Did you hear this on Fox News? The president is not control of spending according to our constitution. Has there been a law that changed Congress's responsibilities? The last time I heard the president speak, he acknowledged the financial problem.

Sonny: This country is running on Zero Interest Rates. Just who are "those that can afford it"? You say "the plan must include cutting expenses on things that "DON'T HELP".
Here is some Economic 101 lessons for you.
1) It is impossible to have any Growth in this economy UNLESS interest rates start to Rise.
2) Anyone who has a job earning at least $50,000 per year "can afford to pay"
their fair share of living in this USA. I say 5% is fair--That's $2,500. Start with letting the payroll tax cuts expire 1-1-13.
3) Cutting expenses That don't Help?- How about mandatorily require at least 25% across the board pay decreases for every Federal and state Government worker in America.
This includes Pensions and Insurance benefits.
Make every Teacher in Missouri be covered by Social Security , so we all could save that 29.5% personal Pension Taxes that DON't HELP ONE Person.
Every worker in America should pay Social Security taxes. Every Teacher should retire with the same Pension/same age as every other American.
NOT ONE JOB WOULD BE LOST UNDER MY SCENARIO.
But, a Recession would be necessary. WHY? Higher Interest! Just The increased interest cost on $17 Trillion in US Debt would take up Every Penny in Soc sec Tax collections.
This is no longer a fiscal CLIFF---IT's a Fiscal CANYON.
There are 140 mil Tax filers in Amer. Barely 200,000 earn over $1Mil.
TAX them 100%rate-That's $200Bil of Revenue.
Interest going to 1% will wipe that out.
Your ideology??

These idiots have spent us into oblivion for the express purpose of staying in office. That is not a productive reason to go into debt. Nothing would change (except perhaps for the better) if any one of the 535 people in Congress went home for good. As much as I hate taxes, everyone is going to have to pay more to get us out of this hole. This canard about taxing the rich is simply a ruse to raise everyone's taxes. As pointed out above, even it you took all the wealth (not income) of the billionaires's it would run the country for about a week. Everyone is going to have to pay and everyone on the dole is going to have to get by with less free stuff. Instead of giving the poor free EBT cards and cell phones, let's give those who are able-bodied something better. Let's give them some character and tell them the gravy train is over and they need to get a job. I am all for helping those who cannot help themselves, but that doesn't include you just because you earn less than a certain amount. If I have to pay more, they can take a little less. Paul is correct about interest rates. I live on interest now that I am retired. Since I am now effectively losing money on investment income (when you consider inflation), I have cut way back on spending. I will cut my grass fewer times next summer. Go five weeks instead of four between haircuts, cut back on charities, eat out less, etc. That is trickle down economics. Do not be fooled by the artificial Fed induced economic environment.

"Here is some Economic 101 lessons for you."

Wrong again, Mr. Revere.

"1) It is impossible to have any Growth in this economy UNLESS interest rates start to Rise."

You left out inflation.

"2) Anyone who has a job earning at least $50,000 per year "can afford to pay"
their fair share of living in this USA."

Maybe, and I might even agree with you. But that's not Economics 101.

"mandatorily require at least 25% across the board pay decreases for every Federal and state Government worker"

Again, not Economics 101. Just another of your unrealistic fantasies.

Exactly what did a guy making $250k a year running a small business get from the Afghan war, Iraq War, Sub prime mortgages, credit default swops (sic) or hedge funds?
what super rich are you talking about? Bill Gates? Voted for Obama. Warren Buffet? Voted for Obama. George Soros, the Hollywood elite? Most hard working millionaires are conservatives. Most as you call them, "super rich" are Democrats. Just who are you talking about? Everyone saved money on the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Everyone's rates were lowered. Do you want to claw back all those savings from the middle class, too? Using your logic, if they realized savings, they should now pay more as punishment. Are you so out of touch that you think $250k is super rich? Are you aware there are many teachers in this area who make over $100k? Are you aware there are firemen in Creve Coeur who make over $100k? So, a fireman and teacher married couple are, according to you, "super rich?" I'll bet if you went to every school and every firehouse in town, you couldn't find one person who invested in a hedge fund where most funds require a minimum of $5 million to even open an account. Goldman Sachs has a $5 million minimum. How many people who are making $250k (pre-tax of 42.5% Fed and MO), then paying all their bills, mortgage, food, tuition, etc. would have $5 million to participate in these types of deals? I'm betting not many, if any.

Louis - I agree, except the House of Representatives has lost its credibility according to the pole ratings and the re-election of president Obama. But there is hope that more and more representatives will adhere to their pledges to America and not Grover. Another depression is not possible if people fooled into electing Tea Party Representives contact them with there views. If Representives obstruct progress by voting against revenue increases, then they should be "recalled".

BTW, the FDR had a valid tactic. Like today, during the Great Depresion, the way to recover is to have your government spend money to help the economy. You may say it took a decade anyway, but then as now, the congress worried about the debt and stopped the FDR spending. It took WW2 to get spending again.

Your are wrong, but you have a right to your opinion.

Missourian - Very well put.

A 90% tax rate seems high, but we would not see the super rich in line for food stamps. There is no reason for a laborer to pay as high as 35% when the highest investor's Federal tax is 15%.

We have to close loop hole too. I wonder if Mr. Romney is going to refile his 2011 taxes. He took a 13% rate instead of a 10% rate because he was running for president. No that it is over, I bet he is going to get his charitable deductions now.

Meanwhile, you Senate hasn't had a budget in three and a half years with no prospects of one any time soon. Why don't you just admit the problem is the professional political class which does what it does for the express purpose of staying in office.

flyoverland, you do understand that the Senate does not create revenue bills, right? That is reserved for the House, and one of the key differences between the two chambers. FYI.

"professional political class which does what it does for the express purpose of staying in office."

True enough. We pay these people to govern. A belief in smaller government does not relieve them of their responsibilities to govern...Especially when that belief is rooted in payback to their donors by throwing sand in gears of government - reckless spending, corporate welfare, continued devotion to tax breaks as cure-all, sabatoge of regulation of environmental concerns and Wall St.

Fox News is the only place where I hear the Senate is responsible for the budget.

Yes, I understand the political process and probably received a degree in political science before you were born. My comments were contrasting the partisan Senate to your blame of the House. By the way, the House has proposed a budget every year and each year it didn't even get a vote in the Senate. Meanwhile, Obama's budget failed to get even one Democrat vote. Nothing is done in DC to get things done. They are only done to provide cover for people trying their best to stay in office.

Why bother voting on garbage? Until the gerrymandered HR can produce a budget worth voting on, why should the Senate waste their time?

Gee, I guess we should change the Constitution to read that until a duly elected branch of government meets your standards, no action is required. Or, we could possibly just assume BECAUSE ITS THEIR JOB. You know exactly why they haven't voted on the House budget or come up with one of their own. They didn't want to highlight their profligate spending before an election. Your comments are illogical and highly partisan and not worth further response. By the way, gerrrymandering is done at the state level. Have you ever seen the districts in Illinois and California?

I meant to say "can't" above.

The reason is very simple. The courts require that districts be set aside for minorities. In Missouri, for example, two of the districts, One for Clay in STL and one for Cleaver in KC are drawn so neither can lose. Until this decision is overturned, which i would support, you are going to have these shenanigans. In case no one has noticed, the president is black. The Attorney General is black. It is time to end racial preferences in elections.

The $17T debt is a long journey, but every journey start with a single step in the right direction.

Now that the President and House leader have made openning remarks, it's time to get serious. The first step should be for the House to approve the Senate bill that extends the tax cuts for 98% of Taxpayers. Next start discussions on how much to spend in order to keep the Great Recession from reoccuring. Follow this with closing loop holes in tax code.

Not necessarily so. But getting it done soon will pretty much guarantee a continued end of the recession. There are still sucessful steps that can be taken after Jan 1.

No mike k, he is basically agreeing with Warren Buffett.

In the next two weeks, it is impossible to overhaul the tax code. Nobody is claiming this reversion to old rates on the top 2% is anywhere near a solution to debt/deficit. It is just a simple step, as Sonny say.

Congress can't continue to abdicate their duty to govern by throwing sand in government's gears. This fantastical notion that they must destroy government to save it, is pollyanish at best. Mainly it is just delivering payback to their wealthy donors that sponsor them.

Mike = Paying off the debt is important, but not most important. The debt to National output ratio has gotten worse because of the housing criisis, loss jobs, etc. When these come back, so will an acceptable ratio.

Yeah, if only your sons and I were smart enough to live the poverty high-life like all those freeloaders......

You can't talk to these people. They work from the basis that taxes are the problem. They aren't. And they aren't the solution either. Spending is the problem.
There is ZERO justification for tax-increases on ANYONE while this government refuses to even budget what they are spending (or reappropriating to thier own bank accounts).
We need to build industry so people can get back to work. At careers. Not part time jobs. And we're not talking about the all those jobs they credit Clinton for (a result of families no longer being able to live off of one income). That's not productive job creation either.
YOU are what drives the economy. With the money YOU have in YOUR pocket. NONE of which comes from the government. They have to take that money FROM YOU (& skim the top first) before giving it back to YOU. They think that makes sense.
It isn't about what someone can get for "free" or who can afford to "give" it to them. Why are they asking for money & not jobs.
Punishing the rich to give to the wealthy is asinine, but that's what they believe. They also believe somehow that the poor are better off being dependents, as opposed to productive pieces of an economy. Again, they are wrong.
Until these people finally see this, there's no point. Don't hold your breath, though.
They are misdirected & emotionally re-charged everyday, all to keep them from seeing what's going on. Stop dividing along party-lines. THAT's the misdirection. Decide Now. Divide & Conquer or United We Stand?

Who are the "these people" you are referencing? And then you make a call for less divisiveness. Lol.

"NONE of which comes from the government."

Not according to Keynesian economists.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

"ZERO justification for tax-increases on ANYONE while this government refuses to even budget what they are spending"

Not necessarily. Timing is crucial. I'd agree with you that the government needs to budget. And even balance the budget. But doing that overnight would bring on catastrophe.

I'm talking about you. You think there is a political party out there that wants to help you, and one that is evil. You make endless campaigns for divisiveness everyday.
Pointing out those who are being divisive is not "being" divisive, it's taking the first step toward ending it.

I get Keynesian economists, but they are working from a theory. A set of beliefs.
Those beliefs indicate that the government should "assist" the economy "when necessary", not to run it, not to control it... and especially not to crash it, like this government has done.

The activities of selling bad loans to the public sector & then covering SOME of those investors' losses & screwing-over the others is not Keynesian.

And again. Even Keynesian economics can be exercised without increasing taxes.

Space doesn't allow me to explain the housing crash, who was behind it & who tried to stop it, what was done, how Fannie & Freddie were used, banking law & how it was changed in order to screw-over you & the economy, how much of a long-standing effect it would have on our economy, or where they plan to do the same thing again.

PS - My original point was: for the government to give something, they have to first take it from someone else. Whatever item that money is used for, would be cheaper without the middle-man.
Dragging the top to the bottom does not work. Allow the bottom to get to the top. Stop enslaving the bottom to a system that very soon will no longer be able to provide for them.

Devon, I have no party affiliation. I don't consider myself a democrat or republican and have voted for both parties. It seems you like to typecast and stereotype views. What can be more divisive than that?

You have no idea what I think. And judging by your comments and regurgitations of right wing blogs (or "research" as you like to call it), I doubt you have much original thought of your own.

Yeah, you've been the bastian of objectivity.
You misrepresent others & their desires on here everyday. Now you're misrepresenting yourself.
I know who you are. I used to be charged with giving you your opinion.
You always accuse me of regurgitating, yet you don't have a clue what my sources are, and then you proceed regurgitate the misinformation you are fed with every sentence... and right along party-lines.
It's always everyone else's sources that are wrong, never yours. Yet, you don't know what's behind your own information. You make fun of "alternative" news sources just like you are supposed to, all without recognizing that the every main stream of information, is tainted by a 95% to 5% ratio. You seem to believe that is reliable.
So, I reiterate, "You can't talk to these people..."

Sounds like you are having filtering problems. Unable to disseminate information effectively. Too much noise around the oversized amygdala, so you have to get your opinion, er I mean "research" fix from "alternative" news sources.

I find having practical life experience with economics, business, taxation, public education etc helps me traverse the muddied media terrain on such topics. Instead of just "researching" on the internet, this involves associating with real people in those arenas. Long enough to learn a few things, rather than giving only short time it takes to ratify a predisposed stereotype. After that, if you still don't understand a topic enough to give an informed opinion and personal perspective - then don't.

Give it a try some time.

Yeah, Yeah, except amygdala is about emotion. The truth doesn't have any. You're distracted again. All you have are predisposed assumptions. That's what I've been pointing-out to you. It's what I've always pointed-out to you. You do it every time you try to incorrectly attribute my opinion to someone else; website or otherwise. You only do that because you can't understand someone who doesn't approach it like you. I've told you where my information comes from a number of times. Continuing to guess wrong won't change it. I've given you places to look for yourself; you don't want to. I can't help you anymore. All you have are insults & misdirection. I've done what I could.
Your resume & "synonym-feature" use of the 50 cent words, means you obviously don't have anything you can learn from someone with a 152-156 IQ (ranging 3 scores over 12yrs), 2 broadcasting degrees, founder of a corporation, operations & marketing manager for various businesses, home loan originator/collector, and 17+ years in the media, including fact-checking, investigative, and news.
That kind of person has got to be ignorant as to how media & money work, much less what happens to information before it gets to you. The difference between truth & what is reported "as is" in effort to be "first". Or the methods used to embellished for effect or ratings.
Good Luck, My Man. I tried.
Btw, they pay people good money to do what you do. If you don't have your hands in some of it, you're missing your calling.

"PS - My original point was: for the government to give something, they have to first take it from someone else."

With one big exception: the Federal government can take it from all those who aren't even "someone" yet, by printing money. To get through a depression or recession, that can be a reasonable thing to do according to Keynesians. I'd like to see the money paid back during good times, but that doesn't always happen.

"Whatever item that money is used for, would be cheaper without the middle-man. '

Not always. I have no doubt that you're familiar with economies of scale.

"Dragging the top to the bottom does not work."

I'll listen to Warren Buffett instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

"Allow the bottom to get to the top. Stop enslaving the bottom to a system that very soon will no longer be able to provide for them."

I agree with you (though I object to the word "enslaving" here). The big question is how to get there.

i get a kick out of the conservatives calling people in poverty freeloaders. RDBet why don't you donate all your money to a good cause and go see how good life is on the poverty level.

Again, you're misunderstanding the role of the government in Keynesian economics. They feel these things need to be done as supplement, Keynesian economics don't justify overuse, misuse, or extremes. It certainly doesn't apply to each & every time the government does anything. It's more about moderation & management. To hear you speak of it, you'd think it's validation for the government to control the economy. It isn't.
Don't forget the result of continuing to "print" money... each dollar everywhere loses value. Do it too much (as we already have), it even crashes the entire world economy or forces the world currency standard to change. If that happens, every dollar in circulation everywhere in the world, loses nearly 20% more of it's value.
Keynesian economists are aware of this as well. That's why they don't actually suggest what you continue to insist they do.
Why would you listen to Warren Buffet over nearly every other billionaire? Is it because he is the one the media continues to push? Is it because he supports the same political party as you? Or is it because he recieved over $90+ billion dollars of bailout money for his companies? By the way, just so you are clear, he TOOK $90+ billion in tax dollars, he has never "paid more" in taxes, and has yet to write a check for the "extra" taxes he thinks he should pay. But he did not hesitate to CASH those tax-dollar checks. You were likely very interested in Mitt Romney's tax-return, maybe you should check-out Buffett's.

I haven't heard anything from you that rebuts my claims that some of your statements are just plain wrong according to Keynesians. (Or anything that shows that you correctly understand what I think, but that's not important.)

If you want to continue with an example, I said:

"the Federal government can take it from all those who aren't even "someone" yet, by printing money"

You said, I think in response to that:

"That's why they don't actually suggest what you continue to insist they do."

I only insist that Keynesians allow deficit spending. Are you saying they don't?

If that's not what you were talking about, please tell me what I insist that Keynesians do.

I answered all of those; reiterating my point that you aren't paying attention.
What I said in response to that was:
"Again, you're misunderstanding the role of the government in Keynesian economics. They feel these things need to be done as supplement, Keynesian economics don't justify overuse, misuse, or extremes. It certainly doesn't apply to each & every time the government does anything. It's more about moderation & management. To hear you speak of it, you'd think it's validation for the government to control the economy. It isn't.
Don't forget the result of continuing to "print" money... each dollar everywhere loses value. Do it too much (as we already have), it even crashes the entire world economy or forces the world currency standard to change. If that happens, every dollar in circulation everywhere in the world, loses nearly 20% more of it's value.
Keynesian economists are aware of this as well. That's why they don't actually suggest what you continue to insist they do."

Speaking of not addressing the point:
I also asked:
"Why would you listen to Warren Buffet over nearly every other billionaire? Is it because he is the one the media continues to push? Is it because he supports the same political party as you? Or is it because he recieved over $90+ billion dollars of bailout money for his companies? By the way, just so you are clear, he TOOK $90+ billion in tax dollars, he has never "paid more" in taxes, and has yet to write a check for the "extra" taxes he thinks he should pay. But he did not hesitate to CASH those tax-dollar checks. You were likely very interested in Mitt Romney's tax-return, maybe you should check-out Buffett's."

"I answered all of those; reiterating my point that you aren't paying attention"

That point is patently incorrect. I'm paying attention and have read every word you wrote here. I just don't understand it. If all you can offer for explanation is iteration, then we've reached the end of useful discussion.

Devon, with your high IQ and wealth of experience. and as a corporate founder, and fact checker investigator extraordinaire, and local dog catcher....pause for affect...,

You, of all people and should be able to figure out that Warren Buffett did not take $90 billion in bailout money..... go back and "research." some more.

... And...
Claire bought stock in those companies just prior to those bailouts (just the handy example, because their are plenty more of them who did the same thing), for all intents & purposes, insider-trading.
How about this? I'll give you facts & you can disprove them if you don't think they are true. Just making another uninformed (or purchased) statement attempting to claim it didn't happen just because Rachel Maddow didn't tell you about it, isn't enough.
You are right though, it was likely more, but I stopped looking after $90 million.

Contrary to your belief, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to show you just some of the things the people you trust are hiding from you. You either want to see them or you don't. This is for your benefit, not mine, I did my homework.

I think I've heard of Rachel Maddow but have never followed her work. Once again, you are projecting -scared of things that aren't there. Creating boogiemen. That amygdala at work.

And it was your claim (from your "research") that Warren Buffett received $90 billion in bailout money.. So I have nothing to refute.

Here. let me help you. breitbart.com Control C, Control V.

My point. Thank you. It's not about tax-rates.

Every economist in the world also says that when the PEOPLE spend, the economy excels.

Sonny: You should google year 2001. See how disastrous our economy was after 911.
Maybe you would appreciate how the "Bush tax cuts" did get us out of a potential business collapse. Those cuts had big middle class tax cuts. ALL STILL THERE TODAY.
Those are the cuts that Obama is claiming to KEEP.
Those are the cuts that Rep want to keep.
I wonder why he doesn't just say --"HE IS FOR KEEPING THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE-CLASS".

I Thought that Bush Tax cuts were "ONLY FOR THE RICH"

News-Alert--- Raising tax rates for the Rich WILL NOT HAVE ANY AFFECT ON THE "deficits" or The "Debt" of the U.S.
So, why do that only?

As part of the first step towards a recession solution, we should write to our Missouri Representative and tell him/her how the likely $2000 in higher taxes would affect our lives. I my case, I would have no problem paying this extra tax if it were spent growing the economy.

Somehow, they've convinced Sonny that we can spend our way out of debt, and tax our way out of the economic mess, created by those very same ideas.
I wonder what Sonny could do if he actually had $2000 less taken from him every year. That's a $4000 turn-around, in his pocket, and everyone's pocket, that couldn't do anything BUT help fix the economy.
Again, for the 1 million & first time. The economy gets fixed when the PEOPLE spend, not when a government takes. Every drop of history we have tells us that.

Devon said, Again, for the 1 million & first time. The economy gets fixed when the PEOPLE spend, not when a government takes.
How can the PEOPLE spend when they don't have jobs?
And if I paid additional $2,000 in taxes, I would survive. That is only $40 a week. I could withdrawn that from my Cayman Island account. :-) (just kidding)

I get your point:
How can the PEOPLE spend when they don't have jobs?
That is precisely my point. We can't keep attacking job creators like they are the evil here. We can't keep burdening them with caring for the PEOPLE they used to be able to hire & sell their products & services to.
A government that keeps crushing businesses can't provide these jobs. How would more taxes on those businesses cause them to hire? How long can we continue to force businesses to support those people who they have had to layoff or cut?
We can blame businesses for moving out of the country, etc. all day long, but only if we ignore the reasons why they leave.
We can't keep turning employees into dependents, and then when someone comes along & wants to create jobs & give people the means to provide for themselves, or tries to provide a conducive environment for businesses to hire, say that they are all about the rich & don't care about the worker.
Any idea who might hire these employees? Right, it's the dreaded, evil, rich.
I don't see too many poor people hiring. I see them "out of work" due to the continuing burdens being put on their former employers.
The point is: Tax Increases create dependents & the percieved "need" for more tax increases. Tax reductions create purchasing & hiring power for EVERYONE. When people have more of their own money to spend on products & services, businesses MUST hire to keep up with demand. These are simple, endless, spirals in OPPOSITE directions.

Missourian:
1) Spending does not produce jobs. (investments produce jobs)
2) Govt Taxes can only come from people who have jobs. (construction and infrastructure represent a pittance of jobs).
Your cycle spending is not taught anywhere in any reputable book or college of capitalism in this USA. If our public schools teach what you just said here, then this country will be left with only shrinking "jobs & workers".
Eventually, you would have only those waiting for the "Taxed" to pay into a massive Waiting crowd of "spenders". That 47% is your spenders.
Once that reaches over 50%, you have a declining job level.
Heaven's save our children being taught this communistic destruction of society.
No wonder 50% of public college Grads are unemployed.
Truly a failed education system at all levels. Are you part of that system?

PaulRevere I don't if I can trust anything you say since you still haven't responded to Paul Stanley calling you out on your niece's salary. What other facts have you said that are wrong?

For a "Harvard" grad, you don't seem to understand economics very well. Spending - whether it comes from individuals, businesses, the government, nonprofits, etc - is the only thing that produces jobs. Without it (customers), there is no $$$ for investment. It doesn't take an advanced degree in economics to grasp that. When the economy is in the toilet, you use deficit spending. Once the private sector picks up, you pay back the deficit. You must have failed the part about the Great Depression and how government spending in WW2 ended the depression, and how the deficit spending that financed WW2 was paid down with very high top marginal rates in the '50s, '60s, and '70s.

Very well put. There are good points for both sides. It is like the which came first - the chicken or the egg.

Either The Missourian has read Keynes or didn't need to. Very nice explanation.

"What other facts have you [Paul Revere] said that are wrong?"

Google is graciously helping us keep track: just Google "Wrong again, mr revere".

To add to the collection, use that phrase in a comment.

"Spending does not produce jobs. (investments produce jobs) "

Wrong again, Mr. Revere.

Jobs require both investment AND spending. As we know from Econ 101, common sense and recent experience, producers fail without spending to consume their output. For those who'd like to see it in equation form, this Wikipedia page has it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_demand

^ mike k don't need no gum'ment.

Mike:
We only pay 7.5%, teacher pays 7.5%. We also save another 14.5% currently put into pensions of teachers. Hidden from all!
Switching "teachers" makes them "AMERICAN WORKERS".
Actually Teachers' private pensions for retirement actually PROVE THAT PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY (pensions) WORKS.
I would want Every working American to fight for private pensions, just like the "Un-American" teachers get. maybe you should know that All of our social security taxes supports the general debts and expenses of running this USA. All those funds are spent on waste and fraud and welfare and unemployment payment extensions and college loans and college tuitions.
ALL THIS WHILE EVERY MISSOURI TEACHER PROVIDES ZERO SUPPORT TO RUN THIS COUNTRY. NO SIR: Our educators "exempt" themselves from the ordinary worker in society.
Any teacher who reads this , should be ashamed of their thumbing their nose to becoming part of the worker society.
Stop being Tax-sucking leaches to support a self-assessed value far more than society can afford. Educator exemptions from social security is proof of the "elitist" attitude by our educators. I don't blame individual teachers, I blame the leaders who only exist to line their own pockets. (Many in that 1% class)

F/Y/I Capital gains rates are ZERO 0% this year 2012 for anyone in the 10-15% bracket. it is not only for the rich. Anyone who owns or sells stocks would get substantial tax increases next year.

Sonny:
Zero 0% Capital Gain rate is ONLY for those in the 15% income Bracket.
That means people who earn less than approx $34,000. It is a "Bush tax cut for the middle class. Bet You didn't know that?
Not Romney!

Secondly, A retirement plan is already available to all workers in America.
It's Called "social security Retirement".
I or any other American worker does NOT owe any teacher or any other Worker in America a Retirement. There is no such thing as a "career" job in America.
You are showing us all proof of the Arrogance of Unions. Society does not Need to pay union wages for any education. You do support "free choice" don't you.
Well isn't it time our state allow Parents the freedom to choose how our schools are operated. Freedom to choose is not only for the female--is it.
Unruly students come from "non-respect". More authority creates Dictators, not teachers. Have some dress codes and "hands off your fellow student" rules in our schools.
Teach young kids that "respect" starts with their own body.
I know my principles sound harsh, but I guarantee every teacher a smoother daily teaching life.
In summary: Untidy kids result in untidy classrooms.

"Freedom to choose is not only for the female"

And not even for the female, if you had your way.

"PaulRevere is treating teachers too harsh."

He has it in for public school teachers. I wonder why.

Speaking of PaulRevere, teachers, and unanswered questions:

A serious question for you, PaulRevere:

Why do you compare St. Louis County teacher salaries with salaries of "Missouri's average worker"? I'm sure we can agree that all salaries, and costs of living, are higher in metropolitan areas

http://chesterfield.patch.com/articles/political-rewind-gop-lawmakers-want-to-cut-business-income-tax-in-half

Sensible - if you ask a serious question to a stupid person you will get a seriously stupid answer.

great point RDBet

To all except PaulRevere,
When I donated to a teacher who was collecting for his, "Making Spirits Bright Celebration" where he taught, he send me a Thank You card, that said, "... and I was able to purchase toys and coats for 28 students."

This love that teachers have for their students needs to be rewarded for their kindness when they retire.

PaulRevere you still have not backed up your claim about your niece's salary. What's the matter? Were you just throwing out numbers to make your argument look better?

Answering your Honest question?I assume you are meaning "School taxes" YES! If the system is right All people who make more money would automatically pay more in taxes.
But , you sir, will not read my words in full context. I said a $100k "SHOULD pay more, but our current system does not make that true."
Why? Because a $100k person in a $125,000 Home pays less tax than a $50k person living in a $150,000 house. That's just one example.
Now do you see why the system is unfair to the poor/needy who are paying up to 10% of their income for "Free education"/ Just because they Own a Home or have a bank mortgage.on top the "Teacher Pension annual mortgage obligation".
That is why PS should be funded based on "income levels".
Now , I have a dis-honest question for you. When will you start "sticking your nose in support of those hundreds of residents our educators are stealing from?"

Odds are the person making $100k will live in a more expensive house in a pricier part of town than the person making $50k. There are plenty of exceptions, but in general when people earn more, they tend to upgrade their lifestyle.

That said, property tax is a stupid way to fund schools. The most expensive students to educate - inner city minority kids from multigenerational poverty - have the least resources under a property tax system and continue to suffer. School tax should be levied at the state level and distributed according to district needs.

And everyone thinks your little war against teachers is stupid. They are professionals. They are the backbone of our public education system - which is one of the greatest achievements in our country. They work as hard as lawyers, doctors, etc and get paid a hell of a lot less. So back off!

Missourian: "Odds" that Rich might own pricier home. That proves my point.
Can Richer person "freeload" the current system. Let's try another "odds"
Do our schools depend on Auto Pers prop taxes?
2 residents own an "impala auto". Fairness!? The $50k & the $100k resident pay the same auto tax? Should they?
"ODDS" are that our residents making less than $50k are paying inordinately more in support of "Free" public schools.
It is sickening , to reveal other inequities (lowAprraisals) in this Archaic way to get our children educated at the lowest possible cost for ALL society.
Odds of higher homes, odds of different cars, odds of operating businesses out of homes, Odds Odds Odds. That is not the way to gamble our education dollars.
It is time to restructure the whole public education cost in Missouri.
Let's start by eliminating the whole "wealth tax on Homes and autos". Those are the 2 most necessary living needs of every middleAmerican parent. To tax them until the day they die for a service they may or may not need is "Immoral".
It costs about $9,000 per student at most public schools in County.
I say anyone making $100k per year can afford to pay $9,000 for their child's education. Let's really find out who the freeloaders are in the public school districts.
Let's find out how many of "you's" are perfectly Ok with paying your "FULL" share.
(of this stupid currnt system)
Look at PublicSchl portion of your Real est& auto taxes. Are you paying $9,000? Who is?

Dear Rabbi: If you have followed all my postings, you should know well my agenda.:
1) Teachers are the pawns of a Leadership that has stolen the money of those parents who can least afford a $9,000 education cost per child.

2) I have never said a word of Police or Firemen because They serve ALL of us Daily, For the rest of our lives. They will be dealt with when competitive Firemen are available.

3) How nice of you to remind me that I was indeed taught everything I know by "TEACHERS". Yes sir, I was taught to play drums, I was taught to play piano, I was taught to Drive a car, I was even taught "manners", I was taught "morals", I even was taught to read. My teachers were Nuns, and priests, and musicians and lay people who were simply "instructional focused". F/Y/I I also teach clients how to run businesses. Is that the kind of Teacher you are thinking about?
That's where you and I split--No Parent NEEDS public school teachers-- they need educators. All parents have access to education anywhere in the district.
Flash!--Public school teachers have competition, always have.
they can get it for less than $9,000.

You say "If it weren't for teachers , I would have zero education".
Without Taxation, you would have ZERO teachers.
At least I paid for ALL my education.(even my Music) Not one cent of tax to my neighbor.
So you go on and keep showing your childish name calling education off to the rest of our readers here.

The real Paul Revere, the patriot, went to public school in Massachusetts. Change your screen name. You are discrediting a great man.

I don't know how bad the problem is, but there is a way to fix it. We need to hire companys like Bain Capital to come in and fire those bad teachers. :-)

Mike,

The NEA isn't really a union. It's an association. The NEA doesn't have any real teeth to it. If a school district wants to get rid of a teacher, even a tenured teacher, it isn't hard to do. Being tenured means you get a 90-day notice.

Also, what do we do about the bad students? What do we do about the bad parents? You can't place all the blame on the teachers because it takes everyone working hard towards the same goal.

I'm going to agree with The Missourian. There is seriously something wrong with you PaulRevere. Get a life

Also you still haven't taken credit for you blatant lie about your niece's salary. Just an FYI

I'm not going to respond to any of ReverePaul's posts either. I'm following the newest trend of ignoring those who can't tell fact from fiction.

That is how I'm having a merry, merry Christmas. :-)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

PaulRevere,

Funny you bring up knowing history. Your namesake went to public school in Massachusetts. Your knowledge of history is shallow at best.

Good Point ReverePaul.

Experts are saying don't worry about the Fiscal Ration fix. It will be addressed by New Year's Eve. The real problem is the Debt limit when the market tanked in 2011 because the Tea Party convinced the Republicans to waited too long. Some believe the debt limit will give them the opportunity to slash benefits for the poor and taxes for the rich.
On the other hand, the debt limit is not the key to the problem. Europe has tried a austerity and it only made the problem debt-to-GDP get worse even though the debt goes down, the GDP goes down faster.

While the majority of Americans elected a president who said taxes should go up on those making over 1/4 of million dollars per year, the effected 2% are against any tax riase even though higher taxes will start the economy growing again. They believe that blocking the election outcome by using their influence on the House majority, regardless of the election mandate.