Citizens Pay Taxes

And if you don’t pay taxes then you are honestly not fully a citizen.  This Fox News poll indicates that a massive majority of people instinctively grasp this fact:

A large majority of likely voters believes all Americans should pay some federal income tax — even if it is as little as one percent of what they make.

Seventy-nine percent say everyone should pay something, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.  That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.

According to the IRS, last year approximately 41 percent of tax filers did not pay federal income tax.  The Tax Policy Center estimates that will increase to 46 percent this year…

It is just being part of a self-governing nation – every adult who is physically capable of contributing should contribute, even if its only in a tiny, symbolic manner.  The fact that tens of millions of people pay no federal income tax is a scandal – unless you starved to death last year, you had some sort of income and you should have paid some part of it in to the common fund.  Citizenship is only secondarily about the exercise of rights – it is primarily about the exercise of responsibilities.  And this, indeed, is what scares people about it – especially liberals:  that every man shall be a king (and every woman a queen).  It is frightening to think that you are personally responsible for yourself and even more frightening to think if yourself as responsible for everyone else.  And so it has always been easy for frightened people to prefer a tyrant who will take responsibility for the group and the individual.

I’m heartened by this poll – I had thought that only about 60% of Americans still got what it means to be a citizen.  This poll indicates that nearly 80% still do.

UPDATE:  Off topic here but since you liberals are considering polls to be holy writ:

Rasmussen polled voters to find out which candidate is trusted more to handle the US economy. Mitt Romney leads Obama by seven points, 51-44.

Bloomberg polled the question of which candidate do Americans trust more on terrorism. The Obama administration is rapidly becoming engulfed in charges that it has attempted a cover-up after the terrorist attacks in Libya and Egypt left four Americans dead. President Obama had expected, prior to the attacks, that authorizing the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden would allow him a cushion on foreign policy and especially on terrorism. Bloomberg found that there is no such cushion. In fact, Mitt Romney leads Obama on trust on terrorism by six points, 48-42.

77 thoughts on “Citizens Pay Taxes

  1. bagni September 28, 2012 / 11:05 am

    all polls are bunk
    that’s what fox news told me
    and now i believe it

  2. Cluster September 28, 2012 / 11:28 am

    This poll pretty much dispels the “fair share” notion. Speaking of other polls:

    – The foreign-policy results of the new Bloomberg National Poll haven’t gotten much attention yet, but the survey contains some bad news for the Obama campaign. According to the poll, Mitt Romney has a 48-42 advantage over Barack Obama on the question of which candidate would be tougher on terrorism. Romney, in other words, has encroached on one of Obama’s signature strengths.

    – The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. Romney is supported by 86% of Republicans, while Obama gets the vote from 85% of Democrats. The GOP hopeful has a four-point edge among voters not affiliated with either major party. When “leaners” are included, the race is tied at 48% apiece. So despite the narrative from the mainstream media, this election is not over. Believe or not, Romney has a chance, even a good chance. Especially when taking this into account – Forty-three percent (43%) of voters believe a victory for Romney and the Republicans would lead to a stronger economy next year. Thirty-four percent (34%) believe that would happen with an Obama victory and Democratic control of Congress.

    • M. Noonan September 28, 2012 / 11:47 am

      If you take the normal break down of how undecideds vote – usually breaking heavy for the challenger – then the Rasmussen survey indicates that if the election were held today, Romney would get about 51% of the vote, Obama about 49%. While Rasmussen is doing a much better job of getting the party ID right, i still believe they are overestimating Democrat and underestimating Republican turnout. My view: if the election were held today, Romney would get 53% of the vote, Obama 47%.

      And just to really explain it to you liberals out there – for me to start thinking that Obama is not only ahead but headed for victory he would have to be at least 5 points ahead of Romney and be at 49% in polling. So, if its October 30th and we see a Rasmussen survey with Obama at 49% and Romney at 44%, then you’ll see me writing the “where did Romney go wrong?” post. Naturally, if Obama starts polling consistently over 50% in the Rasmussen survey then I’ll conclude that he’s heading for victory. Ditto if Romney starts to – but I doubt that the polling models being used by any pollster will allow a Romney result above 50%: they are just polling too many Democrats, and some pollsters vastly way too many Democrats. If its October 30th and it is, say, tied at 47 or 46 or 48 then Romney is headed to almost certain victory.

  3. js02 September 28, 2012 / 11:34 am

    Taxes and death, they say they are 2 things that you cannot evade. It’s true.
    Yet, the idea of an income tax is being challenged in the SCOTUS as we speak. Set aside the fact that America got along quite well without an income tax for its first 145 years, its surprising how quickly we forget how much taxes we are actually paying with it.
    The Fed Budget in 2011 came out to 3.6 Tn Dollars. Figure 312 million citizens, 40 % of them should not even smell the tax man yet, so around 187 million taxpaying aged people hold that bill.
    Figure it out, that’s +/- 19,251 dollars per person. I admit the numbers are not exact; however, they are not that far from the real thing. Now, realize that the poverty level in this nation is around 18k. Do you really think that everyone should pay taxes? It’s not a feasible question in reality. The reason is because each of our earnings are different, there are many people who are at or below the poverty level, lots of single family parents and widows whose husbands died that live to over 70 years old. You cant expect equal taxation based on citizenship because then you would be taking the food out of the mouths of babies and old folks, so scrap that idea.
    Now, about the SCOTUS case; It rests on what was actually considered “income” when the income tax amendment passed, and SCOTUS rulings both before and after that define the term “income”.
    The Code defines gross income as “income from . . . compensation for services”. Since income is gain, profit, then that definition is actually “that portion of compensation for services that is gain or profit.” The government’s contention is that the gain or profit is everything received for compensation for services, thus with respect to wages the government contends that gross revenue and gross income are the same. Wages are the only revenue that the government treats as equivalent to income.
    A tax on gross revenue as opposed to net gain is not an income tax, but a tax on both capital and income. State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 30 L. Ed. 1200; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217, 35 L. Ed. 994; and since a tax on gross revenue is taxing both income and capital, insofar as the tax on capital is concerned it is not indirect nor is it ‘exempt’ from the requirement of apportionment.
    The problem with wages is that, unlike every other form of “income” described in the code, the government does not permit the wage-earner to back out what he has given up in order to receive those wages. It has been established that a man’s labor is his property, the capital. Thus wages are the purchase price for that property. Any other exchange of property for money must generate a profit before it is considered income, so on what basis does the government contend that all of the money exchanged for his property must be and is profit or gain?
    While many have contended that wages are not income because they are a fair and equal exchange of value for money and, therefore, a break-even transaction, that position would be difficult to maintain. The sale of a widget is, presumably, an equal exchange of value for money but such a transaction could generate income (or loss) to the seller.
    To contend, however, that there is no value contributed by the seller of labor for wages, and that, therefore 100% of all wages are profit, i.e., income, is not only equally untenable, but is offensive to the senses of reason and justice.
    Some may be paid far more than the true value of their effort, exertion and proficiency. Others may be paid only a fraction of the value of their labor and skill. It is impossible to determine what portion of wages is basis and what part is gain.
    It is equally impossible, however, to seriously contend that all wages are received in exchange for nothing. As absurd as such a proposition sounds, that is what the government is saying when it states that the cost basis for wages is zero. If, however, the wage-earner must give up something in order to receive his wages, then the wages he receives are not free. If the wages are not free, then they are not 100% profit. Employing a Glenshaw approach, if he must first sacrifice a loss to another in order to receive the wages, then only the “exemplary” portion of his wages is income. (credit)

    So the real fact, that a man’s labor is not income, but a trade of one asset for another, means that the income tax does not apply to your weekly paycheck, until the government shows that you are paid more than the labor or skill you provide is worth.

    • Retired Spook September 28, 2012 / 12:02 pm

      JS, that’s an interesting premise, and all the more reason to go to something like the Fair Tax.

      • js02 September 28, 2012 / 12:07 pm

        exactly…not to mention that the mess they made over the years in the tax code is pretty much irreversible…the fact that a corporation can exclude its asset investment but a person cannot is a violation of equal protection…why should a guy that owns a grocier pay only on the profit he gets from his assets (which is his investment and his labor) yet a ditch digger must pay taxes on his asset (labor) which he provides in exchange for another asset (cash)…

  4. js02 September 28, 2012 / 11:49 am

    so, effectively when the income tax amendment was passed, they promised never to tax the widow and the orphans…originally the initial tax rates in 1913 were 1% up to 450k per year. This was based on INCOME, meaning that you only paid taxes on income above and beyond your wages, on things like stocks and dividends that actually produced profit.

  5. Majordomo Pain September 28, 2012 / 12:22 pm

    “And if you don’t pay taxes then you are honestly not fully a citizen. This Fox News poll indicates that a massive majority of people instinctively grasp this fact:”

    Everyone who is in the American consumer economy pays taxes. All, however, do not pay income taxes. Your first line clouds the issue. Do you mean that if someone doesn’t pay income taxes they are not a full citizen? If so, how do you square this with the requirements for citizenship found in the US Constitution?

    • M. Noonan September 28, 2012 / 12:59 pm

      How we legally define a citizen is not the same as the definition of a citizen. We have greatly broadened the legal definition of a citizen reach the level of absurdity that a cheeto-munching EBT card holder is as much a citizen as the guy putting in 100 hours a week on his landscaping business. There is something very much wrong with that – and this poll indicates that a lot of people believe that everyone should carry at least some of the collective freight.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 1:24 pm


      I am curious as to what level of citizen you would subscribe to a person like this in the you tube video vs the landscaper who puts in 100 hours a week like Mark described:

      • 6206j September 28, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        How about the wall street banker who makes nothing and creates nothing and almost destroyed this country a few years ago but is worth billions are they a full citizen? Why don’t we just go back to white men who own property. And you guys cry about class warfare. Cluster these last few weeks must be hard for you, your hysteria is starting to show. Mark’s has always been on display.

      • Retired Spook September 28, 2012 / 2:26 pm


        What’s interesting is that none of our resident Lefties are the slightest bit embarrassed by looters like this. This person (I can’t bring myself to call her a lady) personifies the kind of individual that Obama referred to in that 1998 “redistribution” speech when he described “the working poor and welfare recipients as a potential MAJORITY coalition to move [the expansion of government] those agendas forward.” So it’s pretty clear that, at least as long ago as 1998, Obama wanted the lady in your video to be the face of the Democrat Party.

        BTW, Megan Kelly at Fox did a segment about a week ago that expanded on that 1998 video and put what Obama said into the context of who he is today. Very interesting.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 2:44 pm


        Why did you bring race into the equation? Please tell me that, because I don’t even think that way. There is just as much white trash as there is black and brown trash, so PLEASE tell me why you race into the equation.

      • 6206j September 28, 2012 / 6:30 pm

        I was put in race because Mark is determining who is a real citizen and back when our country was founded only white men who owned property could vote, thus they were the only “real citizens”. That is all.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 7:25 pm

        So now it’s Mark’s fault?

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 9:01 pm


        Go back and this time try to learn something or at least not to present facts in a fallacious manor. Women and persons of color had every right as “white folks” — it was property and not sex or skin color that made the original difference as they felt that only property owners had “sufficient interest” in the matters of their community. Otherwise, equal rights were just that.

      • 6206j September 29, 2012 / 11:42 am

        Really DB, persons of color and women who owned property could vote in 1800. Why did we need the 19th (1920) and 15th (1867) amendments? D’OH…

      • Retired Spook September 29, 2012 / 11:52 am

        Really DB, persons of color and women who owned property could vote in 1800. Why did we need the 19th (1920) and 15th (1867) amendments? D’OH…

        6206j, I don’t want to go putting words in his mouth, but I think what DB meant was that women couldn’t own property, and that was why they couldn’t vote. Blacks in the 19th century were allowed to vote in 4 or 5 states.

      • M. Noonan September 29, 2012 / 11:55 am


        You put in race because you’re fixated on that – but because we once unjustly prevented people from being citizens because they were black doesn’t mean that any restriction on voting rights is inherently unjust. You have to think things out – and it is high time we started thinking about whether we want anyone born here to be automatically a citizen (I prefer to make it that as long as you have at least one American citizen parent, you’re an American no matter where you’re born…which, by the way, would make Obama ok even if he had been born in Kenya); its also high time we started thinking about the responsibilities of citizenship and make voting partially dependent upon a person carrying out those responsibilities.

      • tiredoflibbs September 29, 2012 / 1:16 pm

        Drone 6206j: “Really DB, persons of color and women who owned property could vote in 1800. Why did we need the 19th (1920) and 15th (1867) amendments? D’OH…”

        Really? You can’t think of the obvious answer? No, of course not.

        Not all states were uniform in their voting laws. In states where women and blacks could vote, other states would have different requirements or they would not allow them the vote at all.

        Sheesh, too simple for drones such as yourself.

  6. mitch September 28, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    These are not my words, but :

    A year ago, in discussing the Republican war on reality, I highlighted a column by George Will in which the dean of conservative punditry expressed dismay at the prospect of Mitt Romney becoming the GOP nominee. Will wrote:

    “Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ … Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?”

    In one sense, Will was quite prescient in his column — he worried that Romney’s lack of principle would come to demoralize GOP ground troops and hurt Republicans down ballot to boot. This may be coming to pass, though given the field of contenders for the GOP nomination, Romney was always the best they were going to do.

    But in terms of a respect for ‘data,’ Will needn’t have worried. While it’s not clear what Romney takes his bearings from, at this stage of his career, it ain’t facts. The GOP nominee has mostly embraced his party’s contempt for reality, running his campaign based on serial gross distortions and falsehoods. That Romney is likely doing this for show, not based on any core conviction about the things he spews, is precisely what’s so revealing. He’s the standard-bearer of a party for which it’s entirely commonplace nowadays to foment antipathy toward outgroups and the downtrodden, and to stoke resentment at anyone who would dare suggest that government might have a role to play in helping such folks. Attempts to counter this worldview with data are only met with ever more furious denunciations.

    I previously wrote:

    “Twenty years ago, conservatives launched a full-throated attack on “political correctness” and “relativism” because of their frustration with an academic climate that challenged their ability to offer judgments unfettered by cultural sensitivities about an increasingly diverse and complex world. Such sensitivities blunted their ability to make clear, categorical moral statements about right and wrong, leading to “the death of outrage,” as William Bennett put it. What’s bracing to see in 2011 is that facts themselves represent the same impediment for conservatives that political correctness did two decades ago — as an appalling constraint on the right’s God-given right to unabashed condemnation.”

    This sensibility has only deepened in the past year and includes a striking new facet — polling denialism. With growing horror, the right-wing is watching the detested president take what appears to be a solid lead in virtually all major polls (including those of FOX). Its increasingly agitated response to that development? Insist that the polls are hopelessly biased. The new darling of the moment in this effort has adopted what Jonathan Chait politely describes as “a unique interpretive methodology to public polling.” But that hardly matters. Obama is winning, say pretty much all the polls and this can’t be, because he’s the personification of demonic evil. Since this can’t be happening, it isn’t.

    Plenty of mainstream commentators have prefaced discussions of this polling denialism by noting that liberals complained about polls showing Bush with a lead over Kerry in 2004. But find me major liberal media outlets in 2004 that pushed the theory that pollsters were engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to throw the election? Go ahead. I’ll wait. And let’s clear one thing up right now — for all of those who insist that Democrats have their own conspiracies about rigged elections, can we please stop with the false equivalencies? Consider this — what do you think would be the reaction of the American right if Barack Obama had:

    a) lost the popular vote in 2008 to John McCain (in actuality, not in ACORN vote fraud la-la land)
    b) but his brother were the governor of the state whose electoral votes decided the election
    c) and that brother had successfully purged the voter rolls of what would almost certainly have been the deciding margin of voters in that state for John McCain
    d) and a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court had decided to disallow a recount of the votes, despite a margin of only about 500 votes, out of six million cast?

    It’s hard to fathom the depth of ugliness we’d be witnessing and questionable how Obama would have been able to govern at all.

    Republicans loved to tell Democrats to stop being a bunch of whining babies after Bush won in 2000. But Democrats’ frustration over the result was based on a factual record that reasonable people would find frustrating. What has the right got in response to Obama’s 2008 election? Nonsense about now-defunct ACORN and a pathetic years-long effort to prove that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (this is not a fringe position, by the way. Polls consistently find that a third to a half or more of Republicans still believe President Obama was born outside the United States). And now in 2012, in a clear effort to de-legitimize what may be a second Obama victory, a preposterous story about polling conspiracies.

    Joshua Holland has written that the polling conspiracy story isn’t merely another absurd passing fancy. It’s a dangerous gambit aimed at ensuring that a significant swath of the population will refuse to accept that Barack Obama is their president. What consequences this might have, I don’t know (and Obama’s re-election is certainly not a foregone conclusion).

    Look, we all have fantasy versions of how our lives should be and how the world should work. And we all wish at times, to varying degrees, that pesky reality wouldn’t be such an encumbrance to the fulfillment of those fantasies.

    But to cultivate those indulgences as central to a political movement is a different animal. The growing contempt of large swaths of the American right for science, facts, probability theory — for the most basic understandings of truth as it’s been established across the enlightenment era makes the possibility of finding any common ground for solving problems in the real world a near-impossibility. We know that public figures of all stripes adopt positions that they think will get them elected, regardless of whether they actually believe what they say. And once elections are in the rear-view mirror, we can hope that there will be some backing-away from some of the more preposterous assertions about reality. It’s just one reason why election day — and I think there’s still a consensus on what day that is — can’t get here fast enough.

  7. Cluster September 28, 2012 / 3:30 pm

    Well since 6206j wont respond to me, I would like to hear from any liberal on why they think 6206j immediately injected race into the equation when I posted the video about the free cell phones. Why do liberals immediate think of the color of someones skin, when they see an image of that person, particularly if that person is brown or black? Also, why do liberals presume that wall street is only comprised of “white” men? It’s a serious question because it fascinates the hell out of me.

    From a personal stand point, we have a family friend, who happens to be white, whose daughter is much worse in terms of sponging off the government than I assume this lady in the video is – I just don’t happen to have a video of her.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 3:58 pm

      So you take one person and label everyone?

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:08 pm


      This is an anonymous blog for the most part, and none of us control who gains entry. I could just as easily associate you with the Executive Suite from Hell.

    • James September 28, 2012 / 4:14 pm

      again, you refuse to distance yourself from a clear bigot like neocon1. fine. have it your way.

      and you can associate me with whoever you’d like.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:23 pm

      Associate you with whoever you like? Really? How about Reverend Wright? Who believes white men are the devil.

      “White man greed runs a world in need”

      Are you going to distance yourself from that? I think you should.

    • James September 28, 2012 / 4:36 pm

      if the reverend was a poster on this blog, and i consistently and silently condoned his posts by not distancing myself from them, then yes, associate me with him like I do you, mark, spook and amazona with Neocon.

      no problem.

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:03 pm


      do the math
      go to the DOJ and let us know crime statistics by demographics.
      so when there is a 7-1 ratio what do you think information, articles and videos are available.
      I REPORT you decide…….

      90 % of my videos, articles and videos are on big national blogs………sorry stooge but no ce-gar.

      95% of the articles I post are a rebuttal to you trolls accusations against conservatives…I merely balance out your BS with FACTS.

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:06 pm

      sniff, sniff I smell GOAT and CAMEL……

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:19 pm


      he literally told the kids parents to (expletives deleted) and your seed”….

      I wonder what that meant?

      easy sasan, when the THUG tra von was shot during a FELONIOUS battery his parents went out and trademarked his name, went on all the talk shows, aligned them selves with howling racist mobs who put out hits on an INNOCENT man ….can you say CHA CHING $$$$$$$$$$$

      yes they and their suspended, DRANK drinking, pot smoking, gold toothed, tattooed THUG kid can go straight to hell. NO COLOR or RACE NOTED just TRASH.


    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:28 pm

      James September 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

      How many times has he posted a video of white trash in Mississippi talking about government? How many times have you heard or read Neocon talk about white trash and how they are this and that?

      WOW RACISM and BIGOTRY for all to see jimmah.

      WHY do you HATE white people so much.?
      exactly WHAT is “WHITE TRASH”? and what is this racism and bigotry against the whole state of Mississippi? that you seem to HATE so much?

      hey turd remove the LOG from your racist bigoted eye before yapping about the speck in mine…….BIGOT!!!!!

    • 6206j September 28, 2012 / 6:30 pm

      see above

    • James September 28, 2012 / 3:59 pm

      I think if Mitt would have run in 1988, he would probably win.

      I truly believe that at heart, he is the guy who ran in Massachusetts on a more liberal or pragmatic republican. He isn’t the guy who called himself severely conservative.

      He is not an ideologue, and at this time, the GOP is demanding their leaders be ideologues.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:03 pm

        James, you are the last person to opine about conservatives. Yesterday you flew into a hateful rage over nothing.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:02 pm


      You’re an awfully gullible person. The strategy all along from the Obama campaign is to simply paint Mitt as a bad candidate, not a serious challenger, only because Obama CAN NOT run on his record. And of course the media, particularly places like Politico, fall right in line with that campaign message. The media stopped being objective a long time ago, and simply parrot whatever the Obama regime wants them too, and then someone like you falls hook, line and sinker for the message, just like they want you to.

      You should be embarrassed.

      • James September 28, 2012 / 4:07 pm

        there is that media bs again. if the media has been for a democrat for as long as you claim, im shocked W ever got in office.

        the fact is that romney looks and feels out of sorts in this age of hyperpartisanship.

        just my opinion.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:10 pm


        Why then does Rasmussen have the polls tied, yet the media is trying to convince everyone the race is over? Again, think before you post. And if you don’t consider outlets like MSNBC, Politico, NBC, ABC, etc, etc, in the tank for Obama, then you just aren’t paying attention.

      • James September 28, 2012 / 4:13 pm

        maybe you don’t see the trend here.

        NATIONAL polls don’t mean a thing in our electoral system. only state polls matter.

        EVERY poll EXCEPT Rasmussen has Obama ahead in both state polls and national polls. Yet, for some magic reason, you ignore all the other ones and simply refer to Rasmussen. Why?

        You’re literally looking at the outlier among all the polling companies and claiming its the norm. its not.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:16 pm

        Yet, for some magic reason, you ignore all the other ones and simply refer to Rasmussen. Why?

        Because that is the only one I have ever watched consistently since 2000, and they have ALWAYS been right.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        And this is where they stand today:

        Friday, September 28, 2012

        The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. Romney is supported by 86% of Republicans, while Obama gets the vote from 85% of Democrats. The GOP hopeful has a four-point edge among voters not affiliated with either major party. When “leaners” are included, the race is tied at 48% apiece.

        Here’s another historic trend James – when the incumbent consistently polls below 50%, that usually means the independents and undecideds will break for the challenger.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:21 pm

        And here is where Rasmussen has the swing states:

        Obama has a one- or two-point lead in each of the Key Three States in this year’s election, Ohio, Florida and Virginia. The president is also up by three in Wisconsin and up two in Nevada. Romney is now up two in Colorado and ahead by three in Iowa and New Hampshire. All these states remain Toss-Ups in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. The president has big leads in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

      • mitch September 28, 2012 / 5:42 pm

        As should Fox “News” for their poll showing Obama ahead by 5 points nationally. Did you comprehend that? Fox. The media appendage of the right wing and Republicans.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 5:50 pm


        Thank you for clearly demonstrating your ignorance. You are stunningly stupid.

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        The media appendage of the right wing and Republicans.

        it is hard to see you as anything but a leftist TROLL by your editorializing like above. No wonder NO one takes you seriously, we all can smell goat and BS when it is in the area.

  8. Cluster September 28, 2012 / 4:37 pm

    More taxes coming our way thanks to Pelosi, Obama and Obamacare. This one may be the most egregious:

    The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” – a $13 billion tax increase: The 30-35 million Americans who use a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2,500 (currently the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap).

    There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

    And here’s the rest:

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:12 pm


      BLAME DRUDGE……….

      Riots Between Black, Latino Students Break Out At CA High School…

      NOTICE……NO one from Mississippi or the RACIST ACCUSATION of “WHITE TRASH” why is THAT jimmy? you rotten BIGOT!!

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:21 pm

        I think jimmah is for the muslim no matter what.
        WHY is that jimmah/sasan?

        do you smell a goat?

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:39 pm



        soooooo if Clint Eastwood said he was for Romney because he is white he would be labeled a racist by jimmah?

        hypocrisy is thy name…………

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:44 pm

        RUT RO

        isnt this where al Ubama was a community agitator?
        and his chief of staff is mayor???

        CHICAGOLAND: Gang Member Tells Reporter, ‘There Is No Solution To The Violence; Killing Is The Solution’…

        seems they both FAILED!! just like everything the cretins touch.

    • mitch September 28, 2012 / 5:45 pm

      One of the reasons you claim the media is not objective, is because what YOU think is countered by what they report so they just HAVE to be wrong. Listen Sparky, all media has some bias. It’s just inherent.

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:46 pm

        Riiiiight Pee Wee

        just todays “media” are 99% marxist loons.

      • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:48 pm


        the leftist MSM LIES are pointed out daily hard to ignore total outright lies.

        except for the forkers, trolls, and knee padders.

  9. mitch September 28, 2012 / 5:50 pm

    And speaking of Trayvon Martin James, are you aware of the state of his defense now? No DNA on the pistol grip, which makes Zimmerman’s claim hard to believe AND the best part, his legal team is no longer going to use the Stand Your Ground law as the basis of their defense. Poor George. Will probably end up like George Jung. Alone and in prison.

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 5:59 pm

      there was NEVER anyone who stated tra von had his hand ON the pistol grip, he didnt have to to be shot….but hey dream on we all know you HATE the Hispanic guy.

      and yes poor Geroge will probably be convicted by a racist OJ esque jury and screaming howling mobs of racists and terrorists led by ole al $harpstone, and $$$$$$$$$$tra vons “parents”

      • mitch September 28, 2012 / 7:07 pm

        That’s why the defense strategy has changed. On the advise of his legal team. Whatever. You have an opinion, I rely on facts.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 6:05 pm

      Yea – I don’t remember any claim that Trayvon held the gun. I do remember the eye witness’s saying that the much physically larger Trayvon was beating the shit out of George. But let’s not bring that up, ok Mitch?

  10. Cluster September 28, 2012 / 5:57 pm

    You gotta love Mark Steyn. And Mitch, he has an english accent so that probably makes him smart in your world, right?

    Obama carved out new territory for a U.S. president during that speech when he said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    “He also said, I believe, that the future belongs to those who empower women,” Steyn said of Obama, ”and the power belongs to those who invest in education.”

    “It doesn’t quite add up to me, all this. It sounds like as if he’s saying the future belongs to gay, feminist Muslims. I wouldn’t like to take a bet on it, but I’d bet that he’s wrong on that. The fact is the president of the United States had no business saying that. If you happen to be a believer in Islam, Muhammad is your prophet. If you’re not, he’s just a bloke who died in the 7th Century and it should be permissible to say as much.”

    “Imagine the uproar there would have been from the party that just a couple of weeks ago was actually booing God,” Steyn said. “You know, God got booed off stage at the Democratic National Convention. God got given the hook at the Democrat Vaudeville show. But Allah – apparently it’s a whole different game.”

    Read more:

    • neocon1 September 28, 2012 / 6:00 pm

      “It doesn’t quite add up to me, all this. It sounds like as if he’s saying the future belongs to gay, feminist Muslims.

      Hillary and Huma???

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 6:03 pm

        Steyn points out the absurdity of liberals better than anyone.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 7:33 pm

      Let’s see what we learn from this Mitch. The GOP cuts ties with an independent outfit as soon as irregularities in voter registration is found, which not only is in complete contrast to the Democrats and their relationship with Acorn who encouraged voter irregularities, in addition to disproving the Democrat contention that there is NO VOTER fraud, therefore no need for voter ID laws.

      Now that’s gotta hurt. As I said Mitch, you are stunningly stupid. Thanks again for clearly proving that.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 7:57 pm

      I want to clarify the issue that Mitch thought he would score “gotcha” points on:

      The RNC hires an independent firm to conduct voter registration. When irregularities were found, they fired the firm.

      The Democrats hire Acorn to conduct voter registration, and despite many irregularities found (think: Mickey Mouse registering in CA), they continue their relationship with he firm.

      Secondly, the Democrats contend that there is NO VOTER FRAUD, therefore, there is no need for the the draconian ID laws supported by the RNC, yet this very article would seem to dispel that very notion.

      And yet this is the article that Democrats think scores point for their side. Yesterday I wrote a thread entitled “liberals are stupid” – are there any questions?

  11. GMB September 28, 2012 / 8:20 pm

    My my there bomber boy. Getting a little hysterical there? Maybe you should tell a new lie or two. Go ahead, we know you have it in you.

    Maybe you can personally relate to how Mitt or Bain Capital destroyed your dreams. That would be very interesting.

    • GMB September 28, 2012 / 9:20 pm

      “I don’t lie”

      LOLzer that’s a good one. That’s the best lie you have told so far. Keep up the good work there mr. empathy.

      See how much better you feel, after telling a lie. Tell us another one please. Please!!!

  12. dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 9:18 pm

    Since this thread was on citizens and taxes–short of getting the FAIR / FLAT tax passed. Let all of Bush’s tax rate cuts expire. Hell, let’s get rid of all of the “freebies” (like the mortgage interest deduction) to the average citizen expire as well.Obama brought us enough pain to awaken the average American–pile it on so we never make that same mistake again. Of course I would include a tax on apartment dwellers just so they could join in.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 9:31 pm

      But this is just another one of Obama’s famous lies. He constantly blames the tax rates cuts for the deficits, debt and sluggish economy, BUT when he had the chance to let them expire in December of 2010, he extended them, saying, and I quote: “raising taxes in the middle of a recession is the wrong thing to do”

      Wrong thing to do? IF tax hikes are the solution to our problem, Obama had a chance to resolve the problem right then and there. But he called it the wrong thing to do.

      Liberals are stunningly stupid and so is Obama.

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 9:42 pm

        I fully agree but as Obama goes after this one again on his beliefs–I say it is time to put up or shut up. Most, if not all, of our liberal minions do not realize that government has no money of it’s own–it is our money ~ not theirs.

        Nevertheless, if the supposed “rich” have to take the hit on rates–same for everyone including the poor who gained the most under Bush. No outs or give-a-ways–tax ’em all and see what that brings. Obbama is already leading the US towards austerity measures–why wait. Bring it on.

      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 10:27 pm

        I am with ya. Why are they waiting?

  13. mitch September 28, 2012 / 11:00 pm

    The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.

  14. Richie September 28, 2012 / 11:38 pm

    Mark – As a conservative voting for Romney, I have to say that we have chosen the worst candidate possible – EVER!!!! We have Romney to blame for running the WORST campaign EVER – and he’s a TERRIBLE politician. Believe me – I KNOW the media is all over him like flies on sugar-covered-sh*t, but he doesn’t ever push back. He’s a pushover and he has just lost the election, our country and our future.

    • M. Noonan September 29, 2012 / 11:57 am


      Romney was my 6th choice – but he’s also going to win.

  15. Cluster September 29, 2012 / 8:35 am

    It’s so refreshing when a member of the liberal elite says something truthful:

    “A new survey out today shows how much time we waste every day in our lives. For example, we waste seven minutes in line every time we go to get coffee, 28 minutes getting through airport security, four years waiting for Obama to do something about the economy. Every year, we waste a lot. We wasted a lot of time.” – Jay Leno

  16. Amazona September 29, 2012 / 3:12 pm

    My original support was for Romney, way back when I said my dream team was Romney/Bolton.

    During the primary race I learned some things that made me think Romney might not be quite as conservative as I might wish, and I was really impressed by Santorum’s credentials.

    But what the Lefty Lemmings don’t get is that conservatives are not all about Identity Politics. Of the conservatives who post here, there might be two whose first choice was Romney. And even they would probably admit that of all the possible candidates in the whole Conservative Movement, he might not be Number 1. But when I,for example, look at the mess the nation is in now, and the bigger mess on the horizon if we don’t change direction and change it fast, I don’t ask for the perfect candidate who fits every single category of every single criterion of every single goal of every single agenda. When your house is burning down, you want someone who can put out the fire, and you don’t worry about whether or not he can fix the roof or hang new wallpaper.

    I think Mitt Romney can do what has to be done in the next four years, and probably can go on to do what will have to be done in the four years after that once the fire is put out.

    To make the Count happy by recklessly mixing my metaphors, right now I see us on a collision course with disaster, and my first priority is to change course. I think a different president can do some of this through his leadership in repealing a lot of the social engineering nonsense that has put us on this course, and I think the nation will do the rest by responding to the corrections and rallying, by spending the money we have been sitting on because of the uncertain future, by finding new energy and optimism.

    I have sensed, to use the old Carter term, such MALAISE over the past couple of years, such gloom and doom, such pessimism, such negativity. Oh, the campaign has its cheerleaders out there trying to drum up energy and enthusiasm, but when we look at what they are doing all we see is an expansion of the doom and gloom and pessimism into outright fear and loathing for the invented Right. That might get votes cast, but it will do nothing to fix the inevitable sinking back into the murk of low expectations, lower results, and general feeling of being out of control in a death spiral of economic misery and erosion of our very foundational form of government.

    There is some ginned-up pseudo optimism and energy from the RRL trolls and talking heads, but all we have to do is look back at what they have had to offer in the past couple of years, and it has been relentlessly negative, just focusing on personal attacks and irrational hatred. What have we gotten from them? Happiness and joy over the way Dear Leader has been running the country? No, not even from them. What we have gotten from them is just SSDD, more accusations of racism, more claims of homophobia, more attacks of one kind or another. Even the supposed support for what has been ramrodded through Congress has not really been enthusiasm for the bills but just gloating over “winning” a contest with the Right.

    It’s a shaky foundation for having a successful country.

Comments are closed.