Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge has been undone by something signers of his pledge via a loophole they wrote into law 10 years ago. Grover is in deep trouble tonight and he knows it. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has the story.
GOP unlocks the Norquist tax pledge
-
Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:49 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
That's because they are trying to save their own taxpayer funded existances.
They don't care about America or Americans, they worship Ayn Rand, money & Grover Norquist.
ALthough this is good news. Small tho it may be. It's not that big of an increase. And I hate to admit this....but it irks me that Toomey is the one that caught that. Sigh, he's my Senator...ugh! He barely eked out a win against Admiral Sestak. My great hope is that the Admiral will decide to try again next time that seat comes up. With this years tide of events, starting with the WI protests early in the year and now with the OWS 99 percent movement, it gives me some hope for the next several election cycles. Also seeing how the unionbusting bill in OH and the personhood amendment in MI got shot down makes me think that maybe, just maybe, people are waking up and will vote out the hard right candidates. I still haven't given up hope. But sometimes it's hard. My two young adult children are struggling and I fear what it could be like for them when they get my age if the income disparity insanity isn't stopped.
Excellent post. I have a good feeling about next year too. The Repubs went in saying they were going to get jobs. We all see how that went. I'm so happy to see people (Dems) fighting back; and you know what? It's contageous!! People in other states see that you can WIN, and they'll start fighting too. The greatest thing would be if Walker gets "REPEALED"! That would be so awesome
I don't get it! Expiration has been on our books and even discussed since day one. However, it seems as if it just dawned on the non-genius genius that their backs are to the wall! QUICO!
I couldn't believe that Congress made many of those cuts permanent last year. They should have followed the original law and let them all expire. Yes- the rates for everyone would have went up, substantial percent for lower middle class, and many that are now not taxed would have been taxed again- but it was the original law that Jose is speaking of.
They didn't make the cuts permanent - only a one year extension, and the political atmosphere is far more hostile to further extension now.
Satur- are you sure about that? I thought all the Bush tax cuts except for the top rates were made permanent?
Dear Lawrence. You are quite the diplomat by giving credit to Toomey. I know that YOU know this was indeed the genius of our very own president Barack Obama, not Pat Toomey. Like you, I've known for nearly a year (since extending the Bush tax cuts) that Obama's plan all along was to raise taxes on the wealthiest, but not during a fragile economic recovery period. Obama duped the republicans when they signed on for the extension back in December. He knew that by doing nothing (super committee or no super committee), taxes would automatically go back to the Clinton rates in 2012. By that time Obama figured we'd be in a more stable economic environment. I'm sure you knew this as well and it is very clever to give credit to republican Pat Toomey. Let them think it was their idea to raise taxes!!!
In all HONESTY why do they need an out? It should be enough of an out for these wanna be Christians who claim to know Christ to HONOR the oath of office they took on the holy bible in front of God as there witness. But I suppose Grover must come before God in there minds. ; ]
In all actuality it means nothing because tea bagging republicans will continue to say no to it all and never raise taxes technicality or not. You see people who would rather honor an oath to a private citizen or group before the oath of office to ALL citizens are not the kind of people to care about citizens or what it takes to make this country function. In fact there ONLY function is there Dysfunction as it becomes them quite true. Indeed.
Cheers
I don't know. If the Repubs are smart - hmmmm - they'd give up on the Tea Party. They're bringing them DOWN!
Can't ignore the only base you have now. The problem is, for both parties, ignoring the people for way too long, pandering to special interests and then trying to spin a message to carry out their agenda and making it look like they're trying to care for their constituents.
Now it's all collapsed and the GOP finds itself so far to the right they've lost their appeal with most ordinary people and even sane, well centered Republicans who won't have any of that crazy talk. Look at Ohio, the same people who voted for the GOP governor repealed his landmark initiative by a landslide and are now leading efforts to recall him.
I don't understand how can one man hold Congress hostage? The only pledge Congress should ever sign is the Pledge of Allegiance.
Actually by signing that pledge, they all violated their oath of office --! They should be removed from office, or they should not have not signed such an un-constitutional pledge. When they were elected and took their oath of office, then at that point they worked for all of the people, (not their political party).
I also consider their block voting (like robots) to also be unconstitutional and lazy since they don't actually take the time to read the bills themselves. They just vote like lemmings following their party leaders, and therefore are not doing their job. But what does the GOP care about the constitution other than ways to pervert it's intent (which was to provide freedom for all citizens - not freedom for all corporations).
" So if corporations are 'People' - does this now mean 'Soylent Green' is now being made from dead corporations? Yuck! " (Thomas W. Green)
Thank goodness for the 2 post above - I thought I was alone in being highly upset about the idea of public officials pledging themselves to the desire of ONE MAN when they took a pledge already to essentially act for the benefit of THE PEOPLE! Personally, I think everyone who signed that pledge should be recalled. You cannot serve 2 masters - If you have pre-determined that you must meet the desires of Norquist (Who is this guy???? What does he have on everyone???), you cannot possibly be open to anything pesky like compromise, reasoned debate, or fair consideration. That some are so willing to demonstrate how ineffective and pre-bought they are, that they would document it on paper as proof for the ages - well that just boggles the mind! Being that dumb should get you recalled if nothing else does!
But what upsets me even more is the idea that a group is so beholden to one individual that a concerted effort had to be made to find a way to get around a pledge they should not have made to begin with! SERIOUSLY???? How about you say something like, heck, I don't know, how about saying "NO!" - I know you can do it, you had no problem saying no to upholding your pledge to your constituents. You had no problem saying to the idea of the democratic process with this pledge. You had no problem with saying no to fairness and considering the wellbeing of the group against the desires of one. I am pretty certain the people who elected you did not send you there to do the bidding of one person.
Even if this is a philosophical pledge, it is still tantamount to a group documenting this unwillingness to fully engage in the process, the same behavior that brings the process to a grinding halt every time. Shame on you!!
Why are we not talking more about this appalling lack of commitment to their jobs? Why are these people not being called on the carpet about this?????
the republican party has been so concerned about President Obama being a muslim.
maybe they should look no further than grover norquist.
Muslim NOT born in the US of A. I guess they didn't realize Hawaii became a state!!!
Each day this administration focuses on convincing people he isn't a Muslim, has a birth cert, etc, is a day not spent trying to pass wrong-headed bills. That's the real benefit. Is this still an issue? I hadn't heard about it since the Trump days- but if it isn't, I surely do appreciate you folks bringing it back alive.
rusty,
i am not trying to convince you of anything. all i am saying is that the people in the republican party who LIED about Barack Obama's religion, AND his place of birth, if they really want to accuse someone of beng a muslim, they need look no further than their idol, they need look no further than the person to whom they have PLEDGED their allegiance, grover norquist.
Suzette- I would welcome that investigation. I would like to have Harry Reid launch a full Senate investigation that would last until any of the nonsensical ideas they are bantering with about the economy dies out. Keep them busy doing something that the populi wants that also doesn't actually cause harm.
rusty,
the populi wants taxes raised on the rich.
what is the matter with the phucking republican party that they aren't hearing what the "populi" wants?
they just don't give a damn about what the american populi want. they are scared sh!tless of giving President Obama a "win". they are unembarassable in their hatred of President Obama.
they might want to do an investigation on newt gingrinch, that lying SOB.
lol- true colors now Suzette. To listen to what you Occupy Democrats say, the 99% are demanding (without stating any demands, mind you), they want all debt forgiven. Should we pass that bill just because some people think it's good idea?
no rusty,
we should just continue to give tax breaks to the rich.
Glad you got over your anger issues. Good to be back on civil terms.
You do know- I wouldn't have a problem with going back to the Clinton tax rates? Across the board. If the Bush tax cuts were as bad as everyone says, then let's move on and let them all expire- even the ones that Obama made permanent.
What happens if they just extend the deadline?
I hope Obama vetoes the extension if they do!
HEY! In all the excitement about getting a modest 4% from the 1%, did anyone else notice the hikes on the 99% ?!?! It goes from a mostly 5% increase to a huge 13% increase for people who are now in the 15% bracket! That would be me - retired - on a fixed income that keeps me in the middle of this bracket forever. In back-to-the-future 2012 I will be paying 28% (really not that far away from the top bracket) on each hard-earned dollar in my pension and in my retirement account. This will drain my accounts long before I die.
I don't mind paying my fair share, but I don't understand how my bracket will be getting soaked with a 13% hike when everyone else will be seeing a 4% to 5% hike. Even a 5% hike is way to high for the 99% that has already been paying the lion's share for decades and is now on it's knees.
Restructuring the tax code is the way to go. Just going back to 2000 is really unequal and unfair. Why was the 28% bracket so drastically different from the brackets above and below it in 2000? Didn't anyone notice that in the first place? No wonder so many of us are in a big black hole and still digging!
By the way, the expiration of our tax code has been a fact for a very long time. Our president knew this when he allowed the extension on the present code. Hello!
Penelope- We've all been told we have to pay our fair share. That goes for me and you, as well. The Left's line is that rates were fair under Clinton, and that allowed for a surplus.
BTW- re-do your math. According to your numbers, you are looking at a 87% increase when your rate goes from 15% to 28%
This is not how the tax brackets actually compare. It was a big bait and switch by Bush that succeeded in hiding how big a tax cut they were giving the rich while giving the middle class almost nothing. I'm disappointed that Lawrence helped perpetuate the myth with his chart.
This is the TRUE relationship between the old and new tax brackets:
The trick is that they inserted a tax bracket at the bottom so that the rest of the brackets would "line up" visually with the next higher bracket. The 15% bracket was mostly unchanged (read: NO TAX CUT). Because of this the poor and middle class get the smallest average tax cut (34k earners get the worst effective tax cut at 1.2%) while the rich effectively get a full 4.6% cut (almost 4x higher).
It is important that people understand percentages when discussing a topic. Example- 1f the original rate is 5%, and it goes to 10%, the change is a 100% increase, not a 5% increase. If the listed example had you paying $1000 in taxes, with the increase, you would be paying $2000 in taxes, or a 100% increase. A 5% increase would have you paying $1050. That said- and based upon the numbers that mccd has listed- I'm only doing the math here, not validating the numbers:
If you want to verify my numbers, go to irs.gov and download the tax tables for 2000 (last year of the Clinton rates), 2001 (they start cutting the 28% and up brackets, and leave the 15% alone), and 2002 (the first time they insert the 10% bracket, and the one and only time that the top of the 15% bracket gets a better average tax cut than the rich). You can also download the 1999 tax tables to verify that all the pre-existing tax brackets are scaling at a predicable level every year regardless of the Bush tax cuts.
A few things:
1. You need to weigh the change in tax bracket with how big the tax bracket is. A 33% cut in a tax bracket is much less significant if the bracket is half the size that you would expect.
2. You need to take into account that the lower tax brackets affect higher income earners. That is why the 0% tax cut at the 15% bracket impacts people earning even 1000% that level. It helps ensure that millionaires get double the tax cut on their next $100K than single filers who only earn $100k (millionaires also get double the tax cut on their next $200k compared to joint filers earning $200k).
3. People can pick their divisors to suit their argument. The numbers I am using so far use "taxable income" as the divisor, which is the most middle of the road (and industry standard) divisor. You are using "taxes owed" as the divisor, which pretty aggressively argues "the rich pay too much tax already". Someone else could argue a 3rd divisor, "take home pay", to defend the argument "the rich were doing fine already, and now they get the largest tax cut of all". If a rich person is being taxed 50%, a 10% marginal cut would be a 20% increase in their take home pay. I will present hard numbers for all three. And all three will still show that the middle class get the worst tax cut.
2010 2000 TAX CUT TAX CUT AS % OF income tax tax take-home income t-h tax (1) (2) (3) (1) (3) (2) 4000 400.00 600.00 3400.00 200.00 5.00% 5.88% 33.33% 8375 837.50 1256.25 7118.75 418.75 5.00% 5.88% 33.33% 14000 1681.25 2100.00 11900.00 418.75 2.99% 3.52% 19.94% 24000 3181.25 3600.00 20400.00 418.75 1.74% 2.05% 11.63% 26000 3481.25 3900.00 22100.00 418.75 1.61% 1.89% 10.74% 34000 4681.25 5100.00 28900.00 418.75 1.23% 1.45% 8.21% 68000 13181.25 4620.00 53380.00 1438.75 2.12% 2.70% 9.84% 82400 16781.25 18652.00 63748.00 1870.75 2.27% 2.93% 10.03% 172k 42k 46k 125k 4554.25 2.65% 3.63% 9.82% 374k 108k 119k 255k 10608.25 2.84% 4.17% 8.91% 1M 328k 367k 633k 39420.35 3.94% 6.23% 10.74% 10M 3478k 3931k 6069k 453k 4.53% 7.47% 11.53% 100M 34978k 39571k 60429k 4593k 4.59% 7.60% 11.61% 1B 349978k 395971k 604029k 45993k 4.60% 7.61% 11.62%My numbers are for single filers, but the concept is applicable to all filing types as well. Many things are directly applicable: namely, 68k married couples get a 1.23% cut based on total income, 1.45% based on take-home pay, 8.21% based on taxes owed. All my numbers up to 68650 single filer can be safely doubled to 137300 for joint filers, and the % analysis will remain the same. After that some the numbers will start to slightly skew due to the difference in bracket sizes, but by far the biggest factors are is the fact that the 15% bracket gets no tax cut, and that $373k earners get a 4.6% tax cut while just about everyone else is hard-capped at 3%: they automatically get a 50% larger tax cut, even disregarding the shenanigans at the 15% bracket.
So very specifically, a single filer earning 34k and a joint filer earning 68k gets a 1.23%, 1.45% or 8.21% cut, depending on which divisor you use (your preferred divisor is 8.21%). A single filer millionaire gets 3.94%/6.23%/10.74% (these numbers will be very very slightly lower for joint filers). A billionaire gets 4.6%/7.61%/11.62% (the result is already almost asymptotic).
TAX CUT SCALED TO TOP END 15% BRACKET EARNERS 34k for single filers, 68k for joint filers (as a scalar multiplier and as a % increase) 15% bracket millionaires billionaires as % income 1.0x / +0% 3.20x / +220% 3.74x / +274% as % take-home 1.0x / +0% 4.30x / +330% 5.25x / +425% as % taxes owed 1.0x / +0% 1.31x / +31% 1.42x / +42%Keep in mind that when people proclaim that the poor get a whopping 33% tax based on taxes owed, we are only talking about 33% of a maximum of $1256.25, so anywhere from $0-$418.75 for a single filer (double that for married/jointly). When you talk about the "miniscule" 11.6% decrease for the rich, it is 11.6% of at least $119k (the minimum taxes owed by someone in the top bracket). To be fair, my number at $373k earned is "only" 8.91%, but that is still a tax cut of $10608.25, minimum. And things only get dramatically better for the rich after $373k.
It's pretty amazing how meticulous Bush was at trying to screw over the middle class with his tax cut. If you remember candidate Obama trying to argue for raising the income limit for payroll taxes while keeping his promise to not raise taxes on anyone under $250k, he suggested one way around that was to create a doughnut hole so that incomes between $x (let's say $200k) and $250k did not have payroll taxes applied. That was his way of trying to save taxes for a particular income range. By not cutting the 15% marginal rate, Bush created a reverse doughnut hole with his tax cut. Bush took away tax cuts for the poor and middle class so that he could give even more tax cuts to the filthy rich.
No- you missed the pint completely. I am willing to accept your tax rates as fact. But the % decrease is not as you say. The math is the original minus the new, then that difference is divided by the original.
If for instance, if the original rate is 20%, and it is reduced to 10%- that is a 50% reduction- not a 10% reduction. Simple enough math. Doesn't matter if you use rates or taxes owed.
You are the one that is missing the point. My last column *IS* your argument. Notice that the billionaire's number is 11.62%, which matches your claim that 39.6% -> 35% is an 11.6% cut.
You are failing to take into account that all of these marginal tax rates have to be weighted by the size of the bracket, and that all lower brackets affect higher incomes. The 0% cut on the 15% to 15% is from $8k to $34k. That weighs much more heavily than the 33% cut in the very very small $0 to $8k bracket. Would you rather have the 33% cut on a $0-$8k bracket, or would you rather have a 100% cut on a $0-1k bracket?
I argued your conservative point for you (people who pay more in taxes should get a tax cut proportional to how much tax they pay, rather than how much money they make), and I showed, with hard numbers, that with the Bush tax cuts the wealthy got 40% more of a tax cut than a middle class filer with your skewed baseline.
You apparently don't know how marginal tax rates work. There's no point in posting more numbers.
Your last point is indeed correct.
I accept your surrender.
HEY! In all the excitement about getting a modest 4% from the 1%, did anyone else notice the hikes on the 99% ?!?! It goes from a mostly 5% increase to a huge 13% increase for people who are now in the 15% bracket! That would be me - retired - on a fixed income that keeps me in the middle of this bracket forever. In back-to-the-future 2012 I will be paying 28% (really not that far away from the top bracket) on each hard-earned dollar in my pension and in my retirement account. This will drain my accounts long before I die.
I don't mind paying my fair share, but I don't understand how my bracket will be getting soaked with a 13% hike when everyone else will be seeing a 4% to 5% hike. Even a 5% hike is way to high for the 99% that has already been paying the lion's share for decades and is now on it's knees.
Restructuring the tax code is the way to go. Just going back to 2000 is really unequal and unfair. Why was the 28% bracket so drastically different from the brackets above and below it in 2000? Didn't anyone notice that in the first place? No wonder so many of us are in a big black hole and still digging!
By the way, the expiration of our tax code has been a fact for a very long time. Our president knew this when he allowed the extension on the present code. Hello!
HEY! In all the excitement about getting a modest 4% from the 1%, did anyone else notice the hikes on the 99% ?!?! It goes from a mostly 5% increase to a huge 13% increase for people who are now in the 15% bracket! That would be me - retired - on a fixed income that keeps me in the middle of this bracket forever. In back-to-the-future 2012 I will be paying 28% (really not that far away from the top bracket) on each hard-earned dollar in my pension and in my retirement account. This will drain my accounts long before I die.
I don't mind paying my fair share, but I don't understand how my bracket will be getting soaked with a 13% hike when everyone else will be seeing a 4% to 5% hike. Even a 5% hike is way to high for the 99% that has already been paying the lion's share for decades and is now on it's knees.
Restructuring the tax code is the way to go. Just going back to 2000 is really unequal and unfair. Why was the 28% bracket so drastically different from the brackets above and below it in 2000? Didn't anyone notice that in the first place? No wonder so many of us are in a big black hole and still digging!
By the way, the expiration of our tax code has been a fact for a very long time. Our president knew this when he allowed the extension on the present code. Hello!
The message here is clear! The GOP is fighting for survival when confronted with the polls and the harsh reality. The people are tired of this pandering to the rich, they can't do it no more if they want to remain relevant in the political arena.
Grover is no patriot, he's an errand boy for billionaires and big corporations. I'm glad he wasn't so smart after all.
But come on, a pledge to a lobbying group coming before an oath to the People of the United States? The fact they allow that ridiculous pledge to Grover dictate their policy is an abomination.
The Rep-Bull-Krapi-Con$ were so busy trying to hurt the President & the economy they missed the obvious.
Good luck trying to get re-elected in 2012 as a Rep-Bull-Krapi-Con$ who voted 3 times against the lower Obama tax rates & in favor of the higher Clinton tax rates.
Hey! In all the excitement about getting a modest 4% increase in the top tax bracket and burying Grover, has anyone else noticed what will happen to the rest of us when we go back to the 2000 Clinton rates? Most everyone will have a 5% increase, which is a big jump for an already struggling, shrinking middle class.
The present 15% bracket will become 2000's 28% according to the chart Lawrence was praising last night. Wow! That's a whopping 13% increase that no other tax bracket will have to pay. I am right in the middle of this tax bracket, and being retired and on a fixed income, that's where I'm staying until the "new" tax rate sinks me to the bottom. My hard-earned pension and my retirement account are going to disappear fast with a 28% tax burden. I don't understand why this bracket was so out of whack in 2000 either. No wonder we are in a deep hole and still digging!
Back-to-the-future is going to look even more bleak than now. The top tax bracket gets away with a 4% increase, and the rest of us get anywhere from 5% to 13% increases. I think that old Grover and his evil band will get the last laugh when the Bush tax cuts expire. The Democrats will get blamed for raising taxes, and the Republicans will take over once again.
I am not against paying taxes. This is what keeps our country running strong. Simply going back to the 2000 rates is not going to solve the problem, though. In fact, it will only make the situation worse. What we need is a reformed tax code that treats everyone fairly. 99% of the people just aren't doing as well as they were in 2000, and cannot afford these increases. 1% and a few others just under that can certainly give back after years of great bounty.
By the way, haven't we all known about this expiration date for a long time? I think that President Obama extended them only because he knew that they would eventually expire. I'm not sure that anyone is thinking about how these "new" rates are going to further the demise of the middle class. Here is, and yet, another conversation we need to have.
I'm sorry for the same message going on the board several times. I'm new to this, and I kept getting a message that my message was spam, so I kept sending it! Bah!
I can not believe you were duped into believing that when you cut social security, medicare, and medicaid now that the republicans in 2012 will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. They expect to win the Senate the House and the White House. This means that we the people will have all the cuts and the one percent will keep there tax breaks. The Bush tax cuts should expire and new taxes added on to the one percent.
OMG!! I have been telling my husband for almost year now that Repubs. wouldn't be 'raising' taxes by allowing the taxes to go back to the previous rates, they would just be doing what they agreed to do when they implemented the tax cuts and that that could pass as 'not raising taxes'. I hope all of those that took this pledge take advantage of the 'loophole', though I really believe that most of them will still stay with the idea of protecting the wealthy.
While the Bush tax cuts are indeed set to expire the Super Committee Republicans are trying their damnedest to exchange permanence for the nebulous promise of finding the money in the revamping of the tax code and "modest" cuts in Social Security and Medicare. While this may sound good to a Tea Partier as a McConnell sound bite it means just about as much as the blather from House Republicans about job creation
Lawrence, you are so slanted that when you walk you lean to the left so far that your face rubs the ground. Save the rhetoric and report some news for a change!!
In case you missed it, Bush did not cut the 28% bracket to 15%, and it will not go back to 28% if the cuts expire. Bush did not cut the 15% bracket AT ALL. He gave most of the tax cuts to the well off, and gave the highest tax cuts to the filthy rich.
Once again, the actual correlation between the old and new tax brackets:
All numbers are for single filers, but the same concept applies for other filing types. Most of my analysis hinges on the top range of the 15% bracket, which is $34000 for single filers and married filing separately, $68000 for married filing jointly and $45550 for head of household. All relative proportions (namely, the rich get quadruple the tax break that the high end 15% bracket get) are accurate for all filers.
Bush inserted a teeny, teeny tiny tax bracket at the bottom so that everyone would falsely assume that 15% bracket was cut to 10%, the 28% bracket was cut to 15%, and so on. The 15% bracket received NO TAX CUT. Because of this the poor and middle class get the smallest average tax cut (single filers that earned $34,000 in 2010 got the worst effective tax cut at 1.2%) while the rich effectively get a full 4.6% cut (almost 4x higher). Everyone between $14k and $373k is mathematically capped at a 3% tax cut, and can be much lower as shown by my previous example.
If you are in the 15% bracket and defending the Bush tax cuts, you are fighting over about $400. If you earned $8,375, you got a $418.75 tax cut. If you earned $34,000, you still only got a $418.75 tax cut because your marginal rate did not change. Anyone in the top tax bracket gets a $1,564 tax cut for every extra $34,000 he earns. Do you think it's fair that you get a $418.75 tax cut for your $34,000 earned while millionaires get a $1564 tax cut for the same $34,000?
And keep in mind that you shouldn't have to worry about defending millionaires' tax cuts that are FOUR TIMES higher than yours just so that you can keep your $418.75. The President and the Democrats tried to renew the cuts for all but the highest tax bracket. That means that you get to keep your $418.75 and the millionaires don't get to keep quadruple that amount every time their income laps yours.
It doesn't matter what type of filer you are, if you're at the top end of the 15% bracket, the rich will always get almost four times the tax cut you got for the same amount of taxable income. If you are at triple that income ($102k for single filers, $204k for married filing jointly), the top bracket gets merely double the tax cut you get for the same money.
Does that sound fair to anyone?
On Sunday, 11/20/11, I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Grover Norquist. All I could think of was Joe McCarthy.
Since this seems to be the season for movements, I would like to propose a movement to require that every ballot for public office include "None of the above" as a choice.
As bad as I feel about the current jobs situation, I would like to see unemployment in the US increase by 535.
Grover Norquist must be marginalized and shrunk to the point that he can be drowned in a bathtub.
I hate to tell you the Penn State College boy. You know there is an amount of money amount of people who won't lie for him to keep him out of prison for God have mercy on the victims sit in their coming of courtroom with a big smile on his face telling everybody to take the shaft you be back to work in nine months when he's reborn again as a born-again Christian but that's still here $.50 says he never will see prison in his life
To the last word I only have one comment tonight I wished you people would start calling the Republican running for president right adding with a straight face: soccer a freaking liar liar liar liar liar with no you just keep putting them on all the time you talk about a bunch of people to get a backbone and that you I'm so sick and tired of not telling this man were to go sorry for the language they use the attitude that I had that you guys just will not call him a liar I don't understand