Billionaire Bloomberg Calls for ‘Raising Taxes on Everybody’
- Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:52am by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told NBC News‘ David Gregory that he is troubled by President Barack Obama’s rhetoric on the so-called “Buffet Rule,” reports Business Insider.
On Meet the Press, Bloomberg criticized Obama for what he called “theatrics,” pushing a tax law that would, by the administration’s own admission, impact only a few Americans.
“You can’t define what is middle class, what is wealthy, what is poor,” he said.
“It‘s not fair to say that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share — they pay a higher rates than those who make less.”
The billionaire mayor, who was supportive of Obama’s jobs plan just a few weeks ago, is the latest defection from Obama on the tax plan — which has drawn tepid support even from Democrats, claims Business Insider.
But if Obama doesn’t have a good plan, what would be a better one?
“I would suggest raising taxes on everybody — about 2 or 3 percent on everybody,” he said, adding that if the White House wants to cut tax breaks, it also must cut entitlement spending.
“Unless we do all of these things, it just won’t work,” he said.
Bloomberg was sharply critical of Washington partisanship over the threat of yet another government shutdown later this week.
“It spooked us a month ago, it’s gonna spook us now . . . No one has any confidence,” he said.
He added that he was unlikely to endorse any candidate for president saying, ”I’ve got to work with whoever wins.”
Watch the interview:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 694 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 662 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 349 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 242 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (181)
drphil69
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:30pmHey Bloomy, I got a better plan, and it has worked every time it’s been tried -
CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING, CUT REGULATION.
I worked when Coolidge did it. It worked when JFK did it. It worked when Reagan did it.
Ya know what doesn’t work? Raising taxes and spending! Didn’t work for FDR, didn’t work for LBJ, didn’t work for Carter, ISN’T WORKING FOR BHO.
In 31 months, BHO created $4 TRILLION in new debt… is the economy better? Has unemployment gone down? Have home prices recovered? Have the number of people living in poverty gone down? Have the oceans stopped rising and the air become cleaner?
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:53pmNeither JFK nor Reagan cut spending. Thought you’d like to know.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:56pmOk where to start. Reagan did not lower spending, in fact he ran up a rather large deficit for the time period. Mostly through military spending to support his supply side economics. If you look you will see he also provided government loan guarantees for Chrysler. At least $1.2 trillion of the deficit you identify for Obama occurred in the fiscal year that included Bush’s last budget and his bank bailout. The dramatic drop in tax revenues was due to Bush Jr.’s masterful handling of the economy. Oh and let’s not forget the unfunded wars that cost $200 billion a year. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. ran up $10 trillion in debt. So either they spent too much or did not provide for enough revenue? You tell me.
Report Post »Edct
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:59pmWho gives a damn if these super rich asses think taxes should be raised, it will not hurt them a bit to pay more taxes out of their billions BUT it does hurt the middle and lower classes who do not make as much money. Somebody tell them to shut the hell up and if they are stupid enough to pay more of their money to the political prostitutes in Washington who cannot seem to think about balancing our checkbook, let him give his money away, the rest of us want Washington replaced with some people with common sense who can handle fiances.
Report Post »RN MOM
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:14pmBloomberg doesn’t seem to know that Buffet admitted to paying less in taxes last year then his maid.
Report Post »chazman
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:15pm… bloomberg … I really hate that creep …
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:18pmbloomburg, just another fu-king idiot. i wish all rich socialists would give all their money to the poor then they would be poor and have some idea what the rest of the world goes through.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:33pm@RN MOM Yep and Buffet identified it as being wrong. The clowns who keep pointing to the taxes Buffet’s company owes as being hypocritical are staggering in their ignorance. Virtually every large company reports taxes as an amount set aside for taxes owed. The exact amount is generally settled much later after the IRS and company come to agreement on the applicability or interpretation of certain aspects of the tax code.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:33pmHey Rook
Who controls the purse strings? The Prez, or Congress?
Ever look at how much of the time the Dems were in charge of the spending?
Report Post »PingPongPing
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:38pmJFK nor REagan may not have cut spending, but the economic situation was a far cry to what it is now. Its 2011 now, and the last time I checked, this is Obama’s economy.
You just can’t compare apples to idiots.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:40pm“OK where to start”…
The DEMOCRAT Congress PROMISED Reagan $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.
$0 in spending cuts were ever delivered.
ZERO!
So, before you go claiming that Reagan didn’t cut spending, you might want to read your history !
Report Post ».
.
.
ACA
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:06pmCan sombody please tell me who keeps voting for this guy???
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:12pmJRook
Another thing Buffet and Obama won‘t say is that Buffet doesn’t take a salary from his company because if he did he would be taxed a higher rate than his secretary. So what Buffet is admitting is that he don’t want to pay high taxes by taking a salary, he would rather pay 15% in Capital Gains tax. So Buffet is as big a greedy sucker as those he calls greedy. Typical Liberal Hypocrite!
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:30pmReagan did cut spending in some areas, but as a rule, the overall spending increased. It has under every president since FDR.
If you want a good example of a country that has it’s act together, look at Canada. They DID cut spending and they DID reduce income taxes. Of the G7 countries, Canada is the ONLY country who’s run budget surplusses every year for the last decade except 2007.
Canada had a faster recovery and a less damaging recession than any other country. They are thriving right now. My Canadian customers are putting out the biggest demand at this time.
Report Post »Navyveteran
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 3:06pmACA
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:06pm
“Can sombody please tell me who keeps voting for this guy???”
ACA that is easy we went from voting people of character and want to do right to this country and vote strictly for the d or r. President Washington said it best in his farewell address, by warning us about belonging to parties.Just as President Jefferson warned us from a creating a central bank. Just as President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. We Americans chose not to heed these warnings and that is why we are were we are. We rather be a good democrat or good republican and vote party line. Yes I too was once like that but my eyes were opened, I got tired of not having a real choice Bush Sr. talked about the NWO and with him and afterwards really didn’t matter who we voted for the status quo was the same. We either take the fast road to hell or the slow row boat to hell. But we are still going to hell. We Americans are insane we all keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Many here have all their hopes in the next election, I will be very surprised if we have another election. The writing is on the wall and I fear we will go down into another civil war. I fear it will start as a race war, but then will really turn ugly. God I hope I am very wrong, but I was hoping and praying we could have done this in a non-violent manner.
Report Post »mr molotov cocktail
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 4:27pmnah 30 years of reaganomics- have disproved you we’ve lived under lower taxation for the last 30 years
keep cutting taxes– doesnt work its been proven
you moron supplysiders said for thirty plus years it would end poverty-fix healthcare
you guys are the biggest morons on the face of the planet…..
supplyside economics has destroyed more wealth globally then its ever-created that is a fact jack now get bent
Servant Of YHVH
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 4:44pm@drphil69
“Hey Bloomy, I got a better plan, and it has worked every time it’s been tried -
CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING, CUT REGULATION.”
How about being more specific and saying to eliminate about 75% of the federal government. That would work out great with your other “suggestions”.
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 4:47pmOff with Bloomberg’s stupid head!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:23pm@Therightsofbilly If you every noticed it seems to be the responsibility of Congress or the President depending on which party the observer favors. So now that we are 1 year into the Republican Congress I guess it is their fault??
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:26pm@TomFerrari Interesting post. Please explain how Reagan took the country over the $ trillion deficit level if he cut spending over all. Reducing the increase is not cutting spending. Please don’t give me the Washington version of cutting spending. Reagan ran up the deficit, he did not decrease it.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:28pm@TomFerrari Case in point. Under Reagan it was the Democratic Congress, under Obama it is the President. Republicans have been in control for almost a year so is it their deficit now??
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:34pm@Blackhawk1 Ok taking stock or stock options in lieu of a salary is called performance based compensation and a number of CEO’s and Fund managers opt for it. Investors actually like it because his compensation is negatively affected by sub par performance. And if you haven’t paid attention he is indicating that the capital gains rate should be raised. He is not a hypocrite, he is actually trying to recommend fair adjustments to the tax code. And seriously who are any of the working stiffs here even in the same ballpark to criticize Warren Buffet. He is without question the most accomplished investor in the past 100 years. He speaks with some knowledge of economics, finance and taxes. You speak in support of an ideological dogma.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:37pm@Jaycen You are correct but it took a downgrading of their national debt which was a severe blow to their nationalistic pride. In a prior life I worked with a venture capital firm which had a senior partner who was Canadian. He used to chastise us for driving foreign cars as an indicator we had no national pride and were helping Japan (at the time) win the economic war. He had a point.
Report Post »smokeysmoke
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 5:55pmRook… Instead of trying to say how regan did not try to cut… And buffet is not a hypocrite…. Fine you have an opinion but your an a hole… 2nd instead of saying raising taxes is good inherently…. We should discuss the outcomes of raising the capital gains rate… Primarily being people, investors, middle America who is trying to make money using their existing capital suffer… Trading where the fovt takes 30 percent makes trading more dangerous… Thus we will see a loss of capatial investment in American companies…. Raising the capatial gains makes it more difficult for small time
Report Post »Issue class traders. While benifiting buffet,,, his competition will receive less investment… The FINAL outcome is going to be the DOW drop.. 401ks… Job losses and jones and money moving to places like INDIA… Maybe you should think. Instead of preach
hucksqr
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 6:14pmJrook, how about noto stretching the truth quite so much? The Republicans have only been in control of one house of Congress this past year. The Senate is still very much under democrat control. So no, it‘s not the Republican’s debt. It’s actually the debt owned by the democratic socialist party of America. Of that, the republican party is a merely a wing. When will people understand that both parties have infringed on our liberties, have sold our grandchildren down the road? It’s about either tyranny or liberty. And if your idea of liberty infringes on the rights of another (so called Conservatives that really aren’t take note), then you have in fact chosen tyrranny, and deserve everything you get.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 7:00pmNo Rookl
The congress always has control of spending.
The left always wants to give Willy credit for what happened during his stay in office, but look who controlled both the house and senate for the bulk of his time.
The Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming to what he is now given credit for.
Here is a great chart for everyone to study. Goes back to 1921. Look at it closely and see where and WHEN all the D’s are, and where all the R’s are.
http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm
Very revealing.
Report Post »Be Real
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 7:18pmHmm, all these really rich guys coming out and saying tax the rich. They must have enough time to hide thier stash. Just wondering.
Report Post »Texsis44
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 10:38pmObama has run up more debt than what the budget was during Nixon. More than any President has added to the deficit. Let those who WANT to pay more go to pay.gov and donate. Most of us can’t afford more. No presidential candidate has totally impressed me, but I like Cain. Guess I’m hoping for another Reagan.
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:12amOk, ok, let’s see what will work: Cut spending, reduce defecit. Cut taxes, increase investment, free up the money, stimulate economy, increase revenue, reduce defecit. . Go with BoomBug, move to CHINA!
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:48amPer Bloomberg, “You can’t define what is middle class, what is wealthy, what is poor,” he said.
Yes,,,dummy, you can-very easily.
You can, however, define what is an idiot. That would be you, Bloomberg, and a blithering one, at that.
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:54amcut spending and have a minimum tax one everyone earning or getting 25k and up.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:50pmIf Mr. Doomberg would just have said “Raising taxes FROM everybody”, I’d agree! But I’m NOT for “Raising taxes on ANYBODY!” We pay enough, already! Cut spending or move over for somebody who can and will!
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:26pmbloomberg is a communist who is in soros’ bed. NYC deserves everything he does to them.
Report Post »Marci
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:33pmI wonder why he went this direction, being the kindred moonbat to Obama that he is, must be looking for something. New York will be a safer place once he is voted out.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:37pmI agree and I hope people will start paying attention to what these communist/marxist/ liberals are saying and vote their stupid hides out of office. Enough of this craziness. Why doesn’t Soros give all his gold to the government if he wants to be patriotic? They talk a good liberal message but protect their own wealth. They are sick, evil people. Get rid of them NY.
Report Post »RETIREDOLDGUY
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:21pmAll I can say is thank GOD the republicans control the House. If they didn’t, we’d all be taxed at 100%.
Why do people vote for idiots like Bloomberg or any politicians that rant and rave? Do you really think they care about anyone but themselves?
Report Post »GERATMO
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:18pmI dont trust any politician who is a billionaire. They just dont relate to the people they are serving. Im not against rich people but they have to many special intrests to be trusted in office.
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:21pmWhat, he just now noticed Obama’s “tax the rich” includes him (Bloomberg)? These elitist don’t like being told they will be required to pay more of “their-fair-share” now do they. As someone posted earlier, if the elite are worried that the “elite” doesn’t pay their-fair-share, then write a frigging extra check to be included in your next tax payment that YOU think is your fair-share. Just like stooopid Ron Howard (Opie) said he wouldn’t mind paying more taxes. WELL, PAY EXTRA YOU FRIGGING MORON! Don’t tell me (our household grosses approx $60,000/year) that I have to pay more. We live within our means. We do not depend on the government to help us with our bills. If we don’t have enough money, we GO WITHOUT! All the people out there who have become “rich”, MORE POWER TO YOU! I think they should be able to keep the money they’ve worked hard for. BTW, the gentleman who owns the company I work for,if it wasn‘t for him I wouldn’t have a job. I think he should have a higher payroll than me. He’s the one who created the company and employs over 700 people in our county of 10,000 soul. I say let him and those like him keep his hard earned money. I pee in the general direction of the taxman.
Report Post »Buddynoel
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:20pmSo the Mayor is openly advocating less money for government by strangling the economy. Even though he knows that lower taxes actually create more money for government coffers, he is pushing the economy to the unproductive top end of the Laffer curve. Either he is lieing about wanting to balance the books or openly advocating wide scale corruption, Either way, the real idiot is has to be the person who voted to keep this guy in office.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:25pm“Laffer curve.”
Ahaha. People get laughed out of econ 101 for even mentioning that idiotic thing.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:38pmThe shape of the Laffer curve is debatable, but it is real of course.
There are historical precedents other than those cited directly by Laffer. For example, in 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote: “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates.“ Exercising his understanding that ”73% of nothing is nothing”, he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets). Personal income-tax receipts rose from US$719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929, an average increase of 4.2% per year over an 8-year period, which supporters attribute to the rate cut.
The Democratic party made a similar argument in the 1880s when high revenue from import tariffs raised during the Civil War (1861–1865) led to federal budget surpluses. The Republican party, which was then based in the protectionist industrial Northeast, argued that cutting rates would lower revenues. But the Democratic party, then rooted in the agricultural South, argued tariff reductions would increase revenues by increasing the number of taxable imports.
An argument along similar lines has also been advocated by Ali ibn Abi Talib, the first Shi’a Imam and fourth Caliph of the Islamic empire; in his letter to the Governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_
Report Post »zoro51
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:19pmbloomberg DIE ALREADY please just DIE u SUCK A$$ you are SO out of touch its SICKENING you HAVE NO CLUE.. DIE ALREADY leave office so a new leader can asses n BE FAIR to ALl not follow in the leads of a SOCIALIST MUSLUM LOVING TAX N SPEECH WANNA BEA EVITA PRESIDENT OF THE US.. so just TAX your HOLE to death please do NY a favor n DIE
Report Post »NuffSaid
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:33pmThis is like poetry-TY
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:16pmSomeone on the left is finally realizing you can’t spend more than you take in. Shocking!
Report Post »SheriS
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:14pmThought Bloomie was a Republican! Guess he finally shows what we already knew—he is just another freaking Liberal, but wants you to believe otherwise! Always knew he was idiot!
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:11pmThe lunatic fringe is in a feeding frenzy! Cartoon of economic system proposed: http://commonsense21c.com/images/MIDDLEAGES.jpg
Report Post »Moonbat
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:10pmThe point that Bloomberg (and y’all) are missing is that tax rates are only notional anyway. The tax code is so riddled with subsidies and exemptions that the wealthiest corporations and individuals are able to get away with paying a fraction of the alleged tax rates — or nothing at all.
The reason Warren Buffet is so famously able to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary is that he’s a hedge fund manager — his earnings are somehow considered capital gains instead of income, so he gets to pay 15%, which is less than what I pay, and probably you, too.
We don’t need to raise taxes — we need to eliminate loopholes. Why are we subsidizing hedge funds, Exxon and GE?
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:27pmBut but but one day I‘M going to be rich and I don’t want to pay higher taxes!
But seriously, you’re spot on. Well, mostly. We also need to raise capital gains taxes or eliminate it altogether and tax capital gains as income.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:28pmGo to the head of the class! As for the alleged “50% of the population who pay no [income] taxes at all,” tax them too, at some nominal rate. Why just hedge funds, Exxon and GE? If loopholes and deductions and credits are eliminated, for everyone–and that means everyone–tax RATES can be lowered on the wealthy and the middle class as well, and yet tax REVENUES can be increased. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?
Report Post »Moonbat
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:31pm@ Erabin
Ha. Right on. Capital gains *are* income. Calling them something different only serves to make the tax code more regressive.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:42pmWho is Buffet’s secretary?
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:44pmNever mind, it is Debbie Bosanek, and she is NOT happy that prez knucklehead put her in this position.
Report Post »CMDR6
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:58pmAgree…to have ~50% of this country as takers vs being contributors was/is/and will always be detrimental to the all the people and especially to the people it supposedly helps! The non-contributors never have “ownership” and will never enjoy the freedoms we all earn every day. It would be interesting to discuss having to be a tax payer to be a voter…….hmmmm. Watch the libs scream at that!
Report Post »If everyone paid SOMETHING, with “loop holes” for no one, that would be cool. Can anyone say 9 9 9 plan? Not sure if Herman is the man, but it sounds good!
sWampy
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:08pmIf you are going to tax capital gains as income, you have to make sure you adjust it to inflation. It is horrible for someone to sock away money for later in life in a safe investment that barely keeps up with inflation, or has a family farm that increases in value by right at inflation, to have to give up a large portion of their already taxed income again because of inflation.
Report Post »Moonbat
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:37pmFair enough, Swampy. To everybody that‘s kvetching about poor people who don’t pay income tax, though, let me point something out: while the income tax is (allegedly) progressive, other taxes are not. Payroll taxes and sales taxes, for instance, fall more heavily on the poor. If you look at the entire tax burden on the individual, just about everybody pays a higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffet.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:09pmYea…sure…
Billionaire Globalist gun grabbers want to tax everyone to pay for the Federal Reserve’s indiscretions and bad loans.
Not my debt, Mayor Doomturd.
According to the Insurrection and Rebellion Clause of the 14th Amendment, I’M NOT PAYING IT.
Better go talk the shareholders of the FED and tell them their fake money ponzi scheme is OVER.
ABOLISH THE FED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »MARCH4HIM
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:08pmI bet…It would be hard to tell the difference…Looking down from that IVORY TOWER.
Report Post »scudster
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:08pmBloomburg says its partisanship thats threatening to cause a government shut down its like he’s trying to evaperate common sense with the word partisanship. Tthe conservitives have provided a common sense approach to this problem well in advance, in place of another blank check.
Report Post »IAMMADDOG
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:07pmSingledigitaire IAMMADDOG says write a freaking check for a donation to the government if you want to pay more.
Report Post »LWRC6.8
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:06pmThink that the current Welfare system is corrupt? Help reform the current system and end the waste and corruption by signing the petition. http://wh.gov/4gw
We have 30 days to gather only 150 votes for it to go live on the whitehouses website. Please forward the link to family and friends if you agree with this.
thanks!
http://wh.gov/4gw
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:04pm****”But if Obama doesn’t have a good plan, what would be a better one?”****
Getting rid of you, your Marxist friends and this administration… getting back to free market principals and limited government…. That is THE PLAN!
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:04pmHey Michael B; get real, get out of my wallet and open yours–you are a lib and you bought the mayorship of NYC. What a joke.
Report Post »NuffSaid
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:02pmFreaking liberals can’t define a “green Job” and now can’t define the “middle Class”
Bamanation looks at the Ku Klux Kaukus and calls that the middle Class.
You’re all ignorant, theives, communists and liars– not deserving of the respect a dog laying in the sun would get.
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:05pm@ NUFFSAID
I sure hope you aren’t lowering dogs to the level of liberals- I have great respect for dogs and ZERO for liberals. Dogs are of a higher class and can be trusted. Liberals would rather spin a lie than tell the truth. As THE GREAT DIVIDER said about a class of Americans in the past. Its BRED in them. Well its BRED in liberals to be LIARS
Report Post »tmplarnite
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:01pmNothing is stopping you..Mr. Bloombug from writing a check ….get off my back…Make those who pay NO taxes to start paying into the system…then and only then can you become relevant!
Report Post »MakeTheMiddleEastAGlassFactory
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 6:02pmTotaly with these guys. Can’t stand the people who pay no taxes and then com
Report Post »MakeTheMiddleEastAGlassFactory
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 6:03pmTotaly with these guys. Can‘t stand the people who pay no taxes and then comPlain that they don’t get enough services. Pay taxes like everyone else.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:58amFlat tax. It’s time for the 47% start paying their fair share. They receive most of the benefits; they should pay something.
Report Post »TXVET48
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 2:23pmYou don’t pay taxes, you can’t vote. Flat tax!
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:57amHE doesn’t want to be taxed extra!! Finally, a lib admits it.
The US has plenty of money from taxes. They just need to spend less, not tax more.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:02pmExactly.
Obama wanting to raise taxes is like the addict saying,”Everything will be fine, if you give me more heroin.”
Report Post »cktheman
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:56amTax RATE increases will not help, PERIOD. It will result in less money flowing into the government.
But, of course, revenue isn’t the real issue anyway, now is it?
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:56amAre the politicians waking up?
Report Post »Are they realizing they cannot side with a socialist?
Hmn…
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:54amOne more lunatic for the left who advocates taxes and more taxes; why not Mr Bloomberg just give all of your money to the govenrment if you are so unhappy with it.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:28pmWe have not had lower taxes than today for more than 60 years.
Report Post »MHP
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:32pmEribin
My taxes were lower under President George W. Bush. I paid 10% tax rate on my wages of $10/hr.
Report Post »Obama wants it higher.
Blackhawk1
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:43pmErabin
Quit echoing Obama’s lies. The expected tax burden for 2010 is 26.9 percent, up slightly from the 2009 tax burden of 26.6 percent.The tax burden typically falls during recessions, as taxpayers move to lower tax brackets. Under Eisenhower, that figure ranged from 24.8 percent to 27.7 percent, with the figure lower than 26.9 percent for seven out of eight years. So by this measurement, the tax burden was lower most of the time under Eisenhower. Today‘s tax rates were established by Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. So once again a Liberal wants to take credit for something he had nothing to do with. If Obama had his way we would have the highest tax rates in history, luckily he won’t get his way.
Report Post »BrerRabbit
Posted on September 26, 2011 at 11:54amThe more he opens his mouth the more I dislike the creature!
Report Post »