SMH about the partisan gamesmanship... http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/09/dysfunction-in-dc-disabled-veterans-held-hostage-to-election-year-stunt/
Good god, how can anyone vote for these people? They just seem so inherently evil. I would understand if they were staunch and penny pinched everywhere, tax cut for the rich? Sure, no problem!
soldiers are just pieces to be used in a war. Once they are out of service, they turn from asset to liability, that's pretty much the GOP mentality, but they get more armed force votes anyway.
it's not only the troops they hate: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aYH0HD2CpXQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Knqpgj0x7xY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/g-o-p-blocks-veteran-jobs-bill/ Last week the GOP blocked a Veterans Job bill... SMH
People keep talking about tax cuts for the rich. In all seriousness, if 47% of households pay no taxes, any across the board tax cut would be for the upper 53%. After all, you can't cut taxes lower than zero. I really would like a Democratic leader to go on record with how much taxation on the "rich" is enough.
Apparently the GOP senator ended his "secret hold" on the veterans COLA bill, though not in time to happen before the election recess. Essentially McConnell admits that it was a GOP senator but hides the identity of the Senator. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/27/senator-puts-secret-hold-on-veterans-cola-bill.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1
It's probably Oklahoma senator Coburn. I remember he did this once before to tempoarily block Al franken's first senatorial amendment, which had passed 68-30.
Who are you and what have you done with Refman? There is no way that he is dumb enough to buy the line that 47% (or 37% or 27%) pay "NO" taxes. Romney accuses working people that pay out the ass in payroll and property taxes (among many others) of "paying no taxes" because their incomes are low enough that they don't owe income taxes at the end of the year. Let's all take a moment to remember that Romney is the same guy that answered a question involving his income tax rate by saying something like "I've always payed at least 13% in taxes." He deliberately (and hilariously) leaves out the word "income" in his statement because he is one of the frigging 47% he b****es about. He uses one side of his mouth to bash people that pay a lot of taxes but don't pay income tax and he uses the other to use the I did not have sexual relations with that woman defense, that defense that relies on what the meaning of "is" is, that defense that requires the public to be stupid enough to know that these terms: "tax" and "income tax" are used in exactly opposite fashions as they serve to benefit the Romney campaign, his dishonesty about others not paying taxes, and his dishonesty regarding his own real tax rate. He is, as I have said many times of the GOP, very much like Jerry Sloan's Utah Jazz. He throws flagrants on one end and falls down and cries like a baby on the other. And he can't believe it when he doesn't get both calls. Income tax, Refman. The term you were looking for was income tax.
It doesn't matter how much is enough; it matters how much Obama is proposing. And I believe the increase would still be a lower maximum bracket than under Clinton or Reagan. Taxes on the rich in this country today are at their historic lows. Rich people are paying a lower percentage in taxes than they ever have before.
Yes, if you talk about the "historically" low tax rates today, they are liable to say "nuh-uh, we didn't even HAVE income taxes in 1916."
