Young People; Get Over your Ron Paul Man-Crush

There is a seriously disturbing trend of young kids going gaga for Ron Paul.
Democrats had better pay notice. Obama soared to an electoral victory thanks in no small part from the youth vote in 2008. Millions of people under 30, millions of first-time voters showing up at the ballot box to ride the Hope & Change Wagon. Incidentally, the only white demographic that Obama won in 2008 was the 18-35 year-olds.And we're gonna need them if we want to win in '12. Three years later, millions are still out of work, the political divisions remain & the economy is still very delicate thanks to the do-nothing Fillibuster happy Congress that Obama has had to deal with.

Ron Paul's doctrine certainly speaks to a group of young voters, with his non-conformist, rebellious rage against the machine rhetoric. Young kids can identify with this. The youth are obviously concerned about their future and hate the thought of paying off wars they don't support the rest of their lives. Paul's lasez-faire attitude toward things like ending the War on Drugs and getting government out of the marriage business work well for him in getting the youth out to vote for him.

This is all fine & dandy and I certainly side with Paul when it comes to Foreign Policy. But that is simply where my alliance with him ends. Ron Paul is the candidate liberals think that they love, until they spend five minutes discovering who he actually is, and what he would do to this country.

To deconstruct Paul, first you have to understand what a liberaterian is. This is essentially the absence of almost any government whatsoever. This means no highway system, no Social Security, no Medicare, no student aid to attend college, no unemployment insurance if your laid off from your job during a recession through no fault of your own. A free public school system? Guess again. This means no checks & balances in the financial sector, no laws protecting people from discrimination. This would take us back to segregated lunch counters, land-lords that are able to throw you out of your apartment simply because they don't like black people.

It sounds all fine and dandy when he says things like, "restore our freedoms and liberty." "Let the free market decide what's appropriate." This ideology would be great if we were living in some Utopian Society where everyone did the right thing. Alas, we as you know do not. No country in the history of man-kind has succeeded while embracing Paul's principles. Government does actually have a purpose. Especially in a country of 300 million and a GDP of $15 Trillion.

Prior to the New Deal, and the creation of the Federal Reserve (as Paul's people deteste to no end) we did not live in a Utopian Society of Middle Class, Mon-Fri College Graduate type folks with things that we take for granted. Like weekends, overtime, vacation pay, healthcare, labor laws for children, safe working environments, Workman's Compensation, etc.
The Free Market didn't create this kind of society. Government & unions did. The GI Bill helped create the greatest generation of Middle Class families the world has ever known. The Free Market wasn't responsible for that. Government was.
Before Roosevelt regulated the banking system, we were not a Nation of Sound Money as Paul would have you believe. The banks went boom & bust almost every decade - wiping out lifetime savings of families and ushering in depressions/recessions on a regular basis.(There were five depressions in the 19th Century) The policies of the New Deal kept this pattern of recklessness from wiping out the Financial System for decades until we started gradually deregulating it starting with Reagan. Perhaps the greatest atrocity of deregulation was repealing a depression era law known as Glass-Steagall which kept Banks and Investment Banks separate. Almost 10 years to the date of repeal resulted in the collapse of the Financial Sector. During the 80's & 90's we partially deregulated the Financial Sector and look what happened. Paul would completely get rid of any sort of Government oversight in the sector and we would be strictly at their mercy. No thanks.

Ron Paul wants the power to regulate Monetary Policy to go back to Congress. Are you kidding me? Those jokers? The same people who almost defaulted on the Full Faith & Credit of the United States? I agree that the Federal Reserve is shadowy and clandestine in nature, but the last people on earth that should have the power of our currency is Congress who is fully owned by the lobbyists & Special Interest that pays for them. Monetary Policy is very complex and I certainly don't want that to be politicized. Members of Congress aren't professional economists. Members of the Fed are. They are elected by Congress and that's good enough for me. Sure, maybe we should look into more oversight & transparency, but my God, DON'T let Congress get their hands on our currency..

Paul would have you believe that before Medicare/Medicaid was created, the cost of healthcare really wasn't that bad because government wasn't involved. Actually, it really was pretty bad and seniors in particular spent their life savings paying for their healthcare. Paul doesn't believe in Social Security but in personal savings. Well, in a Ron Paul World of unregulated markets and jobs, if you're lucky enough to actually have a nest egg without the aid of Social Security, you'd probably eventually lose it all in another run on the banks or major depression or recession. Prior to the New Deal, seniors lived in extreme poverty. They didn't have luxuries today like cashing out equity on their house through a Reverse Mortgage.

Most importantly. Ron Paul is almost bragging about how he is going to remove $1 Trillion from the budget in his first year. Now, take it with a grain because even if he was elected that's almost impossible to make good on as Congress has the power of the purse and there are not 535 radical enough people to drink the Paul Kool-Aid.

We all know that we have a serious debt problem. But it is not as serious as the jobless problem. Just look to countries in Europe that are embracing Austerity when they should be investing in their economies right now. They're all going back into recession and the budget deficits actually get worse as tax revenues fall due to more and more people being out of work due to Austerity. They're exacerbating the problem dramatically.

When the economy in the US collapsed, it was from a contraction of 8% of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008. That's about $1 Trillion. We were bleeding jobs at an average of 700,000 per month. Trillions of dollars of wealth was wiped out in the Stock Markets and Home Values.
Some people in this generation may never fully recover from this collapse. Billions in pension funds disappeared. That's what taking $1 Trillion out of the economy looks like. And that is what Ron Paul wants to do again in a not-yet-recovered economy. This would plunge the world into a Global Depression and I don't see America coming out number 1 again.

Even in a recession, our European & Asian economic competitors are still investing in infrastructure & education at rates double & triple the rate that we are. If we're going to remain dominant on the world stage we have to invest in our country in a way only government can.

I can certainly respect Ron Paul for staying true and consistent with his principles for decades. He's been getting up in front of his party over the years and never backing down from what he believes in while the GOP boos him off the stage. I respect the love he obviously has for his country and he really believes in what he's saying. But I don't respect his disdain for government. I can't respect his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the fucking Civil War (Paul maintains that we didn't have to go to war over slavery, I beg to differ) and even his opposition to Martin Luther King Day (he famously dubbed, "Hate Whitey Day" on the House Floor)

We're not a group of pilgrims in a great American Experiment anymore. We're not that small, low tax nation that doesn't get involved in global affairs anymore. We don't have a monarch to rally against, but we certainly have massive greed, corruption and ridiculously wealthy people that we need a check & balance on to maintain a strong & healthy middle class and protect us from plutocracy.

Ron Paul is not good for America.

Extending Payroll Tax Holiday for the 99%

The Payroll Tax Holiday is set to expire next month and precious take-home pay for the middle class will increase unless Congress acts. The failure to restore the unemployment benefits and the tax holiday will cause the economy to collapse by hundreds of billions of dollars and will most certainly mean less job creation at a time when 14 million Americans are out of work. This should be a no-brainer.

The idea behind this is that as the middle class typically spend almost 100% of what they make, the increased take-home pay will go directly into the economy. This will of course increase demand and where there is demand, there are jobs. We also know according to CBO, for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits - $2 are added to the economy. The best stimulus we know of. Not only are these benefits the smart thing to do doing a severe economic downturn, but it's also the humane thing to do. For millions of Americans, these benefits are there the only thing from keeping them off the streets.

The Republican Party seems so completely out of touch with the reality of the America we live in. Their rhetoric is always one that these unemployed simply aren't looking for jobs, that we're making them lazy while they are "living large" on a couple hundred bucks a week. This couldn't be further from the truth.

While we have seen job creation every month for the last few years, unemployment remains over 8%. Economists agree that we need net job creation of 250-300,000 per month to restore full employment as well as keep pace with population growth. That is a far cry from the 100,000 jobs we have averaged.

Recently, Republicans blocked a bill to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits because it asked to add a surtax of 3.25% on all income over $1 million.
The interesting thing here is of course that Republicans always insist that tax cuts pay for themselves and whenever they cut taxes they never seem to have to "pay for them." Or course, since this is a Democrat plan, things are different but so be it.

Let's just break this down a bit. First off, the GOP would rather see taxes increase on 160 million Americans because we'd modestly increase taxes on 300,000 millionaires & billionaires. You've got to be fucking kidding me. This is the "Party of Tax Cuts" for fuck's sake!! This is clearly a line in the sand drawn by the Republican Party that they are representing the 1% and not the so-called 99%. Let's be clear about this tax increase too. People often think that this means if you make over a million that all your taxes increase 3%. Not true! That is what marginal tax rates mean.
The first million is taxed at standard rates and income OVER a million is subject to the surtax. This means that if you make say $1.1 million a year - your taxes increase by $3,000. That would mean that your taxes increase like 0.3% I guess that's not so Communist after all huh.

Secondly, Democrats & Republicans claim that reducing payroll taxes will lower the Social Security Trust fund. NOT TRUE! Under the plan, the shortfall would be paid to the SSA from the General Fund. The payroll taxes are simply the vehicle in which we would be increasing employee take home pay. This is far more effective than using a tax credit system. When people have more take home pay on a regular basis, they're more likely to go out and spend that money and help the economy expand. Getting a bigger refund at the end of the year usually goes to savings or paying down debts. Which is not a bad thing, but the point behind the tax cut is to expand the economy and create jobs.

No, this may not be sustainable over a long period of time, but over the past few decades the top 1% continue to take a bigger and bigger slice of the economy. In order to have the same purchase power that you did in 1980 for instance, you would need to earn an average of $12,000 more per year than you do now. Over the last 30 years, the average household income increased 18%. The top 1% increased 275%! Until we can come up with a solution to the income in-equality in America, we should be adopting policies that can increase take home pay for the working middle class. As history suggests, the stronger the middle class, the stronger the overall economy does, more jobs are created, tax revenues increase and even the rich do better.

If we look to Europe which has adopted all sorts of Austerity packages aimed at reducing sovereign debts, we see that these policies are stifling economic growth, increasing unemployment and further reducing tax revenues, which means they have to cut spending even more to cover the revenue shortfall and this vicious cycle goes on and on.

A second round of stimulus would be Dead on Arrival in Congress so the most we can hope for is some middle class tax relief which the GOP always seem to be on board with. And sure enough, because Obama wants this to happen, they have to be against it. It's almost as if they hope the economy continues to suffer so Obama won't be re-elected.

The Republicans continue to pounce on Obama over "failed economic policies" while at the same time they are pushing an agenda that got us into this mess in the first place.

Historians overwhelmingly agree that FDR was are country's greatest president. It took FDR his entire presidency to recover from the Great Depression. I'm so sorry the black guy couldn't do it in two years.

Reading "This Time is Different - 8 Centuries of Bank Failures" suggests that this could take a generation or more to recover employment. Bold action is necessary.. Not austerity, de-regulation or eliminating Social Programs.

Dr. Laura & Sarah Palin ~ Sisterhood of the First Amendment Nonesense

The Constitution seems to be a major issue in politics these last few weeks.
It seeks that Conservatives all over the political spectrum want to have their cake and eat it too.

You have the 14th Amendment Issue where Conservatives want to strip your Constitutional Right to Birthright Citizenship.

You have Cordoba House AKA Ground Zero "Mosque." Despite this being nothing more than a local zoning issue, it's turning into a daily Republican talking point, but instead of citing your First Amendment Right to freedom of religion, GOP opposition to Cordoba House is becoming their platform to the November Midterm Elections.

Most recently we have Dr. Laura. You know, my disdain or Dr. Laura goes back more than a decade and I won't spend much time going over why she is Dr. Hate.
Her recent debacle surrounds her her use of the "N" word 11 times on a recent episode of her radio show.
Granted, Dr. Laura wasn't inciting hate for once, necessarily. Dr. Laura is simply guilty of insensitivity to the use of the "N" word and bad taste.
This is very shades of the Don Imus"nappy headed hoes" comment a few years ago.

The point of this post of mine isn't about what bad judgment Dr. Laura used on her show, otherwise I'd be typing all night long. The point is how Dr. Laura keeps insinuating that her First Amendment Rights have been obstructed. She's even ending her show so she can "get her First Amendment Rights back."
What's more is, she's got company, albeit - not the best kind. Half-term Governor Sarah Palin is coming to the rescue, tweeting similar gibberish around how the "lamestream media" has trampled Dr. Laura's First Amendment Rights.

I'd just like to ask these ladies, just how Dr. Laura's rights were somehow violated or obstructed? Dr. Laura said the "N" word 11 times on her show. The show aired. Million of people listened. No Government agency is going after Dr. Laura trying to haul her off to jail or slap her with a huge fine. Her show hasn't been sanctioned by any Government. She had the freedom to say it, and still has the freedom to say it again.
There is no protection in the First Amendment that somehow exempts you from the court of public opinion. Just as Dr. Laura is free to, and still is free to use the "N" word in public or in private, we the people are free to denounce such hate speech and expose it. We the people are free to pressure advertisers to stop bankrolling her show and encourage people to denounce her.
Surely someone like Sarah Palin should understand that, as she aspires to be President one day. Her first duty to the country as President is to defend the Constitution, not to defend disgraced public people from tanking popularity.

You know, Sarah wants President Obama to denounce the planning of the New York Mosque but yet she has yet to denounce Dr. Laura's use of such an offensive word, which just goes to show you the xenophobic attitude of Sarah and her Tea Party.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks that as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia then there shouldn't be a place for Muslims to worship in Manhattan. Hmmm......so is he saying that we should strive to be more like Saudi Arabia???

Bottom line.....you can't cry about the first amendment not protecting you from public opinion, and you can't deny Muslims their First Amendment Right to a place to worship.

New York "Mosque"

Much is being discussed around the "politics" of the New York Mosque. I find a lot of the rhetoric disgusting and totally UN-American.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is directly from the First Amendment of the United States. A quote I heard a few days ago that I found extremely appropriate was, "The entire point of the United States is so that a group of Progressive Muslim es can build a place of worship anywhere they feel like."

One of the most important things to remember is that the institution of Islam did not attack us on September 11. A group of radicals from Saudi Arabia did. Just like the institution of Christianity did not bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. Radical religious nut cases did. So under the right winger logic, should we also ban building churches next to abortion clinics? We can't be blaming entire groups of people for the actions of their fringe groups.
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with al-Quaida. Of course, if al-Queida wanted to build a recruiting center next to Ground Zero, legally this could never happen and of course the New York Planning Community would never approve something so ridiculous.

When we stop being American, stop celebrating the very fabric of what makes America, America - then indeed the terrorists do win. Building this center at Ground Zero demonstrates to the world how great this country is, that we are better than hate. We live in a country where we celebrate diversity and religious tolerance. The Terrorists wanted this war between the religions. Continuing this xenophobic rhetoric and politics is exactly what they wanted.

Let's also put this into perspective. The New York "Mosque" isn't even a "Mosque." It is an Islamic Community Center, being planned by a group of Progressive Muslims who want to build a bridge and reject Extremism.

The Islamic Center, which is called Cordoba House, was unanimously approved by the New York Planning Committe and is supported by Mayor Bloomgerg.
The Right Wingers claim to be about small government and free market principles. If they truely believe in this, then they should simply but out of this altogether and let the "private sector" self-regulate. If people truely don't support Cordoba House, then it will eventually close down. This is not a national issue. This should not be used as a political spin for Midterm Elections.

Cordoba House isn't even at Ground Zero. It is several blocks away - and anyone that knows NYC knows that a NYC block is pretty big. So then this also brings up another question entirely. How close is too close? If Cordoba House is just "to close" then what exactly would be an appropriate distance for Muslims to worship at?
There is another actual Mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero that has existed peaceully for years - shall we close that one down too?

The Tea Party needs to figure out their message. They don't believe in the Civil Rights Act of '64. They believe that the "Free Market" should decide whether or not it's appropriate for a Restaurant owner to decide if they want to serve black people or not, but at the same time, they don't believe in the Free Market deciding whether or not Muslims should enjoy their First Amendment privelages of Freedom of Religion.

Lastly, and most importantly, this is an issue for New York City, so how bout we all shut up about this already and let the people of New York decide for themselves whether or not this land dispute should go through. Oh wait, they already did.

Get your Government hands off of my Constitution!

So it seems that this notion of repealing the 14th Amendment from the United States Constitution is simply not going away anytime soon. Just a few weeks ago, this whole idea was coming from the obcure fringe ultra right wingnuts. I thought that this idea was so ridiculous I discounted it at first. Now we are hearing from this almost daily on the news, in the blogosphere and at town halls across the country.

Even more troubling, is that according to a recent poll, 49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship which is the cornerstone of the 14th Amendment.

I don't think people realize the ramifications of what that could mean to the nation if such a plot were ever to come to fruition. I don't think people understand that when the Republican Party of the 19th century first enacted the 14th Amendment, it was considered vital for equality, and it is the mechanism that allows the Federal Government to enforce the Bill of Rights.
As I stated in my previous post, the framers of the 14th Amendment were wise to incorporate Birthright citizenship into the constitution. It was and still imperative that all people born in this country enjoy the life,liberty and pursuit of hapiness guarenteed under the constitution regardless of any type of discrimination of lack of political popularity. Sometimes things in our Constitution are not politically popular - like Miranda Rights, Freedom of Religion (in the New York mosque incident.) and now Birthright Citizenship. However, politically popular or not, they are still right and just and have navigated our country for decades. That is part of our "American Exceptionalism" that the right always accuses the left of not believing in. And it's even more interesting that it is the "right" that always claims to be strict constitutionalists, but in this political environment, they seem to be going after Amendment after Amendent they wish to repeal.

I know that the arguement right now isn't over black people with regards to the 14th Amendment discussion. But this was the Amendments main intent and it has implications that could affect all of us. It was important and still is important that politicts and popular opinion are kept out of citizenship issues. Just 10 years before the 14th Amendment was enacted, it was declared that black people could never be citizens. And that was socially and politically popular then and maybe one day for another group of minorities. Granting automatic citizenship at birth keeps the politics out of the equation. This is smart policy.

What would happen, if Birthright Citizenship was no longer your Birthright?
We don't know what the political landscape will look like in the future. And without Birthright Citizenship, who will decide who is a citizen and who is not?
What beaurocracy or litmus test might be required to become a citizen?
What happens if we stop granting citizenship to people simply because they are Muslim, or have Middle-Eastern heritage? What would happen if children of gay parents were no longer citizens? Don't think that's possible? Well who knows, like I said we don't know what popular opinion will look like in the future and this is why we have a Constitution, to ensure that America stays America.

And how retroactive would this new policy be? Eventually almost all of us have immigration in the family. What if your Grandmother was never naturalized? All of a sudden you citizenship is revoked. Can you imagine? Your family has been here for a century and you've lived your entire life as an American until boom - your 40 and livingg in the country ileagally.

How, "to the letter" would we follow this vague policy? What happens if the mother was legal and father was not legal? You really going to snatch a kid from a mother and ship it off to Mexico? This is madness!

Furthermore, children of "ilegals" can't even begin helping their parents become citizens until they're 21 and even at that point it would still take a few years.

How bout we leave the children out of this one? Why don't we go after the EMPLOYERS. That is why they're here after all. Why not come up with a National ID Card, mandate e-Verify or some other type of mechanism toward ilegal employment?

I think that the last thing that this country needs to do is just create more ilegals in this country, which is precisly what would happen if Birthright Citizenship were enacted. Consider this; a study just released is that 8% of all babies born in the US have undocumented parents. That's an added 300,000 ilegal citizens every year, including the 5 million childredn here already that were born by undocumented parents. We already have an ilegal immigration problem, adding millions more to our broken system isn't going to help anybody.
Leave the kids out of it.

The 14th Amendment has served this country well for over a century and stripping it down is simply not the answer to ilegal immigration in any sense of the word. This would do far much more harm than good.

Majority Tyranny , Equal Protection & taking on the "Fanatic Fifth."

When the California Supreme Court originally decided that a ban on Same Sex Marriage was unconstitutional, I was of course overjoyed. But something about the ruling today in San Francisco is even sweeter. I guess it's true when they say you don't really appreciate something until it's taken away from you. Enjoying equality for those few months in '08 was great. But then feeling the sting of Prop 8 for the last two years, the setbacks, the rallies, the lobbying, and now once again feeling somewhat less of a second class citizen than I did yesterday.

What's even more incredible, this time around it wasn't a California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it was a Federal judge ruling on the Federal Constitution. The lawyers arguing against Prop 8 - two high profile attorneys who once argued in the Federal Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) - one, a liberal democrat, and one a conservative republican, decided to take this case on together. Decided to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States because they knew that this was a matter of Civil Rights. In their own words today, "it's time to stop thinking about equality as a liberal or conservative matter." While the fight is far from over, today was a good day for gays and lesbians and a good day for the country.

We should be proud to live in a country that fights for the right of minorities. We should be proud to live in a country that fights against Majority Tyranny. 51% of the country shouldn't have the right to decide the equal or civil rights of 49% of the country. This is a philosophy that Republicans used to stand for. Well, in the case of the Filibuster, I guess that they still do.

All major pieces of legislation or court case rulings protecting minorities have been at the time, not favorable in the majority public opinion. Certainly freeing the slaves wasn't exactly popular at the time it was done, woman's rights, voter rights, housing rights, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. These protected classes never would have won their liberties at the ballot box and gays and lesbians certainly shouldn't have to either.

It's very interesting that at the same time that this ruling happened, we are also starting to see major conversation within political parties about the 14th Amendment.
Why am i writing about this in a Gay Marriage post? I think that the judges ruling today once again solidifies the importance of a system that protects minority rights from public opinion and it is a good day for our country, not just gays and lesbians.

The Right Wing is talking seriously about taking down the 14th Amendment in an effort to combat illegal immigration. Of course they could just go after employers - after all, that's what is bringing them here - but no. They have something far more sinister planned.

You see, the 14th Amendment is among other things, the entire basis for a "birthright citizenship." Meaning, if you are born in the United States, you are an American Citizen, who enjoys all the rights and civil liberties that are part of that.

The framers of the 14th Amendment were wise in incorporating the Birthright Citizenship language in the Constitution. It was only 10 years earlier in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that stated blacks could not be American Citizens. This was a very popular, common held belief in the country during this time. Even though it was popular opinion, it was still wrong. Just like a ban on gay marriage is wrong.
They knew that public opinion and majority political parties change from time to time and no one should have to pander to a majority opinion as to whether or not they should be citizens in this country. It's Due Process clause was the mechanism that made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and it's Equal Protection clause was the basis for most of Brown v. Board of Education.
The 14th Amendment is paramount to this country and our civil rights. The Right Wingers - seemingly always on the wrong side of social progress and equal rights want to take down the Amendment and it's madness.
Even Lou freaking Dobbs is way opposed to this nonsense. Lou Dobbs has basically been the leader of the Illegal Immigration Discussion in America for decades. And he has spoken out against this Tea Bag craziness. Right Wingers used to be Constitutionalists and now they are being held hostage by their fringe group.

We seem to be living in very exciting times in some regards; the election of the first African American President, the first Female Speaker of the House, a National Healthcare System and on the cusp of ending DODT. And then we have the "Fanatic Fifth." The some 20% of this country who would if they could - model the United States after the Republic of Iran, but instead of a State Religion of Islam, it'd be Christian Tyranny.

The point of this rather erratic post lacking much of a cohesive message is basically, Minority Rights must be protected and not put up for a vote against the current majority party or majority opinion. That is what is so great about this country. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," for ALL Americans.

Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest 2% of Americans

Much is being said right now on both sides of the political spectrum with regards to the impending expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, first enacted through Budget Reconciliation in 2001, and again in 2003.

Republicans, tride & true to their ideology of deficit financed tax cuts, are foaming at the mouth over the prospect of the wealthiest 2% of Americans having a tax increase. Many of the same talking points used in the 90's are being recycled in Cable News. It's the, "largest tax increase in history." It will "destroy the economic recovery" and "kill jobs."

From the sound of it, just listening the the right wing side of things, you'd think that Obama was hijaking the country and personally robbing the piggy banks of hard working Americans and leaving them bread crumbs to survive on. Maybe it's time to get real about tax policy. Unfortunately, by doing so - you'll discover that it's really just protecting the affluent.

Yes, if the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire - under the Obama plan, the marginal tax rate for people earning more than $250k will increase.
They will increase by a whopping.......drumbroll please........3.6%!
Wait, that's it? 3%? The wealthiest 2% of Americans are going to have to cough up an extra 3%. yes. That's correct. When I told a few of my "Conservative" friends that's all it was they thought I was making it up. Google it, it's after midnight and I don't feel like adding links.

Not to mention, this is the same marginal tax rate under the Clinton Administration, which led to a balanced budget and surplus going toward deficit reduction, and the creation of 23 million jobs. By comparison, the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy created no job growth during the first two years and during the entire Bush Presidency only managed to squeak out 3 million jobs.

President Obama has already CUT taxes for 95% of Americans. Yes, he CUT taxes for the average joe. Even Joe the "Plumber." This "Tax & Spend Liberal cut taxes for 95% of Americans, re-enacted "Pay Go" and a Discretionary Budget freeze, formed a bi-partisan deficit reduction Congressional Pannel (opposed by Republicans), and has campagned on eliminating all taxes for seniors earning less than $50k / year.

So, in order to give the appearance that the Republicans aren't just doing the bidding of the wealthy, they've come up with this strategy claiming that, Obama's tax increase on the top 2% will hit small business and therefore put millions more people out of work and standing in line at a soup kitchen.

Of course - this couldn't be further from the truth.
First off, less than 1/2 of 1% of all small business actually make $250k. So the arguement the Right is making claiming that this new tax rate will hit "50% of small business" is BS. For a really good breakdown on this issue, read this article by Scholars & Rogues. The average taxable income from small business is around $45,000. So, in effect, under the Obama plan, the average small business would receive a tax REDUCTION. This could potentially lower the failure rate of small business and accordin to this study, actually CREATE 300,000 jobs a year. Not put millions in the street. For more about the fake arguement from the right, read the non-partisan Politifact Artical on the subject. From what I can tell, maybe 2% of small business will see a 3.6% increase in their marginal tax rate. That's also of course if the proprietor of the business is drawing a salary more than $250k. There's a huge difference between personal income tax and corporate tax rates which is another arguement entirely. And with corporate tax rates, there are a billion ways small business can make their taxable bottom line less than $250k while at the same time increasing their businesses book value.

We have to get real about tax rates and fairness in the system. The wealthiest 2% got a massive tax break for the last 10 years and the middle class got the shaft.....again. We simply cannot afford these tax breaks that add trillions to the deficit.

There are two things that Republicans always will deficit finance. Tax breaks for the wealthy, and unecessary wars.

What we need in order to manage through this recovery is increased demand. Middle Class Tax Breaks are much more effective at stimulating the economy than tax breaks for the wealthy. Why? Because the middle class will SPEND that extra money. We are a consumer driven economy that requires DEMAND. The more people spend on cars, clothes, Starbucks, vacations, etc, the more the economy grows and jobs follow.
The wealthiest Americans just stuff that extra money away. Once you start to earn more than a few hundred grand, you simply stop spending your disposable income at the same % of total income the middle class will. And particularly in this economic climate, you certainly don't see corporations using lower tax rates to create jobs. Companies are HOARDING CASH like no one's business.

Let's learn from the Clinton Administration, an administration that had a budget surplus and created the most jobs ever in a single administration. The more jobs we create, the more our treasury benefits. We don't have a spending problem (with the exception of the behemouth Pentagon Budget) we have a revenue problem. We need thos jobs, jobs, jobs!!

Of the 23 million jobs that were created during the Clinton years - 92% came from the private sector. Subtract public sector jobs created under the Bush years and you have zero private sector job creation and massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% with nothing to show for it.

We have real, current evidence about what the two opposing tax policies effect on the economy is. And under the Obama plan, the middle class will have an even lower tax base the the Clinton years, which is well overdue. In the last decade, even as the economy grew - the middle class saw their "real" incomes drop by $2,000 / year, while the rich got richer.

Where is the fairness in the system when billionaire Warren Buffet pays an effective tax rate of 15%, and his secretary has to fork out 33% of her paycheck? It's not fair, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't help the overall economy or balance the budget. It just let's some other rich asshole by another island filled with coke & hookers.