Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: More dirt for Obama haters, he's trying to raise cap gain tax, and for the many GOP supporters a bit of the 47%.

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 18, 2015, 6:37 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So it looks like you Dem haters are going to get more dirt on Obama, looks like we will see if any of you can find a difference on how Ds and Rs react to the concept of raising the cap gains tax and cutting taxes on working families and free collage. I wonder if there are any on this site able to distinguish any nuance of difference as we go forward on this...of course I don't see caring all that much about the whole raising the minimum wage thing so I don't expect many will find the difference.


Here's a little walk down memory lane as it looks like Romney will be joining Jeb Bush and Huckabee vieing for the support of Shadz, flip, trubo, Bradb, Shule, johannus et,al.


part two




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

After tossing out 6 Trillion in handouts to the rich and the stock market, he's now going to propose a plan that has no chance of passing.

Gotta love the big tax plans that come up AFTER the Rs take victory.

Actually, its an "estimated" 320 billion over 10 years. Or 32 billion a year. Or less than half of one of the monthly bailouts of the last two years. Its actually just chump change in the grand scheme of things.

But it will be good PR, and Dem supporters can again point to the evil Republicans as the reason the country is not doing well, and Rep supporters can think that there party actually stands for limited government.

What a joke this government is.

[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

That's right Turbo. Obama will propose all these great ideas, now that he knows they have no chance of passing a GOP congress. It's amazing how many gullible people there are who will fall for this ridiculous dog and pony show.

Most of the tactics used by the Duopoly are straight out of the WWF Pro Wrestling playbook.

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Check the date bitch.

Obama sticks to guns on tax increase for wealthiest Americans Friday Nov 9, 2012 9:44 AM

By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer Updated at 2 p.m. ET -- At a campaign-style event at the White House Friday, President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House next week for talks on how to avoid spending cuts and at least some of the tax increases scheduled to occur in January. But he insisted that tax increases on the wealthiest Americans must be part of any deal.

NBC's Brian Williams anchors President Obama's first post-election appearance, in which he calls on Congress to work with him to avoid the fiscal cliff and get the economy moving again.

In a statement at the White House, Obama indicated he will meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner next week "so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together."

The president was referring to $64 billion in automatic spending cuts that will take effect in January if a deal cannot be reached. Those cuts are mandated by the Budget Control Act that Obama signed into law last year. 

In his first White House appearance since defeating Republican Mitt Romney in Tuesday's election, Obama said he was "open to new ideas" to avoid what is known as the “fiscal cliff.” But he also dug in his heels by insisting that additional revenue be part of the solution.

 “We can’t just cut our way to prosperity,” he said, adding that he would insist that “the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes” – a line that drew applause from the group of supporters standing behind him on stage.  Obama defines "the wealthiest Americans" as single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and couples with annual earnings in excess of $250,000. 

And he claimed an election mandate, saying, “On Tuesday night we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach.” 

Obama also repeated many of the themes of his re-election campaign speeches in Friday’s remarks – such as his view that more federal infrastructure spending is needed.

Obama did not take any questions.

Budget analysts call the combination of automatic spending cuts and tax increases set to occur at year end the fiscal cliff.

As part of an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, Obama and congressional leaders must also agree how much taxes ought to go up and which taxpayers will be hit by tax hikes. According to the Congressional Budget Office taxes will increase by more than $400 billion in 2013 under current law.

Adding to the pressure to design a deal that would avoid the fiscal cliff, the CBO on Thursday repeated its previous warnings that the spending cuts, combined with scheduled tax increases, would probably cause a recession next year.

Specifically the CBO said in its Thursday report that the tax increases and spending cuts would cause the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to a jobless rate of 7.9 percent in October.

In a video released by the Obama campaign, a tearful president thanks his campaign workers before he sets off to tackle second-term issues including taxes, the debt and replacing as many as five high profile secretaries in his Cabinet. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

The tax increases would raise the average tax burden by almost $3,500 per taxpayer in 2013, according to According to the Tax Policy Center. This would happen because the current income tax rates and some tax breaks are scheduled to expire or shrink on Dec. 31. Among them, the popular middle-class tax break, a $1,000-per-child tax credit for each child age 17 and younger, would be cut in half. 

In addition, starting on Jan. 1, the Affordable Care Act imposes a $20 billion tax increase on people with incomes above $200,000, or $250,000 for joint filers.  Adding to the tax increase, a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax is set to expire at year end.

The president has argued for raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $200,000 and over $250,000 for married couples who file jointly.

But the exact mix of tax increases and who must pay them will be the subject of intense negotiations between the president and congressional leaders over the next few weeks.

Before February Obama and congressional leaders must also work out a deal to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit.

After re-election, House Speaker John Boehner says he believes the House GOP and President Obama will find common ground "to avoid the fiscal cliff." Boehner is also talking less harshly about the president's signature health care law.

In a press briefing Friday morning, Boehner said he is willing to work with Obama and congressional Democrats, but remains opposed to raising the tax rates for any Americans.

“The members of our majority understand how important it is to avert the fiscal cliff,” he said. He sketched out his opening bargaining position: Extend current tax rates for one year, allowing Congress time to entirely redesign the tax code, eliminating some tax deductions and preferences – and pass “entitlement reform.”

He made the case that “by lowering rates and cleaning up the tax code we know that we’re going to get more economic growth. It’ll bring jobs back to America – it’ll bring more revenue.”

The revenue question is crucial: Because the U.S. economy remains anemic, federal revenue has still not reached its pre-recession peak. While revenue increased for third consecutive year in fiscal 2012, it is still 5 percent below the 2007 peak.

Boehner warned about the spending pressure from growing entitlement programs: “We’re spending a trillion dollars more than what we take in. You can’t continue to do that. This is year two of a 25-year demographic bubble. …. Ten thousand Baby Boomers like me retiring every day.”

He said “everything on the revenue side and on the spending side has to be looked at.”

Obama and the Democrats go into the bargaining over fiscal policy with voters having given them a stronger bargaining position.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama addresses supporters during his election night rally in Chicago, Nov. 6, 2012.

In Tuesday’s balloting, Democrats scored a net gain of at least six seats in the House, which was better than most analysts had predicted, and they exceeded expectations by gaining two seats in the Senate, dashing GOP hopes for a takeover of the upper chamber.

But Boehner said Tuesday that “The American people re-elected a Republican majority (in the House) and I’m proud of the fact that our team in a very difficult year was able to maintain our majority.”

But showing that the election outcome had altered his strategy, Boehner signaled a retreat Thursday from Republican calls for total repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

“I think the election changes that,” Boehner said in an interview with ABC News. “It's pretty clear that the president was re-elected, Obamacare is the law of the land.”

But he added, “I think there are parts of the healthcare law that are going to be very difficult to implement. And very expensive. And as the time when we're trying to find a way to create a path toward a balanced budget everything has to be on the table.” The speaker may try to make rescinding parts of the law an ingredient of any deal he tries to strike with Obama and Reid.



[-] 2 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

SMC, you are unimaginably gullible to believe all this Duopoly showboating.

These Duopoly politicians are paid actors. They are role playing for the 1%. Our entire political system is controlled by big money. These political actors, you glorify and campaign for, are paid and sponsored by the Super Rich. They are vetted and must prove their loyalty for the 1%, before they are financed and sponsored by the 1%. Once in office they become a proxy legislation for the 1%.

These articles that you copy and paste, are staged political events, scripted by the 1%. They are designed to reinforce and perpetuate the Duopoly myth. The Democrats and Republicans are both paid by the same Super Rich. Things go the 1%'s way, no matter which party is in office.

Proof of that is the 2008 election. The Democrats were given FULL control of the entire govt. Instead of helping the 99%, they became a wet dream for the 1%. What a joke. Never again!

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Now that I've driven you with a dated example to change your explanation regarding those proposed tax increases, an explanation which takes the 'duopoly' bit right past any realistic boundaries and well into 'don't vote' Fantasy Land, I'll throw another dated example in your face. Keeping in mind your own claim that the Democrats were in FULL control at the time.

Again, check the date bitch.

Obama signs jobless benefit extension Bill extends unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks. Legislation also extends homebuyer tax credit into next year.

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: November 6, 2009:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama said he signed into law Friday a bill to provide up to 20 additional weeks of jobless benefits to unemployed Americans and extend the $8,000 tax credit for new homebuyers into the middle of next year.

The signing came after the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate spiked to a 26-year high of 10.2% in October, with 190,000 jobs lost in the month.

After calling the jobless rate "sobering," Obama said the bill he signed will "will help grow our economy, help create and save jobs, and help provide necessary relief to small businesses," in a statement following the signing.

The House approved the measures by a 403-12 vote Thursday afternoon, a day after the Senate passed the legislation.

The closely watched legislation will extend jobless benefits in all states by 14 weeks. Those that live in states with unemployment greater than 8.5% will receive an additional six weeks. The proposal will be funded by extending a longstanding federal unemployment tax on employers through June 30, 2011.

The measure will apply to those whose benefits run out by Dec. 31, which is nearly two million people, according to Senate estimates. Those whose checks have already stopped will be able to reapply for another round.

The House, which passed its own benefits extension in September, giving an additional 13 weeks in high-unemployment states, approved the Senate's version.

"The bill will mark another step toward a boost in our economic growth and it will make critical investments for our families and our workers," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The legislation offers a lifeline to out-of-work Americans, to the men and women hardest hit by the recession."

"The bill also a places a down payment on the future of our middle-class because it extends, for the first-time homebuyer, a tax credit helping more Americans purchase homes and making it a little easier for families to move into a new house and keep a roof over their heads," she added.

7,000 a day losing benefits The Senate had been bickering over the details since September, and that cost more than 200,000 people their benefits. Some 7,000 unemployed Americans run out of benefits each day, according to the National Employment Law Project.

Millions of Americans are now depending on unemployment benefits, as the unemployment rate continues to soar.

More than one in three people who are unemployed have been out of work for at least six months, according to the law project.

Lawmakers twice lengthened the time people can receive checks to as much as 79 weeks, depending on the state.

Tax break for buying a home The legislation also will extend the $8,000 homebuyer tax credit to contracts signed by April 30 and closed by June 30. The controversial credit, which many say has boosted home sales in recent months, was set to expire after Nov. 30.

The bill also creates a $6,500 credit for those who buy a home after living in their current house at least five years. That measure will apply to contracts signed by April 30 and closed by June 30. The current credit defines a first-time homebuyer as someone who has not owned a residence within the past three years.

The credit will be available only for the purchase of principal residences priced at $800,000 or less.

The bill will raise the adjusted gross income cap to $125,000 for single filers and $225,000 for joint filers. The amount of the credit currently begins to phase out for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is more than $75,000, or $150,000 for joint filers.

"It's gonna put people back to work, the home builders, put people in the real estate business," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. "The kind of jobs that can make a difference."

The extension will cost $10.8 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Through mid-September, 1.4 million tax returns had qualified for the credit, according to the IRS. Some portion of those returns, which the IRS couldn't specify, represents buyers who took advantage of an earlier version of the tax credit, which was only worth $7,500 and has to be repaid over time.

By the end of November, the credit will have been used by 1.8 million homebuyers, at least 355,000 of whom would not have bought a house without the tax break, according to estimates by the National Association of Realtors.

"The data on the present home buyer tax credit show that the credit has had its intended impact -- sales have jumped in recent months to a projected 5.1 million for the year and housing inventory has been trimmed, thus stabilizing home prices noticeably," said Ron Phipps, the association's first vice president, in Senate testimony last month.

The credit, however, has also posed many problems. Critics say it's a waste of money because most of those claiming the credit would have bought homes anyway.

It's also been the target of fraud. Some 74,000 people claimed more than $500 million in credits even though they may not be first-time homeowners, according to Treasury officials. And more than 580 children, including some as young as 4-years-old, have claimed the credit.

"Some key controls were missing to prevent an individual from erroneously or fraudulently claiming the credit and receiving an erroneous refund of up to $8,000," said J. Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration, before a House subcommittee last month.

(See how the legislation also offers a big tax break for business.)

CNN Radio Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins and CNNMoney.com staff reporter Hibah Yousuf contributed to this report. 

First Published: November 5, 2009: 2:45 PM ET



[-] 2 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Check the sources, you establishment sycophant. You do know all these references you copy and paste, are penned by corporate journalism? Don't you? Only material that 1% editors approve of is published for the 99 ' s consumption.

It's hilarious how you can think corporate propaganda journalism is a revelation.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

notice the vote totals for the unemployment extension - The House approved the measures by a 403-12 vote Thursday afternoon, a day after the Senate passed the legislation. - obama went to the mat on that one

[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

All this political theater is such a scam. The Duopoly has no shame in using Pro Wrestling tactics. Role playing as heroes and villains to provide red meat for their constituents.

Half the things the Republicans whine about to their constituents they wouldn't dare touch. On the surface, things like subsidized housing, Obamacare, food stamps and other "govt handouts" seem to just benefit the poor. In reality these "govt handouts" go to corporations, landowners and the rich. The poor don't get to keep that money. Those "handouts" go right through the hands of the poor and into the hands of the rich. The poor become conduits for socialized handouts flowing to the rich. Not to mention, unnaturally driving up the cost of living while increasing profits for the rich.

Privatize Rewards. Socialize Risk.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The sham is your masquerade. Your very rare break from character here, one in which you finally take a little shot at Republicans, comes only after having a mountain of evidence thrown in your face to prove that they are the greater evil. Worth voting against most of the time. Your entry is a token and nothing more. For that reason, I'm keeping my word. Say that reminds me.


Check that opposition. Again, primarily from one side of the aisle.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I fully expected one or more of you idiots to go there. Let me remind you. The Democrats held a significant majority in '09'. The 14-20 week extension which your whack-ass buddy up there has the nerve to question because of the source of the report was a Democrat bill. The opposition was almost exclusively Republican. Say that reminds me.

Colorado Fourth District Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey voted with Colorado Republican Reps. Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman against extending unemployment benefits to jobless constituents Thursday. Markey’s nay vote was expected. Markey, a moderate so-called blue dog Democrat who is engaged in a tough re-election battle this year in her conservative district, voted against an earlier version of the bill. Thursday she was one of only ten Democrats to join 142 Republicans in voting against the bill based on concerns it would increase the deficit.

“The [unemployment insurance] extension wasn’t paid for,” Markey Spokesman Ben Marter wrote to the Colorado Independent in June, after the last vote. “The bill spent money without cutting somewhere else. Rep. Markey supported a measure that would have used [stimulus] funds to pay for it, but that measure failed, so the bill went straight to the deficit.”

That statement matches with a statement released today by Sixth District Republican Mike Coffman, explaining that his vote didn’t mean he was opposed to extending the benefits.

“I support an extension of unemployment benefits and would have voted for the bill if it had been paid for with unspent stimulus funds.”

As the Independent reported in June, analysts like those at the National Employment Law Project (pdf) see the deficit argument against unemployment extension as misguided. In a cratered job market and with low consumer spending stunting economic recovery, cutting unemployment extension, of all the programs lawmakers could cut, they say, makes no economic or mathematical sense. The $34 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits is a tiny fraction of this year’s budget deficit compared for example to the trillions in deficit spending that goes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The nation is weathering a stubborn unemployment crisis and Markey’s own Weld County suffered the greatest employment drop in the state from December 2008 to December 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment in the county plunged 6.6 percent. The national averaged a 4.1 percent drop. The Greeley Tribune reported on the Bureau’s findings earlier this week for the major cities in Markey’s district.

Colorado’s jobless rate held steady at 8 percent in June, down from 8.3 percent a year ago. Nationally, the unemployment rate for June was 9.5 percent. But in Greeley, unemployment went up to 11.3 percent in June, from 10.2 percent in May. Fort Collins went to 7.8 percent from 7.2 percent while Loveland went to 5.9 percent from 5.4 percent for the same time period.

Greeley’s unemployment rate for June 2009 was 8.6 percent. After months spent trying, the Senate yesterday voted to pass its version of the extension bill, clearing the way for the House to sign off on it and releasing funds to millions of jobless Americans. Two Republican joined with the majority to finally pass the senate version.

In the House today, 31 Republicans voted with the majority in favor of HR 4213 and 10 Democrats voted against the bill with the minority. The bill passed there 272 to 152.

Democrats Diana DeGette (CD1) Jared Polis (CD2) and Ed Perlmutter (CD7) all voted for the extension, as did Colorado’s other “blue dog” Democrat John Salazar (CD3). Democrats joining markey in voting against the bill included, Brian Baird (Wash.), Marion Berry (Ark.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Glenn Nye (Va.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).


Did you notice those vote counts? Again, the opposition was almost exclusively from one side of the aisle. See that flip and the rest of you posers? There really is quite a difference between the two major political parties in America. One is considerably less evil.


[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

brave obama - the vote was 403-12 - and you are right "The Democrats held a significant majority in '09'. - and what did we get - more war - the banks made whole and a health care system that only a republican can be proud of. what a shame - he had a chance to change the world and we got more of the same. no we can debate the only point that matters to anyone here that is true to ows - is one party really "considerably less evil." - we know your opinion - most of us here disagree as you know. today - on the day set aside for mlk i would like to say "we are the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - what a shame

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Next time, read the entry.

"Thursday she was one of only ten Democrats to join 142 Republicans in voting against the bill based on concerns it would increase the deficit."

"In the House today, 31 Republicans voted with the majority in favor of HR 4213 and 10 Democrats voted against the bill with the minority. The bill passed there 272 to 152."

And we didn't get 'more war' in the sense of volume, cost, scope, or lives lost. We got less. The newer efforts are 'less' in every sense of the word.

MLK day means nothing to the rich. If it weren't for them, his dreams would have been realized by now.


[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i do not read your nonsense anymore - except this part - 403-12. what a courageous stand by your president. this tells you that both wings of the business party agreed that they better throw the population some crumbs or there might be no stopping the pitchforks

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

That opposition of 12 came primarily from one side of the aisle. With the next extension of benefits that were still necessary, the opposition was much greater. Again, it came almost exclusively from one side of the aisle.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

do you realize that you are stupid

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

herbivores live a less conflicted and thus less complicated lives

[-] 1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Anyone who understands our predicament, and then can make excuses for either of the two parties in the duopoly, is not firing on all cylinders. OR has there own nefarious agenda to carry out,

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

so i wonder which it is?

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Oh you're really getting desperate now. Skepticism of a for profit media outlet is one thing. Just as long as your skepticism is within the bounds of reason. But to sit there and suggest that a report of the passing and signing of extended unemployment benefits by Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress in '09', benefits that were actually recieved by millions of Americans is 'propaganda'? That it must not be true because an editor at CNN, a member of the 1% approved the report? Well, that takes skepticism to a whole new level.

Utter absurdity.

Of course, it was to be expected that your poser posse would mark your comment up. That goes to show how desperate they are as well.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

when you think of all the people who have died in the past decade or so, does the number who die from bombs really matter? just following your logic there for minute,

I guess your friends the GOP who you work so hard to elect will be fighting your side of this tax thing....congrats on getting them Dems out, oh I guess maybe health care had him tied up there for a bit, that and fending off shithead attacks from people like you, don't forget all you do daily to beat up on the Dems....

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

Fending off attacks? You make it seem as if media hoopla is the same as running from the drones that the DNC/RNC uses to further the profits.

Interesting take on the wars though. Bush won, you have sold your soul.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

as you can see here


the efforts of stupid shits like you are not having much effect but still every little bit you do to help elect the GOP hurts the nation so it is wise that all remember you for your efforts...

your soul lies with the deeds of the GOP, sleep well....

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Here is what you're ignoring for utterly transparent reasons turboposer. Obama stated within days of his innaguration back in '09' that stock holders needed to "take their losses". He also tried relentlessely to get a few truly liberal measures like those referred to above passed in order to slow down the concentration of wealth. Like FDR in response to the Great Depression, Obama has understood the link between concentration of income and economic instability.

Unfortunately for the lower 99%, your Republican party has been hell-bent on a level of obstructionism never seen in America before Obama came along. From day one, they have done everything within their power to obstruct liberal economic policies. To prevent an actual recovery like that which FDR set in motion 80 years ago. The problem created by such obstructionism is that something had to be done to prevent the world's largest economy from slipping back into the free fall which was caused in large part by conservative economic policies to begin with.

In the absence of significantly higher taxes on the rich and logical behavior on the part of consumers, especially in this era when so much depends on the flow of credit because of that absence, Quantitative Easing becomes an ugly but necessary evil. It keeps the economy on life support. It delays catastrophic collapse. Of course, there is profound corruption inherent with such policy. Of course, it makes those in certain high level corporate positions and their major stockholders richer. But to refer to 6 trillion as 'handouts' just doesn't add up. After all, those bonds which account for the bulk, will be cashed in eventually. In the meantime, they are helping to delay, in the absence of significantly higher taxes on the rich and a lick of sense among American consumers, a level of economic collapse never seen before.

So bitch about the element of corruption within QE and government transactions in general if you hope to convince others you care. Bitch about those who profit excessively. But not the concept itself until after those proposed tax increases are passed and they have had ample time to have their desired effect. In the meantime, vote AGAINST those who obstruct such tax increases and stop promoting Russell Brand.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

Another "ugly but necessary evil".. Credit card companies making their own cards to pay off their own debts...

You are a fool. Dimon and Blankfein are laughing hysterically at you.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you elect Republicans and have the gall to call anybody a fool? really you are the biggest idiot the world has ever known, (well there is flip....)

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Three more links to prove a difference between the major parties. I'll be plugging them also. The poser posse won't take much interest other than to accuse you of supporting 'the system' or 'the duopoly' but legitimate users and visitors will.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

check this site out start at 1992 and step forward checking overall compared to 18-29 see the trend develop after W Bush took office? it is even starting to affect the 30-44 group by 2014, most people aren't as stupid as many on here claiming to be supporters.....