Why don't people just ANSWER the Question?

"A Law is a Law. If you don't like the Laws do what is needed to change it, but don't criticize those that are Working Within the Laws."

By your account, that is basically what the people on O'Reilly's show are calling for. O'Reilly, for his part, has apparently brought them on the show to throw out red herrings, and like all the people he finds to argue with, they're foolishly chasing after them.

Seeing as how we're on the topic, though, I can't help but wonder if you really think there is a substantial difference between complaining about a presidential candidate who does undesirable but legal things, and your complaints about individuals who - despite not actually needing it (in cases) - are receiving welfare. Contrary to what you suggest, nobody actually condones welfare fraud, but there is debate over what exactly constitutes need, and in any case there are people who are receiving it legally even though we all agree that they don't need it.

...

In regards to O'Reilly's guests, yes, there are probably any number of things they could be doing that would be a better use of their time. All I can really say about that is that the number of people (of whatever political stripe) who spend their time on partisan talk shows are, I'm sure, far outnumbered by the number who are actually trying to do something.

As for welfare fraud, again, I don't really believe that there is anybody out there who is opposed to trying to prevent illegal activities or making changes to the system in order to do away with legal abuses. The problem is that we don't have debates over how to do that - instead we spend our time arguing in gross generalities, with one side complaining about how welfare recipients do nothing to better their situation or society (even though most arguably do), and the other side acting as though abuse is basically nonexistent and impossible to combat without throwing those in genuine need to the curb.

I'd agree that spending is probably, in dollar terms, the larger source of the deficit. That said, it's not all one side that's doing the spending. Liberals have their social programs, but we've seen military spending nearly double in the past decade, and both sides have supported bailouts. Meanwhile, we've seen a variety of poorly calibrated tax cuts which, again, have actually been pushed by both parties. In a sense we do see a system with both sides wanting it their way or no way at all, but what makes this particularly disturbing to me is that its reached a point where, if you take away the partisan labels, it's kind of hard to say which way is which. Both sides appear to be in a bitter fight for what are largely the same things, and nobody is winning.

You are absolutely right about the law and Romney not breaking it. Mr. O'Reilly didn't ask and should have asked, "Is the current law fair"? Change the law? Honestly, this matter has been brought up for decades, just like the flat tax, inheritance tax, etc... nothing ever is done about changing the laws properly. Before the ink is dry, loop wholes are already found.

Your question is very unfocused. A major issue right now is the tax rates for the richest Americans. Republicans defend tax cuts for the richest and low capital gains tax rates, even to the point of holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to maintain those low rates for the wealthiest.

The leading Republican candidate pays at a tax rate of 15%, which is less than many people pay. Surely, you see the connection here and can understand why people are paying special attention to this. Criminality is not the issue so trying to divert attention to that is a ploy.

With all due respect to Secular Humanist, that answer is such a piece of crap.

There is NO comparison between Romney and Hitler. Hitler was able to make the Final Solution legal in Germany, because he basically wrote the laws in a fascist dictatorship. Therefore, basically everything Hitler did was legal, save for crimes against humanity. Romney is completely different. He didn't write the tax laws that he is subject to. He merely works around them the best that he can, just like any of us.

Assuming that you paid income taxes last year, did you take any deductions? Did you write off any interest on your home mortgage? Medical bills? State taxes? If you didn't, then did you take the standard deduction? Well, if you did, isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize Romney for taking deductions that he was legally entitled to when you did the exact same thing? And while you might make less money than Romney, I'm sure there are people in America who make less than you. Why do you take your deductions when the extra tax revenue that you could have paid could have gone to help these poor people? Isn't it the same thing?

If your argument is "People shouldn't be allowed to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and the tax code needs to be overhauled.", then you and I are in complete agreement. But to extend that and say, "Romney is at fault for using the existing tax codes.", that is where you lose me.

o reilly is a cog of the zionist agenda of greed of wall street , corporations , and the bankers .

i , and millions of others , will vote for a president that salutes a flag with FIVE pointed stars , not your six .

I am sickened as well. I don't know what their big obsession with other peoples' income is. I don't really care how much money Romney makes, or how he makes it, it's not my business, if and until he is paid with MY tax dollars.

Because the people who scream "not fair" don't understand the tax system.

What make it worse - is that they are looking for tax loop holes themselves, because for THEM it's OK, but it's not OK for someone who earns more than they do.

I stick to much shorter questions.

Hitler legally entered into power and manipulated Germany into a dictatorship. Does that make it right?

the ones doing the bitching probably have never paid any income tax