Why should 'big sports' get tax breaks that businesses and families across America don't get?

Some of the huge tax breaks that we gave to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population in this country during the Bush era have contributed significantly to the deficit.

Don't allow politically connected folks to get their particular tax breaks.

For the fifth year in a row, the Bush budget cuts city core services to pay for wealthy tax breaks. And once again, the mayor's requests were not funded.

As co-founder of the Senate Climate Solutions Caucus, I know we need to promote vehicles that reduce our carbon footprint, but it doesn't need to be in the form of tax breaks for the wealthy and their luxury vehicles.

Our best path to economic growth and global competitiveness is to invest in our people - not to provide huge new tax breaks to special interests.

Government is not being honest with taxpayers when it renews existing tax breaks and calls them new tax cuts.

The 'fiscal cliff' is a ruse, an invention by the right and the rich, to try and keep their huge tax breaks.

Well, the taxes that everyone else is paying are supporting lots of programs that were in place prior to Obama's new spending. So new spending has too be paid for by new taxes, or by eliminating existing tax breaks. And Obama wants that burden to be borne exclusively by the rich.

You have to take away some of tax breaks for the wealthy, and you have to cut back on some entitlements. Because, unless we do all of these things, it just doesn't work. And what's good theater and what's good politics isn't necessarily good economic policy.

I have fought so heavily against corporate tax breaks, especially because I've seen our schools in Detroit close down.

At a time when the United States is handing out tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, corporate jet owners, and millionaires and billionaires, it is ludicrous that we would even be looking at Social Security and Medicare as a solution to our debt crisis.

Many tax experts say a key element to any fundamental overhaul is getting rid of certain deductions for businesses - the 'special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks,' as House Republicans describe many of them in their own proposal.

Our government and its social policies, its tax breaks, the way school days work, so much of the country we live in is built for married couples with a male breadwinner and a female domestic laborer. Government needs to be massively altered in order to serve this population.

I remember how, back in the 1980s, the Scottish Flow Country became an object of bemused controversy as rich celebrities and businessmen from south of the border acquired great tracts of this vast wetland in the far north in order to plant non-native conifer plantations that attract hefty tax breaks.

I have no tax breaks or corporate interests to be supported by Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney has won the 2012 presidential nomination by promising Republicans that he would end a so-called 'culture of dependency' on welfare - welfare defined as 'free stuff' and food stamps for poor folks, not tax breaks for Big Oil or tax shelters for Bain executives.

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

Once again, the Republicans in the Senate have rejected an increase in the minimum wage. They support tax breaks for multi-millionaires, but they oppose helping the working poor to earn a decent income.

If giving tax breaks to millionaires created jobs or grew our economy, I would be in favor of them, but they are the same failed policies of the past that just don't work.