Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out


http://www.myfoxdetroit.c...ported-you-now-support-us


Obama Consults with MSNBC Hosts Sharpton, Maddow on Tax Rates

http://www.weeklystandard...dow-tax-rates_665036.html

Just goes to show you, that if you only hear one side of the story, and then make an assumption......................
- Doppleganger

yes, but unlike you, when confronted with the truth, I accept it, admit it, and move on.

.................................

yes, but unlike you, when confronted with the truth, I accept it, admit it, and move on.

.................................
- Feeling Glucky?

lol

yes, but unlike you, when confronted with the truth, I accept it, admit it, and move on.

.................................
- Feeling Glucky?

So in your world, you know the "truth" when you read/watch/listen to the Left Wing Progressive Secularist media sources, and you automatically conclude that the "other side of the story" is therefore wrong, so don't bother to read/watch/listen to them ?


How open minded you are!

So in your world, you know the "truth" when you read/watch/listen to the Left Wing Progressive Secularist media sources, and you automatically conclude that the "other side of the story" is therefore wrong, so don't bother to read/watch/listen to them ?


How open minded you are!
- Doppleganger

yup. that's what just happened.

Or the exact opposite.

close enough, anyways.

- Crimsoninja

STOP MAKING CONSERVATIVES LOOK BAD

STOP MAKING CONSERVATIVES LOOK BAD
- Feeling Glucky?

lol

pedo or no?

typical vandalism for his "race"

a picture is worth 1000 words

Re:last few pics, satirical jab at conservatives, or serious attempt at making obama look bad?

Re:last few pics, satirical jab at conservatives, or serious attempt at making obama look bad?
- Feeling Glucky?

i voted for Obama, twice 08 12

i voted for Obama, twice 08 12
- penguininnevada

Carry on

typical vandalism for his "race"


- penguininnevada

From Newsmax online magazine.

Lesson From UK: Tax Hike on Wealthy Lowers Revenue
One side wants to rein in entitlements to deal with the budget deficit. The other side insists that any such moves be accompanied by higher taxes on the wealthy.
That may sound like the ongoing fiscal battle in Washington, but actually describes the situation in Britain.
The difference is that Britain has already raised taxes on the wealthy, with a telling result: The government actually lost revenue.
In the 2009-2010 tax year in Britain, more than 16,000 people reported annual income of more than 1 million pounds (equal to about $1.6 million today). Then in 2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a member of the Labour Party, introduced a new 50 percent top income tax rate for high-income earners. After that, the number of people reporting income of at least 1 million pounds fell to 6,000.
“It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes,” The Telegraph reported.
Harriet Baldwin, a Conservative member of Parliament, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.”
Instead of raising revenue, the tax hike cost the U.K. 7 billion pounds ($11.2 billion) in lost revenue — and that in an economy one-quarter the size of America’s.
Now the government of Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that it will lower the top rate from 50 percent to 45 percent, a move the Labour Party officials have called a “tax cut for millionaires.”
In ongoing budget talks, Conservatives want to freeze out-of-work benefits, which are set to rise with inflation, while liberals in the government “will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased,” according to The Telegraph.
Democrats in the United States might note that since Cameron’s government announced the lower top rate, the number of Britons reporting income of at least 1 million pounds has risen to 10,000.

From Newsmax online magazine.

Lesson From UK: Tax Hike on Wealthy Lowers Revenue
One side wants to rein in entitlements to deal with the budget deficit. The other side insists that any such moves be accompanied by higher taxes on the wealthy.
That may sound like the ongoing fiscal battle in Washington, but actually describes the situation in Britain.
The difference is that Britain has already raised taxes on the wealthy, with a telling result: The government actually lost revenue.
In the 2009-2010 tax year in Britain, more than 16,000 people reported annual income of more than 1 million pounds (equal to about $1.6 million today). Then in 2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a member of the Labour Party, introduced a new 50 percent top income tax rate for high-income earners. After that, the number of people reporting income of at least 1 million pounds fell to 6,000.
“It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes,” The Telegraph reported.
Harriet Baldwin, a Conservative member of Parliament, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.”
Instead of raising revenue, the tax hike cost the U.K. 7 billion pounds ($11.2 billion) in lost revenue — and that in an economy one-quarter the size of America’s.
Now the government of Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that it will lower the top rate from 50 percent to 45 percent, a move the Labour Party officials have called a “tax cut for millionaires.”
In ongoing budget talks, Conservatives want to freeze out-of-work benefits, which are set to rise with inflation, while liberals in the government “will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased,” according to The Telegraph.
Democrats in the United States might note that since Cameron’s government announced the lower top rate, the number of Britons reporting income of at least 1 million pounds has risen to 10,000.
- Doppleganger

Mitch McConnell filibusters himself after Dems call bluff
Republican Mitch McConnell was forced to filibuster his own proposal after Democrats called his bluff on the debt ceiling.


Senate negotiations took a strange turn on Thursday when Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to filibuster a vote that he had called for himself.

It started when McConnell demanded an up or down vote on a measure that would allow the president to have more authority in raising the debt ceiling.

According to the Huffington Post, McConnell was betting that some Democrats would vote against the move, "which would have allowed McConnell to portray President Barack Obama's desire for such authority as something even Democrats opposed."

He also hoped it would show disunity among Democrats.

But Democrats soon realized a way to turn the tables and decided to call McConnell's bluff, saying that voting for a permanent solution to the debt ceiling was the fiscally responsible thing to do.

“Our downgrade of America’s credit rating was not based on the state of our economy but the debt-ceiling debate,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois told the Christian Science Monitor after the vote.

“We are paying dearly for that already. So the Republicans are creating a situation which makes reducing the debt and deficit extremely difficult by creating this uncertainty about the debt ceiling.”

McConnell was forced to turn around and say "I object," filibustering his own suggestion.

"What we're talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the president, " McConnell said. "Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes."

Sixty votes are required to end a filibuster during debate on a bill and to hold a vote.

Democrats seized on the irony of the situation and used the opportunity to call for reforms of the filibuster process.

"I don't know how the Republicans can say they're not abusing the filibuster after what we saw on the floor today," Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told the Huffington Post.

"It's somewhat comic, but sad as well, that we've reached the point where Sen. McConnell will not even accept a majority vote on his own measure."

According to the Washington Post, Thursday's vote was the first major test of whether Democrats will remain united behind the idea that the President should control the debt ceiling rather than Congress.

The debt ceiling is about to make another big appearance after the 2011 debate that brought the government a breath a way from its first-ever default.

The proposal that McConnell ended up filibustering in fact originally came from the president, reported the Christian Science Monitor. President Barack Obama essentially asked the Treasury Department for the power to raise the debt limit without interference from Congress, the newspaper said.

The Monitor reported that under this proposal Congress would have 15 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. The president could then veto their disapproval and require Congress to override his veto with 60 percent majorities in both bodies.

typical vandalism for his "race"


- penguininnevada

Reptilian?

ScienceShot: Lizard Named After Obama Died in Dinosaur Apocalypse -Obamadon

http://news.sciencemag.or...lizard-named-after-o.html