Larry King is over matched by Trump and Romney.  No way he could buffet their exterior. 

On a slight digression, it occurs to me that Sarah Palins's vocal style reminds me of Romney. It is the fake and  phoniness of the delivery while delivering the Republican talking points.  So much reminiscent of a car salesman.  

Her voice sounds to me the way Hillary's was always described: Shrill, Sarcastic, Caustic, Nagging, Nails-on-chalkboard, etc... 

I'm not a huge fan of hearing Hillary speak, I just don't think she's an inspiring speaker, but I think that most of the criticism leveled aginst here were unfair at best, and more often ridiculous. 

Palin, on the other hands?  Sends chills down my spine, in a bad way.  Really gives me the heeby-jeebies.

Again, what those on the right are alleging is that the only tax that can be considered is the Bush tax cuts that will be ended under Obama.

But that's not the only tax proposal that's out there. He has also stated that he'll introduce other tax cuts for people making under $250,000.

And when those falsehoods aren't challenged, it furthers the conservative agenda by making Obama look less truthful than he deserves to look, and look less appealing to voters because the less informed voters will think that they will be paying more under Obama. In fact, they'll pay less under Obama than under McCain unless they are rich.

What do you want to bet that BHO doesn't pull a Clinton about the middle of his term. "I want to give you a tax break, but I've looked at the numbers and I just can't do it.  We (the government) need the $$$) (paraphrased)

Oscar,

I couldn't care less if he doesn't lower my taxes.  As long as he does what is good for the country, that will be enough for me and should be enough for any true American.

I'm ok with my tax rates where they are, but I just want everyone to remember this maybe another broken campaign promise from the one running on a platform of "change".

Oscar,

You mean like George H. W. Bush's famous pledge "Read my lips, no new taxes"?

Yep, just like that pledge and so many others that politicians have made to get elected and then "conveniently forget."

Just had to get that unfounded smear in on Obama, didn't you?

There's a difference between a broken campaign promise and changing circumstances, and on top of that, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He can, and is, running on a platform of change. The fact that because of changing economics, he might have to make adjustments to his plans doesn't, and shouldn't, tarnish his image with reasonable people! Thanks for clarifying for us that you'd condemn someone (and call it breaking a campaign promise) for making a reasonable change in their practices. Luckily for me, when circumstances change, people in my personal and professional life don't accuse me falsely of breaking a promise. We were supposed to do a clinic this weekend that got derailed by Hurricane Ike's impact. I had made that commitment to do the clinic. I had to back away from that commitment. No one will accuse me of breaking a promise, because they understand that plans change sometimes and that can cause promises to be unkept!

When he can see what is happening in the US today, coupled with the fact, the forecasts reveal that he will be spending about $3.8 trillion more than the forecasted income, not including many of the new programs being proposed, I think it is foolhardy for him to say his tax plan will be "revenue neutral".  I think the populus is getting tired of deficit spending and BHO will have to face reality and "renege" on a campaign promise and GHWB did.  That cost him in 1992 and could cost BHO in 2012.

That plans might change has nothing to do with the fact that you made an off topic and unfounded smear of Obama, and to top it off, you were deceitful in describing what it would mean if Obama chose to do that.

Did you buy the word "smear" at a discount today, like you did "dishonest punk" yesterday?  Watch your blood pressure.

It's 100% irrelevant to THIS discussion, Oscar. But nice attempt at a derailment of this point.

He may need to alter his plans, it's true. Democrats don't crucify their leadership when they look at evolving circumstances and change their minds. That condemnation comes from the Republicans, so I'm not even sure why you're trying to bring this up!

The issue is that only looking at Barack Obama's intention to end the Bush tax cuts, and not also considering the other proposals he's made about new tax cuts is misleading, and it forwards the conservative agenda.

Care to address that issue, and acknowledge the flaws of CNN's Roberts?

Sure Roberts could have grilled him, but again because Roberts and Romney will be among those hit by BHOs current proposal (subject to change with circumstances), neither one had any consideration for the "little" guy/gal.

What a dishonest post. There's no reason to bring up Roberts tax bracket in this discussion. It has nothing to do with Roberts's failure to challenge Romney.

Thanks for showing everyone that you couldn't even be honest and address the failure of Roberts. Thanks for showing that you support the furthering of the conservative agenda and even think it's justifiable.

I have an agenda that I would like to further, that of way to demand accountability of elected politicians who are more interested in continuing to get re-elected rather that acting in the best interests of the future generations of the country and getting spending under control.  If that is a conservative issue, then so be it, but I don't see those (with few exceptions) who call themselves conservative acting on that agenda as I would like to see them act. To buy the fact that BHOs plan will only add about 8% to the National Unfunded Liability instead of the 10% of JSM is very shortsighted on your part. 

That's great!  So Obama will raise taxes on the people who provide the jobs.  I've never gotten a job from a person in the middle to low income category.  Way to go on this one Obama. 

Someone has to pay for your wars and your bailouts.  I'm just glad its not going to be me.

Hey Thorn,

I don't know a single Millionaire that hasn't made their money on the backs of the working stiff.

Ted Kennedy, perhaps?

He didn't make his money off the backs of the working stiff?  How so? 

Also Oscar, I don't understand righties obsession with Ted.  It's not as bad as the obsession with the Clintons, but it is right up there.

Instead of a discussion about issues, you always throw out stupid things like that.

I'm not obsessed with Teddy, just the first name that came to mind (as a Trust Funder), substitute Paris Hilton if you want, or JSM or jfk that made their fortunes by marrying into them. Indirectly all their monies came from the labors of others if you will, but in the case of Teddy and Paris, they were lucky enough to have ancestors that knew how to work the tax code so that they were the receipents rather than the Federal Government (through the Estate Tax).

Their money came off the back of the working stiff. It matters not that they inherited that money.

So, you're wrong. His money comes from the sweat of a worker. So, give us a real example?

No, their money came from a tax code that allowed their ancestors to pass their money through escaping that sacred cow of the D, the Estate Tax. I think that was very selfish of the ancestors.

what an ignorant person you are.

Bush (and every Republican for that matter) ran for elections saying he will reduce spending and cut taxes. he only fulfilled 0.00005% of his promise. He did not reduce spending. He cut taxes only for a very few people and the economic result is in front of your eyes.

Is it your imagination that Obama said "will raise taxes on the people who provide the jobs"? You might have never gotten a 'job' from a middle income person but millions of Americans do.

Do you have a job? 

THEY GOT THE MEMO ONLY CHALLENGE OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE WHEN THEY SAY A FALSEHOOD ABOUT MCCAIN.