Re-Elected Obama: 'The Best Is Yet To Come'

  • Comments (127)
Photo Credit: Flickr user jamesomalley

Voters chose action over politics as usual, President Barack Obama told the nation in a rousing victory speech delivered after 1:30 a.m., Wednesday.

Obama, who beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney, renewed his message of hope in saying the nation was on its way to recovering from tough times.

“Our economy is recovering, a decade of war is ending, a long campaign is now over," Obama said. "And whether I earned your vote or note, I have listened to you,  I have learned from you and you’ve made me a better president. I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.”

Obama held a comfortable lead in the electoral college though the popular vote early Wednesday morning remained close.

Obama said he looks forward to working with leaders from both parties on issues like jobs, immigration, energy and tax reform. But he also said the nation would remain politically divided on some issues.  

“Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated,”  he said. “We have our own opinions, each of us has deeply-held beliefs and when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as country, it necessarily stirs passion, stirs controversy. That won’t change after tonight and it shouldn’t.”

Romney made a short but gracious concession speech from his headquarters in Boston just before 1 a.m., Wednesday. The speech lasted about five minutes.

"I pray the president will be successful in guiding our nation," said Romney, who also called for less bipartisanship in government.  

“Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the citizens’ work,” he said.

Barack Obama tweeted "four more years" shortly after 11 p.m. Tuesday, with a picture of him hugging his wife Michelle.

“Tonight, in this election you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come," Obama said in his victory speech. 

Several television networks gave the race to Obama around 11 p.m., when they projected that he had beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Ohio.

  • 127

Comments (127)

The song was fashioned by the renowned Quincy Jones and revolved roughly a simple suggestion: to unite American demo artists and help raise money for the meager and less opportune famine relief fatalities in one.

They know what the supreme court will approve this immoral cause when same-sex marriage. Insurance rates are going up all the classes, because this union will bring a burst of infections caused by this kind of marriage.

The biggest difference in second term is that Obama doesn't have to do anything and he gets his way. If GOP continues to "do nothing" like they did since 2010 a few key factors will play into his advantage.

Obamacare is the law and safe, all that's left are writing the regs which can be done by the executive branch.

Bush era tax cuts expire end of year and deficit gets cut automatically (which btw the deficit has been going down for a while now, still high but it is shrinking)

The so-called fiscal cliff is more like a slope according to some experts although it would accumulate over time it's not like the world will end Jan 1 like the Mayans and Glenn Beck claim (buy farmland and ammo according to him - that sounds sane). And the President is freed up from running for office again so essentially the pressure is on Congress to act because of the 2014 elections. The economy is also likely to grow over the intermediate term (meaning 2013 into 2014) according to many projections.

Not saying he holds all the cards but he has significant leverage thanks to the results of his big win on Tuesday and the facts of the situation

So GOP will have to play if not nice nicer than they did if they want to get something passed, which is in their interest.

Tooooooooo much moosh!

How true, the best is yet to come.
That's almost religious.
I just want him to get people working without feeding them tax dollars for votes.

Yeah, right!

Yeah. Right. That's the way it will work.

Robin is right. 39.5% tax rate on income over $250,000 is perfectly reasonable. You do realize that you would be taxed at the lower rate UP TO the 250,000. This would return us to the Clinton rates, the last time the economy was booming. The Republicans originally agreed that Bush's tax cuts would be temporary. Let them be temporary on those who can afford a little more.

I repeat: you will be taxed at the higher rate only on the income over $250,000, those of you who make that much.

How about a flat tax there, maximus? you earn more, you pay more, but at the same rate as everyone else.

It's amazing that the idea of working hard to earn a comfortable living is demonized by the Obama administration.

excellent. so rather than contributing to the economy I should spend a good amount of time figuring out how to get my income just under $250,000 because apparently I should be taxed the same as a very wealthy person. good thoughts

The money you make over $250,000 should not be taxed at a sightly higher rate as it was in the Clinton years?

And you think it's the 47%, who, by the way, are seniors, children, the disabled and low wage earners, who are the takers?

why SHOULD money made over $250k be taxed at a higher rate in order to subsidize the middle class? If your answer is "because you can afford it" then you've already lost the battle.


It's not just because you can afford it. It's the right thing to do. It's ethical. It's just. Most people are a Hurricane Sandy or a bad diagnosis or a terrible car crash or a sudden job loss away from economic dire straits. We need our social safety net to be there, the social insurance we paid into. People depend upon their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid when they get old and when they become ill.

We must pay for these things. A progressive tax rate is fair and will help keep these programs solvent.

There was an election. The president campaigned on this issue. The majority of the voters returned him to office. The American people agree that the rich should pay a little more, as they did in the Clinton years.

Do you not yet understand that it is the ultra-rich who tanked the economy, not the people on food stamps?

Because quite simply, the Middle class is sick and tired of subsidizing the 1%.

Would you prefer we go back to the Eisenhower era tax rates. He was after all, a republican so how could you possibly have a problem with that?

The tax rate back then was 90% and the wealthy did just fine. Our country experienced the greatest growth it has ever known. The middle class could actually start aspiring to the American dream.

So why is a measley 4% causing you such misery and heartache?

@maximus - there's a disconnect here bud. I'm talking about 250k being the line of demarcation and you're talking about the ultra-rich. two different demographics. whatever problem you have with the '1%', I'm not the 1% and I'm not wealthy. unless you think that anyone that earns over 250k is rich or ultra-rich...

@barnstorm - it isn't the 4%, it's the sentiment. I'm not a trust-fund millionaire sitting on my yacht watching my gifted investments earn 10%. I'm a hardworking american that worked his way up from almost nothing and still needs to put thought into paying my bills, feeding my family, and making it through life. I resent the fact that I should be penalized for that. I am far from 'wealthy'. I do ok but only because I busted my friggin ass to get to this point. no handouts. no help, just me and my drive and motivation. Apparently that work ethic is now demonized. fantastic.

The work ethic is not being demonized. There are millions of people who work just as hard as you but they will never make $250,000. The average income in this country is in the vicinity of $35,000. Are you really saying that difference between you and them is that you just worked harder? Ask a waitress. It's harder to put food on the table when you make what she makes.

No one is penalizing you. We ask that you contribute to the social fabric that nurtured you, educated you, gave your parents the security of Medicare and Social Security, passed the GI Bill for your grandfather, etc.

And Bud, $250,000 is a lot of money.

Maximus is correct. Nobody's work ethic is being demonized. I'm 61 and have busted my ass all my life, and never had $250k to show for it. Do I cry about that? No, I accept it and play the cards I've been dealt in life. Do I expect anything from my government? Only what I've been contributing to it over the years in the form of Social Security, which I already know will only cover a small percentage of my retirement. I have had to save, invest and manage the rest of what I earned in order to look forward to the day I can retire.
I work to keep my debt low, and maintain a $0 balance on my credit cards.
If I can't afford something, I do without. I was raised to not feel that I'm entitled to "have it all". If I want something bad enough, I save a little here and there until I can afford to get it.

You seem to be bitter because you've busted your hump all your life and now you expect the government to take it all away from you. Have you not learned how to shelter your money, invest a little wiser, and protect your hard-won assets? Don't blame the government because you're lousy at money management.

I also agree with maximus that most people out there aren't making anywhere near $250k, even if they're working two or more jobs. Many people are busting their humps a lot more than you...for a lot less. They see their efforts helping to subsidize those who make substantially more. Why should a single mom working two jobs pay a higher percentage of her meager income in taxes than someone who makes over $250k?

Sorry, but $250k IS a lot of money. If you don't think so you're very much living beyond your means....and out of touch with the reality most people in this country have to live with every day.

@maximus and Barnstorm - you two have wholly missed the point. It ain't the 4% folks. I'll manage! I have 1 credit card and that is my corporate card. debit card for everything else. I've got months of cash put away for any emergency. you preach presenting facts but then you blaze away with complete and utter BS in order to try and propagate an opinion. it's crazy. It makes you sound like a moron which I don't think you are.

what part of anything I've said has come across as lower earning people should have to pay a higher percentage than myself? again, you're just making stuff up. It makes for a very silly discussion

And you two keep speaking of us simply going back to the Clinton tax rates when the economy is booming. Ok. That's great. Let's go back to the Clinton tax rates where the highest bracket in the 90's was 250,000. But, guess what? income has not kept up with cost of living increases. But I'm sure you know that. 250k back then is the equivalent of 400k now!! so if you want to compare apples to apples then the upper bracket should be 400k shouldn't it? why, you say? I'm pretty sure gas wasn't 3.50-4.00 a gallon back then. it was more like 1.30 wasn't it? use your heads people. pretty much every cost of living indicator (fuel, food, clothes, housing, etc.) has increased exponentially over the past couple decades but average income absolutely has not. yet you want the highest level income to remain the same for tax purposes? nice try.

and before you state the level of effort that someone puts in compared to myself for their income you better know what you are talking about, and you clearly do not.

I'll close this post with this observation. I saw a political cartoon today which had a disheveled man setting up a bedroom in the garage of someone's house. owner of the house is standing in front of the open garage holding a briefcase with a question mark above his head. caption on cartoon said "didn't you hear, Obama gave me a piece of your house. Now get back to work. I'm hungry". Socialism. good times...

Your final paragraph exposes for once and all what you fear: Those below you on the economic ladder are going to take your stuff. It is those who make much more than you who crashed the system yet continue to profit mightily. They, and you need to pay your fair share on the amount you make OVER $250,000.

Most people want to work. If you think living on welfare and food stamps is a cushy deal, try it sometime. Your cartoon is paranoid.

Ryants: "1+1 = 2".
Maximus: "ryan, why do you keep saying that 1+1=6"

Maximus, please let me know what combination of words will drive home the point to you that the issue isn't the money or the stuff. I can handle 4.5 points over 250k. it ain't gonna break me. my problem is the sentiment. why is paying more at that income point 'my fair share'?

you know how when you elect to donate money to charity you typically get to actually choose what charity to donate to and like to know exactly how that money is going to be allocated? Well, in this instance the charity is forced on us and the recipients are complete unknowns. that's the poinit of the cartoon I saw, there will be no workable oversight on who gets the benefit. It will be the hardworker that just needs a break alongside the guy that will sit on his couch all day drinking a 12-pack and trying to figure out how to keep the govt aid flowing. and the tax rate proposed by Obama is MUCH higher than it was in the Clinton years. I explained why above

if you think that our welfare system isn't rife with people that want nothing more than to keep the checks and foodstamps coming in, and will have more children in order to up the amount, then you are living in a fantasy land. separate those from the earnest, hardworking types and I'll be more open to this conversation

You seriously believe that lower-income people have babies in order to keep that piddly check coming in? You think that's the threat?

The tax rate on the rich is historically low. It was 70% in Eisenhower's time and we still had rich people plus a healthy economy. Trickle down doesn't work. We just tried it. The job creators kept their wealth.

Quit whining. You lost the election. Get over it.

This Emperor won't be playing a fiddle......

He'll be playing golf.

Fact checking sites are fun. I just did a little research and Bush took more vacation than FDR who was in office 12 years! Obama is lower. Facts are peskie but so much fun to show to folks with what they think are funny responses.

W was on vacation for a third of his presidency playing golf and "clearing brush" and you complain that President Obama plays golf?!?!?!?!

First, Barack Obama's re-election showing was actually pretty unimpressive for a guy whose philosophies voters have supposedly adopted. As of this writing on Wednesday, Obama's vote total stood at an unimpressive 60,119,958. That's about what John Kerry got in 2004 (59,028,444). President George W. Bush actually did far better than Obama in his 2004 reelection quest, posting a vote total that was about 2 million higher (62,040,610) than what Obama got on Tuesday. That's hardly a remarkable finish in a country with a population that has increased. In fact, it's a decline of 9 million votes from Obama's 2008 total.

Read more:

Once again the GOP trying to say why the Democratic winner is not deserving of support.

where do you get these numbers? from the same la-la land that Romney was going to produce 12 million jobs? Obama won by 3 million votes, the biggest plurality in a long long time. Bush won by 500 votes (maybe, probably really lost Florida) in 2000, and a little bit more in 2004. Clinton won with less than 50% because of third party candidate Perot. Obama now has political capital but we're not waiting on him. We are organizing to salvage the planet and end the war on drugs, unions, gays, and women, to mention a few little things on our "to-do" list.

He won.

The enthusiasm gap? A myth. Romney closed the gender gap? Not so. Bash Hispanics for two years and they will vote for your party because, uh, Marco Rubio? I guess not. Try to make it harder for people to vote and they will meekly comply? See turnout. Dick Morris's landslide? Didn't happen.

He won. Maybe playing with those numbers makes you feel better, but the president won in spite of the millions spent by billionaires, and the lies and bile spewed by Fox news. He won because folks didn't know if they would be electing Severely Conservative Mitt or Moderate Mitt or any of the other Mitts that popped up from time to time. He won because after 2010 the Republican party let the Tea Party run the show and the resulting legislative excesses galvanized labor, women, and young people. He won because of accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act, slow but steady improvement of the economy, and a sane, sober foreign policy.

He won. Decisively.

A few more hint for Republicans wanting to improve their standing for future elections...

1. Don't block the president (regardless of party) at every turn, promising to make sure nothing of his goes through and ending up make all of the people in this country suffer. We tend to remember that...a LOT! And we don't blame it on the president... get it?

2. Keep your moronic male politicians out of womens' issues. You don't know what it's like to be raped, and you probably never will. So STFU about it.

3. Same thing about contraception... if you don't want to use it, don't! But don't make it the cornerstone of your campaign... if that and rape being a divine thing is all you have to talk about, you need to go somewhere else... perhaps the middle east could use your "brilliance".

4. Remember, that in the end, there are over 300,000,000 people in this country that are All affected by the decisions you make (or don't make). Stop the lobbyists from deciding what happens to us... stand up and... you know, Take a Stand.

It's quite simple really. There are several issues, concerns, and views at play here but the largest deciding factor is drawn at the salary line. Those that earn up to a certain amount are delighted that Mr. Obama has retained the office. Those that make above a certain amount are less than pleased with last night's outcome. Socialism makes all the sense in the world when you are among those that see take-home pay trending up with the same level of effort as before, and makes no sense at all to those who see take-home pay trending down with the same level of effort as before. I am in the latter category. To be fair there are the ultra wealthy that have no big issue with paying more to help 'bolster/subsidize' the middle class. I am not the ultra wealthy. I am someone whom came from very humble means and busted my ass to put myself through college, work two and sometimes three jobs at a time during undergrad to help pay for room, board and books. paid my way through graduate school and regularly worked 80-100 hours a week between work and school for the chance of making a better life for myself and my family than I had growing up. I still rise at the crack of dawn and go to sleep late at night. I also work hard to spend a lot of time with my family, coach my kids' little league team, and give to charity. So my problem is that while I'm sitting here busting my ass on a daily basis to provide for my family I now have the privilege of being penalized for the effort and having my income reduced in order to make sure those that perhaps didn't work quite so hard can take home a larger paycheck for themselves. Now I do realize that there are those that also work many, many hours and don't make as much but let me tell you I absolutely did not have any advantages growing up and had to make my own success and others can as well.

What better way to stifle creativity, crush innovation, and force hardworking folks to rethink exactly how hard they should be working than to continue to implement Robin Hood economics. Good times...


I can't follow your argument. President Obama has CUT taxes on the middle class several times, though no one seems to notice. He is only arguing for the super-rich and corporations to pay their fair share. I would be happy to return to the tax rates we had under Clinton, and close the ridiculous breaks corporations and people like Romney get by offshoring their wealth. We have our own engineering business which has prospered under President Obama. I grew up lower middle class, and my husband grew up with nothing. We haven't been "stifled" or "crushed", and have added employees. I think you need a vacation. Oh and since I now have cancer, it's a darn good thing we have decent health insurance in MA by law, and the company couldn't say I had a "pre-existing condition." Thanks to President obama, the whole country will soon have what Mass has: health insurance reform, and an end to health-related bankruptcy. Do you begin to understand why we voted Democrat?

Robin, I see your point and I'm sorry to hear about your health issues as no one with cancer,etc should be turned away. My issue is that I am middle class and because of Obamacare my health costs that come out of my paycheck as a married couple went up 25% for next year and the max costs per person if I see doctors went up 50%! And the more I make the more my healthcare costs go up with the same benefits....socialism does not work!

Obamacare doesn't set any prices. If you don't like what you pay, maybe you should have advocated loudly (as I did) for a single payer system which would reduce waste by the insurance companies and move money to actually providing services.

That would work Whit but what if you get sick? How would you feel being fifty something with a diagnosis of some cancer and you get rejected from a treatment that the benefit and the cost just are not worth it. This will happen if we get single payer. Beware.

Except for the pre-existing condition clause and coverage for those staying on parents' insurance until age 26, most of Obamacare will not be fully implemented until 2014. 30 million more people are covered by insurance now, keeping them out of much more expensive emergency rooms. Insurance companies now must spend 80% of their profits directly on health care.

All of these things will cut costs over time and costs are starting to trend down. Socialized medicine is single payer. We don't have that, more's the pity. Obamacare is still delivered through private insurance companies.

This is not socialism. If you think your insurance company is gouging you because of Obamacare and that Obamacare is socialism, you are simply dead wrong. Your insurance plan is gouging you for profit, not because of Obamacare.

Yes, you clearly haven't followed my argument because you apparently think I was complaining that the middle class wasn't getting tax cuts??!! I am very well aware that they/you are. My problem is that I and many many others like myself whom have worked themselves to the bone to earn over 250k are going to get further penalized for it. Obama wants to level the playing field so that the lower earners start closing the gap in take-home pay with the higher earners without out any change in the work habits of either. The whole 'work more to earn more' logical method gets thrown out the window. it enables bad behavior. let me repeat - IT ENABLES BAD BEHAVIOR!! The people whom haven't achieved the higher income levels love the idea. the people whom have given their all and then some to make it to a certain level and have built their budget around that level are now being told 'too bad, so sad, the lower earners need some of your cash'. again, like I said, and see if you can follow this time - those below a certain pay level love Obama's socialist plan because they can take home more money without applying any extra effort, those above take home less than before without reducing their effort.. it's a simple statement.

And as far as I feel terrible about your cancer diagnosis and am glad your plan is working for you. But in my case and the case of many, many others it is still largely individual to the company you work for regardless of reform. I also live in Mass and now absolutely have the worst health plan I have ever had since I've been in the working world and that has been outside of whether or not the president was democratic or republican. I was with a company when Obama first came into office that offered a great health plan where the best PPO had low premiums and low out-of-pocket expenses, copays. etc. Now 3.5 years later I'm at another company with a similar plan as above yet the premiums are more than double and the out-of-pocket is as well. So no, Mass has not cornered the market on good health care. It's up to the employers to make it so.

As far as offshoring, Obama offshores his funds as well. Most people do when they have pensions, 401k, retirement accounts, blind trusts, etc. It is a very, very common American pratice. they just don't know it. so get off of your high horse there.

We are also in an upper income bracket and do not resent paying 35% taxes, but it does gall that Romney makes many millions and pays barely 14%. In addition we tithe a bit more than 10% to charity. We can still live comfortably on what is left and pay our daughter's college tuition, because we paid off our mortgage before she went to college and didn't go buy a bigger house as our income rose. I don't understand your insurance problem. It may have something to do with what our employer chose to offer (?) We pay over $12,000 a year for our daughter's college insurance and our insurance for a couple because our company is too small to offer health insurance. I was surprised to see that the premiums only went up $6 a month from last year, probably because if they overcharge now they will just have to reimburse us. I am quite sure Mr. Obama doesn't park his money in the Cayman Islands.

don't get used to 35%. get ready for 39.5% percent for those that earn over 250k and that's prob just for starters. and again, get off your high horse on romney's cap gains and div rate (15%). I'm pretty sure there are many democrats that pay that rate off of capital gains and divends, perhaps even yourself or your family members. Also realize that people that earn interest income paid full tax on the funds to secure the equity stakes to begin with. no so cut and dry there robin. And Obama ABSOLUTELY has money in offshore investments including china and the cayman islands. take a look at some of his own investments and you'll see that, among other places, those investments are based in countries such as China and in a private equity fund based in the Cayman Islands. he just doesn't have as much money as Romney out there but your beloved president plays the same games, as do most americans with pension funds and other forms of equity.

@ robinjvl - I applaud your positive attitude towards paying 35% in taxes and you seem to have buckets of money to pay off your mortgage and pay your daughter's tuition. However, many people I know moved to our town (where through the years it has been almost impossible to find a house for under $1,000,000) in order to take advantage of the fantastic school system and town amenities. I wouldn't call someone earning $250,000 in Westport a millionaire (like Obama does) while they are paying their mortgage, car payments, living expenses and hopefully have some $ left over to pay for their children's college education and retirement savings. Warren Buffet can say that he pays less than his secretary, but the reality is that he doesn't "earn" his money like most Americans do -- his income is from long term capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate than those that get paid a salary. I also don't see him "not taking advantage" of the current tax code. So...our elected officials should work towards tax reform -- not making the families or small businesses working their butts off for $250,000 tighten their belts any more than they already have in this weak economy.

sounds good but I don't believe President Obama calls people making $250,000/year "millionaires." Since my husband and I grew up with very little money we just know how to live simply and enjoy it. We get a kick out of sharing our prosperity to improve the lives of people locally and internationally.

@robin -- I understand that you are comfortable living a simple lifestyle, but many others like to support their local economies. It will be interesting to see how the higher taxes on families earning $250,000 and up will play out. I'm not talking about the impact on billionaires and the super wealthy -- I'm talking about the everyday people with mortgage payments, car payments, college tuition bills, etc. I know plenty of families that will be cutting back on their spending. They may not hire the local landscaper, send their children to karate, dance or other activities, spend less on clothing and maybe put off buying a new car. I don't see how the mom and pop stores will stay in business if their customers stop spending.

The first $250,000 will not be taxed at the higher rate.
Only the amount over $250,000.

@robin, yes, but that's you. there are others that grew up with little money (myself) and chose not to live like that when we became adult. I scraped to make it to a manageable level of comfort, affordable for me and my family, and Obama is, in effect, saying 'not so fast overachiever, slow down there buddy. you see those people over there, they want some of your money to make ends meet and I'm going to take it from you and give it to them. don't work so hard next time pal!"

and you are wrong again. president obama IScalling people that make 250k a year 'millionaires' by the simple fact that he is lumping anyone above 250k into the same tax bracket, 39.5%.

you know perfectly well that you don't pay 39% on your whole income but only the portion over a certain amount. You just want to whine!!! I'm sorry money hasn't brought you happiness but then it rarely does. A generous heart makes one happy and you lack that.

you're right. I don't pay 39%.. Obama hasn't implemented it. that's what he's going to push through though.

And you're wrong yet again. Money, among other things, has brought me happiness in the form of security and comfort for my family. And I am a very generous person. However, like most people, I would like to be in control of my generosity, not have it forced upon me.

but now your position is that anyone that opposes Obama's socialist policy lacks a generous heart??!! you're funny. very cute

What is Romney's effective tax rate? What is the President's? Who has more money? Hmm...

How many years of the President's tax returns have we seen? How many of Romney's? Hmm...

Western European counties like Germany and Finland have a significantly higher rates of taxation at upper income levels. They also have lower unemployment and single payer health care.
I would not call Germans hard working.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates call for higher taxes upon themselves. They still work, because they enjoy the challenge.

Germany's low unemployment rate can be attributed to a few things, not the least fo which is a focus on exporting (manufacturing jobs) to bolster the economy. they've focused on innovative to be competitive in the global market. which goes back to my original point that the Obama policies will stifle the creativity and innovation that is needed to bolster export revenue that the jobs that would be needed to support creating the products such as Germany has. so these policies will actually work against a large part of why Germany has been able to keep there rate low.

And I already pointed out that the ultra wealthy do not have the same challenges. The difference between those folks and myself is that I have to work to pay the bills. So apparently your platform is that those like myself should continue to work as hard as I always have for less money so that those that earn less can take home more simply because I should enjoy the challenge?

Tisk, Tisk,
Germany has higher tax rates then the USA across the board and they have an innovative economy. A weaker dollar helps US exports. So your statement is opinion, because if were were true Germany would not be the economic powerhouse that it is.
Considering there has been 20 straight months of job growth our Presidents policies have been working.
Perhaps you would favor taxing the poor at a much higher rate and as they earn more then tax rates would go down.

As one of my grad school stats professors told me 'Give me a number, any number, and I'll make it sing and dance in any direction I want it to go'. Stats are useless in the hands of bias. For every report stating 20 straight months of job growth I'll present you with a report showing the exact opposite. It all depends how you slice and dice the data and the results will entirely be dependent on the point you are trying to make.

I would be in favor of cutting out the ridiculous fat in government spending before I would start penalizing people for working hard. And btw, you show me a rich guy earning 250k that needs to be taxed more and I'll show you a guy with a family of five living in a 1000 sq. ft. apartment in Manhattan cutting coupons daily to make make ends meet. Is that the wealthy that you are referring to?