"Stop It, All Of You": President Obama Jokingly Chastises German Press for 'Tensions Mit Merkel' Stories

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

Puh...leaze, "(Obama) bullies Americans but sweet talks foreigners. Neither has accomplished anything positive."

Who writes these talking points?

Puh...leaze

The real story is that Barry didn't get Merkel to budge on the Gitmo detainees.

He bullies Americans but sweet talks foreigners. Neither has accomplished anything positive.

so in Germany, like here in the U.S. some reporters want to creat a controversy where there isn't one. Just goes to show you, people are the same the world over. Is it because it is a lot easier to fabricate a story than to do the research and investigation that go with real journalism?

alanmarv528, the Senate Republicans had to enact a procedural move that prohibited a filibuster just to get the tax cuts passed. The Republicans made multiple attempts at getting both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made permanent but they just didn't have the votes in the Senate.

You are right, the powers that be did declared that the recession began in December 2007. Which is interesting because the traditional definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP retraction. Yet GDP actually grew in both the first and second quarters of 2008. Job losses began in January 2008, ending 52 consecutive months of job growth.

I like the factual stuff (mar.. 528)..

All true.. once the corporate entities robbed the public (401K's, Banking, Oil/Gas..etc.) .. and the money was upwardly redistributed.. the gov't. now jumps in and says.. hey we need that money back.. and we will redistribute it (minus our cut and minus our supporters' cut of it)...

Everyone in the middle and poorer classes gets robbed.. before and after...

I don't know who you guys are, but I read this stuff and wanted to jump in.

First, the tax code has always "redistributed wealth". When the Government builds a road, it redistributes wealth to the contractors who build it. When they put NASA in Houston they redistribute wealth to people who live in Houston. Even with a flat rate for everyone, wealth is distributed by government spending, even spending the Republicans would agree with like military spending. Not everyone gets the equal benefit of taxes collected and government spending. Some states pay more in taxes than they get back. That's redistributes wealth. The only question is wheterh the spending is good or bad. Republicans think Social Security is bad and is socialism. I don't. Republicans think health care for all Americans is bad. I don't.

Nothing Obama said caused the economic downturn. The recession started in Dec. 2007. No one thought Obama would win at that time. And he was not increasing taxes, he was just proposing not renewing the Bush tax cuts that were made during war and created 5 Trillion Dollars in debt. What moron cuts taxes in times of war? Oh yeah, I am going to spend a Trillion Dollars in Iraq but I am not going to have anyone pay for it. Those tax cuts are to expire in 2010. Not even the Republicans thought they should be permanent at the time they were enacted. Obama's statements or policies didn't make the auto industry fail, didn't cause the Banks to beg for a bail out. The car execs and bankers came to Bush first and they wanted GOVERNMENT to save them. The private capital markets couldn't. And the bankers and auto execs were REPUBLICANS, the titans of industry.

Have a nice day.

even if it no longer 'pays' to be wealthy.. it has never 'paid' to be poor....

Since money is merely a repository of value and that value is only what we agree it to be at any given moment,the issue of taxation is only meaningful in terms of what one gets individually for the taxes paid. And that is intricately entwined with what we all get communally.

Shouldn't those who benefit most for the social organization which we all finance pay the most for it both in absolute and relative terms?

Nitpicking over marginal rates is likewise not particularly useful in a discussion of any individual or common good derived from taxation. Afterall, what good does it do for one to have more money of less value? Perhaps we could ask a Zimbabwean.

Maybe all Angela Merkel, Ryan C. and James Danley need is a shoulder massage.

"Clinton promised to raise taxes..." "Bush promised to cut taxes..."

There is a flaw in the argument to extend what happened in 2008 to previous elections.

First of all, one of the main differences is that Obama was singling out the wealthy for the tax hikes; while at the same time promising to cut taxes on the other 95% of the workers. Clinton's rhetoric called for an across the board tax hike; and the 1992 election was fairly close. In fact, had it not been for Ross Perot, the Republicans probably would have won that election. And we all know how close the 2000 election was. Besides, it doesn't make since to start spending more of your money to support tax cuts, especially if the tax cutter may not win the election.

If you look at my previous comments they have been very consistent. Go back to my comment posted at 9:45:15 AM, where I wrote: "That was a $39,513 difference in federal tax liability. Going back to the 2001 tax rate would be a 12.0% tax increase. And that would be just the federal income tax hike. Some state income tax rates are also going up."

That is consistent with the literal meaning of "having their taxes raised to the pre-Bush tax cut rates." If the lower rates are NOT raised for those making at least $250,000 then their tax liability will not match that of the pre-Bush tax cuts.

Let me make these even more clear. In 2008 the wealthiest wage earners paid 10% of their first $8,024 and 15% between $8,025 and $32,550. In 2001 they paid 15% of their first $27,050.

IF the wealthy are going to have their taxes raise to the pre-Bush tax cut rate then they would HAVE to have the lower tax brackets raised to the previous rates as well. NOT on those making less than $250,000 but only for those making at least $250,000.

"It is my understanding that everyone making $250,000 or more will pay the SAME federal income tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts. That would have to include the reverting of the lower tax brackets for those making $250,000 as well if you take the literal meaning of "the same" tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts."

If you take the literal meaning?

Trying awfully hard to wriggle out of your outright lie there James.

"They were just being realistic. They understood that if Obama were elected that their federal income taxes would be raised. So they prepared for that increase by altering their spending habits"

Hmmm so campaign rhetoric trumps enacted policy, I wonder how that played out historically.

Clinton promised to raise taxes in 1992, the economy recovered from a recession.

Bush promised to cut taxes in 2000, we experienced an economic downturn.

Could it be that rhetoric (as opposed to enacted policy) from candidates had little bearing on the economy and that far larger factors such as people being overextended, the collapse of the housing bubble etc?

Ryan C., wrote: "James Danley insisted that Obama seeks a return of all tax rates to pre 2001 Bus(h) tax cuts in the face of all evidence to the contrary."

It is my understanding that everyone making $250,000 or more will pay the SAME federal income tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts. That would have to include the reverting of the lower tax brackets for those making $250,000 as well -- if you take the literal meaning of "the same" tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts.

"First you said it was the right-wing lie;"

It is a right wing lie.

"then you said it was the media that reported that rhetoric in the scariest frame possible."

Yes.

See you believe that rhetoric caused the economic meltdown, I ask if you believe that, why you do not criticize the right wing media that framed the rhetoric in the scariest terms possible?

I mean if scary rhetoric is what caused the change in spending habits, would you not be furious with those who cast Obama's rhetoric in the most frightening light?

Sorry, I forgot to address the comment: "...you claim the rhetoric scared the rich."

No, not "scared." They were just being realistic. They understood that if Obama were elected that their federal income taxes would be raised. So they prepared for that increase by altering their spending habits.

"Ryan C, I am still trying to figure out if the DNC pays you by the word or by the number of comment."

Yes I must be paid!

I mean no one else could possibly have an education and access to google, he must have some large organization behind him!

I guess it helps your ego to think you are going against some paid operative rather than some random liberal who posts for fun.

"I see you are back with a vengence, gleefully playing fast and loose with facts but demanding that anyone who has a different opinion provide exact quotes from sources of which you approve with copious footnotes.'

ROFLMAO!

Translation: its not fair that Ryan C points out when and where the right wing is lying.

"I'm rooting for James Danley and KR, personally. Besides the fact that they are correct more often than not"

James Danley insisted that Obama seeks a return of all tax rates to pre 2001 Bus tax cuts in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

But hey keep enjoying the right wing lies while pretending to remain above it all.

Ryan C. which is it? First you said it was the right-wing lie; then you said it was the media that reported that rhetoric in the scariest frame possible. I say it wasn't fear mongering but telling the truth about candidate Obama's agenda. The wealthy understood this and began changing their spending habits.