Young man, you are totally awesome! I look forward to the information. Going to IRS audit myself in a few days!

I'll see what I can dig out with corporate taxes and charts. Generally the MNCs have tax havens and use double dutch and other vehicles to pay 0, or close to it. I'll try to find the percentage of business and sizes who actually pay anything close to 35%.

Robert Oak:

Can today's vote of 95 Dems AYE but also 95 Dems NAY be accurately cited as evidence of blinders worn by "the left" (whatever 'the left' may mean!) and of a "delusional frenzy" or "Obamamania"?

No, of course, not. While it's practically a certainty that Obama will not have any effective opposition within the Democratic Party at the national-candidate level ... and while it appears unlikely that we will see any candidate better than Romney from the GOP, and that's a very likely 'fact' ... there's no need to grossly exaggerate ... especially when such exaggeration undermines your credibility and can only tend to discourage any independent tendency among congress critturs of either party.

Why not focus on congressional races and try this time for something better than faux 'Tea Party' opposition to the two-party system of corruption and treason? -- regardless of party affiliation! If we cannot put some third party representative in the U.S. House in 2012 -- JUST ONE SUCH REPRESENTATIVE -- what the hell are we as a people?

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I appreciate that EP called it right about Obama in 2008, but we will never know how a McCain administration might have turned out ... quite possibly war with Russia and nuclear Armageddon. Similarly, we have no idea if Hillary would have won in November, assuming she would have won, how a Clinton administration -- on the distaff side -- would have been any different than the Obama administration has been.

BTW: Yes, Romney's business record -- outsourcing and downsizing -- is scarey, but that need not be predictive of his presidency. True, we have nothing but experience to guide us, but that doesn't mean that our projections from experience are always correct or accurate. I harbor a hope that Romney is at least truly loyal to the Constitution ... and I have grave doubts about many other Republicans in that regard, not to mention many Democrats. (I doubt whether some of them have even read the document!)

Thank you.

"I would disagree tho that Obama is a closet Repub. That would mean he has some core beliefs that he adheres to."

'UponReview', I agree with the gist or intent of your comment, BUT to suppose that being a Republican in this day and age means having any core beliefs whatsoever ... ridiculous! What could we possibly gain by thinking that we would be making progress by replacing Tweedle Dee with Tweedle Dum? We would simply be proving ourselves dependent on having some delusional system, whatever it may be, as opposed to at least striving to be free in our thinking of any delusional system.

The Republican Party is run by the RNC, which is a money-making organization, neither more nor less. The RNC enforces party discipline through its control of the campaign fund purse and support of extreme right-wing mass media. If you want principle, don't look to the Republicans or to the so-called 'Tea Party' -- which, as an indepenedent party, ran exactly one candidate for Congress in 2010, and that single candidate lost with money opposing from the RNC and related campaign-funding organizations. The RNC is totally opposed and will do whatever it takes to prevent the emergence of a third party in the U.S.A. today. Another Ross Perot is their greatest fear -- the greatest threat to their greedy ambitions! That is the reason for the 'Tea Party' and for its being coopted from its original populist protectionist roots by moneyed interests indistinguishable from the RNC -- to prevent the emergence of a viable altenative to the two major parties. The so-called 'Tea Party' no sooner arrived in Congress in 2011 than they announced their support for one, and only one, aspect of Obama's agenda -- namely, any and all 'free' trade 'agreeements'.

The Democrats have no unity, no party discipline whatsoever, and that is their great -- as a party their only -- virtue. If you don't believe that, look at today's vote in the House. Of course, 66 'Tea Party' members of Congress were allowed to vote NAY on the budget deal, after determining that they had 95 Dempulbicans to offset their 'defection', which was as much posturing as was the entire negotiation process. Republicans voting for it numbered 174. This same kind of breakdown has occurred with all votes on fast-track 'free' trade. NAFTA, for example passed with far more votes from your 'highly pricipled' ("core beliefs") Republicans than from the Democrats! Proof is that nobody is mentioning that there were as many Democrats voting NAY as voted YEA -- 95 of each! Your chances of finding a principled member of Congress are much better with Democrats than with Republicans.

Whatever "core beliefs" Republican may once have had are now hollowed out, The core is mush, like any rotten apple. All persons who once were Republicans standing for some kind of principle have long since left the Party ... or did the Party leave them?

On the other hand, I can certainly see registering Republican for tactical reasons, depending on which state you are in, in order to support a particular candidate or candidates at various levels of government. I may do that myself. But it won't be thinking that the 'Republican' label stands for anything but $Do$ $Re$ $Me$.

Herein lies the problem. As far as I know, no one is challenging Obama in a Democratic primary.

Romney is a corporate raider. He's the guy who made money by acquisition, firing all of the people and selling off the rest of the company.

Think about it. The GOP field gets worse from there. We have corporate mouthpieces for more offshoring to China and then we have our bat shit crazies from the Tea party.

There literally is absolutely no one, not a single one, who has any economic knowledge, isn't corporate corrupt and frankly basic common sense.

What we need is someone like Byron Dorgan to run for President. He has a degree in economics and appeals to all political flavors simply because he's common sense politics.

But we do not have that. So, we're in HUGE trouble, even while Obama ushers in almost a guarantee he won't be re-elected. It's like 2010 backlash where people voted in these crazies because they were so absolutely pissed Wall Street was bailed out and Congress refused to do a real Stimulus, i.e. Buy American, hire America direct jobs. (instead no real bang for the buck spending).

So, we get another backlash and probably get another true loony or so corrupt person representing multinationals with this almost hatred of the U.S. workforce, middle class sort of Republican.

What a disaster.

But hey, we were here in 2008, reporting extensively on Obama's economic advisers, his votes, his real positions...we tried to tell people that Hillary was more Progressive than Obama, shock of all shocks and they were looking at economic disaster...

While we talk about the crazies of the Tea party, frankly, I think the left should look at their own blinders, building themselves up into delusional frenzy on "Obamamania", completely ignoring the facts, background, real positions.

He's not a Black dude, he's a Harvard dude, He's a Chicago school dude, need you say more?

Excellent post and comments.

I would disagree tho that Obama is a closet Repub. That would mean he has some core beliefs that he adheres to. Unfortunately it's clear he has always chosen to put his reelection and financial future ahead of the country's
best interests. An in-depth look at his background seems to time and again suggest he is an empty suit - that he chose politics as an opportunity vs a mission or calling. It would be imcomprehensible that he can have the
some of the worst of the bankers and wall st in his administration, that he would have the campaign contributions from those moneyed interests in the amounts that he has and will receive, and yet be determined to defend, much less advance, a progressive agenda.
At least with Bush we knew what he believed no matter how misguided.
Obama may in fact be more dangerous in that we have to look at his actions and ignore his words and protestations.

Just returned from the store, headline of today's Sac Bee indicates oh happy, happy day -- the deal is done! The Republic is saved! 

BTW:

"Obama just wishes we would go away quietly." 

Yes, Obama has this term -- "the professional left" -- he ought to know since that would be his category as a community organizer back in Chicago. Numerian, I hope you are drawing a handsome paycheck for your efforts! 

First, there are three "branches" of the government: legislative, executive and judiciary. Second, it's almost a stretch to say that the Democrats "control" the Senate, since under Senate rules it takes a super-majority to truly control.

I look at it this way: the Republicans have near-control both of the Congress and of the judiciary (unless you can see Bush v. Gore as 'non-partisan). However, the Democrats (Obama) control the White House.

There are Republicans in the Obama government, so even there partisan control is less than what might be thought -- if partisan 'control' ever mean anything in the U.S. system.

On the congressional side, Democrats control one of the two chambers of Congress at best, but the House has an edge here because only the House can originate a budget bill. That's important in this game of chicken that is being engaged in the name of the Tea Party.

As for that the Republicans need 50 Democrats willing to go along ... it will be amazing if Republicans can't get that ... given the history of congressional Democrats since about 1950 ... but it is possible.