended to recommend.

The $1.5 trillion in tax revenue would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.

By adding the tax revenue, about $580 billion in proposed mandatory spending cuts, the savings from troop withdrawals and $1 trillion in spending cuts already in place, the combined deficit reduction would total about $4 trillion over 10 years.

Comments

itwasthedukes 3 years, 11 months ago

Absolutely no specifics but it sounds good? Everyone is going to feel tax increases, but keep believing they are hurting the "wealthy" what ever that means exactly. We aren't even talking about wealth taxes we are taking income taxes.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

Give generously, citizens. There are many more Solyndra-like companies out there that want your tax dollars.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

That's another thing you are wrong about.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

You're reading waaaay too much into a single pronoun, skippy. I work, I pay taxes. Uncle Sugar gets a cut from what I make. Do you have the integrity to own up to having made up crap about me to fit your own narrative?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

Many more Iraq Wars to be lied into folks. Pay up! Disappearing act: Pentagon loses $8.7 billion of Iraq development money. http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/disappearing-act-pentagon-loses-8-7-billion-of-iraq-development-money

Military waste under fire / $1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting. http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-18/news/17491492_1_pentagon-gao-financial-accounting

9/10/2001: Rumsfeld Announces $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdH...

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

The tax increase is going to the top earners, the majority of which can hardly be classified as working Americans. Capital gains is not working.

heygary 3 years, 11 months ago

Chicago Tribune Editorial Writer Suggests Obama Step Down After First Term

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/chicago-editorial-writer-suggests-obama-step-down-after-first-term/

Like rats abandoning a sinking ship ...

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

Bar Stool Economics Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

This is a very good story, one that illustrates the economic reality of having a global marketplace. There is a big difference between what we might want to do and what we really can do. There might be a big difference between what we should do and what we really can do. All in all, a very good story. Thanks for sharing it.

voevoda 3 years, 11 months ago

The story would be more instructive about the issues of taxes if it recognized that all the men were paying towards the beer. Everyone who pays payroll taxes and sales taxes is paying taxes. Everyone who has a residence is paying property taxes, directly or indirectly (through their rent). But this would alter the plot of the story so it doesn't justify letting rich people keep all their money.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Of course, the wealthy also pay payroll taxes, and probably more than the poor. They also probably pay higher property taxes, assuming they live in houses with higher valuations. And since they are wealthy, they are probably buying stuff, more expensive stuff than the poor, so again, they are paying more in sales taxes than the poor.
I recall many years ago, England experimented with raising the taxes on the extremely wealthy. One of them, George Harrison of the Beatles wrote a song about it, "Taxman". The point is that in response to those large tax increases, John moved to New York, Paul to Canada, George to L.A. and Ringo to Arizona. The Rolling Stones moved to Monaco and into the Caribbean. Now I'm sure many others moved and I'm sure that many moved just for tax purposes. But the point is that England's top rate of 95% of zero equals zero. Had they moderated that top rate, maybe the lads would have stayed put. And England would have collected significant tax revenues. One can only imagine that in today's global marketplace, where money can be transferred to friendlier countries with a simple keystroke, that raising taxes on the wealthy might just decrease revenue coming into the treasury. It already happens with our high corporate tax rates where large American corporations have billions in holdings in some foreign post office box. But hey, we can all have an attitude like Crazy_Larry, good riddance. Then we can be like Cuba, where everyone is equal. Equally poor.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Maybe the 95% tax rate was excessive. But funny how those who like to complain about such things never seem to be bothered by the fact that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the poorest 150 million. They're only bothered that those 150 million don't pay income taxes, even though requiring them to do so wouldn't decrease the deficit appreciably, but would almost certainly increase the ranks of the homeless by a rather sizable amount.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Suppose we took every penny from those 400 people. What would that do? Reduce the deficit for this year by a trillion and a quarter. And eliminate the incentive we all have for working, the right to earn money and reap the benefits of our labor. A devils bargain if I've ever seen one.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I'm assuming people would not work if they were not allowed to keep their wealth. Take a fair amount, to service the society in which they live, and they will continue to behave in the same manner. However, when the amount of money taken becomes too large, or unfair, then people will begin to behave differently. Perhaps they will work less or perhaps they will seek to earn their money in a place that does not take an exorbitant amount of money. The whole question then is what is fair. People will disagree. People will always disagree. Finding that delicate balance is the goal, or should be. Too often, when reading these posts, a balance is not what is sought, but a pound of flesh. Sometimes from the poor, sometimes from the wealthy. A zero sum game with no winners and only losers.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Funny thing is, when it comes to rich people, deny them their wealth, and they refuse to work because it's just human nature. Deny poor people a decent wage, and they're just lazy slackers.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

It is amazing, the beer story tells it all, and many in here still keep the blinders on. I wonder if it is because all they, or someone that is close to them knows is sucking on the government teat.

It is to bad that many complain about farmers when their bellies and mouth are full of the very product they produce.

There is nothing wrong with acquiring wealth, unless you are not the one doing it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

"It is amazing, the beer story tells it all,"

Yea, like hanging out at the local bar is all there is to life.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

Yea, but when I get home, my moms home has a window in the basement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Now that is much closer to telling it all (in a very narrow sense, of course.)

independent_rebel 3 years, 11 months ago

Outstanding. When is the left going to realize that we who are the producers didn't put our time and effort--and take on the risk--of starting a business, something that anyone can do, in order to make our money to live a lifestyle we've earned, only to see the left decide to steal our money and give it to moochers who do nothing, absloutely nothing, to deserve it. There are millions of people in this country, legal and illegal, who live off the taxpayers, risktakers, and job producers. I'm talking millions who, from the time they are born to the day they die, don't do anything but hold their hands out and demand the rest of us pay for their medical expenses, their school fees, their transportation, their food, their drugs, their rent, their clothes, their electronic gadgets, their everything. They do nothing, they don't even try. Why? No, not just because they are poor. Most don't try because they get more for not trying. It's a fact. Hell, I have friends who don't even try to work full time because they get more government benfits by working part-time. That is not the way it should be. Want to see just how bad the entitlement mentality has become? Watch a crappy show called "Hardcore Pawn" and watch how demanding the "customers" are. They act like they own the business.

Okay, I've bashed the left. Now, time to bash the right. If you have extra money, put it to good use. Help out a friend, a neighbor, put some money back into the community (hear that Compton?). If the taxbreaks go the way you hope they will go, invest in a new employee, or help out those you already employ on the low end of the scale.

I will never give a penny to the communtiy shelter because they enable those who don't even try, but I have given a lot of the years directly to people I know who are in dire need, including homeless families who are making an effort to get back on their feet.

Great article, even though the left won't understand it. Keep attacking those with the means, and you'll find that they have the means to cut you off completely.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

Time to correct the unbalance of our financial ship, which has almost been capsized by the cuts in taxes that favor the rich. Almost unforgivable is the fact that they were put in place during a time of war! Yes, we need to tax the rich -- and everyone else as far as I'm concerned -- in order to pay down the debt and pay for the wars we are still fighting.

Wars aren't cheap, in loss of lives and in finances. Some Americans have paid with their lives. Time the rest of us pay with our pocket books.

The change in the tax code Obama is putting forward still has the highest rate set far, far below what it was under Reagan. If Obama is a socialist, then what does that make Reagan?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

The greatest president! LOL! Thanks for the chuckle, bub.

Iran-Contra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

Deregulation of Savings and Loan which later caused an 90-billion dollar crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

Reagan declared more militant policies in the War on Drugs (such a great success).

Reagan granted amnesty to 3-million illegal aliens! The greatest President...not so much, really.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

It would be one thing if cuts in taxes were matched with cuts in spending. That isn't what happened. Instead, we went into debt. In other words, the government under the previous administration and continuing under the current one decided to not only spend the people's money, but also additional money in the form of interest. (Is this really what you support?) We were then and are now fighting wars (you can decide for yourself which are legal and which are "illegal") but it doesn't change the fact that we are in wars and we are spending tax payers money and mortgaging our future to do so.

Calling Obama a socialist is just silly. Also, the tax rates were much higher on top earners under Reagan. Not sure why that fact upsets you, even if you think he was the greatest President (who happened to also triple the deficit) in your lifetime. I'm not making a judgment on whether or not he was the greatest in our lifetime -- he might have been -- I'm just pointing out the facts. Deal with it.

George Lippencott 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes, everybody should pay some including the 60 to 80 million person households who now pay none! Payroll tax is not really a tax. It is a layaway for future goodies.

How about a uniformly progressive tax system that starts at the poverty line. (and includes all income including government largess.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Jeez, George, the economic system is unfair by design, but you have to be a stickler about tax "fairness." That's a very peculiar version of Schadenfreude, if you ask me.

conservative 3 years, 11 months ago

All in all a horrible proposal from the preisident that only the truly uninformed or gullible will think actually helps the country. First off of the 1.5 trillionin extra taxes he is suggesting 500 billion are the same ones he plans to use to pay for his new stimulus program, so really only 1 trillion in new taxes. Second his cuts don't affect the truly unsustainable programs, nice that he's willing to give up 500 billion in spending but he doesn't even make a pass at reforming the programs that can't be sustained (yes i'm talking SS and medicare). The rest of his "cuts" come from withdrawl of troops that are already planned and therefore the money wasn't going to be spent anyway and is already out of the future budgets. for his next budget saving parlor trick he is going to call off the imaginary invasion of Canada and claim another 10 trillion in savings over the next 10 years..

ljwhirled 3 years, 11 months ago

I think we have seen this before.

First he says, here is a balanced plan. I am not going to go forward without repealing the Bush Tax cuts (implemented during a time of surplus).

Then he says, I am willing to compromise.

Next he compromises without any concessions from the opposition.

Finally he caves in to the opposition, abandons his stance on the Bush tax cuts and sticks it to the middle class.

I'd support him if he stood up for us, but this man is unwilling to draw a line in the sand. Where is Theodore Rex when you need him?

Mike Ford 3 years, 11 months ago

NICE TO SEE THE DIMWITS PILE ON SO THAT THEY CAN BE A BUNCH OF Michael Milkens or Neal Bushes. I got mine and I'm not sharing so screw all of you...you've said that right?

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

Is this like getting a check from the BIA every December? You get yours and screw those who paid for it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Well, the Indians who gave up a continent for a few paltry government benefits are definitely the ones who got screwed. (not that they were really given much choice in the matter.)

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Is there a statute of limitations on this. Since all this happened before my grandfather's grandfather was born and long, long before any member of my family stepped foot on this continent, how guilty about this should I feel. A terrible event, to be sure, one of many terrible events in the course of human history. Certainly we should remember, hopefully learn, but are reparations forever?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Unless you're a zionist-- then returning 2000 years after a territory was abandoned and kicking the current residents out is just the will of God.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Does Germany pay reparations forever and to all descendants who suffered loss? Does Egypt pay for the time the Israelites were held captive? As I said, we can remember, hopefully we can learn, but payments forever don't seem to be something that's an obligation. And maybe fair compensation has not yet been made. But an end, a statute of limitations does seem to be something that should be an end goal.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

"Does Egypt pay for the time the Israelites were held captive?"

No, they gave that obligation to the Palestinians.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Then blame them. Just as the West Bank was seized from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt, somehow a country clearly defending itself from forces determined to eliminate it is blamed. Blame Egypt for selling the Palestinians out. Blame Jordan. Blame those counties for keeping refugee camps for generation after generation. Place blame where it is deserved. And accept responsibility for those things we have all done wrong. No one people and no one country is without blame. But misplacing blame just adds to the list of misdeeds.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Well, we certainly couldn't blame Israel for killing all those thousands of women and children, or driving them out of their villages and off their farms. After all, it was God's will.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Blame Israel for what it's guilty of. Blame Egypt and Jordan for their roles. And blame the Palestinians for their role. But put things in proper perspective. That is what you've failed to do, over and over again. You've mentioned the 700,00 displaced Palestinians but failed to mention the 750,000 displaced Jews. You claim Israel fired the first shot in 1967, but failed to mention the expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers by Egypt while they amassed thousands of troops while they stated they would attack while they closed international waterways (an act of war). It's intellectual dishonesty. Another word for intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty. And when you are faced with a difficult question, you choose to avoid it, often by changing the subject.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

" It's intellectual dishonesty."

Something an unquestioning, uncritical supporter of Israel should know a lot about-- if it weren't for your home on the river of denial.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I gave specific examples of the intellectual dishonesty of which I spoke. Can you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

No, you gave me examples of your very selective memory.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I could go on and on and on and on. Get back to me when you find an example of my dishonesty. But for now, it's getting late. I'll check back tomorrow, giving you ample time.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

What's to discuss? You believe Arabs/Muslims are evil vermin deserving of extermination, and Israelis are the perfect and inerrant children of God. I get it, already.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I never said anything like that and for you to even suggest such a thing is wrong. What you wrote is terrible. I will no longer engage you in any discussions until you apologize. And until you do apologize, I'm asking you nicely to please not engage me in any conversation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

I merely paraphrased your position in unambiguous and honest language.

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I asked you nicely not to engage me in conversation until you apologize. You've declined that request, even though it was made in the nicest way possible.
You certainly did not paraphrase my position. You keep telling me what I believe. Only I know what I believe and I'm telling you you're wrong. For you to suggest anything other that that is a flat out lie. You keep trying to twist my opinion into what you think it might be. Only I know what my opinions are and have told you repeatedly that what you say is dead wrong. Yet you continue along that path. You are lying. You are engaging in downright fraud. Very little of how you interpret my posts is true. You are either a mental midget or a lier. Take your pick. But in either case, I've asked you not to engage me in conversation at least until such a time as you can read and correctly respond to my posts. Hiding behind anonymous posts does not give you the right to distort mine.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

"You are either a mental midget or a lier (sic.)"

Now there's a real plea for "conversation." (sarcasm.)

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Again, your inability to read and comprehend shines through. there was no plea for conversation. It was the exact opposite.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh, I got the message alright (dontcha think that's why I labeled it "sarcasm?")

For someone who wants to pout and not talk, you're sure doing a lot of talking.

Jay Keffer 3 years, 11 months ago

"The A.P. reports that almost half of American households—forty-seven per cent of them—will not be liable for any federal income tax in 2009. The main reason: a series of tax cuts and tax credits for low and middle income groups, which both parties have introduced over the past few decades.

Citing an analysis by the Tax Reform Center, a non-partisan research group based in Washington, the A.P. reports that a family of four with two children under seventeen can now make as much as $50,000 a year before they incur any income-tax liabilities. In fact, many American households—up to forty per cent of the total—are entitled to a receive a check from the U.S. Treasury because their tax credits are larger than their tax liabilities.

Now, this doesn’t mean that such families escape taxation. They still have to pay the federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, as well as state and local taxes, including property taxes if they own property. They also pay excise taxes on things like gasoline and cigarettes, which often hit poor families disproportionately. Still, the Tax Reform Center’s figures show that the U.S. tax system has become much more progressive—at least as far as families who earn low or middle incomes are concerned.

The trend began way back in 1975, when the Ford Administration introduced the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which entitled low-paid workers to a rebate. Since then, Presidents from both parties have expanded the program, which is politically popular because it encourages people to work. The EITC now costs more than fifty billion dollars a year, making it by far the biggest welfare program. Under its terms, individual families with children can receive as much as $5,600 a year from the federal government. In recent years, Presidents Bush and Obama, as part of economic stimulus programs, have both introduced new tax rebates for low and middle income families. As a result of all these measures, more and more households have been removed from the income tax rolls.

If the poor and lower middle classes aren’t paying income tax, who is? Everybody else, of course, particularly the rich, who get a break on payroll taxes, which aren’t levied on incomes above $106,800. According to the A.P., in 2006 the richest ten per cent of households—those earning an average of $366,400—paid about three quarters of all the income taxes that the federal government collected."

The income tax is the largest source of revenue for the government. The imbalance in who pays that tax amounts to socialism, plain and simple. It is government-forced income redistribution, penalizing the rich for being, well, rich. Income tax should be paid by all income earners - not just the top 10 percent or so, or even the top 50%. The rich will always pay more. as they do today. Piling on is not the solution. And do some serious spending cuts at the same time. That's the way out.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

If it hadn't been for the rather dramatic cuts in income and capital gains taxes for the wealthy over the last 30 years, you might have a point. But you didn't, so you don't.

BTW, the percentage of income taxes paid in relation to GDP is at its lowest level in the last 75 years or so.

CountyResident 3 years, 11 months ago

And at the same time, a married couple with income from investments in stocks that pay dividends of $88,000. a year pay ZERO income tax. This same couple having dividends of millions or even billions of dollars a year pay no more than 15%.

Mike Ford 3 years, 11 months ago

actually jhawkins Germany paid off reparations from World War One recently and they made a point of letting the rest of the world know since it was Serbia and Austria-Hungary that started that war. It's okay dumb americans aren't expected to know anything other than what an overweight fired ex-employee of the Kansas City Royals from Cape Girardeau and a bunch of tv and radio people groomed to fib on tv and radio from Alabama radio markets say. I'm not referencing Darla J or Sean Hannity you know...those people in Alabama believe everything just like the rural people here... oh...federally recognized tribal members don't get a monthly check from the BIA like most willfully oblivious people think. They have to wait through the Clinton and Bush Administrations for President Barack Obama to sign the Cobell bill to pay back $3.4 billion in leasing and royalty fees for stolen oil, natural gas, timber, and land leasing for crops for the last 100 years since the Dawes Allotment Act allowed the sooners to be the thieves of tribal land in Oklahoma and homesteaders to steal land here for pennies on the dollar. My biological Choctaw/Biloxi ancestors filed for Oklahoma Choctaw allotment lands from Alabama and Mississippi and a bunch of white guys with the Dawes Allotment Commission that facilitated the theft of tribal land to create Oklahoma said that since they were still on the Gulf Coast they were not entitled to Oklahoma land. You repeat total falsehoods long enough and someone buys them just like all of the GOP stereotypes of minorities that I remember from the 1980's. Maybe the ghosts of GOP past should come back to haunt these people suffering from Reagan and Bush amnesia.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, I forgot that sarcasm is prohibited but the TOS agreement.

jayhawxrok 3 years, 11 months ago

Repealing what was always to be a temporary cut, is not class warfare.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

What if the Mope in Chief is actually an unwitting mole planted by the Dwead Piwate Wove to destroy the Democratic party? Hmmmmm

georgeofwesternkansas 3 years, 11 months ago

Who do you really think pays for a tax increase? The oil company? The business owner?

You are a moron if you don't understand that we all pay for any tax increase.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.