What's up with jobs and corporate profits?

United States Corporate Profit Margins Are Higher Than Ever in History!

Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before.

 

Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

In short, our current system, and philosophy, is creating a country of a few winners and 300 million workers who are not sharing in this amazing time in history. The system is working very well for the very few.
                                                                                                           
See why middle class taxpayers are having to cover with tax rates from 35-35% for tax rates on the very,very wealthy who pay from 0% to 14%!thttp://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=241307762617157&set=a.241307759283824.57184.241304559284144&type=1&theater

There is nothing wrong with Mitt Romney......the problem is...

View this 3 minute video about "the problem"!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/09/29/exp-fareeds-take.cnn

I really think candidate Romney has a problem being someone he is not. He can't help being himself. He's a nice guy. He's smart.....but he's .....Mitt Romney.   I don't think enough people can identify with him. They can't help seeing Richie Rich, or Veronica, Scrooge, Mr. Monopoly, or Donald Trump. They could even imagine having a beer with George W. but .....Mitt Romney? He's even too handsome..so perfect..he so fits an unfortunate, for him, stereotype. Lot's of wealthy people don't have to deal with such a negative image.
Here is Bill and Malinda Gates.  Even Bill doesn't have the "image" problem that Mitt does:

Is Fox News the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party?

Many people have recently sent me photos of the extremely disrespectful billboards and bumper stickers that are out there focusing on President Obama.  I have heard about these disrespectful billboards before. I've also seen others, one that was also on a bumper sticker - "Let's not Re-Nig America". They say so much more about the people who put them up, and support them, then about the current president. I don't remember any such disrespect of a sitting president in my lifetime. I suppose part of it can be attributed to the ease of making large signs nowadays but that doesn't explain the intensity of the hate. Some think the level of disrespect is related to the quality of the man, of President Obama. I don't believe that in the least. President Obama has about the same popularity, or better, than most any other incumbent president after four years in office. It is the level of hate that is different. I believe that much of that hate can be attributed to racism and disrespect of minorities. It is the same type disrespect that soldiers often go into battle with. It is a necessary mind game that many individuals must play in order to deal with an opponent.

I don't think that displaying such hate, or disrespect, is helpful to their cause. It is the "Fox Effect" or "Yelling Wolf!". Fox News built a very successful industry around pretending to be a news agency and people who liked their version of the news were thrilled. They gained most all viewers who were already in the extreme right camp. They saturated their market. The gave a bullhorn to the extreme right. They led the charge for the republican party to appeal to the most extreme element of the party. It's very similar to what happened to extreme religions in the 1950's and 1960's. Those religions peaked, followers became disenchanted, and then, fell by the way side. Fox News experienced the surge in past years and has been losing viewership in recent years as people recognize it for what it is: a 24 hour platform for the most extreme elements of the new Republican Party. The more candidates appear on Fox, the more extreme they are viewed.  It is a self full filling prophesy.  You could say much the same about MSNBC except that format is more about the middle of the Democratic Party and has continued to gain viewership. It is a 'new morning" for how people get their news. It is likely that Fox News, just by continuing to exist the way they exist/have been existing, is more damaging to their cause than if they didn't exist at all. It's likely that the Republican Party has become more extreme in the process. Jeb Bush, a fairly reasonable member of the Bush family, a chip off the shoulder of George Bush Senior, says that the Republican Party has become so extreme that his Dad, the official mascot of the Republican Party, could not be elected to represent today's Republican Party.

It's thought that Fox news made major gains in past years until they garnered most all of the extreme right viewership. They remain the leading cable news network with their numbers of viewers far behind the regular network television of NBC, CBS, and ABC. Individual Fox shows (O'Reily, Hannity, VanGreten) all fall way behind Comedy Central's shows, the Daily Show and the Stephen Colbert Report.

In another example of the declining fortunes of the right-wing extremism propagated by conservative media and displayed so prominently by the GOP family competing for the Republican nomination for president, Nielsen has reported that the ratings for Fox News have taken a steep dive in 2011 and beyond.

Fox News has gone down significantly in prime time, posting its lowest weekday ratings since July 2008. “Hannity” is down -8% in Total Viewers and -20% in the demographic compared to last year, while “On The Record with Greta Van Susteren” is down -13% and -20%, respectively. “Fox Report” is down -13% in Total Viewers and -19% in the demographic.

 

 

 

      

  

  

    

  

  

  

  

  

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   

 

  

  

 

 

 

What about Mitt Romney's 47%?

Do you agree with Mitt Romney that all of the 47% of people, who get back money from a program they have paid into, are victims?

I included one of his related quotes on the bottom of this page.

Do you understand that about half of those people who pay into Social Security, don't ever recover the money they put into the program, much less the interest on the amount they paid? Does that make them all "victims"? Are you a victim if you pay money to the federal government and get a tax refund? I would think someone who understands insurance would understand how social security and Medicare work? They are types of insurance. Some get back more than they paid into, some get back less. Are all people who make claims on their car insurance and homeowners insurance victims too? Is someone a victim if they pay more money in taxes during the year and then get a tax refund? Are all of the people who work for so many of the top 50 corporations in the United States victims because their employee gets tax subsidies from the government? Have you ever got a tax refund? How is that different than someone who pays into the social security system and gets less back in benefits than what they paid?

 

Do you understand that the 47% that Mitt referred to includes people who do pay payroll taxes?  These people also pay state taxes, local taxes, real estate taxes,  and sales taxes.  They are part of the groupwho Mitt claims

 

Students who are working part time to keep their student loans down, while going to school full time, are included in the 47%. Do you see those people as victims too? Many people are working 2 and 3 jobs to feed, cloth, and house their family but do not make enough money to pay federal taxes? The do pay sales taxes and state taxes and local taxes. Do you agree with Mitt that these people are victims?

Is everone who has ever received social security, or federal assistance, a victim?

Are all retired military, from Viet Nam to Iraq, to Afghanistan, victims? They are included in Mitt Romney's 47%. Do you agree with Mitt? Mitt Romney, himself, if he chose to, could arrange his affairs, quite legally, to pay no taxes. When he ran Bain, he could have fallen into this group. It’s very easy for the manager of a hedge fund or private equity fund to have a billion-dollar income and pay no income taxes. Mitt Romney's mother was on public assistance when they moved back to the United States from Mexico. She would be included in Mitt's 47%, so would necessarily be a victim and would then vote for President Obama?

Is everyone who pays a lower percent of their income in taxes than the average taxpayer, a victim? Why not?

You indicated that you think that the referees had an unfair advantage over the NFL because their work could not be outsourced to a foreign country? Should they have to work for whatever the NFL decides they are worth as you stated should be the case for teachers, fireman, and police officers? Should your doctors work for whatever the hospital administration determines is enough regardless of how much they have had to pay in loans to get their degree? What if the hospital determines the amount they feel comfortable paying would never allow them to buy a house, feed their family, or be able to repay their loans?

Is everyone who pays a lower percent of their income in taxes than the average taxpayer, a victim? Why not?

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. There is a huge chunk of President Obama's supporters who don't pay taxes, believing they are "victims".

I think David Brooks said it best:

David Brooks"Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I'd put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney's comment is a country-club fantasy. It's what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

--
See why middle class taxpayers are having to cover for tax rates on the very,very wealthy of from 0% to 14%thttp://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=241307762617157&set=a.241307759283824.57184.241304559284144&type=1&theater

A Possible Solution to U.S. Unemployment

A possible solution to the problem of major corporations sending jobs oversees could be a strong international union representing workers around the world.

Just like the unions played a very important role in helping the United States to become industrialized,
multi-national unions may do the same for workers around the world.  The unions played an important role insuring living wages, protecting workers from excessive overtime, guaranteeing clean air to breath and clean water to drink.

Corporations have taken advantage of workers overseas.  They are working and living in cramped quarters, forced to work 80+ hours per week in working conditions that are inhumane and for pay that does not reflect their contribution to large amounts of money they are making for the corporation they are working for.

Requiring multi-national companies to abide by reasonable working conditions overseas would be a boon to workers, and job possibilities, here in the United States.  United States workers are the most productive workers in the world but they can not, and should not, have to compete with workers who are forced to work under inhumane working conditions for pay that doesn't reflect the important contribution they are making to the large corporations.

There was a time, in the United States, when the unions were drastically needed.  There was a time, in the United States, when the unions played an important role in the United States economy.  Perhaps that need is diminished here in the United States but the lack of acceptable working conditions and pay for workers overseas puts Unites States workers at an extreme disadvantage.  Perhaps there is a need for unions overseas to protect those workers (just as there was from the early 1900's here in the United States) and, in turn, help protect jobs here in the United States.

President Clinton Interviewed by Jon Stewart

I listened to the interview of President Clinton by Jon Stewart.  It was very good.  It's neat to get one of the most effective U.S. presidents, interviewed by one of the best interviewers in the U.S.  I recommend the interview.  It is split into two parts.  The first part is about what is best for the U.S. economy and the 2nd part is more about President Clinton's Global Initiative that started Sunday, September 23, 2012.  The whole interview takes about 20 minutes.  It is at:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/bill-clinton-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2

National View: It’s class warfare, Republican-style

Published September 23, 2012, 12:00 AM

 

Mitt Romney would pit the winners against the “victims,” the smug-and-rich against the down-on-their-luck, the wealthy tax avoiders against those too poor to owe income tax.

By: Eugene Robinson, Washington Post Writers Group

Now, at least, there can be no doubt about who is waging class warfare in this presidential campaign. Mitt Romney would pit the winners against the “victims,” the smug-and-rich against the down-on-their-luck, the wealthy tax avoiders against those too poor to owe income tax. He sees nearly half of all Americans as chumps who sit around waiting for a handout.

When Romney disclosed those views at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., this year, he and his audience had no idea they were being surreptitiously recorded. Romney obviously believed he was among friends who shared his worldview, which I would translate as: “We must stop coddling the servants.”

I am not exaggerating. Thanks to whoever leaked the recording to Mother Jones magazine, we know what Romney really thinks about the nation he seeks to lead:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that — that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”

This analysis is not only grossly offensive but astonishingly ignorant. Romney suggests that nearly half of Americans are layabouts who leave the house only when they need to cash a government check — or when it’s time to vote for President Obama. Greetings, lazy bums, I’m Mitt Romney. Vote for me!

The truth is that Romney is mixing apples, oranges and bananas. The three groups he mentions — those who support the president, those who receive payments from entitlement programs and those who are not required to pay federal income tax — are not the same people. Quite a few senior citizens who receive Social Security and Medicare are Republicans. Quite a few working-class voters are not charter members of Team Obama.

But Romney’s ignorance is not as shocking as his callousness. Here’s what he says next about the 47 percent: “And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

To all the single parents holding down two

minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet, all the seniors who saw their savings dwindle and had to go back to work part time, all the breadwinners who lost their jobs when private-equity firms swooped down to slash and burn — to all struggling Americans, it must come as a surprise to learn how irresponsible they’ve been. And it must be devastating to learn that, try as he might, Mitt Romney will never be able to show these unfortunates the error of their ways.

Romney might as well have quoted Cee Lo Green: “Forget you!”

In Romney’s view, as expressed at that fundraiser, the key to victory is winning the 7 percent or so who voted for Obama in 2008 but do not belong to the incorrigible 47 percent who should be thought of as lost souls. His explanation of how he intended to reach these people made me think of what early European explorers must have told the folks back home about communicating with the Native Americans they encountered:

“You see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him [Obama] and don’t agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them.”

Maybe he should just try handing out shiny beads.

In an elegant dining room where the self-

satisfaction was thick enough to cut with a knife, Romney made clear that he sees this election as “us” vs. “them” — wealthy Republicans vs. the unwashed hordes, makers vs. takers. Romney believes half of America is lazy, dependent and, frankly, not too bright.

Voters will soon have the opportunity to show him we’re not as stupid as he thinks.

Eugene Robinson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. He can be reached at eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

 

Check out the "Move To Amend" movement!

@

http://www.indiegogo.com/stampede

We built it together: a hand up for Mitt Romney’s family, Paul Ryan’s family, and mine

By Mayor R.T. Rybak

I wish I could show Mitt Romney what I’ve seen in Minneapolis, because if I could, he would know how deeply, deeply wrong he is.

At first I didn’t think we needed another person chiming in on Mitt Romney’s latest stumble. His remarkably clueless comments dissing 47 percent of the country he wants to lead speak for themselves.

But when I thought more about this — and then watched a different, shocking video — I felt I needed to connect these offensive remarks to what I see in Minneapolis, and my own life.

The tape that really blew my mind is actually 50 years old. In it, Lenore Romney, Mitt’s mom, talks about her husband, George, who in 1962 was running for governor of Michigan for the first time. As she talked with rightful pride about George’s successful personal story, she casually disclosed that the Romney family was on public assistance when George first came to this country. (Watch her comments between 0:45–1:15.)

The story is that George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was born in Mexico while his parents were living there to escape religious persecution. When the Mexican Revolution broke out, George and his family moved back to the U.S. — where George’s self-made story began with what his son would call a government handout.

But it wasn’t a handout — it was a hand up, and George Romney used that hand up the ladder to build a very successful business career. He built it — but we helped.

Story repeated literally every day

Now let’s bring this story back to Minneapolis, where we see George Romney’s story repeated literally every day. Immigrants who escape war come to Minneapolis from places like Somalia, Liberia, Burma and Syria. Like Romney’s father, a lot of people come from Mexico, and other parts of Latin America, too.  Some go on public assistance. Some live in public housing. But when I listen to Mitt Romney, I realize that he thinks the story ends there, with generations of dependence, with people assuming the government owes them and doing nothing to help themselves.

I wish I could show him what I’ve seen in Minneapolis, because if I could, he would know how deeply, deeply wrong he is. I have met hundreds of young people doing just what George Romney did: using a hand up in tough times to become part of the American Dream. I know so many young people and young immigrants who are thriving in school, getting STEP-UP jobs, getting into college, starting their careers and beginning to pay back the country that gave them a fair shot.

Some of them have even worked in my office: Hashim Yonis may well be mayor someday, or the great leader who finally brings peace to Somalia. Alex Glaze beat incredible odds that few of us can imagine beating and is excelling at Stanford University. Myriam Demello, an amazingly talented STEP-UP intern in my office this past summer, just started at Hamline University and I predict will be on the Supreme Court someday. And all of them are the key to Minneapolis’ future and America’s future.

For the past seven years, I have held career forums every year in every public Minneapolis high school. I ask 9th graders to make firm plans to attend college and to imagine that their futures are limitless. I have heard thousands of kids talk about their futures — and never once in all that time have I heard a single young person from any background talk the way that Mitt Romney seems to believe they think. He may not think they’re going to be as successful as George Romney was, but don’t bet on it.

Romney's — and Ryan's — obligation

Mitt Romney has every reason to be tremendously proud of all that his father accomplished. But in his position, he has an obligation to understand how he got where he is, and to give others the same chance.  So does Paul Ryan.

I raise Ryan because of a part of his biography that I also just learned shows again why Romney’s comments — and the politics that Romney and Ryan practice — are so wrong. When Paul Ryan’s father died when Paul was 16, his widowed mother went back to college herself and used her Social Security survivor benefits to put Paul through college.

That rang very true to me, because that is exactly the same situation that my mother found herself in when my father died, when I was 10.

My father ran a corner drugstore where he worked night and day, seven days a week, until he died of a stroke. He literally worked himself to death. My mother took over running the store, then got another job, while she put herself and her three kids through college — with the help of the Social Security survivor benefits that she also received.

My mother was not the “victim” that Romney described, and the very last thing my parents ever would have said is that the government owed them anything. But when my family faced a crisis, there was a hand up from one of those “government programs” that Romney and Ryan now love to hate.

'Entitlements' got us to college

Paul Ryan and I both got to go to college precisely because of the “entitlements” that my hardworking parents never expected they were entitled to.

Politicians make mistakes. People misspeak in public. God knows I have proven both. A lot.

But this latest Romney screed is more than that. It is a window into the soul of a man who wants to lead this entire country, a man who strangely sounds more comfortable talking on that tape than almost any other time I’ve heard him in this campaign.

This sure seems to be a guy saying what he truly believes. Fair enough. We’re all entitled to our opinions.

But we aren’t entitled to rewrite our own family histories and pretend that we build this alone. Because we built it together.

R.T. Rybak is the mayor of Minneapolis. This commentary originally appeared at http://rtrybak.tumblr.com.

Disdain for Workers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 20, 2012   

By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country — the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes — declaring, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.

But here’s the question: Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of them actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.

For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families — who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.

Am I exaggerating? Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.

Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words “worker” or “workers” never passed his lips. This was in strong contrast to President Obama’s convention speech a week later, which put a lot of emphasis on workers — especially, of course, but not only, workers who benefited from the auto bailout.

And when Mr. Romney waxed rhapsodic about the opportunities America offered to immigrants, he declared that they came in pursuit of “freedom to build a business.” What about those who came here not to found businesses, but simply to make an honest living? Not worth mentioning.

Needless to say, the G.O.P.’s disdain for workers goes deeper than rhetoric. It’s deeply embedded in the party’s policy priorities. Mr. Romney’s remarks spoke to a widespread belief on the right that taxes on working Americans are, if anything, too low. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal famously described low-income workers whose wages fall below the income-tax threshold as “lucky duckies.”

What really needs cutting, the right believes, are taxes on corporate profits, capital gains, dividends, and very high salaries — that is, taxes that fall on investors and executives, not ordinary workers. This despite the fact that people who derive their income from investments, not wages — people like, say, Willard Mitt Romney — already pay remarkably little in taxes.

Where does this disdain for workers come from? Some of it, obviously, reflects the influence of money in politics: big-money donors, like the ones Mr. Romney was speaking to when he went off on half the nation, don’t live paycheck to paycheck. But it also reflects the extent to which the G.O.P. has been taken over by an Ayn Rand-type vision of society, in which a handful of heroic businessmen are responsible for all economic good, while the rest of us are just along for the ride.

In the eyes of those who share this vision, the wealthy deserve special treatment, and not just in the form of low taxes. They must also receive respect, indeed deference, at all times. That’s why even the slightest hint from the president that the rich might not be all that — that, say, some bankers may have behaved badly, or that even “job creators” depend on government-built infrastructure — elicits frantic cries that Mr. Obama is a socialist.

Now, such sentiments aren’t new; “Atlas Shrugged” was, after all, published in 1957. In the past, however, even Republican politicians who privately shared the elite’s contempt for the masses knew enough to keep it to themselves and managed to fake some appreciation for ordinary workers. At this point, however, the party’s contempt for the working class is apparently too complete, too pervasive to hide.

The point is that what people are now calling the Boca Moment wasn’t some trivial gaffe. It was a window into the true attitudes of what has become a party of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, a party that considers the rest of us unworthy of even a pretense of respect.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 21, 2012, on page A29 of the New York edition with the headline: Disdain For Workers.

Republican's Still Don't Get It!  by Robert Reich
(former United States Secretary of Labor under President Clinton)

Unemployment is still above 8 percent, job gains aren't even keeping up with population growth, the economy is barely moving forward. And yet, according to most polls, the Romney-Ryan ticket is falling further and further behind. How can this be?
Because Republicans are failing the central test of electability. Instead of putting together the largest possible coalition of voters, they're relying largely on one slice of America -- middle-aged white men -- and alienating just about everyone else.
Start with Hispanics, whose electoral heft keeps growing as they become an ever-larger portion of the electorate. Hispanics now favor President Obama over Romney by a larger margin than they did six months ago.
Why? In February's Republican primary debate, Romney dubbed Arizona's controversial immigration policy, which authorized police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone who looks Hispanic, a "model law" for the rest of the nation.
Romney then attacked GOP rival Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, for supporting in-state tuition at the University of Texas for children of undocumented immigrants. And Romney advocates what he calls "self-deportation" -- making life so difficult for undocumented immigrants and their families that they choose to leave.
As if all this weren't enough, the GOP has been pushing voter ID laws all over America, whose obvious aim is to intimidate Hispanic voters so they won't come to the polls. But they may be having the opposite effect -- emboldening the vast majority of ethnic Hispanics, who are American citizens, to vote in even greater numbers and lend even more support to Obama and other Democrats.
Or consider women, whose political and economic impact in America continues to grow. (Women are fast becoming better educated than men and the major breadwinners in American homes.) According to polls, the political gender gap is widening.
Why? It's not just GOP senatorial candidate Todd Akin's call to ban all abortions even in the case of "legitimate rape" (because he believes women's bodies somehow reject violent sperm). The GOP platform itself seeks to bar all abortions, with no exception for rape or incest. And on several occasions Paul Ryan has voted in favor of exactly such legislation.
Meanwhile, Republican legislators in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho and Alabama have pushed bills requiring women seeking abortions to undergo invasive vaginal ultrasound tests. All told, more than 400 Republican bills that attack women's reproductive rights are pending in state legislatures.
Republicans have repeatedly voted against legislation giving women equal pay for the same work as men. Republicans in Wisconsin have even repealed a law designed to prevent employers from discriminating against women.
Or consider students, a significant and growing electoral force, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. What are Republicans doing to woo them back?
Paul Ryan's budget plan -- approved by almost every House Republican and enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney -- would have allowed rates on student loans to double, adding an average of $1,000 a year to student debt loads. (Under mounting political pressure, House Republicans came up with just enough money to keep the loan program going safely past Election Day by raiding a fund established for preventive care in the new health-care act.)
Now Romney wants to hand the federal student loan program over to the banks, which will charge even more. Earlier this year he argued that subsidized student loans were bad because they encouraged colleges to raise tuition, and suggested students ask their family for money.
Republicans have even managed to antagonize seniors by seeking to turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won't keep up with rising health-care costs, and seeking to cut $800 billion out of Medicaid (which many seniors rely on for nursing home care).
And, of course, they've come out against equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Romney, Ryan and the GOP don't seem to know how to satisfy their middle-aged white male base without at the same time turning off everyone who's not white, male, straight or middle-aged. Unfortunately for Romney and Ryan, the people they're turning off are the majority.
-------------------
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California and former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is the author of "Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy, and how to fix it," a Knopf release now out in paperback.

Romney attacks the 47%!
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders is one of the longest serving Congressmen in the U.S. and he calls it like he sees it!  Thank goodness for Senator Sanders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q81-McRiGBA&feature=player_embedded
Watch Independent Bernie Sanders tell it like it is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q81-McRiGBA&feature=player_embedded

The 47 Percent, In One Graphic

Categories: Government

by JACOB GOLDSTEIN

Mitt Romney's comments regarding the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income tax is getting lots of attention today. Our colleague Mark Memmott explains the context.

Here's a closer look at the numbers.

As of the latest accounting, it's actually just over 46 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center (PDF). Here's how that breaks down.

Source: Tax Policy Center

Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR

Notes:

Low income. There's no income tax if your income falls below a certain threshold. For a family of four, that threshold was$26,400 last year.

Benefits for the elderly. Some Social Security payments are not taxed as income. The elderly also get an extra standard deduction that lowers their taxes, in some cases to zero.

Benefits for the working poor and children. These include the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the child care tax credit. Because of these special benefits, a family of four (two parents, two children) earning up to $45,775 last year would not have had to pay income taxes, primarily because of special credits for children.

Other benefits. This includes itemized deductions, tax credits for education, and the income tax exemptions for everything from disability payments to interest on municipal bonds.

Update, 3:30 p.m.: The headline of this post notwithstanding, we found another data set that we couldn't resist.

This one shows a breakdown by annual income of all households that pay no income tax.

Notes

Percentages do not add up to 100. For more information see this table from the Tax Policy Center.

September 17, 2012

IN NEW CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, ROMNEY TO HAVE MOUTH WIRED SHUT UNTIL NOVEMBER

Posted by Andy Borowitz

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In what his campaign described today as a bold strategy to insure victory in the Presidential contest, Republican nominee Mitt Romney will undergo a procedure to have his mouth wired shut until Tuesday, November 6th.

The decision reportedly was made in response to the release earlier in the day of rare video footage showing Mr. Romney saying what he really thinks.

In the video, Mr. Romney blasts the American people for being “insanely obsessed with food, clothing, and shelter,” and asserts that many of them are “too lazy to hide their money overseas.”

At another point in the video, Mr. Romney refers to his own hardscrabble childhood: “I was never handed anything in life. If I wanted to cut a gay kid’s hair off, I had to pin him to the ground myself.”

Romney campaign aides were upbeat about the mouth-wiring procedure today, with some saying they wished they had thought of it months ago.

When asked about the procedure at a campaign stop in Ohio, Mr. Romney said, “Mmmnff ffnn mmfff nnnnnff.”

Andy Borowitz will be doing a free show at Rutgers University on Monday, October 29th at 7 P.M. Register for tickets.

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/in-new-campaign-strategy-romney-to-have-mouth-wired-shut-until-november.html#ixzz26pbq6qK9

Today we learned that Mitt Romney said this about Obama supporters to fellow millionaires at a closed-door fundraiser:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax ...

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/romney-faults-those-dependent-on-government/?hp

The man who spoke these words -- who demonstrates such disgust and disdain for half of our fellow Americans -- is the other side's choice for president of the United States. He wants to lead our country.

If we don't come through for President Obama right now, this will be the guy making big decisions that affect us and our families every single day.

There are only 50 days left in this campaign. Please make a donation today.

https://donate.barackobama.com/Behind-Closed-Doors

Republican Lies!

Someone asked me: "Don't all of the negative ads, and emails, about our President Obama make you depressed?"

 

No, it doesn't, because most of the attacks are so far off base as to reflect more about the sender than they do about President Obama. They reflect how desperate many of those who hate President Obama are. Most of these lies are based on an unspoken prejudices or bigotry.

 

The types of criticism that is out of line and is primarily based on prejudice,  hate, and inaccurate facts, include:

That President Obama does not respect the American Flag,

President Obama is a communist (others claims he is just contolled by Wallstreet - that's an interesting mixture!),

That President Obama has removed the American flag from Air Force One,

That President Obama is a Marxist/socialist,

That President Obama turns his back on the American Flag and refuses to salute the flag. I have emails that "prove" his lack of patriotism, using images of the president, that are being sent to the vulnerable and those easily fooled,

That President Obama has given away 7 Alaskan Islands,

That Persident Obama was not even born in the United States,

That President Obama is Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer.

I have emails that question President Obama's faith and/or patriotism,

That President Obama is an idiot,

That President is gutless,

That the economy is still in recession,

That the economy is doing worse now than when President Obama took office when the U.S. was losing over 700,000 jobs per month, and when unemployment reached over 10%, and the economy was in free fall.

That President Obama doesn't appreciate those who have built a successfull business,

That President Obama hates wealthy people ( he is one and wants everyone to have the same oportunities, that he and Michelle had, to be successful),

That President Obama has hindered oil and gas production ( it's never been higher!),

That President Obama stole $717 billion from Medicare ( Did Romney/Ryan also "steal" from Meidcare when they used the same $716 billion savings in their busget?).

The Republican Party contributed/contributes to one of the biggest lies. They used a scoreboard size digital banner that dominated the RNC arena as that debt approached $16 trillion. This image was accompanied by inaccurate statements that indicated that they, the Republican Party, were not a primary contributor to the national debt.  They imply that they were the party that was willing to work on solving the national debt problem.   These images try to hide the fact that most of the national debt, 80%, occurred under their watch and was part of legislation that was put into law/effect by Republicans and Democrats before President Obama took his oath of office.  A Democratic, Clinton, Administration had balanced the national debt (we had a $380 billion surplus!) , that will need to be addressed by Republicans and Democrats working together. In my lifetime, only (all!) Republican Administrations have increased the U.S. national debt. George W.Bush, George H.W.. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness. All of the former Democratic Administrations ( Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) reduced public debt as a share of GDP. It is deceptive for the Republican Party to portray themselves as ever having worked on solving the problem of the national debt. It isn't true. It is a big lie.

That "everything is going up". Several speakers at the RNC, including Ann Romney, made untrue statements implying that the cost of living is "out of control" and that shoppers are dealing with "unbridled" increases at the gas pumps and at the grocery store. Gas prices are high ( they still haven't reached the levels that occured during the last Republican administration) but the rate of inflation is lower (averaging 1.7% per year) during President Obama's administration than any president's first term, ever.  It is a lie to imply that President Obama is causing record increases in the cost of living.

That Republicans were never major players in mandated health insurance plans,

That Republicans never championed the goal of providing health care for all Americans.

These lies do not depress me. They indicate the desperation on the part of those who use them, and who try to fool those who are vulnerable to such claims. The use of those lies give me, give many, more motivation to work to see that President Obama get credit for the good things he has done and not be unfairly challenged.

 

There are valid criticisms of President Obama that could be used to base a campaign against him. It would be valid to criticise his success in being a person who would work with his Republican opposition. There is a bigger divide between the two parties than ever. If I thought that divide was the result of actions on the part of President Obama, I would find that be a valid criticism. I think it may be equally valid that President Obama tried too hard to get cooperation from a group that early on indicated that his efforts would be for naught. The Tea Party, led by Grover Norquist, indicated from day one that they would not be cooperating and that any Republican, who would cooperate with the Obama Administration, would be replaced with people who refused to cooperate and they were very successful at doing so. From day one the leader of the Republican Senators, Mitch McConnell, said that it would be the number one goal of Republicans to make sure that President Obama does not get another term, more important that working to provide jobs, more important that working to solve the problem of the national debt.

It would be a valid criticism of President Obama that he has not been successful at reducing our national debt as he said he would do. I think that is his primary failure. It is not true that he hasn't worked very hard to achieve progress with reducing the national debt. He and House Speaker, John Boehner, came very close to accepting a compromise deal that would have made large inroads in reducing our national debt. That deal fell apart very close to having been accepted. The reason for the collapse is subject to interpretation but it is accurate that the leader of the Republican's in the House of Representatives was not able to get the support of his own party, primarily the Grover Norquist Tea Party representatives, for the progress that he and President Obama had made.

 

I welcome valid criticism of President Obama but dispise the use of lies.