Maybe I'm just overly optimistic, but seeing 85 House Republicans vote for this deal give me hope for the debt ceiling issue. The scenario I'm hoping for:

1. Senate Democrats pass filibuster reform at the start of the new congress, at least managing to force a talking filibuster.
2. Senate Democrats submit a bill based on Geithner's proposal earlier this year (require a vote to NOT raise the debt ceiling instead of the other way around).
3. Senate Republicans are forced to either allow a vote, or stand up and talk about how it's somehow actually OK to hold the entire world economy hostage.
4. Obama refuses to negotiate, Senate Republicans finally give in and the measure passes.
5. House Republicans still balk at the deal, but Boehner allows it to come to the floor, preferring to lose his Speaker position rather than be remembered by history as the man who caused the second Great Depression.
6. At least 17 House Republicans realize that the tables have been turned and they'll be blamed for the economic collapse, since the Senate has already passed a resolution. They join with Democrats and pass the Senate bill as-is.

Maybe it's a fantasy, I don't know. It requires filibuster reform to actually succeed, which is nowhere near a sure thing, and it requires Obama to actually stick to his guns and refuse to negotiate with economic terrorists - also nowhere near a sure thing. But it's the best of all possible outcomes. Even if the brinksmanship leads to another credit downgrade, it will mean the end of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip and will probably finally "break the fever" like we thought the election would.

Because there were no spending cuts and as long as Obama is President there never will be. He will spend us into oblivion. Any republican who voted for tax increases without spending cuts needs to be voted out. They lost their leverage when they caved to tax increases. We will never see cuts and our debt will continue to deepen.

maybe your party shouldn't have voted for two costly wars, two costly round of tax cuts from Bush, an Medicare expansion that wasn't paid for.....see the pattern here?

Congress just voted on $1 trillion in cuts last year. it's time for more revenue, over and above what was just passed yesterday.

Filibuster reform will be paid lip service with people talking about the Senate being "Collegiate" but the rules will not be fundamentally changed. No one in Washington has the political courage to give up so much as an iota of power (including the power to obstruct). I had high hopes but I am coming to believe that they were ill founded and that nothing will change.

Dragoon21b - Normally I wouldn't be that optimistic either. However, we did see a decent example a few weeks ago. Mitch McConnell tried to bluff the Democrats and suggested they vote on a plan to give the President power to raise the debt ceiling on his own, assuming they would refuse to avoid giving up the power entirely. Harry Reid proceeded to call his bluff and propose a straight majority vote. He was entirely prepared to simply and permanently disarm that weapon, knowing that any use of it by either side would be disastrous for the country.

Filibusters aren't quite so high on the mutually-assured destruction scale, so they don't have quite the same pressures acting on them, but Democrats know that if they don't get something done within the next two years they risk being swept out like they were in the last mid-term. (Republicans benefit from dysfunction, remember - they advocate small government, so when government doesn't work they get voted in to shrink it.) The choice is to either cement majority power by forcing Republicans to cooperate or take the blame, or to plan to become a minority in two years and preserve the ability to obstruct the other side's agenda. I don't see how the latter choice can possibly win in a logical mind.

Dubba

That is exactly what they are doing. We are at a place where the political "Safe ground" is in looking like the underdog and presenting yourself as the opposition not in making policy. The tyranny of the minority is a delight in the power of obstruction because when nothing gets done you can't be held accountable and you can claim a victory of "Principal". It's self serving, Machiavellian, ruthless and very logical.

All things being equal, it would be logical to hedge your bets, take the safe ground, and rely on obstruction - but all things aren't equal when one party expressly advocates "smaller government" as a general principle.

All this dysfunction hurts both parties, but it also proves right the side saying, "Government is always inefficient, never works, and should be shrunk as much as possible." If Democrats maintain the status quo of obstruction, Republicans maintain a slight advantage as a result.

Removing the tactics of obstruction ends up leveling the playing field, forcing both sides to actually propose solutions and letting the American people decide which side is better. And, let's face it - when Democrats' ideas are actually adopted (Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, even Great Society welfare before it started getting slandered), people realize pretty quickly that they like them and don't want to give them up.

The sticking-point is that all of this requires Congressional Democrats to actually take the long view and accept some risk, and who knows whether they're smart enough to do that. I'm hoping they are.

Ahh but therein lays genius...the best way to be able to claim that something doesn't work is to break it.

By reducing the ability of Government to administer it's functions so much that it is ineffective you create your own narrative.

Look at all the Programs, agencies and commissions that have been underfunded or had appointments blocked over the last 30 years and by whom...It's a laundry list for things that either regulate industry, ensure public safety, help the poor, or enforce financial law.

Southern traitors like Cantor and the rest of his Confederate Caucus need to remember what happened to the last bunch of "fire breathers."

- Republicans are all about avoiding responsibility.

Until they go home and tell their constituents about all the goodies they brought to their district!

Who avoids responsibility? Dems are avoiding responsibility for continuous overspending with no money to pay for it. If you take all the money from the "so-called" rich, it wouldn't satiate the desire to spend it all that the dems continue to have. Until those on the left admit that the government has to cut back spending, what have we gained but slower hiring if not reductions in employment rates?

@jess33: Are you living in a cave? Republicans only cut spending when there is a Dem in the White House. A large percentage of the National Debt occured during Republican presidencies. Bush was the worst, and left the economy burning while reducing revenues to pay for anything. You need to come up for air.

You obviously haven't seen the charts that show spending under various presidents. Obama comes out way on top in the spending category. And.... He doesn't even pretend to be interested in reining it in.

Jes33 has a case of Romnesia. Clinton left office with a budget surplus and those surpluses were projected to continue for a decade or more. So the question is what happened between the Clinton and Obama presidencies. Or should we forget that Republicans were in charge of Congress and the White House?

Obama's total spending is approximately 3 trillion during his entire tenure. And that's considering the fact that the last time we faced an economic crises like this we were in The Great Depression (in which, as a percentage of GDP, we spent way more) and the fact that we had 2 wars going on simultaneously during most of his presidency- now we're down to just one (not seen since Vietnam, I should also add). If you actually take that 3 trillion in context it's one of the lowest rates ever presided over by any US president. But taking things in context doesn't adhere to the talking point and thus it's ignored.

@Cartoonthenews

Facts, especially ones that do not fit ideology, must be ignored at all costs. If the truth is acknowledged, then the ideology must be tested against the truth. That is the empirical process. Ideology always wins over science, facts and truth.

Good point Ron. Maybe Boehner does deserve some credit for for taking on the "young guns". Let's see how many Republican heads roll in the first session. I would work hard to see Kevin McCarthy - House Majority Whip, turn into House Minority Whimp. Really, these guys need to leave the Congressional dorms and stop living off of our tax dollars.

If you don't understand economics, or the concept that taking, say, 10% of a minimum wage earner's income hurts him a LOT more than it does to take 10% of Mitt Romney's income, then please don't comment on either. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Hey birdbrain when I made minimum wage, I paid income taxes on it.I don't give a flying fornication what Mitt Romney pays, I'm concerned with what Washington spends!!! There in lies the problem.Pay all the tax you want,volunteer!!

You proposed a flat tax. That necessarily means the rich paying the same percentage as the poor. Which necessarily means harming the poor more than the rich. Whether you "give a flying fornication" what the rich pay, that is a basic economic fact, and is usually completely ignored by anyone suggesting that a flat tax is a good idea. Again, if you don't understand the impact of the proposal you're making, don't make it.

And okay, you're mad about what Washington spends. What, then, would you cut? Are you prepared to give up affordable insurance when you retire? If you find yourself out of a job and with no way of finding a new one, are you fine with just "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and selling oranges by the freeway? Or doing migrant work with immigrants? Would you be okay with starving for lack of food stamps? Or would you prefer we take the money out of education, or our military, or public safety?

The government spending that you're so angry about is a big part of why your paycheck is so big in the first place, because it provides the infrastructure and stability necessary for economic growth. It's also a big part of why you'll be able to survive if you lose that paycheck entirely. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be talking about this. If you can, then start naming cuts that won't actually hurt this nation's goals - and we can start having an adult conversation. (They do exist - but they don't exist on the level you seem to want.)

hillbillie,

I know Economics is way beyond you so I won't bore you with the facts that show that when the rich take over an economy anywhere, that economy fails.

I know History is way beyond you so I won't bore you with the details of the Robber Baron era or the Great Depression.

But even a hillbillie should understand basic arithmetic - so let's start there.

You want "Everyone" to pay taxes, yet you don't care that Romney and his buddiespays less in taxes than most people in the United States. So, let's assume a flat tax rate of 10%. Someone getting $8.00 an hour should earn about $16,640 a year. At a 10% flat tax, he would pay $1664 in taxes every year. A person who earns $50 Million a year should pay $5 Million in taxes. You EVER seen any of our ultra rich do that????? Now exactly what is good for getting revenue for our government? Going after the poor when they only have to pay $1664 in taxes or going after the rich who should be paying $5 Million a year?

Now let's look at it a different way. Say that person gets $200/month in "handouts" from the government so we "give" the person $2400 a year. But the rich get all sorts of "handouts" also - in tax relief so that they can minimize their taxes - to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Look at how much everyone saves on their mortgage deduction. Doesn't it make sense to cut out the rich's "welfare" first, so that they pay their fair share?

And then you talk about the government. Do you REALLY want to reduce the government? That would mean that YOU don't get YOUR Social Security, YOU don't get YOUR Medicare when you are older. That means YOU don't get YOUR tax breaks for your mortgage and other goodies. So we cut out the government spending - well, that means that state highways don't get improved (What - you didn't know that money comes from the Federal Government), that banks can run rampant again and crash our economy (OH, I'm sorry - that's "economics" again and I know you don't understand that), that companies can pollute anywhere and anything they want causing YOUR medical bills (for which you WON'T have Medicare to help with) to skyrocket (OOPS that is Environmental Science which it is obvious YOU can't understand). I won't bore you with the details of what else government does because I understand that Public Administration is also beyond your capacity.

So, I really am not sure what YOU would gain by your insistance that everyone pay taxes and that it be a flat rate. Maybe you should think about that.

I am also not really sure what YOU would gain from a "smaller" government - maybe you should think about that too!

And like Dubba said in other words, until then, STFU!

Shorter hillbillie, as he shakes his fist, "You kids get off my lawn."

My the trolls are out in force today.

Cliff Pfsical - I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

It's not "punishing them for success" to raise a marginal tax rate - it doesn't provide a disincentive to earn profit, they still end up with more than they would have without making the money. It's not "punishment" to expect the people that benefit most from our economic system, and who can actually contribute to it in a meaningful way, to actually do so. "Income tax as punishment" is emotional rhetoric that pays no attention to economic reality or policy impact - it's "truthiness" masquerading as a policy proposal.

And your comment about the stock market only speaks to the points I originally made. The rich benefit even more from a robust and stable economy than the poor do; it's actually in their own interest to pay more and to keep this government stable. A stable environment with a strong middle class that can actually afford to buy things is what keeps the economy growing, companies expanding, and rich people making even more money. There's a reason all the CEO's were on Obama's side this time.

Dubba...and what would your thoughts on the Fair tax be?

www.fairtax.org

just asking...

Cliff Pfiscal - Yeah, the rich know what to do with it - save it. And that's generally what they do when they get tax breaks. They're already comfortable in their expenses; they have enough disposable income to invest in whatever they want to already; so they save the extra for their heirs, or in case their current investments happen to go badly. There's much less incentive for them to spend or take risks when they get an unexpected windfall, because they already have everything they need.

But the "dysfunctional," as you call them, also know what to do with money - and for them, that's "spend it to avoid losing their home or starving." That means the money will move and continue to grow the economy, rather than just sit in a bank that doesn't want to lend it out.

Stormguy53 - Conceptually I like the idea of something like the "FairTax", but most analyses of that particular proposal basically agree that the effective tax will decrease on the poorest and the richest, but will actually increase on people earning between about $25,000 and $200,000 annually. For my own self-interest I can't support it, as I'm in that bracket - but in more general terms, I don't think it's a good idea to put more of the burden on the middle class and less on people that can actually spare the cash. There may be something similar out there that's "more fair" than the FairTax that I could support, but I don't know what it is.

You're confusing the issue. I'm not talking about irresponsible, risky lending - I'm talking about economic stimulus, and about helping the poor keep and use more of what they've earned in the first place. It doesn't matter if they spend it irresponsibly, it matters that they spend it and get it back into the economy - it isn't a loan, it doesn't rely on responsible spending to actually work because it's been funded on the front-end through higher taxes on the rich instead of on the back-end through interest and repayment.

Government-backed loan programs have their place and can improve class mobility but I'm not advocating that we force banks to take stupid risks on people that can't pay them back. That's something completely different from what we were even talking about in the first place.

And really, you're painting an extremely distorted picture of the mortgage crash in that comment. The Community Reinvestment Act didn't force lenders to commit mortgage fraud, it didn't force them to go nuts with subprime loans or predatory lending practices, and it didn't force them to put profit first without worrying about the downside. They happily did that all on their own, and probably would have whether that law had been signed or not.

Allow myself to repeat myself:

You're confusing the issue. I'm not talking about irresponsible, risky lending - I'm talking about economic stimulus, and about helping the poor keep and use more of what they've earned in the first place. It doesn't matter if they spend it irresponsibly, it matters that they spend it and get it back into the economy - it isn't a loan, it doesn't rely on responsible spending to actually work because it's been funded on the front-end through higher taxes on the rich instead of on the back-end through interest and repayment.

Get back on topic and reply to what I'm saying instead of going on about bad loans and whose fault they are. It's not the issue at hand.

There is no such thing as a "fair tax"- congratulations for falling victim to false framing. A flat tax disproportionately targets the poor while giving ENORMOUS tax breaks to the wealthy. There are plenty of economists out there who believe that a flat tax would have negative effects on the US economy as opposed to positive effects (and no, they aren't all Keynesian economists or liberals).

A flat tax is considered a regressive tax and in order to be fair to the poor a flat tax would likely end up only being implemented above certain income levels (in which case you'd end up having the same number of people paying no income taxes as now). Not to mention it would drastically zap revenues. If you implemented the flat tax universally (instead of letting the poor opt out) you'd end up having more people on welfare than already currently exist (thus exploding the deficit and debt). And when I say "more people on welfare" I mean that there are some estimates stating that as much as 60% of the US population would be on welfare in order to get by. Not to mention that a flat tax would be a tax increase on the 80% of Americans who make 50,000$/year or less, while it would be about the same for those who make above 50k to about 100k/year and then it would be a massive tax cut for those above 100k year. Oh and did I mention that a flat tax would likely bring in less revenues per year and not generate any more economic growth than the progressive tax system (in fact it may end up having the opposite effect on the consumer base in this country).

Everyone should pay something and no one should pay mafia rates.Not millionaires not hundredaires not anybody.

Forgot to address this. So let me get this straight: allowing someone up to 400,000$ to be taxed at the same rate as everyone else, but then increasing all money gained after $400,000 to a new rate is taxing them at "mafia rates?" Yet somehow the flat tax isn't?! You do realize that if you take 20% of a person's income who makes 20,000$ a year that's going to have a dramatically different effect on them taking away 35% from someone who makes 400,000$ per year, yeah? Assuming it was a flat rate- as you so eloquently propose- that would mean the person who made 400,000$ per year was left over with 260,000$ per year to live off. Whereas the person with 20,000$ would only be left with $16,000 per year. Now if you can make the argument that the person on 16k can live comfortably for the year then you do realize that the person on 260k can live comfortably with the current rates (and this, of course, is even more ludicrous when considering that we don't tax at a flat rate, but I digress), yeah? Your argument falls apart within 6 seconds of actually thinking about the thing you're talking about.

Cartoon...you might not think it is fair...but I do, as do a large number of economists who have studied the plan extensively. You have the opinion that the high wage earners in this country should pay both more tax to the government in the form of dollars AND pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. There is definitely not anything fair about that. Nor is there anything fair that 47% of the population do not contribute anything to the Federal Income tax base.

One of the key aspects that appeals to me regarding the FairTax is its ability to tax both the underground economy and tourists who visit our country. Whereas that money will not solve our economic concerns, it will certainly help.

just saying..

. You have the opinion that the high wage earners in this country should pay both more tax to the government in the form of dollars AND pay a higher percentage of their income to the governmen

That's an interesting strawman you've got there Storm. I actually don't like the current progressive tax system at all, but if you're going to make this argument that increasing the tax rate on those in the upper incomes is unfair while simultaneously arguing that increasing the rate on the middle and lower class is fair then at least admit your hypocrisy.

Nor is there anything fair that 47% of the population do not contribute anything to the Federal Income tax base.

It's 42% and at the height of the Bush Administration it was 35%. Were you complaining then? No? Then you are being hypocritical.

One of the key aspects that appeals to me regarding the FairTax is its ability to tax both the underground economy and tourists who visit our country. Whereas that money will not solve our economic concerns, it will certainly help.

We already tax tourists who visit our country. We tax anyone who exchanges any currency in the US. The fair tax does not increase this amount. Additionally the flat tax doesn't affect things being traded off the record. The flat tax still depends on income tax being paid in. If you're thinking of a national sales tax that's a different issue, but even that doesn't tax "the underground." That then taxes every trade deal that happens at a higher rate and will put somewhere between 50-70% of the nation on welfare. The flat tax will put around 60% on welfare. Any economic revenues you could possibly gain by increasing the base of people who pay income tax would be lost by those who now need to take federal assistance who did not before. The flat tax is a joke and most economists know that it's a joke. The economists who do support the flat tax usually do so by pretending that the things other economists have pointed out will happen just won't. They say things like "well the poor will save more if we initiate a flat tax." Or "well it'll force the poor to spend better." It's an entirely baseless hypothetical that contradicts all known historical and factual data with regards to how people exist and spend money. Somehow magically things will change in a way that they've never done before. It's a joke.

The title "fair tax" is merely propaganda meant to dupe people. There is nothing fair about the fair tax. Notice that you, like the economists who push the flat tax, did nothing to address the issues of how the tax disproportionately affects the poor. And it's that fact that shows your hypocrisy in glaring colors. The reality is you don't care who pays into the federal tax base and you don't care about revenues unless those revenues are coming from the top 10% of income earners. Then MAGICALLY you know what's fair and what's fair is not whatever's being proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy. But somehow, equally MAGICALLY, it's whatever raises taxes on the poor and middle-class. It's a joke.

Also- if my stating that I support higher tax rates means I am asking for both more money and higher rates (which is so blatantly ignorant of the way taxes work I don't know what to say to that) then you do realize you'd be asking the same of the poor and middle-class, yeah? So, by your own logic, you've now debunked the flat tax as being unfair. Good job.

The poor keep almost everything they earn. They pay very little if anything in taxes.

If you mean to say not all of it gets taken out in payroll taxes then you're correct, but if you mean to say taxes (as in all taxes out there to be paid, not just those to the federal government) then you're completely wrong. Taxation (all taxes, not just income tax) is regressive in the US (this is why we have a progressive income tax in the first damn place). People who are lower income do not save their money or if they do they save very little. Because of that almost 100% or 100% of what they make gets taxed. This is not true of people who are wealthy who generally speaking have at least 40-50% of their income that does not get touched by taxes (and yes I mean any taxes). That's because wealthy people save, trade, and invest which are all tax deductible (or if they spend their money gets spent on things they can claim as a write off like charitable deductions or upgrading their business).

Cartoon...

You talk about how in your opinion and of others that the FairTax disproportionally affects the poor, yet you never actually address any particular aspect of the code in that regard.

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by giving them money at the first of every month in the form of a prebate for the taxes that they will spend on living essentials such as food, clothing, etc?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by them receiving the full check for the money they earned at their job with NO Federal tax deductions removed?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by not making them file any tax forms?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by not making them pay any FICA?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by not having to pay any Medicare?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by the price of their purchased goods remaining the same while all of this is being done?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by foreign visitors now contributing to the federal income tax base everytime they purchase something?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by now having a way to actually tax the proceeds from the underground economy every time those profits are used to purchase items in this country?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by creating a tax environment which will encourage companies to bring jobs into the US and hire more people?

Does it disproportionally affect the poor by collecting revenue from the dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" everytime they use their money to buy their high priced toys?

So, let me see if I have this straight...people get all of their income without any federal tax deductions being taken out, they get money at the beginning of the month to cover the tax on their essential items, there are no forms to fill out and the cost of goods stay the same....and you are against that?

I will admit to not knowing that there was a Federal Tax on money exchanged by tourist who come into this country. Can you provide a link to that? How much is it? Even if there is such a tax, what about tourists who come into this country and simply do an ATM withdrawal for US cash? How does our federal government receive tax revenue from them? According to Wikipedia, in 2007, tourists spent in excess of $122 billion and unless you can explain differently, very little of that actually went directly to the Federal Government. FairTax would capture a significant portion of that and would in itself be able to cover the costs for Law Enforcement Officers being placed in every school in the US to help protect our children. That would be another 70,000 - 100,000 jobs for US citizens.

Actually, I was complaining during the Bush administration about the number of people who do not pay their "fair share", so there is no hypocrisy here. Most sources, and from what I am told that includes the IRS, use the 47% figure, so I will go with that unless you can provide a source that proves otherwise. Regardless of what the figure is, it is too high.

Your comments make it appear that you know very little about how the FairTax actually works. Maybe you should do your own personal research like I have.

Once again, we are all allowed to have our own opinion on what we think is best and that includes you. The thing I know for sure, the current system sure does not work very well and it needs to be changed.

just saying

Hillbillie,

You really ARE dumb! The capital gains tax is ONLY on the interest the money makes when it is invested, it is NOT on the principle. You know what principle is? You know what interest is? So no, the capital gains tax does not tax the income you actually worked for to put the money into the investments. If you have been doing this on your 1040, you REALLY NEED to see a CPA!!!

The rest of your post is "full of the sound and the fury, signifying nothing"........

oncearepublican,

You just made a great point. Money is taxed over and over. It is taxed when you earn it. It is taxed if it is grown through investments. It is taxed again if you give it as a gift over $13,000. It is taxed again when a person dies. That same money is taxed over and over again. At this point, everything considered, all taxes combined, anyone making over $450,000 gives over 50% of what they earn to the tax collectors. No need to make over $450,000 anymore. Just be satisfied earning average wages and enjoy yourself. Don't take anymore risks. Don't borrow money to expand a business. Don't aspire to growth of wealth or to create a business or an invention to make money. Just sit back, put in your 40 hours a week and coast. The government wants half of your money. If you earn less, they get less. They are killing the incentive to try to better yourself.

Hmmmm.....how stupid do you have to be to be a troll here?

You can take your money and stick it under your mattress or you can invest it - either way, you WON'T pay a dime more of taxes on it. If you invest the money and it makes money, then you will be taxed ONLY on the money made, NOT the original investment.

What the hell does that simple truth have to do with ANYTHING ELSE you wrote?

If you aren't smart enough to understand how capital gains works, you really AREN'T smart enough to be trolling here.

Please name a single person you know who has literally stated that they could have made 450,000$, but they decided to only make 449,000$ to avoid taxation. No human being on the planet actually thinks this way if they actually need the income to survive off of. The only person who would act this way is a person who has enough money that they can retire today and no longer work, but they are choosing to continue working for whatever reason. A normal human being just says to themselves "I'll have to work harder." That's a concept that you seem to think exists if you take away government subsidies from the poor, but for some reason you can't see that happening when you take away government subsidies from the wealthy. Only in this instance the latter group is actually in a position to make that determination.

Just be satisfied earning average wages and enjoy yourself

Yes because $450,000 per year is "average income."

Don't borrow money to expand a business. Don't aspire to growth of wealth or to create a business or an invention to make money

You do not spend money if you expand your business or invest in something or if you spend money to make something or create a business. If this is what has been happening to you, you need to fire your CPA because he/she is costing you money.

Just sit back, put in your 40 hours a week and coast.

Ahhh I see. So someone who works full time is now "coasting." Wow. Just like people who work full time, but expect health insurance are "free loaders." Gotcha.

So your response is to show me a person who has enough money that he could retire today and never have to worry (a person who would be the ONLY human being to make that choice- as I already stated, but you disingenuously chose to leave out) that would make the decision to sell stocks so that they don't have to pay a higher tax. But even this example is completely moronic. If those stocks were making money that means Romney just screwed himself by costing himself more than the tax was worth by selling. I guess Romney got wealthy by being stupid with money? You shouldn't say such things about your hero Cliff.

Any challenge to that orange sad clown is welcome here.