If you took the God issues out of the mix the Republicans would fold like a cheap suit.

It is absolutely bait and switch politics.

And then where would we be? A one-party state? Is that really what you guys on the left want?

Really not trying to come down on you personally, but some of the rhetoric I'm seeing on both sides seems a little poorly thought out at best.

[I'm not that guy.]

No, I'm saying we have one party that cynically pays lip service to God in order to get the votes to do what they really want to do. It's not poorly thought out, it's the truth.

And another that cynically pays lip service to the poor. Both of which are major problems.

Buffalo Pete: Raving batshit loony? Or HOPE FOR MAN???
(I may be that guy.)

A one-party state? Is that really what you guys on the left want?

Trust me, "guys on the left" don't want to live in some nightmare dystopia where a Democratic pres would do the same things that a GOP pres would do.....

Doh, too late.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

If they aren't paying any federal income tax, they're moochers on the "free" federal services as I listed above.
You picked a bunch of federal-sounding things you seem to think are fully funded by income tax.  Well. Who should we cut off?

"The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. "

So, of course he'll win re-election:  free or subsidized stuff on the backs of others

Romney is also running on a platform of "free or subsidized stuff on the backs of others".   He's just openly and smugly offering "free and subsidized stuff" to rich assholes, and its why he's going to lose.

There is no such thing as "the American tax code."

Why do you say that?

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Because Title 26, U.S.C., doesn't carry that exact title. Just more mere parsing of words.

Romney isn't running for governor.

The federal income tax is far far FAR from flat; all you have to do is look at the progressive tax tables to see that, and that's even ignoring the absurd deductions that reduce federal financial responsibility based on some social engineering scheme (having children or buying a house).  Furthermore, if it were flat, then it wouldn't be 47% of households paying no federal income tax, it would be either 0% or 100%.  I could get behind either scenario, but that's not the world as it presently exists:  47% pay none, while the other 53% pay all.

Although, I must say your definition of flat is interesting:  a group that earns 3% of the income pays 2% of the taxes, or 33% less than their per income share is considered "flat", as is another group paying 5% more than than their income share.  Nice math there.

I've heard of Romney advocating cutting federal income taxes to those who already pay way more than their fair share by any metric (other than ability), but I haven't heard of him promising to start giving them free stuff or cutting them checks for breathing.  That's President Boyfriend's schtick, and he does it well as measured by political success.  It'll get him re-elected, that's all but certain at this point.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Although, I must say your definition of flat is interesting:  a group that earns 3% of the income pays 2% of the taxes, or 33% less than their per income share is considered "flat", as is another group paying 5% more than than their income share.  Nice math there.

Anything that could be "solved" by a 1-2% national sales tax-- the figure will constantly vary with economic cycles-- is about as close as you can expect to get to flat.

30% off of flat is as close as can be achieved?  Wow, with math like that, it's no wonder the federal budget is so out of whack.

And of course, that ignores the problem under discussion, namely Federal Income Tax.  That is absurdly progressive, and since we're discussing a national election, it's the only tax that matters.

But wait!  You may say what about payroll taxes?  Those are flat or even, some make the case, regressive since SS tops out at ~100k.  Medicare is flatish, save now at the high end to fund B.O. Care, though those paying the most in absolute terms are often ineligible for Medicare so  they're "only" paying a flat rate for something they can not use.  Yeah, that's fair.  SS, while flat, is wildly progressive in terms of benefit.  Someone retiring at an income level of 100k will only get ~40 cents on the dollar sent off in taxes compared to someone retiring at 20k.  And, of course, someone retiring at 200k will only get the same benefit as someone at 100k since the payout only depends on pay in, as it should be.  So, while both seemingly flat, it's the same old federal taxation story:  the more you pay, the less you get.

So, while Romney is a putz, and will most certainly lose this election, he spoke the simple truth about federal taxation.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

30% off of flat is as close as can be achieved?

No.  A 1-2% national sales tax worked into the existing system would usually get it closer.  Of course, it would also result in an overall regressive system at some times and in some locations-- which we certainly already have since we're so close to flat as it is.  Since we're dealing with quintiles and different localities, any system set up can only be spoken of in generalities and will result in different results at different times and locations.  But that's why it's "almost perfectly flat"; it's pretty damn close when such a small tax would level it.

Not at the federal level it wouldn't.  Perhaps by some hand-waving fuzzy numbers for the overall taxation (Federal+state+local), but we're not talking about that.  We're talking federal only, the only tax rates that are relevant to this federal election.  State and local tax rates are pertinent to state and local elections.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

20% + 20% + 1% = 41%
2% + 10% + 22% = 34%

Sheesh, pull out all the statistics, eh?

How about this from the local mouthpiece of the DNC...  More complete, an able apologetic for the current administration, and, most important, trying to obscure the issue.

But the truth will shine through, even if it fails to carry the day.

This is war, and the first casualty of war is, yes....

This is war, and the first casualty of war is, yes....

Life?  

Elections aren't war, friend.  Football isn't war.  Baseball isn't war.  Marriage isn't war.  Only war is war.  However,  the battle is lost.  

What if I am very productive over the course of my life, paying a far above average amount of federal income taxes during that time, far exceeding that which most citizens pay in a lifetime?  Then, toward the end of my life I chose to no longer work in such a way that I produced taxable income, am I a moocher in the years I don't pay taxes?  

After all, I'm not contributing to the general fund in those years, but certainly continue to benefit from all the wonderful things our federal government does.  I'd prefer to opt out of social security, but since I can't, I'll probably cash the checks if they still have them when I retire, so I guess I'd mooch.  

Also, some on the other end of the spectrum who work jobs that pay very little and pay no federal income taxes still contribute to GDP and use their earned money to buy or rent things from small business owners like me, which increases my federal income taxes.  I don't envy those people just because I pay a ton more taxes than they do.  I wouldn't trade my lifestyle for theirs just to save on income tax.

Still others are students who didn't pay this year, but will have to pay federal income taxes for many years in the future.  

I think harping on the raw number of people didn't pay federal income taxes in a single year is a bit misleading.  Not all retirees or working poor are mooching slobs just sucking on the government teat, and not everyone who didn't pay this year gets to avoid it forever.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Yes, unless you want to introduce lifetime maxes for income tax.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

According to CBO, the tax burden is even more asymmetrically distributed than being widely quoted.  By quintile:

Quintile          %income          %FederalTaxShare
Bottom 20            5.1%                     0.3%
Middle20            14.7%                     9.4%
Top20                50.8%                   67.9%

That is wildly progressive, and makes laughable the notion that somehow the poor and middle class are subsidizing the rich.  It also demonstrates why, politically, it is all but impossible to implement anything approaching a fair tax system:  the bottom three quintiles just vote to push the burden to the top in increasing amounts.  Two wolves and a sheep, voting on dinner.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

...the notion that somehow the poor and middle class are subsidizing the rich

It also demonstrates what leftist/democratic calls to "voting economic self-interest" really means:  tax the very people who are (per capita AND per income) already shouldering a disproportionate burden of federal income taxes even more, in order to fund even more programs requiring even more taxation when they inevitably go over original budget.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

And yet none dare call this socialism, or if they do, they're dismissed out of hand as crackpots and conspiracy theorists.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

tax the very people who are (per capita AND per income) already shouldering a disproportionate burden of federal income taxes even more

As we should. Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events but the only growth in income and wealth, and massive growth it has been, is at the top. It has been virtually flat or declining in every other group. The game is rigged. When the government pulls out the Money Bazooka it only fires at the already absurdly wealthy.

In a time where pensions, personal wealth, savings and incomes are declining for vast swaths of society, education opportunities and future prospects for their offspring are becoming bleak. Do you wish to create a permanent underclass? Because this is what you are promoting.

Ah, an admitted socialist.  Not only is the burden of funding the ever-expanding federal government not proportional to representation, it's not even proportional to income.  In fact, the "problem" as seen by those on the left is that it isn't disproportionate enough.  And then they wonder why people hide their income in off-shore accounts, or more dramatically, renounce their citizenship.

I've been pondering the ramifications of the above table, outside the obvious political:

Quintile          %income          %FederalTaxShare       %FederalTaxShare/%income  
Bottom 20            5.1%                     0.3%                          0.058
Middle20            14.7%                     9.4%                          0.639
Top20                50.8%                   67.9%                          1.34

This last column is, as the heading implies, simply %FederalTaxShare divided by %income.  It is a measure of the flatness of the tax collection:  in a perfectly flat tax scenario, each of these entries would be exactly 1.  As can be seen, the deviation varies wildly from that.  Now, if we normalize this column to the value of the Bottom20, we get:

Quintile          %FederalTaxShare/%income       RelativeTax/Dollar
Bottom 20                   0.058                                    1
Middle20                     0.639                                  10.87
Top20                         1.34                                    22.72

So, comparing the tax burden per dollar, the Top20 pay nearly 23x more per dollar of income relative to the bottom 20, while the middle 20 pay nearly 11x as much per dollar.

The political debate comes down to whether you emphasize the 2nd column in the second table, or the third.  By the second column, the middle 20 are getting subsidized by percentage of income (less than 1), so a growing federal tax burden affects them disproportionally less.   Naturally, they will vote for more taxes on those in a higher bracket.  However, if you emphasize the third column, you can see that per dollar they are shouldering a far greater burden than the bottom 20, by an order of magnitude.

However, by the numbers, and by any operational definition of fair outside of "can", the tax burden is wildly skewed to the top.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Yeah, those are pretty numbers and all... How does this address a skyrocketing income inequity?  I know, I know - Just ignore it.

Hollowing out the middle with be the absolute end of the US as we know it. Once you create a permanent underclass, all bets are off. That is, of course, unless your master plan is so conservative that you are harkening back to the good ol' days of armed rebellion against a nation run by an aristocracy, which is exactly where you are headed.

The income inequality is irrelevant in the context of the tax share inequality.  When 5% of the wealth (bottom 20) pay 0.3% of the taxes, that's the real problem.

Here's a little tidbit of information:  unless and until we go full on communist, where everyone gets paid exactly the same regardless of skill level/market demand, there is always going to be a bottom 20 percent, and a top 20%.  Taxation, no matter how skewed, won't change that.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Odd that we managed to do quite well back when the top quintile income was averaging 20 times the labor force and their marginal rate was at 90% +. Also odd that developed countries with the highest quality of life tend to closely match this model. Yes, odd.

Rant away brother, you are going to lose this in the long run. An adjustment is coming.

Back in the Cold War days, you mean?  The war is over, brother, no need to tax at that rate anymore, and certainly not to make the existing safety hammock even more comfy.  Not that those rates meant much then; far too many deductions and other "loopholes" to make those marginal rates very effective.  If you want to live in socialist hells like Europe, great.  Some of us will...resist...that happening here.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Back in the Cold War days?

I'm not sure what that irrelevance has to do with anything under discussion here.

Certainly the Cold War days weren't costlier than the Republican legacy of perpetual hot wars.

Just as I thought

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/6/chart_defense_spending_top.gif

All the more reason to cut defense spending along with everything else and lower taxes.  There's no real existential threat anymore, so defense spending is way out of whack.  There's also much less poverty, certainly by 1950's standards, today.  If you just arbitrarily assign an income level as being "in poverty", sure, you can make sure there is whatever percentage you like as being "in poverty".  Of course, with the safety hammock in place (and growing!), there's negative incentive to get off the dole and actually contribute to the funding of the federal government.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

That's very bad, and needs to be addressed, absolutely.  Welfare Spending makes that look responsible.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

You do realize our population has experienced significant growth during that period, right?

The population has only doubled in that period, roughly 150 to 300 million.  Welfare spending has gone up by a factor of over ten.  This can be seen by the graph being displayed per cpita in 2005 dollars.  The exponential growth seen in that segment makes the defense one seem almost responsible.  So, while I agree that defense spending is out of control, by the same criteria welfare spending is absurdly wildly out of control and just getting worse.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

 And gdp has done what?

And what happened with the Cold War? Are you just going to keep throwing crap at the wall until something sticks?

To be honest, I like that the right is feeling comfortable enough to speak freely on this issue. Please continue to blame the poor for all societal ills. And please continue to defend the plutocrats and multinationals who could give not one shit for this country.This could only end well.

It's funny when they pose to be Ron Paul Republicans and then when you actually debate them "defense spending becomes responsible" and "abortion is a problem" and "marriage is a between a man and a woman." lol

I didn't say current defense spending is responsible; quite the contrary, it's far in excess of accomplishing the mission of defending the territory of the USFG.  Rather, if you'll note, I said that compared to the growth in welfare spending, the growth in defense spending seems responsible.  That is, defense spending per capita in constant dollars has gone up at a much slower pace.  It's comparing two bad things and by simply looking at the graph, one can see that welfare spending growth has far exceeded the growth in defense spending.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

It's grown, of course, even in constant dollars.   That graph is in constant dollars, though doesn't take into account population growth (i.e. not per capita).  That would flatten is quite a bit, but there would still be growth.  Of course, simple comparison shows that welfare spending (per capita constant dollars) has far outstripped GDP growth (same).

The cold war is over, that's why there isn't the need or the willingness to pay the tax rates (usual caveats about effective) that were in place during it, or the need for the USFG to spend as much in any sector (defense or welfare).

Blame the poor for societal ills?  The only thing I'm blaming them for is expecting others to pick up the tab for their mooching while voting for even more.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

And please keep in mind that the $671 billion shown in the chart does not include $19.3 billion for nuclear-related spending by the Dept. of Energy, $8.7 billion in counter-terrorism activities by the State Dept. and U.S. Agency for International Development, $27 billion for military intelligence, $129.3 billion for veterans programs (call this part of the expenditures for consequences of past wars), $18 billion that includes  foreign military aid, international peacekeeping operations and projects such as cleaning up landmines in previous conflict zones, and $48.5 billion for pensions that go to military veterans and retired civilian Pentagon employees. Plus, $48 billion in defense-related interest debt.

you really don't see a problem with paying 23x more federal taxes per dollar?  Unreal.  And yet, and yet, the federal tax code isn't progressive (disproportionate) enough!  Absolutely amazing.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

What I wish to create is some financial accountability for the out-of-control spending of the federal government.  The first quintile has no, none, nada, incentive to reign in spending at all, quite the contrary:  more spending is more free/heavily subsidized services/money for them.  Although it's not quoted, I would presume the second quintile falls somewhere between the 1st and third in per dollar burden; that is, less than one.  Right there, you have 60% of voters, being subsidized for the growing federal government they're voting into office.  So, naturally, they vote for expanding federal programs, which we've seen in droves these last several years.  Now, they're about to vote in passing the financial buck even more to those already shouldering far above their share of the burden.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

tax the very people who are (per capita AND per income) already shouldering a disproportionate burden of federal income taxes even more

As we should. Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events but the only growth in income and wealth, and massive growth it has been, is at the top. It has been virtually flat or declining in every other group. The game is rigged. When the government pulls out the Money Bazooka it only fires at the already absurdly wealthy.

In a time where pensions, personal wealth, savings and incomes are declining for vast swaths of society, education opportunities and future prospects for their offspring are becoming bleak. Do you wish to create a permanent underclass? Because this is what you are promoting.

What facts were invented?

This is the reality

I'm not talking about other taxes these people supposedly pay

Why not? Because they are regressive?

This may come as a shock but it's a little more complicated than "takers" and "makers" out here in the real world. I started my own company 24 years ago, worked my entire life and have never received one penny of welfare or even one cent of any unemployment benefits, and guess what? I voted for Obama. So I'm a bit confused if I'm really in the 47% or not.

As for who's contributing, may I suggest you refocus some of your anger on those who make more than the payroll tax cap. Or those with offshore and Swiss accounts. Or those taking advantage of the carried-interest loophole. Or perhaps that guy concealing his tax returns.

They aren't relevant because we are talking Federal Income Tax, and there's only one Federal Income Tax, the Federal Income Tax.  Yes, people pay SS tax to get a payback at a later date, and medicare to "pre-fund" their health care in retirement.  So what?  That's not funding all the other programs the federal government feels entitled to have, and people who don't pay federal income tax feel they deserve.

If you pay income tax, then you're part of the 53%.  If you're happy to have the other 47% leech off you, great, then Obama is your man.

It's really not that complicated:  the federal government spends ~3 trillion a year to fund its various activities.  Those activities supposedly benefit all inhabitants of the land mass that the USFG rules.  If you're not kicking in with income tax to fund the general activities (i.e. all those outside SS and Medicare), then you're not contributing to the general activities of the federal government.  Quite the contrary.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

My god, you really believe this.

You actually believe that retirees, people in the military, the poor and unemployed are moochers.

You honestly believe that people wish to live in abject poverty and not contribute to society.

And Mitt thought they were laying the victim card...

We're not talking about "contributing to society".  What you do in your free time is your business, and welcome to it.  We're talking about contributing to the funding of the USFG via income tax.  Period.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Why do you believe "people in the military" are moochers? Do you believe they don't pay income taxes?

Not if they are deployed to a combat zone

Why do you believe things that are not true?

http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Combat_Zone_Tax_Exclusi on(CTZE).html?serv=149

So certain pay can be excluded. They still have to pay taxes.

You are pretty much an idiot

You are pretty much a sockpuppet.

So certain pay can be excluded. They still have to pay taxes.

ThePlague wants to restrict the conversation to federal income tax.  People deployed to combat zones don't pay federal income tax.

Only on the income earned while in a combat zone (or other actually really safe area if you're in the Navy or Air Force or whatever but somehow can still claim to be in a hazardous area).

Bullshit is Bullshit

Epic rant. Stewart nails it again

Retirees and the poor and unemployed ARE moochers.  You can argue that they should be allowed to mooch for various reasons but they are clearly providing little to no benefit to society at large while taking checks from people who do.

If we're going to count retirees in the ranks of "moochers", then we can't include people who pay payroll tax but no income tax, and that reduces the figure by over half.  Either retirees are just taking back what they paid into the system-- the position ThePlague takes when he wants to dismiss those who pay the payroll tax-- or payroll tax payers are being mooched off of.

or payroll tax payers are being mooched off of

Since SS is paid out of current funds, I think this is absolutely the case.

From a social policy perspective, I find retirement pay to be a silly concept - why do we want to pay people to do nothing?  What people did in the past, they did in, well, the past - we should be encouraging them to continue adding value to the economy going forward, not sit on their asses.

Awesome. Best post since your "China practices perfect capitalism" knee-slapper.

I'm thinking the physically and mentally infirmed can be quickly captured and entered in a weekly Thunderdome. Earn your keep fuckers.

Best post since your "China practices perfect capitalism" knee-slapper.

I never said it was "perfect capitalism", I just said it was definitely some form capitalism (certainly closer to capitalism than communism, anyways).  Capitalism in China has lots of problems, mostly revolving around corruption and legal barriers to foreign investment (in both directions) that have grossly distorted various sectors of the economy, but I assure you that there is plenty of private capital flying around eastern China.

If that isn't capitalism, I'm not sure what is.

I'm thinking the physically and mentally infirmed can be quickly captured and entered in a weekly Thunderdome. Earn your keep fuckers.

Do you agree that people who receive money from the government without providing useful goods or services are taking money from everyone else?  I'm not asking this as a moral judgement - there are plenty of arguments in favor of giving certain people money for not doing anything - but merely as a factual one.

There are good arguments for giving money to the physically and mentally disabled, but why should an otherwise healthy, capable adult (of any age) be given an incentive to sit on their ass and watch TV all day?  Shouldn't our incentives run in the other direction, encouraging them to provide value to society at large?

Many of the people paying federal income tax are paying it because they have made taxable income from selling goods and services to those "moochers".

You should read Frum's article, which was what I was primarily referring to.

But even if 46.4% of Americans pay no federal income tax, labeling them all as natural Obama voters was crazy wrong. Many of these folks would not be voting for Obama if he was running against Mickey Mouse. They include more people from red states than from blue states, including plenty of white guys who never went to college (and who favoured McCain by almost 20% in 2008). They include seniors who tend to be conservative. They include soldiers in Afghanistan (surely you agree that some of these folks will vote Republican). They include rich people taking advantage of loopholes.

What part of Romney's speech, aside from his reference to people not paying income taxes, made any sense?

There are hard numbers from a reliable source indicating that 47% of households pay no income taxes.  How smart it was of Romney to point this out, and whether he can get any of the moocher class on his side, is a matter of political calculation and unreliable polling.  Very rarely has a politician found success in pointing out the useless class, and their lack of contribution.  People like to hear how good and righteous and deserving they are, even if it's on somebody else's dime.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

You continue to feel comfortable calling soldiers in Afghanistan "moochers"? Really? Seniors who have paid their income taxes their whole lives count as "moochers" in your book too? Hard-working high-school educated white Southerners count as "moochers" even though Romney needs them desperately? "Useless class"? Wow.

Frum had it cold. You people really live in your own world.

You continue to feel comfortable calling soldiers in Afghanistan "moochers"?

Do they (net) pay federal income taxes (not payroll tax, mind you) on their income? If not, they would be part of Plague's "moocher" "useless class" 47%, wouldn't they?

I would guess not.

"I would guess not."

To what does your guess refer? Do you guess that most soldiers don't pay federal income taxes? Great guess. Most commentators agree.

Or do you guess that, even if soldiers mostly don't pay federal income taxes, they wouldn't be "moochers" or "useless" anyway? Even better guess, but then that would contradict Plague's assertions, which I doubt was your intention.

To what does your guess refer?

Do you guess that most soldiers don't pay federal income taxes?

Yes, they would.  I've always found the neo-con worship of soldiers amusing; they're just more government workers, after all, doing stuff that for the most part is better (and cheaper) left undone.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

If they don't contribute to the federal government, yes.  Even moreso when they advocate and vote to increase that very same federal government that they don't help fund.  If that were just my world, I would change it. Unfortunately, it is the world we live in.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

If he loses enough seniors, he can kiss Florida goodbye. My understanding was that Romney MUST WIN Florida to win this race, but maybe if Romney turns out his base he can win Pennsylvania instead, eh?

I think people like you should write to Romney and encourage him to repeat his allegations at campaign stops in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, because it will help him turn out his base.

Good point, they probably won't recognize themselves within his comments as they didn't during that corny 53% movement (to counter the 99% movement), when many of them weren't paying federal income tax either.

It's akin to Craig T. Nelson's dumbass welfare comment:  "I've been on foodstamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."

For most people, it's one box on a W2, less refund check.  If W2-RC<=0, you're part of the 47%.  How you get there doesn't matter (i.e. W2=RC=0, or W2=A and RC=A + B, etc), all that matters is whether you net kick in.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

That has nothing to do with whether or not they'll recognize themselves in Romney's comments.  "Oh, he's talking about me.  I have a legitimate reason not to pay income tax this year / I don't even realize that I'm not paying income tax because something is taken out of my check.  He's talking about those lazy people who just want to get over."

Actually, it does.  If they apply the formula I indicated above, they will get a yes or no answer.  Whether they handwave it away, or don't apply the simple subtraction is another question.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Whether they handwave it away, or don't apply the simple subtraction is another question.

No, that's exactly the question as to whether they recognize themselves in his statement or not.

Doing the math will answer that question.  Anything else is either ignorance (not doing the math) or excuse making (handwaving).  I'm not particularly interested in the self-awareness of either Romney or Obama supporters.  Those who acknowledge they're leeches will vote Obama, since they are the USFG-dependent class that is the mainstay of his base.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

The mistake was not bitchslapping Egypt and Libya within hours of the first round of embassy storming.

What do you mean 'bitchslapping' them? Bombing them?

Technically, it's also the through-line from the apology speech in Egypt a few years back...

What part of the Cairo speech was an apology? Here's the transcript. Can you point out what section, paragraph, or line is an apology?

...but coming down hard last week would have negated that.

What would coming down hard look like? Do you mean like drone attacks in a sovereign predominantly Muslim nation?

Maybe those have something to do with the riots, not a shitty movie.

...sent in brownshirts to arrest a filmmaker at midnight for daring to use his free speech rights.

Actually, weren't they sent in to protect Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? Was he really arrested, because I didn't hear about his arrest.

Do you think that if he was arrested, it had anything to do with him violating the terms of fraud conviction like not using computers and the internet?

What do you mean 'bitchslapping' them?

Going on television to declare the assaults acts of war, and taking immediate steps to show he's serious: expelling their embassy staffs, revoking visas, freezing assets, and halting all foreign aid. I'm sure there's already a carrier group in the Mediterranean that could swing by in a show of force.

Do you think that if he was arrested, it had anything to do with him violating the terms of fraud conviction like not using computers and the internet?

The FBI has no authority over parole violations, unless those violations are also a federal crime. "Posting to YouTube" doesn't qualify.

See #29.

See #27, the midnight arrest by brown shirts is a figment of your imagination.

You might want to click 'reply' to the mass email you get daily from American Crossroads with your talking points and tell them their meme about an arrest is absolutely nonsense. You know before they embarrass themselves.

Going on television to declare the assaults acts of war...

Not only premature, but wouldn't that also be incredibly stupid since these were not government people who attacked the Embassies?

The FBI has no authority over parole violations, unless those violations are also a federal crime.

I am pretty sure the dude was convicted of federal bank fraud.

Going on television to declare the assaults acts of war

So, declare war on Egypt and Libya?  Yeah I can't see any way that could possibly go wrong.

Allons-y!

Just curious, was this a case of the UK declaring war on Iran?  Was this a case of Peru declaring war on Japan?

Allons-y!

The mistake was not bitchslapping Egypt and Libya within hours of the first round of embassy storming. Technically, it's also the through-line from the apology speech in Egypt a few years back, but coming down hard last week would have negated that.

Please articulate how you would have "bitch slapped" Egypt and Libya if you were President, and explain exactly how that would have stopped terrorist attacks from occurring in the future.  If memory serves, GBII "bitch slapped" both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm fairly confident that the historical record suggests that terrorist attacks and anti-US protests and so on continued to occur during the remainder of his term...just food for thought.

Allons-y!

What arrest?

Steve Whitmore, with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, told CNN that Nakoula had left the local sheriff's station after the federal officials were done interviewing him.

"He is gone and he is free," he said of Nakoula, who was bundled up in a coat, hat and white scarf as he was escorted from the premises by a sheriff's deputy.

Whitmore earlier dismissed reports that Nakoula had been arrested, saying he was never in handcuffs and had left his house willingly to be interviewed.

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/sam-bacile-nakoula-basseley-nakoula-california-man-grilled-by -feds-after-anti-islam-youtube-film#ixzz26r57Xqoj

8. was particularly funny. Most of ultra-conservative co-religionists on TnT wanted America's president to declare war on Egypt, but Obama merely threatened Egypt and walked it back when Egypt freaked out and offered to prevent future violence.

when Egypt freaked out and offered to prevent future violence.

They admitted they could have prevented the attack on our embassy?  Or is it only future violence the Muslim Brotherhood can now prevent?  Please provide some sourcing on this.  

Which Romney would also have done.

Getting rid of Mubarek was a horrible blunder. I'm surprised he didn't follow that up by calling for the ouster of the House of Saud.  We had two major arab allies in the area  and Obama worked to replace one of them with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well done.  

We had two major arab allies in the area  and Obama worked to replace one of them with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well done.

No. What replaced Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood was democracy, which was part of the Bush Doctrine.

Remember the whole spreading democracy shit championed by Bush?

Obama led the charge to depose Mubarek when he should have been doing everything in his power to prop him up.  HGHe compunded his mistak by calling for quick elections.  The Muslim Brotherhood was basically the only organized political appartus not aligned with Mubarek in existence and it was a no-brainer they would win any snap election.

Obama lost Egypt.

Obama led the charge to depose Mubarek when he should have been doing everything in his power to prop him up.

The Egyptian people wanted Mubarak to go. Propping up Mubarak (which would've worked for only a short time) would've led to even hatred of the US by Egyptians.

What the Obama administration did was a direct continuation of the Bush Doctrine.

It's amazing how much Obama and his defenders now rely on the defense that "we are just continuing George Bush's policies" on a whole range of issues. Bush at least believed what he was doing was the correct policy.  Obama and liberals in general spent the last 8 years ridiculing these same Bush policies and calling him the worst President in history. Given the chance to change course from the supposed worst President ever, he refused and liberals now embrace or ignore the same policies that drove them so crazy just a few years ago.

Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Bush legacy.  Bush can't be criticized without condemning Obama and the establishment absolutely refuses to do that.  

It's amazing how much Obama and his defenders now rely on the defense that "we are just continuing George Bush's policies" on a whole range of issues.

It is not a defense, but pointing out a fault. It's also to demonstrate that Obama is not as left-wing as people make him out to be.

It is also to point out inconsistencies among those who supported Bush's democracy missions, who somehow have changed their minds now the Black Obama is president.

Bush can't be criticized without condemning Obama and the establishment absolutely refuses to do that.

Though the mission might be the same, the methodology isn't. It is without a doubt Obama has managed international terrorism much more competently than Bush could have dreamed.

Path dependence.  We're all constrained by previous decisions-- our own and everybody else's.  It's like complaining that Obama didn't completely and immediately pull troops out of Iraq given that he argued invasion would be a bad idea in '02.  Obama in '09 wasn't facing the same circumstances as Bush in '03.

How do you believe Bush's actions forced Obama to immediately and vociferously call for Mubarak to step down in 2011? Do you believe that was the only possible course of action available to him?

I'm referring more generally to the attacks that Obama has carried on Bush's policies.

As for this specific incident, I don't have a problem with him calling for Mubarak to step down.  If a non-democratic government can't withstand internal strife without external support, it really has no claim to legitimacy.

Really?  George Bush's policies force Obama to issue signing statements, keep GITMO open,  continue renditions,  military tribunals,  indefinite detention of suspects  and the assassination of American citizens?  Why can't Obama stop expanding executive power in ways that Bush never dreamed of ?  How did George Bush force Obama to install recess appointments?    These are all policies  that Obama attacked Bush over and people on sites like this  demanded Bush be impeached for.  

That is not the case (see here, and here), even if it was it would not exempt the consequences of Obama's choice to back Islamist uprisings in Libya and Egypt.

Was it the Administration or the people at the Embassy who wrote the tweets?

The embassy is part of the adminstration.