You could tell that. The conversation has shifted from 3 months ago about "we need some spending limits" to "fairness" in taxation and making billionaires pay more (which'll make about a

Addressing the deductions that Obama's buddies Jeff Immelt (GE or the $0 tax company) and Warren Buffet (life insurance) get is probably a bigger bang for the buck, but the presidency costs about $1B now, so we can't piss off the rich too much.

MEANT - make about a less than one-percent dent in the National Debt (BTW we are now at more that 100% of GDP).

Your blog parser doesn't like symbols too much.

Low tax rates for the politically aware* are baked into the system now; nothing will change that in the short run (next 4-8 years). For the rest of us... shoulder that burden! It's a crisis!

Joke from the radio:

"This economy has really affected everyone. Just last week GE had to lay off 25 congressmen!"

*Politially aware: those who follow politics and hav the wherewithal to influence its outcomes.

Obama's tax reform matches his financial reform.

Obama had two years from 2008 to 2010 with veto-proof Democrat majorities and nothing of consequence happened on the tax reform front.
And now we get all this "fairness" BS - which of course is NEVER defined. It's all hot air and the sooner he's gone the better.

It is doubtful that Obama knows anything about business seeing how that he has had very limited exposure to the private sector. So that means he is basically at the mercy of his staff and as the article points out, some of his key advisers are just reruns out of the Clinton administration.

We're seeing the same thing in Portland with Sam. Sam doesn't know much of anything about the world of business or of basic economics so he gets skinned by special interest groups on a daily basis.

It really is important to elect people who have some experience in life, but for some reason voters often value sizzle more than steak.

We have Hales, Smith and Brady without legit "world of business or of basic economics" experience running for Mayor.

None of them have signed a check for an employee or signed an application for a building permit and gone through the permit morass. They have a mixture of government experience, but little common sense experience. We've experienced too much of this with Obama and Sam, we don't need it again.

Obama had two years from 2008 to 2010 with veto-proof Democrat majorities and nothing of consequence happened on the tax reform front.
And now we get all this "fairness" BS - which of course is NEVER defined. It's all hot air and the sooner he's gone the better.

Posted by Dave A. | February 6, 2012 3:39 PM
======
I don't have much use for him, but mainly because he was too wussy to recognize that the GOP simply does not accept the legitmacy of a Democratic president at all, and they would rather see the economy collapse with Obama at the helm than to see any positive measures taken that he might even share credit for. The GOP has become like the commits in the Weimar Republic, deluding themselves into thinking that the worse things are, the better for them.

And, by the way,Veto-proof majority my left foot. First of all, a veto proof majority would require 2/3 majority in both houses, and the whole concept is null anyway, since Barry is nominally a Democrat.

"they would rather see the economy collapse with Obama at the helm"

Obama can do that on his own without the Rs help. In other words, I really don't think giving Obama free reign is a great idea. I liked the good old days of gridlock with Bill C.

An awful lot of CPA's, tax lawyers, IRS employees and financial advisers, make a living navigating through the current tax code. I don't see any significant change in the near future. The poor versus rich conversation is a good vehicle to stir up the bases. But, it probably won't make much happen.

The candidates that the GOP has fielded makes me only SLIGHTLY less ill than Obama has made me for 3+ years. I'm ANYTHING but excited by Mittens, Grinch, Paul or the fellow from Penn - but I'll take my dust bunny in the corner over Obama any day, any way. So, just as with SO MANY elections in the past, I won't be voting FOR a candidate, I'll be voting against the other candidate.

Our politicians are exactly what one would expect from a big donor dominated election system.

Technically, you're right - there was not a "Veto-proof" majority. However, if a Democrat president is vetoing bills from a Democrat congress that was made up of a 58.8% Democrat House, and a 58% Democrat Senate, then the Democratic Party is even more screwed then anyone ever imagined.

It's an absolute travesty that this Democratic Party couldn't coalesce enough to actually get anything done in two years, when you have an 8% margin in both houses, as well as a President who would have been happy to rubber-stamp anything that actually moved.

The clear fact is that the Speaker couldn't move anything through her own caucus, and the Majority Leader was far too busy playing partisan ball to even get two votes from the other side to pass a cloture motion.

Both parties are to blame for the gridlock. The GOP (rightfully) gets the blame today, but the Democrats were just as ineffective two years ago when they controlled everything but the Supreme Court.