By Jon Keller

BOSTON (CBS) – Just because you’re filthy rich, it doesn’t mean you’re not boring.

I’ve met a few multi-millionaires in my time, and believe me, they may be worth millions, but they’re not always worth your time.

Listen to Jon’s commentary:

Warren Buffett, however, is an exception to that rule.

A mega-rich investor whose biography includes moments of both capitalist excess and great philanthropy, Buffett is not shy about sharing his opinions.

And his latest offering just happens to mesh with the preferred political spin of his friend, President Obama.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” Buffett writes in the New York Times.

So he wants to see taxes raised immediately on the 236,000 or so millionaires and 8,274 folks who make more than ten million.

I don’t know about you, but as someone who is definitely not now or ever going to be a millionaire, that seems like a fine idea to me.

Buffett claims most of his mega-rich friends won’t mind, so I say, have at it.

But let’s be clear that this will be, at best, a symbolic gesture.

By one set of calculations I saw, each of those millionaires would have to pony up $7.2 million in extra taxes each year to defray the current $1.7 trillion deficit.

And even if you extended these tax hikes to those making $200,000 or more per year, an idea the President has toyed with but Buffett rejects, you’d still need to grab more than $433,000 from each of them to make the nut.

In other words, making the rich pay more, while a commendable idea, is not a solution to our problems.

It’s a rhetorical device designed to direct your anger and frustration toward an easy target and away from a system addicted to squandering tax dollars.

And some think the president’s claim that defense and entitlement spending can’t be cut much further is a joke.

“Job one is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here,” writes one observer.

Who said that?

Why, Warren Buffett did.

I guess soaking the rich isn’t quite the panacea some would have you believe.

You can listen to Keller At Large on WBZ News Radio every weekday at 7:55 a.m. and 12:25 p.m. You can also watch Jon on WBZ-TV News.

Comments (110)
  1. tsal says:

    I don’t believe anyone wants to soak the rich any more than anyone believes it is the only answer. That would be ridiculous. There will have to be monies from many areas but excluding the wealthy (and corporations) is equally ridiculous. The tax credits were an attempt to help people get past the tough economic times. No one has yet explained why anyone earning more than 1 million dollars a year needs help financially. Another ridiculous idea.

    Closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations is not the only answer but it is part of the answer. And while increasing taxes for the wealthy, closing their loopholes and the loopholes of corporations is not the only answer, allowing the credits to continue and loopholes to go unchecked is unquestionably part of the problem.

  2. tsal says:

    As far as being filthy rich meaning you are not boring, any person I have ever known who is very wealthy has been no different than anyone else. But that was old money and as I’ve said before old money never tells. It still doesn’t. Different story in many cases when you get to the new money – many of whom are simply obnoxious.

  3. Stephen Stein says:

    “In other words, making the rich pay more, while a commendable idea, is not a solution to our problems.”

    There is no one thing that will “solve” our deficit. The tax structure and spending restraint in the late 90s engineered by Clinton and Congressional Republicans actually worked, though, so I don’t see why there’s such resistance to the idea from people who claim to be concerned with the deficit.

  4. Matt Magee says:

    if the stupid rich are getting taxed 15% while the poor and struggling have to pay 30-50% of there little pay that cant make it week to week… yeah that makes sense..

    1. roadbowler says:

      the only difference being, the poor people get it all back and most of the time they get back more than what they put in.

  5. roadbowler says:

    I still need help understanding why it’s ok for certain people (us poor folk) to take advantage of tax credits, but not others (the filthy rich). Maybe i’m not as bitter as most people but I don’t deprive people of their success.

    1. tsal says:

      I don’t have tax credits to take advantage of nor does the average American. We just pay. I expect everyone to do the same. And now the GOP wants us to pay more while protecting the wealthy and the corporations. The “success” is disproportionate. The overblown salaries are obscene in too many instances. Look back to when our country was prosperous and most everyone had a piece of the pie and check what group had the higher percentage of annual income growth. Hint – it was not the top 1%.

  6. TPFD says:

    The trend here seems to be asking that the filthy rich make a bigger contribution, not pay the whole nut as Keller suggests [is not feasible]. So Buffet, after taxes, still hauled in about 28M. Yeah, he could make a bigger contribution to the country that allows him to succeed. I think after 10M of disposable income I would have a hard time spending more. So Mr. Keller, you are correct, but don’t stop there. A bigger contribution by the filthy rich could help, if not pay the whole nut.

  7. TD says:

    This deficit mess will only end when a) the Republicans realize we need to raise taxes for a while, b) the Democrats realize we need to lower spending for a while, and c) both sides get their collective heads out of their rear ends and make these things happen. Unfortunately, since our elected and supposedly representative officials only care about themselves, the chances of this ever happening are slim.

    1. Stephen Stein says:

      There’s a component you leave out here… growth. The deficit will not be solved unless the economy starts growing. Which, paradoxically, argues for MORE deficits in the short run. Money is cheap to borrow right now, so why are we worried about borrowing?

      1. roadbowler says:

        The biggest problem of all is, nobody wants to go through any pain now. We have a spending problem in this country. Our taxes are too high now, for everyone not just the rich. If we don’t cut from some of these entitlement programs now, we won’t have them in the future. If the debt causes our economy to completely collapse, we won’t have ANYTHING. So what’s the choice??? We can have our cake and eat it too now or we can do the responsible thing now so we can continue to have cake years down the road.

        I’m guessing the greedy people will continue to choose the ‘GIVE ME IT, IT’S MINE!!!!’ attitude they have now.

      2. tsal says:

        Yes!!!!! Job creation will involve spending to create the programs that put the average American back to work. Once the average American – the one who literally drives the economy – is back to work, he/she will begin spending. 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Why is something so obvious not seen?

      3. Stephen Stein says:

        @roadbowler – au contraire, mon frere. Taxes are the LOWEST they’ve been since 1950.

      4. tsal says:

        @roadblower – you need to check your history a bit, my friend. Every single recession/depression has been ended by government’s creation of jobs.

        During the very best times in our economy we had jobs created by government projects. Then the theory of the wealthy creating jobs came along – trickle down economics. From the very beginning of that theory the American way of life began to deteriorate and the wealthy simply became wealthier. There is tremendous disparity between wealth and the average American now. It is at its greatest level since just prior to the great depression – also created by the disproportion of wealth.

        Please, if anyone believes that the wealthy create jobs, explain to me why we are in the mess we are in now since the wealthy have been getting inceasingly wealthier for the past two decades and the rest of us have been getting far poorer.

      1. roadbowler says:

        @ tsal. Why do fellow taxpayers have to foot the bill to get a person back to work??? The government doesn’t create taxpaying jobs. Do the math, it’s a net loss every time.

      2. Stephen Stein says:

        @roadbowler – All those people working on I-93 all summer – the government didn’t create those jobs? The workers didn’t pay taxes? What are you talking about?

    2. Nab71 says:

      A balanced approach would work as long as Congress cuts spending for a substantial period of time. Unfortunately the track record is to raise taxes while agreeing to spending cuts that disappear after a new Congress is elected. That’s why Democrats point to tax increases under Reagan, but neglect to mention that the Congress reneged on promised spending cuts. Only a balanced budget amendment, with safeguards, will force Congress to keep its word.

      1. Stephen Stein says:

        Why do you need an amendment? There’s a Republican majority in the House – nothing at all is stopping them from proposing a balanced budget right now! Put up or shut up!

      2. Nab71 says:

        Stephen Stein

        First an amendment has been proposed by Republican leadership.Second,. An amendment must be proposed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to then be sent to the States for ratification. Since Democrats refuse to consider the amendment in the Senate “Put up or shut up ” doesn’t apply. The states should take control and propose an amendment as allowed by Article V.

      3. Nab71 says:

        Why do you need an amendment? As I already said Congress cannot be trusted to keep its word on budget cuts.

      4. Stephen Stein says:

        @Nab71 – I’m sure you meant to say “ratified by 2/3 of House and Senate” instead of proposed. As usually constituted, a BBA would be economic nonsense – deficits are good things for a government to run from time to time, especially as engines of economic stimulus when necessary. I would agree, though, that over a long run, debt is a bad thing for governments to run up.

        But what I said before stands – the House can pass a balanced budget by a simple majority – 2/3 not necessary! – whenever they want. Yet, no one has proposed this. Again, I say, put up or shut up!

      5. Nab71 says:

        @Stephen Stein
        No, I did not mean ratified by a 2/3 of the House and Senate!
        Review Article V of the Constitution which states: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ‘
        Basic 8th grade civics. The Framers did not want to give Congress the power to ratify an amendment because they realized that the Constitution and therefore the Federal government was a creation of the states.

        What you said before stands on inaccurate ground. The Republicans in the House do not have enough votes to propose an amendment. Of course, most liberals do not understand any part of the Constitution that limits Congressional power.

        Your statement ” as usually constituted” concerning a BBA implies the blinders that most Liberals have concerning this option. They can only quote the most restrictive proposal, not more reasonable proposals. It’s similar to the ploy of representing an incest victim average person seeking an abortion.

      6. Nab71 says:


        It’s similar to the ploy of representing an incest victim as the average person seeking an abortion.

      7. Stephen Stein says:

        @Nab71 – you misunderstand me so I will repeat – The Republicans in the House don’t NEED an amendment. They can just propose (and pass!) a balanced budget bill. No amendment necessary.

        One who knows so much about the Constitution must understand this, no?

      8. Nab71 says:

        @Stephen Stein

        I’m sorry, the fact that you incorrectly stated ““ratified by 2/3 of House and Senate instead of proposed. ” led me to believe we were talking about an amendment.

        You are correct that the Republicans could propose and pass a balanced budget in the House. That was the idea of Cut, Cap and balance that was passed by the House. Unfortunately, a balanced budget, as indicated by the tabling if CCB would not pass in the Senate. If by some miracle a balanced budget passed in the Senate, it could be undone by the next Congress, as happened in the Bush administration. A reasonable BBA would keep the Congress from deficit spending for normal operating expenses, not emergency situations.

      9. Stephen Stein says:

        The idea of CCB was to bind future Congresses. But *this* House seems not to want to balance the present budget. Why is that? Certainly not for fear of not getting past the Senate – they’ve done a number of things that wouldn’t pass the Senate. So why won’t they pass a balanced budget now?

      10. tsal says:

        @Stephen – I’ve been watching for the answer too but me thinks no one wants to answer your question ;)

      11. Nab71 says:

        I think you know the answer. To balance the budget in one year would require draconian cuts to programs and tax increases to everyone, unless you want to simply cut the budget by over 40%. It would have to be accomplished over a period of years. Both parties have been complicit in running up the debt. A BBA would force Congress to move in that direction. Any such amendment would take time to ratify and can include a date when it would be enacted, say 4 years from ratification

      12. Stephen Stein says:

        Well, there you go – no balanced budget because it would be hard. In fact, even the justifiably criticized Ryan plan doesn’t meet the strictures of CCB.

        This completely ignores what an economic disaster a BBA would be. Sometimes you NEED deficits. If we had a BBA, there would have been no way to fight WWII (not to mention the Revolutionary war and all the wars after that). And the bust cycles of the regular economy make it expedient to be able to run a deficit for stimulus. Ask Rick Perry, for instance, who’s run his state’s deficit up faster than the federal deficit these last 10 years.

        But to accomplish a balanced budget in a few years, it needs no silly amendment, just sustained economic will. It seemed a faint hope in ’92, but the budget was in surplus in less than 8 years. It can be done.

      13. Nab71 says:

        @Stephen Stein

        You seem to be congratulating yourself for the fact that a fiscally impossible task is impossible. Other than you, I’ve heard no one suggest that anyone in Congress proposes to bring the budget into balance in one year If you keep asking why someone doesn’t propose the impossible you will always be correct..

        There you go again outlining an unreasonable BBA. For any proposal to be workable it must allow an override in situations as you have described that go beyond the normal operation of government. For over 40 years we have borrowed for the normal operation expenses.

        A BBA shouldn’t be necessary if there was the political will, long term. Unfortunately neither party has shown that. The Clinton administration, with a Republican Congress came closest although they, like all other administrations cooked the books to show a surplus. The surplus was due to the fact that the money borrowed from Social Security does not count toward the deficit. It does count toward the debt which went up every year of Clinton’s term, just like those before and after. Part of the reason that the reported deficits of the Obama administration are so high is because there is no money left in the Social Security to borrow off the books.

  8. Jeff Andrade says:

    So, increasing taxes on people making more than $1M is not fair? And how much do you make Mr. Keller? I assume its not a minimum wage job flipping burgers with no health insurance, vacation, pension, health care. THOSE are the people that are getting taken to the cleaners while the rich get richer.
    Have you no shame?

    1. roadbowler says:

      What’s your definition of ‘fair’ Mr. Andrade?

  9. Willow says:

    I don’t think it’s the borrowing that is the problem, that seems to be easy enough or we wouldn’t be in so much debt. It’s paying it back, with interest, that is at the point that I think is impossible now to pay back no matter how much anyone is taxed. Everyone who runs a business or a household knows that you can’t continue to spend money that you don’t have. It will bankrupt you at some point. Why can’t our government understand that the borrowing can’t continue, and it’s time to not support things we can’t afford, and make an honest attempt to pay down our debt. By making cuts, I’m not talking about cutting benefits to folks who have paid into SS their entire working lives. Begin cutting benefits to people who have never worked to earn them, end the loopholes for the rich and corporations, and above all, end the wars that are costing us billions of dollars a day to fight. As others have said here, the wealthy can’t solve it all.

  10. Ron T says:

    I still think about that retired school teacher’s commercial, addressing the idea that some would make cuts to our SS benefits, while leaving any tax reform ideas for the rich, off the table!

    I love his parting comment about, there are 50 million of us, seniors!

    The president seems willing for a compromise, with the republicans, wanting cuts only!

    A campaign contribution reform would also be nice, so any winning candidate wouldn’t be owing so much to the biggest contributer, at the expense of the average middle tax payer!

  11. John Fama says:

    There is no definitive solution to the nation’s debt problem. But continuing to give tax breaks to people who don’t need them is not helping. In fact, it’s hurting. You don’t have to be a math wizard to figure out that wasteful spending needs to be cut and revenue needs to be increased. Why the TEABAG people and the rest of the Republicans in congress don’t get it is beyond my comprehension. All this political turmoil the the that the Teabaggers have created is more about making Obama a one term president than is is about doing any good for the nation. As long as these pouting children remain in there posts, the hole that George Bush dug for us is only going to get deeper.

  12. FireGuyFrank says:

    I’m happy to hear Warren Buffett is willing to pay more. Mr. Buffett, you and all of your filthy rich friends who agree with you (I’m sure Oprah is among them), may simply make out your checks to the United States Treasury. I also suggest you make out checks to local governments — cities, towns, counties, depending on where you live.

    Did you know that one can always DONATE to the government? There is no need to wait for tax code changes, Mr. Buffett. Thank you for making a ton of money and for sharing it with fellow tax payers.

    How long do you think it will take Buffett et al to write the checks?

    1. tsal says:

      Buffet has a deep history of giving to communities. When Hugo destroyed the Charleston area, he gave tons of money to help it rebuild. Just one example. It’s the type of giving that many wealthy do not understand. It’s giving money that doesn’t go to country clubs or the building of one big home. It goes to smaller projects that in turn create jobs for many.

      Is he perfect – I am sure he isn’t – nor am I. But I see him trying and won’t criticize him for doing so.

      1. FireGuyFrank says:

        If Buffett gives and gives, that’s great. I merely pointed out that those who wish to give more need not wait for Congress or local legislatures to act.

  13. Ashley says:

    ohhhh keller.. do you really think people enjoy being dependant upon other people? i’ve got news for you bud, they dont. capitalism has ruined america by not instituting proper regulations and salary caps on flat out piggish salaries of the countries top CEO’s. (we can go back to freaking JPMORGAN in the late 1800s! ) Plus why dont the CEO’s put all their money back into their own company? what happened to that? small business owners do it all the time!!! Also, how is a country to grow when the smallest portion of their country is the only one “growing” (and ignorantly REFUSE) to look at the big picture. I digress for a bit, lets not forget that a BIG problem was when banks made is seem like the majority of our society would be SAVING money by purchasing a low rate variable mortgage. the banks knew (being of higher education than many of the USA’s citizens, sad but true), that not many people are obviously educated enough to own a house and understand the legalites, but EVERYONE NEEDS A HOUSE… so of course this is the perfect marketing ploy… bring them in, then bleed them out… and now look where we are… the people who instituted such shame are now turning their backs and saying “hey you signed on the dotted line” just as a car sales man with that slicked backed hair who pressured you into purchasing the car “you want” , not the one you “can afford”
    shame on america for not forseeing such a horrible mess!!! and shame on the CEO of bank of america (who recently stepped down a fews years back) and other larger banks across america who now refuse to help the people who funds their SICKENING LAVISH LIFESTYLES.

    1. FireGuyFrank says:

      Capitalism is what FOUNDED this nation, Ashley. Remember the Declaration of Independence states that among certain inalienable rights are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — not a guarantee of achieving happiness. (Early drafts had the “pursuit of property.”)

      1. Ashley says:

        i mentioned that capitalism was not regualted properly…. a lot can change from ideals of the 17 and 18 hundreds… i think we’re established… its 2011 maybe we should re-vist the standards of america.( after capitalism tops out.. what ‘s next?) plus the country was founded on capitalism because at that time, that was the only way for progress to spread and for the western colonies to prosper. we are over 310,000,000 i think we can stop thinking of ourselves and start looking around at our neighbors and asking again just as the men in the 1800’s, what can we do to make our community BETTER

  14. Kel says:

    Just a thought, could we have all government officials pay for their own healthcare, vehicles,insurance, housing, utilities,meals, gas,vacations,and retirements?? Wouldn’t that save some money? Just sayin….

    1. tsal says:

      you are just sayin’ very wisely! It’s all part of the pie and there is not one fix.

    2. Dianne says:

      I am with you…good idea.

  15. emom says:

    LOOP HOLES, MILLIONAIRES, BILLIONAIRES, anyone that makes more $$$$$ than the working poor, get far better TAX DEALS than the rest. It sickens us to hear they get loop holes to avoid being taxed. I saw a program the other day on this very same subject,, Don’t ask can not remember what program. But Here is how they get away with out paying to the government… OVER SEAS CORPORATIONS, BANK ACCOUNTS, AND FOREIGN DEALS. Corporations will create an over seas company headquarters in which maybe ONE person works, or simply a PO BOX. They rent out space which they never use or have any employee’s.. By doing so they can AVOID huge taxes. Now that I think of the show,, could have been 20/20. I normally do not watch this show, but that night I was fixated on it.. I was so disgusted in how the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever allow these corporations to simply get away with tax avoidance. To become richer and take advantage of the workers as well as the country . All the while becoming a filthy rich company… Its almost like blood money… One company Which I have ZERO respect for, has the gall to put up a platform here, it gets destroyed but most of there money is in foreign banks. Many companies are doing just this. Blame some of the past presidents , in which they allowed companies to go over seas, to save paying Americans any money or even hire them. I worked for a company that out sourced most of their work,, That happened over a period of 5 years, and then many here lost their jobs…. And the company CEO got extremely rich over it… They avoid every tax penalty they can by going over seas….. I CALL THIS LOOP HOLES ., and this practice needs to stop.
    We should also tax the rich, mega billionaire, ,millionaires, Hollywood, corporations, and the list goes one. Why should any of them be exempt ,,, if that’s the case, I am sure millions of WORKING POOR , would also love to take advantage of the loop holes, and tax avoidance possibly,,,,,,,,,, I am sick of JUST GETTING BY, sick of MAKING ENDS MEET, tired of paying MY FAIR SHARE, only to get ZINGED on every thing I purchase that is not tax redeemable, we can not claim on any of the taxes we pay out on a daily basic, but it sure seems the wealthy can… Lets put a crimp in their WALLETS for a change and stop the bleeding of the POOR. Close all tax loops and bring money back to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its working poor.

    1. Ashley says:

      now how does that work? i mean REALLY!!!!! i’m sick of greedy, ignorant, irresponsible, pompus, and above all LIARS in power… anyone ever hear of with great power comes great responsibility?!!?!? CEO’s must make sure your actions do not impact the society as a whole negatively nevermind our freaking ECONOMY…so selfish selfish selfish… unscrupulous assh*les…

      i’m honestly getting sick over this… our country in imploding before our eyes..

      1. emom says:

        I am sick over it as well, Corporations avoiding paying taxes to gain riches, curtisy of us.. We as americans work so hard for the little we gain only to have our jobs rippied out from under us. I want to see the corprate bleeding of the workers to change. We need more than what we have, Like I said before this was a product of a previous president and in the same he also got a bit richer from it. But we caused nothing unless the re-voting these hacks back into office, and that was on the premises of promises we should have never listened too. Maybe all this will set the stage for the future political force to come and make us think twice and look at all the grief so many had to endure while all these folks simply looked away , took away and got rich all at the same time… It can never get better only worse/

      2. FireGuyFrank says:

        Ashley, one cannot “regulate” economic activity and have capitalism. Such regulation is called socialism or communism.

        You and I ought to make as much money as we can — provided we don’t actually harm others in the process. Are there folks who make millions “the wrong way”? Sure. Drug dealers. Pimps. Corporate raiders. Politicians who line their pockets.

        If I had Buffetts money, I’d be very generous and grateful.

      3. Ashley says:

        the “provided that we dont harm others in the process”, is the focus of my argument. you and i may make as much money as we want. that is true. however, i would never loan shark my way up to the top, decieve customers, or clients, and then i would not lead people into believing that the money they are investing is being reinvested into the company when the books are actually cooked… madoff? yea… just one of the examples i’m trying to focus on.

  16. Stephen Stein says:

    Something I suspect, but I can’t prove, is that it’s bad when income gets too skewed towards the rich. The richest 1% make something like 25% of the income now. That figure was around 10% 20 years ago. What happens is the vast majority of the people don’t have nearly as much money as they used to have – and the great spending engine of the middle class is getting starved.

    (I know that’s not a very coherent argument right now, but I think there’s a nub of truth in there.)

    1. tsal says:

      I think it can be proven, Stephen, and I agree with you. If you follow the flip flop in our country’s history of which group has the highest income gains, it shows that the periods where the average American’s gains surpassed that of the wealthy were also our most prosperous years.

      And your comment was extremely coherent to me.

      1. Stephen Stein says:

        Well, the problem for me is that there’s probably some optimal level – it’s obviously bad if 1% of the people had 100% of the money. But it’s also bad if everyone had equal income, because the “leaders” of the economy DO create jobs and should be rewarded for it. So there’s a curve there – I just don’t know where the “good part” of the curve is, and whether we’re further from optimum now as opposed to 20 years ago.

      2. tsal says:

        I think there will always be levels of income and agree that there should be, Stephen. It’s the annual income gains that seem to be the problem. The majority cannot survive with less than 1% annual gain with cost of living including huge and unreasonable health insurance increases. It amounts to the average person literally going backward in income. It’s ridiculous that most of us have seen less than 1% annual income gain in the past decade while the wealthy have seen over 10%. 10% of hundreds of thousands is a lot of money.

        I think we get to 20 years ago by putting the income gains back into the pocket of the average American by creating jobs. Your comment about needing to borrow to create those jobs is absolutely accurate. It’s what FDR ultimately did to end the depression.

  17. Smitty says:

    Maybe if there were a flat (say, 15%) tax rate on ALL citizens gross income, that would make a big difference, and lessen the burden on the ‘little guy’.

    Also, did anyone realize that General Electric corp, who, last year was a company that profited 14.2 BIllion dollars, yet paid NO US income tax?

    1. tsal says:

      Smitty – GE was not alone by any stretch of the imagination but it’s GE’s and other corporations tax loopholes that the republicans and tea party are fighting so hard to protect.

    2. Ajay says:

      Someone mentioned that it was the republicians that are allowing the corporate tax loop holes. Now Massachusetts is hardly a republician state. But Evergreen is making a killing on a corporate tax loophole provided by the Democrats in Massachusetts.
      We shouldn’t be in such a hurry to point to one party or another when it comes to playing with the tax codes.

      1. tsal says:

        Ajay – I do not believe any person has said that the republicans are the only party that has allowed the loopholes. In my opinion every politician has contributed to the loopholes being allowed in the past as well as helping to create them to begin with. And no one is saying that only one party has been to blame.

        What has been said is that the GOP and tea party members want to continue to protect the loopholes while the democrats are calling for them to be closed. There is a huge difference there.

    3. Ajay says:

      Its an ongoing battle over tax loopholes. It has been for years. Some folks are claiming that its the democrats that want to close these loopholes and its the GOP that’s protecting them. I don’t understand why all of these loopholes weren’t closed when the dems controlled the entire congress and the white house.
      Could it be that the loopholes are working just as well for the wealth dems as the wealthy reps?
      Do any of the dems posting here ever stop to consider what would happen if you eliminated all of those tax loopholes for the corporations?

  18. Ashley says:

    come onnn!!!! who okays these things?!!?!?

  19. DStein says:

    I’m all for raising the income tax and closing loopholes as long as EVERYONE shares the burden of a tax increase. That includes the 50% of people that pay no income tax at all in this country. Time to have some skin in the game instead of holding out your hand for the rest of us to subsidize you. Raise the tax rates on everyone by 6% including those now paying zero. And don’t tell me they can’t get by on 94 cents from every dollar.

    1. tsal says:

      I don’t think anyone is talking about raising taxes. Bush created tax credits. They were in large part to help Americans who were struggling. It’s the credits that people want ended. That doesn’t increase taxes. It simply puts the taxes back to the level where they were before the credits. As far as I’m concerned, if the wealthy really feel they need a credit to survive in this economy and won’t give it up until every other American does, then you can end all of the Bush credits – for me and for everyone else in this country.

      I do not understand why everyone keeps saying tax increase when it is in fact the end of a credit – period.

  20. andyme says:

    We need to get back to the KISS principle, “Keep It Simple Stupid”, on taxes (flat sales tax), work for what you get in life and defend our borders, however allow people who want to be free and contribute to enter the country.

    Warren could write a check to Uncle Sam anytime, tax the rich more and reduce the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax from 50% to the 20% level. KISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. Mark says:

    The rich got richer because they were allowed to send their manufacturing overseas, hence the loss of jobs here. The rich got richer by increasing the cost of their product and decreasing the size of their work force (fewer people doing more things at the same or a lesser wage). When is the last time any of you out there got a raise? For every Warren Buffet there is a Leona Helmsley. Bring back the manufacturing to the USA punish the companies that don’t. Rewrite the tax code to make it fair, close all loop holes and get rid of that bureaucracy that was created in the FDR, or the Hoover or the Coolidge administration (don’t tell me that none still exist).

  22. Dianne says:

    I usually don’t respond to this but who is asking to “soak the rich?”. They should just pay their share. And maybe it wouldn’t completely turn it around but it would certtainly help some people…maybe pay for someones medicine they can’t afford. This was the most ridiculous “opinion” I have ever heard.

  23. hojo says:

    What’s the matter Jon, don’t you believe in Robin Hood economics? Methinks Warren Buffett is suffering from rich guilt.

    What we need is a very simple tax code that levies the same rate on everyone, with only an exemption for the first $X to give the truly poor a break. No deductions for anything, not interest, not taxes, not medical expenses and no deductions for dependents. If people want to have large families let’s not reward them for overpopulating an already crowded planet.

    1. tsal says:

      hojo – you just shut down the majority of small business in the country. I am a small business owner. I go by the book and keep incredibly detailed records. I redid my taxes based on exactly what you have prescribed. I would not survive a year.

      As far as dictating what size family a person has, we can just wait until China takes us over and we’ll be there.

      1. Ajay says:

        What a hypocrite! You’ve been preaching that we should close the tax loopholes. You’re critsized the GOP for protecting those loopholes and not putting them on the table. Then you want them and the wealthy taxed more because they don’t need the money.

        A tax loophole is an exemption. You stated that your business wouldn’t survive a year without it’s exemptions…or loopholes. If everything is on the table and we close all of the loopholes available to businesses….you’ll be out of a job won’t you?
        You’re so willing to attack and charge the larger companies by deleteing their exemptions, but the gov’t shouldn’t touch yours? You critisize the GOP for not putting everything on the table and then try to argue that “everything” shouldn’t include your prescious tax loopholes? I assume that you also take your mortgage deduction, as well as charity and health insurance deductions. Should those loopholes be on the table as well?
        Great policy…. let’s be fair and everyone contribute. Execpt me of course.
        I have to apologize for grouping you in witht the democrats on this board. You’re not a democrat, you’re a socialist.

      2. tsal says:

        AJ – a business expense is a deduction. It’s not a tax loophole where I put my money somewhere that no one can tax it. It’s an honest expense. Can you get off my back and stop name calling please. How about we agree not to address each other – period – since seem to enjoy being rude. And do not – now or ever – assume what deductions I take. You are way way out of line.

      3. Ajay says:

        If the deductions that corporations and the wealthy are using were illegal, the gov’t would be after them for tax evavion. The deductions, or loopholes, are legal deductions. That’s why it would take congressional action to change the law.
        Whatever business deductions you ‘claim’ are as legal as what the major corporations are doing. Preaching that we should eliminate only part of the deductions (those that don’t apply to you) is simply a nice way of redistributing their wealth. I suppose that you would also support a proposal that your town be able to seize your company’s profits over a given amount because they needed it?
        If you want people to leave you alone, then try thinking before you post. Don’t preach one thing in one post and then turn around and be guilty of the same thing later. And when you’re called on it, don’t blame everyone for “misreading” what you said throughout this board. I gave you the befefit of the doubt before. Now you’ve made it clear that you really have not clue what you’re talking about.

  24. Ron T says:

    60 Minutes covered the strategy story of some corporations having part of their business based overseas, to avoid the 35% tax rate they receive here in the US, and pay a much smaller tax by doing their assets and earnings overseas loop-holes, getting away with as little as 5% in some countries!

    So, it creates a lose-lose situation for the common American worker, in need of a job here, plus, we all have to dig deeper into our tax wallet, to off-set the greedy corporations, who do that kind of thing to the rest of us!

  25. emom says:

    When You hear of tax credits or breaks. You don’t except to have to PAY THEM BACK, During the Bush era, we had a few of these TAX BREAKS or credits or what ever they wanted to call them,,, BUT by the following year it was a much different story… so many where hit,,,, no blind sided with paying them back… with extra. It was a huge burden and a shocker all at the same time. We have had it happen a few times just recently as well.. Sure these breaks help some folks, but in the end it only prolongs the problems.. Folks are still poorer and their tax returns prove that. I still believe starting with the wealthy will help lesson the burden on the working poor…. But we may never see it since the loop holes are deep and wide

  26. Jon Keller says:

    Thanks to all for a mostly civil, intelligent discussion. I really appreciate how the regulars here have developed a level of mutual respect and argue firmly but fairly with each other.

    1. tsal says:

      Thank you for the topic. Clearly, many feel the need to be heard and you can feel the frustration that they are not – on every side. You have given that opportunity to at least discuss.

  27. Ashley says:

    isnt that what america’s all about jon? :)

    1. Jon Keller says:

      Ashley…yes, when it’s working properly

  28. JohnC says:

    I like Warren Buffet. Unfortunately, his idea will not make a significant dent in our financial problems. The real problem is very simple – we are spending money that we don’t have. We have to cut spending drastically. We must optomise the tax code to create the maximum number of jobs. Raising taxes is not the way to due it.

    1. tsal says:

      JohnC – I hear people say what you have and I’m not sure how or if it will work. How would changing the tax code create jobs? I’m trying to understand different solutions. Thank you.

  29. mikey says:

    I don’t see anyway out of this. Cooked, that’s what we are.

  30. Joe says:

    We need a common sense approach and less political rhetoric. I came up with this in 15 minutes. It’s far from perfect but it’s a starting point which obviously needs debate and other ideas. I’m quite certain everyone here could improve this plan faster than Washington could get it into conference for debate!

    Problem= We are broke.

    Solution= Become not broke



    1) Raise income taxes on NET incomes of over 500k. This 250k number that’s being thrown around is ludicrous because it includes small businesses who are sole proprietors. This number is VERY misleading since a very small business may have gross receipts of 300k to 500k but a net taxable income of 100k or less after such obvious deductions as payroll, cost of goods sold, rent, fuel, insurance, repairs, office supplies and utilities. Then, without question, it is reinstated. This must be done in a way that takes any possibility of congress “extending the tax hike”.

    2) Raise corporate and capital gains taxes for 2-3 years. Then, without question, they are lowered to today’s rates. This must be done in a way that takes any possibility of congress “extending the tax hike”.

    3) Eliminate the earned income tax credit for 2-3 years. Then, without question, it is reinstated. This must be done in a way that takes any possibility of congress “extending the tax hike”.

    4) If you work you pay. A minimum tax of $200 on EVERYONE! Even for people making under 20k a year. Then, without question, they are lowered to today’s rates. This must be done in a way that takes any possibility of congress “extending the tax hike”.

    5) Cut all the bs out of the budget. No more money to study how mosquitoes bleep in Seattle. No more bridges to know where. No more BS PROJECTS FOR EITHER PARTY PERIOD!

    6) Eliminate ALL EAR MARKS for 2-3 years. ALL OF THEM!! Figure out a new process where state reps can apply for Federal money for their state. Using Federal money for SMART AND COMMON SENSE state projects is not the problem. The problem is nobody cares how mosquitoes bleep and the rest of the waste in #5 above. After 3 years the new bipartisan state spending plan will be introduced and voted on with bipartisan support.

    7) Go thru the budget with a scalpel and cut costs wherever possible. Consolidate redundant Government agencies and cut whichever ones are obsolete. Yes, that means some government employees will lose their jobs. Sorry, my plan affects everyone, even Government hacks.

    8) Pass an amendment to fix entitlement programs. They will not be cut in the initial stage of this plan. Form a PRIVATE SECTOR committee to look into social security, Medicare etc. Said committee will submit a report and a solution to Congress within 24 months. This plan WILL BE MADE PUBLIC FOR ALL TO VIEW! Then, Congress will in session and thru the existing bipartisan committees review and enact a plan to make the necessary changes and cuts to said entitlements.

    9) Finally, institute term limits for Congress and the House. 4 years is not enough and 16 years is too much. I believe 8 – 12 years (2-3 terms) is just about right.

    10) By 2018 we will have a balanced budget at which point Congress must institute the balanced budget amendment.

    1. Joe says:

      PS, any cuts to social security can not affect any future payments to anyone currently 50 or over. People have been putting in their whole life, counting on it to be there and it needs to be there in full for them. The biggest cut I would make in entitlements is means testing and cutting off illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants but illegal immigrants. Let the debate begin from there.

    2. Tsal says:

      Good start. Are you on the ballot? You might get my vote Where do you see job creation? I’d like to see you keep going past the 15 minutes with this

      1. Joe says:

        Thanks! I’ve honestly thought about it on a local level but I think I‘ve done too many “stupid” things in my youth! Lol .

    3. FireGuyFrank says:

      Let’s cut foreign aid and decide we don’t want to be the world’s police force. We could savve trillions right off the top.

      I agree we need to force a balanced budget. Cutting what I just mentioned will go a long way.

      We need to seriously look at “entitlements”. We need to look at cutting the size of governments (federal, state and local). We need to realign government agencies. For example, HUD as a federal agency is not as good as a similar agency at state levels. Every state, every county, every town is different, and a federal HUD isn’t as effective.

      Lots of change. REAL Change. Not that hope and change nonsense we heard three and four years ago.

    4. Calder14 says:

      Joe, I really like it and along with tsal and I, you have 2 votes. I have a small issue with #2, though. The corporate tax rates are the 2nd highest in the world as of now (about to be #1 if Japan’s effort to lower theirs comes through). That will not only keep taxable revenue overseas, it may push more out the door. That may need to be lowered a bit which in turn will actually create more tax revenue (i’m sensing some wheels spinning on this one) by bringing taxable income back into the US.

      ….and I can tell you without a study that mosquitoes bleep all over my back yard because there are about a million of them out there.

  31. Tsal says:

    How about ending the wars and the suggestion above to have our politicians pay for their healthcare and cars etc. I love constructive discussions. I read quickly and apologize if I’ve mentioned something you covered

    1. Joe says:

      Yes, yes and yes again. We need to safely and effectively leave Afghanistan with an optimistic as possible government structure in place. Iraq I feel we will be there longer. Why? I feel Iraq has the potential to turn into a moderate democracy. I feel that 10 years from now we will, at the very least, look at Iraq the same way we look at Kuwait and at the most Dubai. Creating Dubai in Iraq is probably a stretch but I feel the potential is there. However, Iran is going to be the larger long term issue

    2. Ajay says:

      Good start. So why din’t Obama end the wars (as promised) when he had complete control of both sides of congress?
      Why didn’t the democrats change the way conress pays for their healthcare, cars and such when they had the chance?
      Nice policy….let’s end the abuse in this country. Unless it benefits me, of course.

      1. Joe says:

        I relate campaign promises to a college thesis. Your thesis includes facts on your topic but it also includes your view of the world and ideas on how to improve it. However, one soon realizes some of their good intentioned ideas are impractical once they enter the real world.

        A political platform and subsequent campaign speeches is a politicians thesis and sales pitch to voters. It expresses your personal beliefs and your solutions to our countrys issues & problems. Some campaign promises can be kept why others have no shot. Take Guantanamo bay for example. President Obama made closing guantanamo a priority in his first year. This was also a priority for a large part of his base and got him A LOT of votes. I’m not saying the president lied to get votes. I believe he truly wanted it closed as well. It didn’t make sense then and it doesn’t make sense now.

        He had his first meeting with military leaders and his first classified briefing once he took office. By the time that meeting ended the president realized that closing guantanamo wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. My guess is the meeting went something like this. ‘Mr. President we realize your desire to close guantanamo. While we understand your good intentions sir, with all due respect sir, there is no way in Hell that can happen.’ They then filled him on all the classified intelligence and answered his questions as to why and that was the end of it.

  32. Joe says:

    I feel job creation needs to be 90% from the private sector and 10% from Government. Most importantly is that while we do need government to RESPONSIBLY regulate certain aspects of our economy, too much regulation has a massive impact on our economy.

    First, with government regulation comes the creation of government agencies. With government agencies comes government employees. With government employees comes a necessity for said employees to “do something” and to become important enough to justify their position. These employees understand this and will sometimes go way too far with regulation just so they can say “see, look what we did”. When all they really did was create an unnecessary cost or hurdle for whatever business they are regulating. In order to cover said cost said business has to cut costs. That usually starts with layoffs.

    Have you ever watched the deadliest catch? The fisheries department and OSHA are necessary government agencies. However, imagine them onboard each ship measuring each crab out of each pot before it went in the hole and OSHA watching everyone’s every move to make sure they are safe. It would slow down and complicate an already dangerous and deadly job to the point where people would stop fishing or somebody would get killed from the distraction.

  33. Joe says:

    Job creation is simple yet very complex. Market confidence is the main factor. However, I truly don’t understand market confidence. I’m self employed and have always been taught to keep emotion out of business as much as possible. Yet, the stock market is the most bipolar organization I’ve ever seen! One little bump in the road or “expert prediction” can make it drop one day, gain it back the next and lose it again the following day.

    I feel Businesses need a 5 year window of somewhat certainty. They need to know how to account for possible investments and new hires. They need to be somewhat certain of the overall economy before they decide to launch a new advertising campaign to boost sales. Certainty and confidence comes from a strong leader. A strong leader running the company, in Washington and most importantly in the white house. Right now everyone in Washington is killing any certainty that exists.

    Personally, I feel the United States is getting bleeped in the trade market. Say what you want about Donald Trump but the smartest thing I’ve heard anyone say recently is when speaking of OPEC he said to OPEC “you’re not going to raise the bleeping price” and that he would put a tariff on Chinas imports. Again, say what you want but it would be nice to have someone with cohunes in Washington.

    Everyone complains about companies “shipping jobs overseas”. Well, there are so many reasons why and I don’t have enough time to get into it. But the biggest is the emphasis put on adapting to the global economy and free trade rather than changing it and improving the business climate in America. That along with our government and EPA regulations forces corporations to look into overseas operations. Once they see the benefits to the company and their shareholders it’s bye bye Detroit and hello Mexico and china. There are many more reasons but that’s a cliff notes version.

    1. tsal says:

      Joe – you make sense and I agree with a lot but not all. I’m tied up for the night but if Jon allows, I hope the conversation can continue tomorrow. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. You’ve put a lot of time and thought into this.

      1. Joe says:

        Tsal- Not a problem, no one person is right or has all the answers. Well, that is unless you live in Iran or, as we’ve seen lately Syria. Without ideas and debate we have…. Well, we have Syria. However, I know one thing for absolute certainty that I will not back down from. The “solution” to our problems needs to come from the middle and will not be found on the far far left or far far right! I will put my life savings on that bet!

  34. Joe says:

    Oh and the first thing we need to do is take that 2,000 + page obama care bill, throw it in the trash and start from scratch. You think the debt is bad now???!

    1. tsal says:

      Joe – you just lost my vote :) I believe there has to be a provision added to the health care package to keep the insurance companies from raising rates but the right won’t let that happen. Otherwise, there is nothing I want more than health care reform. Although I definitely do not want to get into health care reform discussion since it is way off of this topic.

    2. tsal says:

      Good Morning, Joe. I printed out your ideas and love that this is a positive discussion. Starting at the beginning.

      Your suggestion #1 makes sense. And would agree with the $250 affecting small business. I am also self employed. My business is successful but small. Should there be something in #1 about closing the loopholes. Loopholes by definition meaning a way of escaping something because of ambiguous wording. An example is that subsidiaries of US corps with operations overseas can tell the IRS they pay taxes overseas and tell the overseas govt they pay taxes here therefore paying nothing anywhere. Small business is generally unable to use these loopholes for obvious reasons but the large corporations are.

      I have to work too :) so will go with one item at a time if you want to continue the discussion and if Jon doesn’t mind.

  35. massman says:

    TSAL – here’s a little chart showing you the effect of the Bush tax cuts.

    TSAL, if you were a millionaire or billionaire, do you really think you’d be pressuring the government to raise taxes on yourself, unless you knew it would benefit the country. Luckily, there are some Warren Buffets in the world. And keep this in mind. It wasn’t too long ago, when Donald Trump was leading GOP polls. This was based on his questioning of President Obama’s birthplace. The agenda is to get rid of Obama. The country’s well being takes second billing.

    1. tsal says:

      Good Morning, massman. If I were a millionaire or billionaire, I hope I would be doing what Buffet is. I’m not but I would still encourage the Bush cuts to be stopped for me if that’s what it takes to have them stopped for those that are.

      I heard a comment a week or so ago that the GOP/teaparty is holding 300 million people hostage to get to one. It is 100% accurate. This country does not matter to the right and it has not mattered from the moment Obama was elected.

      I’m off to check your link. Thanks.

  36. JohnC says:

    TSAL, The wealthy have created jobs, lots of them. The problem is that these jobs are not in the United States due to our second-highest-in-the- world corporate tax rate. Cisco syatems has created 100,000 jobs offshore. Until Americans get a handle on economics, the US economy will continue to flounder. Any tax increase will be paid by us. All of us. Anyone advocating higher taxes is advocating higher taxes on you and me. If you are OK with paying higher taxes, that’s fine with me. I honestly believe that my tax burden is already unreasonably high.

    1. tsal says:

      JohnC – since the early 1980s (coinciding with Reagan’s trickle down theory) the wealthy have been receiving a far higher annual income gain than the average American. The wealthy have been getting wealthier while the rest of us have been getting poorer. If giving the wealthy tax breaks and loopholes to avoid paying taxes while at the same time promoting salaries that are unrealistic, is good for this country, where are the jobs now? They are not all being created overseas. The lack of jobs is also due to the lack of demand. The Average American is hoarding his money because he doesn’t have any – the wealthy have it all. When there is no money, there is no demand, and without demand there cannot be new jobs. What would they produce with no one willing to spend money to buy?

      I of course agree that the wealthy create jobs but not to the level that the government has created the jobs that have kick started this country out of ever recession/depression. We need to get Americans back to work – every day Americans – on a very large scale similar to the building of the roads and dams and national parks and the space projects. A few jobs created by a few corporations here and there will not ever create the jobs necessary to get the money into the hands of the average American so that he will feel confident buying again.

      As far as higher taxes – no one and I will repeat because no one is hearing it – no one – is calling for higher taxes. It’s a twist of words by the political right that has scared some Americans but most see through it. People are calling for the wealthiest of Americans – those receiving 10-14% annual income increases – to stop receiving tax credits. It simply would put the wealthiest back to the tax rate they were at prior to Bush’s credits. It’s not an increase in taxes – it’s an end to credits for people aleady receiving high annual increases. Why would anyone who had a raise of 10-14% (one hundreds of thousands) each year need a credit to help them weather the economic crisis?

  37. hojo says:


    Sorry I’m taking so long to get back to you, but I have a job and can’t spend much time reading this blog or commenting. You said my suggestions yesterday would torpedo every small business. Is that ALL small businesses, or just those that have so little activity that their proprietors have loads of time to weigh in on blogs?

    As to my suggestion concerning those who procreate with abandon, you must have misunderstood my comment. Let them have as many children as they wish, but don’t reward their irresponsible behavior.

    1. tsal says:

      I couldn’t say what other businesses do nor would I be arrogant enough to even guess since I have no idea what they do or the hours they work. However, I would assume since my business is very successful that it would apply to all businesses.

      I didn’t realize there was a cap on responsibility when it comes to having children. How many should people be rewarded for having?

      1. hojo says:

        They shouldn’t be rewarded for having children. That is a personal choice and society should have no say in the matter.

  38. Ralph Regner says:

    There was a newscaster, I believe on WEEI years ago who did a daily “at large.” I wish I could have recorded it. He postulated a scheme where we taxed the “rich.” I believe, for his example, he designated everyone earning over $100k or $200k as rich. He further set their tax rate at 100% ie take all of it. His conclusion was that their contribution would fund the government for only ~14 days. Wish I had the details but his point was while it was convient to villify the rich it was not the answer

  39. Joe says:

    Just want to quickly respond and comment on the posts today. I didn’t have time today. I had a day from hell! Kind of day that makes you question being self employed. First, I want to expand on my response to Ajay’s question which asks why didn’t Obama end the wars (as promised) when he had complete control of Congress? Good question with a complicated but morally simple answer. Short answer is don’t use an existing war as part of your political platform. I feel it is morally irresponsible to make campaign promises based on an existing war. IE, Guantanamo Bay.
    Why? 3 reasons. 3 reasons that apply to both democrats and republicans.
    1) It is impossible to guarantee military policy on the campaign trail. Once you become president you receive your first classified briefing. After this briefing, whatever “promises” you made will most likely end up being unfulfilled. I don’t have a problem with candidates expressing their opinions and ideas on foreign and war policy. However, I find it irresponsible and borderline criminal to make promises when you are not yet privy to the highest classified intelligence.
    2) The enemy is listening. The enemy is listening to everything the candidates say. Once the election is close they can diagnose what implied strategy, realistic or not, that the front runner will implement. There has been numerous high profile military brass that have spoke to this very issue. If you think they don’t get wbz4, cnn or fox in caves you’re wrong.
    3) We have men and women being shot at and seeing amazing death on a daily basis. On their down time they have to watch the uncertainty of presidential debates on TV. They are already restricted to the most insane rules of engagement imaginable. Now, they have to watch a candidate, possibly their next commander in chief, telling the world that we are going to pull our troops out of an unwinnable war. Then the next day we expect them to go out and fight again after hearing these negative comments. If you don’t think this has a negative effect on troop morale then you obviously don’t know any and have not had any in depth talks over a few beers with any active duty soldiers who have been there. I have. However, I won’t repeat the horrific battle stories I heard out of promises I made to never repeat them. But, I will say this. The stories and details are 100 times worse than whatever you could possibly imagine. This enemy are true animals!

    If you want to get a sense of what I’m talking about then watch this video. This is video from when he was in Fallujah.

    If you want to put a smile on your face and feel good that your kids will be safe when you tuck them in tonight and confident that our military budget should be cut carefully if at all, and most importantly that we have the best and toughest sons of bitc^es in our military than any on earth then watch this.

    If you want to see more then I highly recommend you search “Marines Fallujah” on YouTube

  40. Joe says:

    Now, after watching that video do you think the mental midgets in washington can get their $hit together, come together and figure out a way to fix this problem or do we have to replace them with those guys? Because those guys get it done while our politicians pass the blame. Listen to a politician or talking head talk then watch that video. Seems like we have the wrong guys in charge don’t it?

  41. Joe says:

    Sorry the second video link doesn’t always work so here it is again.

  42. Joe says:

    Ok I give up. Just go to YouTube and search this

    3rd Battalion 1st Marines In Fallujah Iraq.

  43. massman says:

    TSAL – I prefer this argument for eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy.

  44. tryecrot says:

    Yes there should realize the opportunity to RSS commentary, quite simply, CMS is another on the blog.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s