i didn't know that only rich people can make money from capital gains.
again everyone...if we DOUBLED tax revenue we would still be running a deficit...doesn't anyone see a problem with that?
Also, they (democrats) had a fucking super majority...guess they should have raised taxes then...you see Obama is the person who agreed to the extensions, the democrats agreed to it, now they want to say "we need to tax the rich" and blah blah blah...Well pussies you should have done it all ready when you had a clear majority and all three branches of government. Wouldn't do it then, shouldn't do it now...this rhetoric is all about votes and preying on those that think the democrats actually have the best interest of the masses in mind....it is laughable and quite irritating at the same time
back on the OP
I will never thank Michelle Bachmann for anything...Unless it is thanking her for going away.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.
yes, the more you make the percentage rises, but the link you posted is leaving out all of the tax breaks, loopholes, money in offshore accounts and businesses overseas, and other benefits that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy. if you are wealthy and paying 35% you should fire your accountant and tax guy..
Let me tell you this... a family making $250,000 does not have the same loopholes that the "rich" do. No way.
i didn't know that only rich people can make money from capital gains.
again everyone...if we DOUBLED tax revenue we would still be running a deficit...doesn't anyone see a problem with that?
Also, they (democrats) had a fucking super majority...guess they should have raised taxes then...you see Obama is the person who agreed to the extensions, the democrats agreed to it, now they want to say "we need to tax the rich" and blah blah blah...Well pussies you should have done it all ready when you had a clear majority and all three branches of government. Wouldn't do it then, shouldn't do it now...this rhetoric is all about votes and preying on those that think the democrats actually have the best interest of the masses in mind....it is laughable and quite irritating at the same time
back on the OP
I will never thank Michelle Bachmann for anything...Unless it is thanking her for going away.
why did obama extend the bush tax cuts? because the fucking republicans would not renew unemployment benefits unless and ONLY unless obama kept the bush tax cuts in place..remember that whole nightmare? it is just another example of republicans holding the less fortunate, the poor, the out of work, hostage to protect their base and their precious tax cuts...
in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?
no you are exactly right.
it is about percentage, not dollar per dollar.
a person making $30,000 or less is going to miss that 30% of gross income a hell of a lot more than someone making >$250 k..
No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.
that is understood....
peace,
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.
yes, the more you make the percentage rises, but the link you posted is leaving out all of the tax breaks, loopholes, money in offshore accounts and businesses overseas, and other benefits that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy. if you are wealthy and paying 35% you should fire your accountant and tax guy..
Let me tell you this... a family making $250,000 does not have the same loopholes that the "rich" do. No way.
most definitely not...for sure
peace,
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.
Nor should people making under 20K.
The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.
Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.
so you are going on record and saying there is not a war on the middle class?
glad the rich created all them jobs with them tax cuts...oh wait... :oops:
where are the jobs cincy?
A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.
Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.
A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax households making $1 million or more at the same or higher rate as middle-class households, according to a recent poll from website Daily Kos.
The poll found two-thirds of Republicans also support the so-called "Buffett Rule" –- named after famed investor Warren Buffett, who proposed increasing taxes on wealthy in a recent op-ed in The New York Times. But the measure faces stiff opposition. After Obama unveiled the Buffett rule earlier this month as part of a proposal to cut the national deficit through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, Republican leaders derided the plan as “class warfare.”
The report’s findings parallel the results of a Gallup poll released earlier this month, which found that two-thirds of Americans favor boosting taxes on households earning more than $200,000 per year.
One demographic is even more supportive of the Buffett rule than the national average. The under-30 set is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, according to millennial advocacy group, Our Time. A Facebook survey of its members found that 80 percent support the measure.
But even if the Buffett rule makes it past hostile opposition, it would likely only make a dent in cutting the deficit, according to The Atlantic. If tax rates reverted to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels, they would bring in 4.5 percent of the 2009 national deficit, The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio writes.
Approximately 60,000 people fall under the Buffet Rule, according to The New York Times, and raising their taxes would generate about $13 billion in revenue over the next decade.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, told NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday that the Buffet Rule and the anecdote that Buffett used to popularize the proposal is "theatrics," according to The Hill. Buffett wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times last month that he pays a lower tax rate than any of the other 20 people working in his office.
Bloomberg countered that if Buffett had made less of his money through investments he would be paying more in taxes, according to The Hill. The mayor proposed a 2 or 3 percent tax increase on all households instead.
But if passed, the Buffett Rule would likely have little impact on the rich, If lawmakers increased the tax rate for the wealthy, they wouldn’t likely hire or spend less, just as it wouldn’t likely stall growth, experts told The Huffington Post earlier this month.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.
Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.
A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?
so there is no war on the middle class?
who is most out of work? the middle class.
what is one of the first things the gop went after to cut? the unemployment benefits that beneifits who??? the middle class..
the union busting is targeting the middle class.
the threat to repeal obama's health insurance reform is targeting the middle class.
the threat to do away with medicaid, and social security is going to effect the middle class.
the middle class is shrinking while the lower class is growing. go ahead and look at the trends.
jobs are not being created, even with the precious tax cuts, and the middle class is bearing the brunt of it. people do not have disposable income anymore. the middle class is who buys things to drive the economy. if they don't have money how can they stimulate the economy? how can the poor stimulate the economy when they don't have money?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.
Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.
A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?
so there is no war on the middle class?
who is most out of work? the middle class.
what is one of the first things the gop went after to cut? the unemployment benefits that beneifits who??? the middle class..
the union busting is targeting the middle class.
the threat to repeal obama's health insurance reform is targeting the middle class.
the threat to do away with medicaid, and social security is going to effect the middle class.
the middle class is shrinking while the lower class is growing. go ahead and look at the trends.
jobs are not being created, even with the precious tax cuts, and the middle class is bearing the brunt of it. people do not have disposable income anymore. the middle class is who buys things to drive the economy. if they don't have money how can they stimulate the economy? how can the poor stimulate the economy when they don't have money?
A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.
Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.
A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?
so there is no war on the middle class?
who is most out of work? the middle class.
what is one of the first things the gop went after to cut? the unemployment benefits that beneifits who??? the middle class..
the union busting is targeting the middle class.
the threat to repeal obama's health insurance reform is targeting the middle class.
the threat to do away with medicaid, and social security is going to effect the middle class.
the middle class is shrinking while the lower class is growing. go ahead and look at the trends.
jobs are not being created, even with the precious tax cuts, and the middle class is bearing the brunt of it. people do not have disposable income anymore. the middle class is who buys things to drive the economy. if they don't have money how can they stimulate the economy? how can the poor stimulate the economy when they don't have money?
Oh the drama of warfare. :roll:
that is reality pal.
and where are those jobs the republicans promised???
oh yeah, they will get to that once they get obamacare repealed and jesus and creationsim taught in school..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
kind of like the math that does not add up when you say that you can reduce the deficit by cutting spending only and not generating revenue.
Now the comprehensive reading isn't adding up because i never said that. But go ahead an be a liar like our president and make things up to suit you.
so you agree with me then, that it doesn't add up and you can't get out of debt without raising revenue?
Yes. And I agree with "millionaires and billionaires" paying more in taxes by removing loopholes etc. I just strongly disagree with Obama sneaking in the increased taxes on families making >$250,000 and think it's bs. He is trying to sneak it by and I believe it would hurt the economy more than it would help.
Let me ask you this about jobs... where are the jobs from the last round of Stimulus?
Yes. And I agree with "millionaires and billionaires" paying more in taxes by removing loopholes etc. I just strongly disagree with Obama sneaking in the increased taxes on families making >$250,000 and think it's bs. He is trying to sneak it by and I believe it would hurt the economy more than it would help.
Let me ask you this about jobs... where are the jobs from the last round of Stimulus?
nice dodge.
so we agree to an extent. i still believe that those making over $250,000 can afford the increase. it is only going to be what it was under clinton, and they managed just fine at that tax rate. actually unemployment was lower, people were hired, and people had money to spend. i disagree that letting those cuts expire will damage the economy. a rising tide lifts all boats....
those jobs were temporary jobs and got many people back to work. at least for awhile. the economy is a complicated issue. it is not a simple solution. but if the goal is to reduce deficits, and if raising revenue still has us at a much smaller deifict, wouldn't it make sense to do what we can to dig out of the pit that we are in? we can always cut some more spending later to get us closer to the mark, but we HAVE to raise revenue in this situation.
nice dodge by the way, but i can argue that the gop is going to kill jobs by not approving obama's jobs plan, even when it was based on things that the gop has already supported and voted for in the past.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.
Nor should people making under 20K.
The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.
Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.
Glad I could ruin your experience on this board a little bit more.
Now, are you a hippie mom who leans republican? Quite the contradiction. Kinda like making a bunch of posts in my thread and then telling me you hate my posts.
Start your own satirical threads if you don't like mine. Though, now that I know I annoy you, I'll be sure to post around your posts as much as I can.
Staying on the subject of the tax talk, what if Obama proposed the wealthy, let's say just the millionaires and billionaires, go back to paying in the days of Eisenhower (91%) or even Nixon (70%) and Reagan (50%)? There would definitely be an outcry of "Class warfare". This is all just hypothetical.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Glad I could ruin your experience on this board a little bit more.
Now, are you a hippie mom who leans republican? Quite the contradiction. Kinda like making a bunch of posts in my thread and then telling me you hate my posts.
Start your own satirical threads if you don't like mine. Though, now that I know I annoy you, I'll be sure to post around your posts as much as I can.
You don't ruin my experience. Your posts just got really old for me really fast that's all. I liked some, but then you never break character and actually state any opinions it seems. But if it's working for ya, do what you gotta do. Hell, I post some crap like that from time to time as well.
Anyhow, I probably shouldn't have even addressed it here. Take care.
kind of like the math that does not add up when you say that you can reduce the deficit by cutting spending only and not generating revenue.
Now the comprehensive reading isn't adding up because i never said that. But go ahead an be a liar like our president and make things up to suit you.
so you agree with me then, that it doesn't add up and you can't get out of debt without raising revenue?
would you agree that you can raise revenue without raising taxes?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Am I the only one sincerely hoping Bachmann is the next President?
Maybe it's more apparent to a Canadian looking in from the outside, but the American President has very little political power; he seems to be blamed for everything yet has control over almost nothing. So with that in mind, I think the best thing for any party is to ensure that the other party is always in the White House - and even better the president should be as incompetant as possible.
With the endless PR an incompentent president's antics generate (see 8 years of George W Bush for reference material) combined with the ability to blame the president for any problem (for example, economic problems that started decades before he took office) the other party could dominate both houses of Congress and wield 98% of the actual federal political power, confident that any problems could be resolved by pointing the finger at the President's office again.
So, after selecting the Democratic party as the lesser of two evils, I suggest a collective effort by all Democrat supporters and those Republicans who don't know about the plot to support Bachmann for president.
Am I the only one sincerely hoping Bachmann is the next President?
Maybe it's more apparent to a Canadian looking in from the outside, but the American President has very little political power; he seems to be blamed for everything yet has control over almost nothing. So with that in mind, I think the best thing for any party is to ensure that the other party is always in the White House - and even better the president should be as incompetant as possible.
With the endless PR an incompentent president's antics generate (see 8 years of George W Bush for reference material) combined with the ability to blame the president for any problem (for example, economic problems that started decades before he took office) the other party could dominate both houses of Congress and wield 98% of the actual federal political power, confident that any problems could be resolved by pointing the finger at the President's office again.
So, after selecting the Democratic party as the lesser of two evils, I suggest a collective effort by all Democrat supporters and those Republicans who don't know about the plot to support Bachmann for president.
...
The only problem I see with that is Bachmann launching a nuclear strike on San Francisco during one of her psychoctic episodes.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
The only problem I see with that is Bachmann launching a nuclear strike on San Francisco during one of her psychoctic episodes.
What's psychotic about launching nuclear weapons against anywhere in California?
Where will her husband go?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Anyone see this moron on Meet The Press this morning? "Obama is almost trying to lose the war on terror". Shut the fuck up dipshit, criticize many aspects of Obama's presidency, but the war on terror? Come the fuck on. This shit pisses me off, this fucking moron is still trying to paint him as unamerican and essentially painting him as a terrorist. Only a couple more months of this jackass flapping her gums before we can forget about her for good.
Comments
again everyone...if we DOUBLED tax revenue we would still be running a deficit...doesn't anyone see a problem with that?
Also, they (democrats) had a fucking super majority...guess they should have raised taxes then...you see Obama is the person who agreed to the extensions, the democrats agreed to it, now they want to say "we need to tax the rich" and blah blah blah...Well pussies you should have done it all ready when you had a clear majority and all three branches of government. Wouldn't do it then, shouldn't do it now...this rhetoric is all about votes and preying on those that think the democrats actually have the best interest of the masses in mind....it is laughable and quite irritating at the same time
back on the OP
I will never thank Michelle Bachmann for anything...Unless it is thanking her for going away.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Let me tell you this... a family making $250,000 does not have the same loopholes that the "rich" do. No way.
Nor should people making under 20K.
The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.
Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.
glad the rich created all them jobs with them tax cuts...oh wait... :oops:
where are the jobs cincy?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.usatoday.com/communities/the ... tax-cuts/1
these cuts cost us $4 trillion in revenue...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... h-tax-cuts
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
that is understood....
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
most definitely not...for sure
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.
Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.
A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?
Vast Majority Of Americans Favor Buffett Rule's Millionaire Tax: Poll
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 ... 85154.html
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax households making $1 million or more at the same or higher rate as middle-class households, according to a recent poll from website Daily Kos.
The poll found two-thirds of Republicans also support the so-called "Buffett Rule" –- named after famed investor Warren Buffett, who proposed increasing taxes on wealthy in a recent op-ed in The New York Times. But the measure faces stiff opposition. After Obama unveiled the Buffett rule earlier this month as part of a proposal to cut the national deficit through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, Republican leaders derided the plan as “class warfare.”
The report’s findings parallel the results of a Gallup poll released earlier this month, which found that two-thirds of Americans favor boosting taxes on households earning more than $200,000 per year.
One demographic is even more supportive of the Buffett rule than the national average. The under-30 set is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, according to millennial advocacy group, Our Time. A Facebook survey of its members found that 80 percent support the measure.
But even if the Buffett rule makes it past hostile opposition, it would likely only make a dent in cutting the deficit, according to The Atlantic. If tax rates reverted to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels, they would bring in 4.5 percent of the 2009 national deficit, The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio writes.
Approximately 60,000 people fall under the Buffet Rule, according to The New York Times, and raising their taxes would generate about $13 billion in revenue over the next decade.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, told NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday that the Buffet Rule and the anecdote that Buffett used to popularize the proposal is "theatrics," according to The Hill. Buffett wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times last month that he pays a lower tax rate than any of the other 20 people working in his office.
Bloomberg countered that if Buffett had made less of his money through investments he would be paying more in taxes, according to The Hill. The mayor proposed a 2 or 3 percent tax increase on all households instead.
But if passed, the Buffett Rule would likely have little impact on the rich, If lawmakers increased the tax rate for the wealthy, they wouldn’t likely hire or spend less, just as it wouldn’t likely stall growth, experts told The Huffington Post earlier this month.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
who is most out of work? the middle class.
what is one of the first things the gop went after to cut? the unemployment benefits that beneifits who??? the middle class..
the union busting is targeting the middle class.
the threat to repeal obama's health insurance reform is targeting the middle class.
the threat to do away with medicaid, and social security is going to effect the middle class.
the middle class is shrinking while the lower class is growing. go ahead and look at the trends.
jobs are not being created, even with the precious tax cuts, and the middle class is bearing the brunt of it. people do not have disposable income anymore. the middle class is who buys things to drive the economy. if they don't have money how can they stimulate the economy? how can the poor stimulate the economy when they don't have money?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Shocking, most americans favor taking someone else's $.
Again "Millionaire Tax"???? The math doesn't add up to the rhetoric and that is what pisses me off.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh the drama of warfare. :roll:
Now the comprehensive reading isn't adding up because i never said that. But go ahead an be a liar like our president and make things up to suit you.
that is reality pal.
and where are those jobs the republicans promised???
oh yeah, they will get to that once they get obamacare repealed and jesus and creationsim taught in school..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yes. And I agree with "millionaires and billionaires" paying more in taxes by removing loopholes etc. I just strongly disagree with Obama sneaking in the increased taxes on families making >$250,000 and think it's bs. He is trying to sneak it by and I believe it would hurt the economy more than it would help.
Let me ask you this about jobs... where are the jobs from the last round of Stimulus?
so we agree to an extent. i still believe that those making over $250,000 can afford the increase. it is only going to be what it was under clinton, and they managed just fine at that tax rate. actually unemployment was lower, people were hired, and people had money to spend. i disagree that letting those cuts expire will damage the economy. a rising tide lifts all boats....
those jobs were temporary jobs and got many people back to work. at least for awhile. the economy is a complicated issue. it is not a simple solution. but if the goal is to reduce deficits, and if raising revenue still has us at a much smaller deifict, wouldn't it make sense to do what we can to dig out of the pit that we are in? we can always cut some more spending later to get us closer to the mark, but we HAVE to raise revenue in this situation.
nice dodge by the way, but i can argue that the gop is going to kill jobs by not approving obama's jobs plan, even when it was based on things that the gop has already supported and voted for in the past.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Glad I could ruin your experience on this board a little bit more.
Now, are you a hippie mom who leans republican? Quite the contradiction. Kinda like making a bunch of posts in my thread and then telling me you hate my posts.
Start your own satirical threads if you don't like mine. Though, now that I know I annoy you, I'll be sure to post around your posts as much as I can.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Effective tax rates after deductions are a much, much different story. And that is what should be discussed.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
You don't ruin my experience. Your posts just got really old for me really fast that's all. I liked some, but then you never break character and actually state any opinions it seems. But if it's working for ya, do what you gotta do. Hell, I post some crap like that from time to time as well.
Anyhow, I probably shouldn't have even addressed it here. Take care.
would you agree that you can raise revenue without raising taxes?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Maybe it's more apparent to a Canadian looking in from the outside, but the American President has very little political power; he seems to be blamed for everything yet has control over almost nothing. So with that in mind, I think the best thing for any party is to ensure that the other party is always in the White House - and even better the president should be as incompetant as possible.
With the endless PR an incompentent president's antics generate (see 8 years of George W Bush for reference material) combined with the ability to blame the president for any problem (for example, economic problems that started decades before he took office) the other party could dominate both houses of Congress and wield 98% of the actual federal political power, confident that any problems could be resolved by pointing the finger at the President's office again.
So, after selecting the Democratic party as the lesser of two evils, I suggest a collective effort by all Democrat supporters and those Republicans who don't know about the plot to support Bachmann for president.
The only problem I see with that is Bachmann launching a nuclear strike on San Francisco during one of her psychoctic episodes.
Hail, Hail!!!
What's psychotic about launching nuclear weapons against anywhere in California?
Well, nothing... I suppose.
(as long as you are Michele Bachmann).
Hail, Hail!!!