Our government needs to begin to learn to make a budget fit the revenue stream, not the other way around. Regardless of how you feel about the "tax cuts", the government approaches our budget backwards... They first figure out how much revenue they want to cover their expenditures, rather than making their expenditures fit the revenue stream.

These are not new tax cuts as some would have you believe. They are leaving the taxes at the current rates. That is $700 billion that has not been in the budget for the past several years. This is another example of the government's (and both sides are guilty) inability to cut waste in fear of alienating voting blocks (again, on both sides). But, if the tax cuts are extended, we are not removing any revenue from the budget, we simply are not using it as a way to raise more revenue to fit our bloated budget.

So, if I understand correctly QE II is being used to buy China out of it's treasury investment. This will give China control of nearly a trillion in liquid dollars outside the control of the Fed or the U.S. generally. The inflationary effect won't be containable by the Fed with respect to that trillion. Additionally the Yuan is supposed to float as part of the alleged deal.

Meanwhile in America, the sheeple remain content with, or blind to, their role as sheep to be slaughtered to feed the rich. The Obama Administration has managed to come up with a Deficit Commission whose members want to pay for the multi-trillion dollar wars that are enriching the military/security complex and the multi-trillion dollar bailouts of the financial system by reducing annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security, raising the retirement age to 69, ending the mortgage interest deduction, ending the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, imposing a 6.5% federal sales tax, while cutting the top tax rate for the rich.

If it was a tax cut perhaps I would believe you. Try calling it what it is a Democratic tax increase. By the party of spend!

It amazes me how the libs think not letting the tax cuts expire on the rich is adding to the debt! Geez, it is nothing more than a penalty for success to pay for the system suckers.

Crystal sure it is lol. why don't you do dome fact checking on american history and see where the tax rate was under Regan and Bush 1.

tax cuts for the rich is good. we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. the only fair thing to do is let the rich keep there money. they have a proven track record of success. we get richer and richer. GOP 2012 = flat tax = all is well for rich.

Post 1.3 1.4 and 1.6 Good points.

Here is a tax code that I could live with, the more hours you work, the lower your taxes! A guy who works 20 hours a week, kicks back, drinks it up, and needs food stamps to feed his family should pay 50% in taxes! The guy who works 40 hours a week, that has a balance of work and family should pay 20% in taxes. But the man who works 60 or more hours, who give up the most, should pay only 10%. Think about a person now who works 2 jobs and how they get taxes!! So the people that give up the most by working the most get screwed the most! All of those people who work the least; play ball, sit back or on a bar stool, complain about rich people, don't want to pay for healthcare, want a bigger government house, use food stamps, and wonder who they can hit up to buy their kids something to put under the tree!! How is the current tax rate fair? We punish the doers for the ones who do almost nothing! Bar darts vs. blisters! Yea some lazy liberal is going to come up with smart a$$ remark about spending quality time with the kids, my answers to that is quality time with the kids dose not mean that you got a beer in your hand!!

Tax cuts do NOT increase the debt - they decrease revenue. Accounting 101. When revenue decreases, expenses need to decrease also. Very simple.

ChiCity

That is $700 billion that has not been in the budget for the past several years.

There is a fundamental flaw in this $700 Billion revenue straw-dog. There is always the assumption that if you raise the tax rate, you will gather the additional $700 Billion. The raising of the tax rate takes money out of the economy at a time the economy desperately needs growth. Increasing taxes has historically shown to reduce tax revenue.

The tell me why the mystical $700 billion SHOULD be in the budget? It doesn't belong to the government!

Now ... having said that, the premise that is always missing by the Libs is "Could we not first refine the spending we do and then actually make inroads into reducing spending?". This element in the equation continues to be missed! Instead ... let's just tax someone else (some other guy that is ... and this usually translates into the "hated" rich guy who is often your employer!). Just cut spending and hold the tax rate. The economy will grow at a faster rate and revenues will increase. It always does.

I'd be more amenable to a tax hike if I saw there was a definite pattern of spending less. I don't see the latter so don't expect me to support the former.

I think we agree. My point was that the government has to learn to spend what they have, not create what they need. That $700 billion doesn't belong to the government, and it doesn't add to the deficit. Spending $700 billion you don't have, borrowing to cover it, does add to the deficit. So, start making tough choices, and eliminating spending.

For any Conservatives who honestly think letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich will hurt the economy:

were you asleep in the 1990's?

Remember when President Clinton raised the top tax rates in the early 90's, and all the Conservatives were screaming that raising taxes on the rich would hurt our economy and job growth?

Then what happened? in the mid-late 1990's we had fantastic economic, unemployment down below 4%, and job growth followed by a mild recession with the dot-com bust.

Then we got the Bush tax cuts, millionaires and billionaires paid way less in taxes, and what did our economy get this past decade?

We got slower growth, falling middle class incomes, a terrible recession, and the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.

Tax cuts for the rich do. not. help. create. jobs.

Ever wonder why, today, the gap between the very rich and everybody else is higher than ever before, and yet we also have horrible unemployment and a suffering middle class?

If you think it's morally wrong for millionaires and billionaires to pay the top marginal tax rates they paid in the 1990's, fine, that's you're opinion, you're a Republican sheep.

But it has absolutely been proven false by recent history that the Bush tax cuts for the rich help anybody except the rich. If tax cuts for the rich create jobs, where are all the jobs?

independent - i suggest you look at the IRS Income Bulletins for the years immediately following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and observe the rise in overall revenue. quite dramatic. now look at the same IRS publication for the years following the clinton tax increase---revenue from capital gains was near nil until W cut the rates, then those revenues soared. also observe the amount of taxes paid by the top 10% after the clinton increases - less than 45%. compare that the 56% of taxes paid by the top 10% under W, after his rate reductions.

lesson: people modify their economic and financial behavior based on tax rates. you won't find that in any accounting or econ text. you will find it in a graduate program called "School of running a business in the real world".

crystal, you need to get your facts straight before making a comment about something you know nothing about.

These are not new tax cuts as some would have you believe. They are leaving the taxes at the current rates. That is $700 billion that has not been in the budget for the past several years.

ChiCity,

you are either really confused or purposely keep throwing up the Fox propaganda. First of all, they are not OLD tax cuts. There is a reason why they are called BUSH tax cuts. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also known as the Bush tax cuts, went into effect in 2003 and were designed to be temporary. They are set to expire in 2010. They did not exist under Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or any other president. So yes, they are NEW.

This brings me to my second point. Why didn’t Bush make them permanent? According to you they do not have to be paid for. Have you or anyone asked Speaker-to-be John Boehner why they didn’t make the tax cuts permanent in the first place? They had from 2001 through 2006 when they controlled Congress and the White House to make them “permanent” and they didn’t even try. The truth is you can’t make tax cuts permanent. There’s a budgetary rule that prevents tax policies from extending beyond 10 years. Even if you could, Congress could simply make them ‘unpermanent’ whenever they needed.

To extend the tax cuts we have two choices. Since we are broke we either keep borrowing from China or take away from Social Security and Medicare. So take from the Chinese or take from old and/or sick.

I don’t know how you run your finances but I like to pay off one debt before I take on another. By extending the tax cuts we are increasing the government's debt; the tax cuts have already led to higher interest payments on that debt. So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come.

First off, the knee jerk "Fox propaganda" stuff... I have never watched FOX news in my life. Second, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what funded means. The government saying they need to allow the tax cuts to expire to pay for their spending is something totally different.

They have been in place for years, so they are not new. They may not have been around since the founding of the country, but they are not new tax cuts on top of where we currently are. A new tax cut would be a cut from our current rates. According to your logic, anything that happened after Reagan took office is new? Arbitrary much?

Not bringing in money is different than paying for something. The government needs to make their expenditures balance their revenue stream. That's how I run my finances (I own my house, cars, free and clear- so thanks but I'll continue to run my finances accordingly).

First of all, I would be fine with letting all the cuts expire, but not just some. I already pay more than my fair share. You say we have two options if we keep the cuts in place? How about the third option? Cut wasteful spending. Did you have a problem when Clinton's magicly balanced budget took from social security and medicare?

Lastly, I don't have any debt. But I agree, pay off one before taking on another. Not taking in tax revenue isn't the same as creating debt. It is spending, and the decision to spend more than what we have. It's not the tax cuts that have lead to higher interest, it is spending more than we take in that has led to higher interest. The government will spend every penny they take in, and then some. To continue to provide them more money does not eliminate the problem.

If I want to buy a boat, and I take a loan, I am taking on debt. Your logic would indicate that buying a boat is not something I have a choice in. I do. If I don't want that debt, I don't buy the boat. See the difference?

So what is it that is to be cut? The only thing I've heard so far is "earmarks" Where is the rest coming from?

If these tax cuts created jobs, wouldn't there be more jobs by now? How long does it take before this little experiment actually starts to work? From what I've seen, the richest have accumulated more wealth than ever, while everyone else struggles. Let everyone pay their share, there are homeless and hungry that could use the help. To whine about taxes like a spoiled baby is unpatriotic.

I realize this is on the repeal of the tax cuts of President Bush but people want a balanced budget without raising taxes. So lets talk about the spending cuts that need to happen to get us back to the black and paying down the debt. I think it is somewhere near 1.3 Trillion dollars that need to be cut. Lets see the math begin. And just for the record I am not being contrary, I think this is a valid conversation to have. Earmarks and unemployment don't get you to the $1.3 Trillion mark. Let's start talking about what has to be removed from the budget to make not raising taxes make sense.

good point quite, and even if we did let the tax cuts expire, we still will have to make cuts somewhere. I hope there is someone who can legislate this time around. Otherwise, we have 2 more years to wait.

I am for letting all the tax cuts expire.

Ghostmaker,,, "If it was a tax cut perhaps I would believe you. Try calling it what it is a Democratic tax increase. By the party of spend! "

I think you need to get your facts straight but you Republicorp Teabaggers have no idea the meaning of honesty. It is not a Dem increase, it's allowing the Bush tax cuts run out, as per you lying past dictator. I wish you Republicorp Teabaggers would grow a pair and take responsibility for the mess you've created but I'm expecting to much from low life's like you. I also wish Obama would grow a pair and stand up against the likes of you and your Teabagger crazies.

Just because a person makes $200K one time does not make them rich.

I am a small business owner, some years I make zero, sometimes I make more than $200K. My car is 12 years old, my house needs repair.

Making $200K every once in a great while does not make me rich. Not when I have still pay employees in the years I make little or nothing.

Letting me keep more money DOES allow me to hire more people because it means I get to keep more of the company's earnings for down years.

Personally, I am not a Republican or a Democrat, because like most small business owners I cant stand either party. They all lie.

"The government needs to make their expenditures balance their revenue stream. That's how I run my finances (I own my house, cars, free and clear- so thanks but I'll continue to run my finances accordingly)."

62% of the 2009 Federal budget paid for Defense (23%), Social Security (20%) and Medicare (19%). Where would you like the cuts to be made so they can balance there expenditures with their revenue stream?

I think the limit on wages subject to SS should be raised from $106k to $1M. It might help with the SS problem.

As a right leaning centrist, it may not be popular among some of my constituents, but start with defense. Department of Education does very little to advance education. The list goes on and on.

ChiCity,

The government's way to raise revenue are taxes. By decreasing the revenue we increase the debt (no money left in the piggy bank). The statement "pay for" simply means that the money not collected from the taxpayers (tax cuts) have to be included in the budget. You simply pay for them by taking that amount from somewhere else. Like I said we are broke so we continue to borrow money with interest. And the Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Talking about the government spending is completely different topic. You seem to combine the two and assume that that is what I am talking about.

Also you seem to think that I care about your debt or buying a boat. It was a hypothetical statement. I don’t care if you have ten boats. All I am saying that the very people that are screaming fiscal responsibility are the people who have no answer on how to pay this debt in the first place. All they want is to create more debt. The same people screaming about the size of the government never own up to the fact that they simply shift the size to the military.

We have 2 wars going on that we cannot afford. We are willing to continue to support breaks for the top 2% but yet we do not care what happens to the 10% that do not have a job. The Republicans feel that Unemployment Insurance is welfare when money is paid each quarter for THAT INSURANCE!

The most significant legislation affecting Medicare that has been enacted in recent years was the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which President Clinton signed into law on August 5 of that year. The legislation's primary goal was to balance the federal budget. It included language trimming growth in Medicare spending by $116.4 billion over five years, most of which was due to reductions in payments to health care providers (hospitals and doctors). The legislation also increased Medicare Part B premiums, established new Medicare + Choice managed care plans, and created a bipartisan commission to study Medicare's long-term finances and report back to Congress.

Following this impasse, and facing increased political pressure from health care providers, Congress began to reverse some of the spending cuts in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. In late 1999, Congress enacted legislation restoring $35 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding to hospitals, nursing homes and health plans over five years. In 2000 Congress restored another $16 billion in Medicare funding to various providers. I will add that both House and Senate had the Republican majority.

Clinton released his own set of recommendation on June 29, 1999. The central feature in Clinton's plan was a transfer of $794 billion in surplus general tax revenues to the Medicare program from 2000 through 2014, extending the program's insolvency date. Clinton's plan would have also created a new prescription drug benefit and eliminated co-payments and deductibles for preventive care.

I will also add this. There is a difference between spending cuts to balance a budget and pay off the deficit AND trying to find money to pay for the tax cuts for the TOP 2%.

If we are going to borrow 2.3 trillion for everyone else why not 700 billion to make it fair. Instead, the administration should be concentrating on a real budget that lives within the means provided by the current tax payments. Renewing the cuts is not giving anyone any new considerations, or creating new deficits. Over spending does create new deficits and forces us to raise the national debt. If the president presented a lean and mean budget without any excess fat, and we were still in a deficit situation, then he could make a case for letting the cuts expire to fill the gap and pay down the debt. This sadly has not and will not happen under this administration as it is currently being run. The emphasis is on spending not responsibility. Obama and democrats are truly living up to the name spend and tax! Congress has yet to consider a budget for next year, this should tell you where the Democrats heart really lies.

Can we afford 2.3 TRILLION to extend the tax cuts for the Middle Class??!!

Why is it that the 700 Billion for the top 2% of these Tax Cuts extensions is so much less of an impact than the 2.3 TRILLION for the middle class ? Only in Liberal Democratic class-warfare land I guess... Hell if this was the true concern for you guys, we should extend the cuts for the wealthy and NOT extend them for the middle class! Your argument is ridiculous.

The answer is of course that Government SPENDING is the problem. Every dollar you give the beast, is another dollar down the rathole. No increases in Taxes until they address Spending in a systematic way that stands some chance of not being ignored the next time there is no crisis staring at us.

So many on Newsvine act like all rich people got that way thru their own ingenuity. Some did, but many got it the old fashion way, they inherited the money.

Right now there is no estate tax and they can't take it with them. The heirs feel entitled to something they did not earn.

SS need to come out of the federal budget. It was set up as a trust and was solvent until it was hijacked to pay for other things. Let the government pay it back over time. Cut the defense budget. close the bases and sent our soldiers to the borders.

It is time for Obama to make clear that any bill with breaks for Millionaire republicans will be veto'd...Period..No wrangling-- no wiping the republican rubbish backsides!

Make them vote against the breaks for the MiddleClass---call them out --1.866.311.3405!

archangel 3:16

So according to you what is another 700 billion? I don't understand why you people have such an issue of understanding how tax cuts work. We still have a budget -yes that does have to be taken care of - but until we are financially HEALTHY we shouldn't be buying a Cadillac. The credit is shot; the piggy bank is empty;

Tax cuts are like pay cuts. You cannot afford a $2000 a month mortgage when you make $1000 a month. You will either have to sell the house or BORROW money.

Baylie,

Why don't you try $70 billion per year, instead of that $700 billion, we probably already borrow more than that anyways.

The left wing scare tactic. Never put the 10 years in there. Besides, if taxes go up, it won't be $70 billion a year, it will be less, because the rich will hide their money.

So why not extend taxes to everyone then? The rest of the tax cuts cost 800 Billion. That would be a combined 1.5 trillion dollars in more revenue. Would we then have a balanced budget? If you look on the following link:http://www.cbo.gov/ you will find the following which I have cut and pasted for review

Monthly Budget Review

3

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $125 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2009.

So we would have met our budget and have some left over if we did not increase our spending. Which means pay freezes for everyone and no increase in any departments budget. Which I think we should do. But if we do allow the bush tax cuts to expire and raise everyones taxes it will slow down the economy because people in gerneral will have less to spend including the middle class. Which in turn will decrease revenue. So by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire we will probably get a little less revenue than expected. It's only logical. That is why the Presidont own Bi-partisan commission came out an said to lower all tax rates including the top tax rate to 23%. Of course they also said to get rid of all tax deductions including the mortgage deduction and rich people's loop holes. But if you have a lower tax rate with no deductions the middle class will actually be able to keep more of their money while the rich will pay more since they no longer can deduct down to pay litle or now taxes which everyone know they do.

Now I am a Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian with a liberal view on a couple of things. So I am against our deficit spending and national debt. I hate the fact that China owns us a little bit. So I would agree with allowing the tax cuts to expire only if we actuall start paying down our debt. Which in reallity, when it comes to congress won't happen. But I believe the following must occur as well so we can quickly pay down our national debt: ( I found a power point on the Huffington post supposedly from the debt commission but it looks like what I heard about so I will use that. I will also just use the over all numbers and not break it down on the slides, you can see for yourself.)

Althought this starts gradually I say do it for the next years budget which would start in 2012 (Its too late for 2011 unless we ask for money back in the lame duck congress if they can get it done which I doubt or if the new congress gets it done fast which will mean very little will get cut in so short a time) I believe they spread this out over a few years but lets do it in one fell swoop in 2012 budget.

$100 Billion in military cuts. Lets also cut a bit more in the years after 2012.

$100 billion in domestic cuts.

The Presidents commission suggested to raise the current gas tax from 18 cents a gallon by 15 cents a gallon beginning in 2013 for a total of 33 cents a gallon. I'll go with that but take it a step further. Start in 2012 and increase it 5 cents a year with the last year being 2 cents for a total of 40 cents a gallon. We need to fix our infrastructure so we really need to icrease this tax to pay for it.

Social Security. The Sacred Cow of Sacred cows. Please lets get real. We need to change this or no one under 55 will receive it because we will be bankrupt. They talked about raising the age one month every two years until 2075 to age 69. I think that is too slow and won't do enough. I say those that are currently 55 or less should get Social Security at 70. The average life span in the US is now 84. When Social Security was created the average life span was 64. So we need to get real about this and raise the age. By raising it we would also get more SS taxes in to help pay for it. So I propose that in 2022 the age be raised to 70.

On a final note. Don't blast me and call me an idiot if you don't agree. Lets have an honest discussion. I believe I used options from both sides which included raising taxes which I am against personally (I am not making a lot of money so raising any income taxes won't effect me one bit). I am also a veteran so don't call me anti-military becasue I am not. But we have to make cuts everywhere in order to get out of this mess. My parents also came from South America so don't call me some white racist just because I believe in the Tea Parties principles of lower taxes/less government. Also I read on this post that the middle class tax Bush tax cut costs us 2.3 trillion not 800 Billion. If that is the case then we will be able to pay down our debt even faster. But then again I'm not 100% on what it is worth so I will just use the 800 billion to be conservative.

Evelyn,

Your complaints have been noted, Estate taxes--per IRS website.

After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit. Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans.

So even if they inherit it, they pay taxes on it.

At some point the people here will start to avoid partisan spewed politics and get on track towards fixing the problem. The issue is taxing the weathiest 2%. It is how much to increase the tax burden on business, which will reduce hiring.

If it weren't then the Dems in Congress would be calling for an increase on the Take home pay of the upper 2%. But they aren't. By not qualifying it, they are advocating the money left in business for investment and hiring. If you tax it, it will put restrain the recovery in some fashion.

Mike, no one disagrees that we have to cut the spending to fix this but... give me some examples of how the Tea Party is going to fix this problem. I haven't heard any yet.

Anyone can walk around saying: cut the spending, cut the spending....actually having any ideas of how to do it is a different story. I would love to not pay any taxes but we live in times where we spend 10 billion dollars a month on a war that should have not happened in the first place. The Reps and TP are all about small government. That is great. But if you look at the history of the Republican Party decisions, the big government is simply replaced with the big military. So you take public jobs away from people (even the lazy federal workers - sorry just citing an article) and giving the money "saved" to military contractors (some of them non-bid contracts if you happen to be closely associated with a vice-president) instead.

I wish the Republicans would get off their high horse and stop preaching about spending. The spending under Bush INCREASED not decreased. He did all that spending when he had his party’s support in both House and Senate.

The United States, the world's biggest debtor, and China, the world's biggest creditor, each passed major statistical milestones this month. In the second quarter, the Commerce Department announced this month, the United States paid more to its foreign creditors than it took in from its overseas investments -- the first time that's happened in 91 years.

I have a bone to pick with most of you Mother-Fers in here. First, I'm tired of hearing you f**king people talk about the tax cuts are only for the rich. If it were ONLY for the RICH then WHY is Obama talking about letting the tax cut expire EXCEPT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS!!?? So obviously the tax cuts ARE NOT JUST FOR THE RICH. In almost the same breath you'll hear him call them tax cuts for the rich and they'll be extended only for the middle class. MAKE UP YOUR F**KING MIND.

Second. There IS another name for MOST of the rich, they're call EMPLOYERS. Like it or not that's the truth. People who sit on their a$$es all day will not be rich no matter how much wealth distributing you do. I wouldn't want to live in a world where those who do nothing and expect everything get the same as those who make the world go round. I pitty the people who think that way, you'll become nothing as well.

Lastly, I PAY ENOUGH F**KING TAXES. They don't need to collect anymore from us all. THEY NEED TO LEARN HOW TO SPEND IT. I figured out one day that nearly 70% of my income is taxed one way shape or form. Look at just some of the taxes most of us will pay.

Federal and State Income taxes, medicare, Social Security, (SIN Taxes such as wine, beer and cigarettes.

Registrations and licences for animals like your dog, Driver licence renews, tag registration renewals, sales tax on your vehicles, your food and everything else you buy.

Recreational taxes for hunting, fishing and recreational vehicles and the trailors you pull them on. And don't forget about taxes on the gas that you buy. Some states are over 50 cents per gallon.

Taxes on your internet, land lines, cell phone service, cable and satellite providers.

Property taxes. Taxes on the roads you drive and bridges you cross in the way of tolls and the utilities you use such as electric, water, sewage. Marriage tax, capital gains taxes if you were lucky enough to make a profit on things you sell.

Let's not forget the government fees (taxes) that are imposed on insurance companies that are just passed down to the consumers. Think about all the different types of insurances you have. And these are just some of the ones that I know I've paid. There are tons more taxes out there that people have to pay. Like the DEATH TAX. WE ALL PAY TO MANY TAXES and i'm F**KING TIRED OF IT!!!

Baylillie, cutting taxes doesn't increase debt. Spending more than you take in increases debt.

But what does No No No Nancy say? She will make Obama stay left.

bayllie

Should we borrow $700 BILLION from the Chinese for tax cuts for 2% of the population?
That's what it would cost to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich. And if we do borrow this money, can we afford the interest that will be accumulating on this loan?

Wrong, that would be $700 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS which would be less per year then what is spent annually on earmarks. Get a clue and stop spewing Democrap as it makes you speak "stupidly".

ChiCity yes absolutely but so does borrowing money from China.

The money spent by the federal government comes from two main sources: revenues (mainly taxes) and borrowing (mostly Treasury debt sold to the public.) The folks down at the Treasury are in charge of figuring out how much Congress and the White House overspend, and every three months they auction off enough in notes and bonds — essentially IOUs — to make up the difference. Billions of dollars worth of this paper is sold to the highest bidder.

Anyone can bid: you, me or the Chinese government. Lately, Beijing has been a big buyer of our debt paper — largely because China has lots of extra dollars we sent over there to buy cheap goods. Those dollars have to get recycled and, like most other investors, foreign governments like U.S. Treasury debt because it’s a safe pace to stash dollars. (If we borrow too much, and the dollar gets too weak, that could change.)

Bayllie,

If you responded to my post which I believe you did I gave you specific examples. Was that not enough? It also included tax increases to pay down our debt. It had ideas from both sides or three sides if you include the Tea Party (which hash members who are registered Democrats and Independents.

Baylillie, I understand economics, I have a degree in it. You continue to operate under the assumption that we need to spend as much as Obama's administration tells us we do.

"The American people did not vote for gridlock," Obama said following the session. "They did not vote for unyielding partisanship. They're demanding cooperation and they're demanding progress and they'll hold all of us, and I mean all of us, accountable"

Ironic that he didn’t seem to care about being accountable before...I do recall the "unyielding partisanship" he demonstrated though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxku5CJoh3U

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

As I said before, no person, no party has a monopoly on wisdom. And that's why I'm eager to hear good ideas wherever they come from, whoever proposes them. And that's why I believe it's important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face.” (Nov. 3)

So the real question is...which time was he lying?

Nancy Pelosi said...I believe that we established a great foundation ... Now, it remains to the Republicans and Democrats to work together to build on that, and go forward ...

What was it that Pelosi just said last week? Hmmm oh yeah…here it is…

http://politics.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/24/5522387-pelosis-new-mission-block-obama-deals-with-gop

So which time was SHE lying?

I say stop the arguing and let them all expire, I'm ready to pay my share and live with the tax rates of the 90's. If my wife and I happen to get over $250K a year, so be it, we're doing well and are able to live life happily. If the cut off is 1 million, it doesn't concern us or many people on this board.

It's not a tax hike, it's stopping the bonus everyone has been getting for the past 10 years, PERIOD.

I do have an opinion on where the "tax cuts" for the wealthy go, and it's not to jobs. It goes into investments and the stock market, and if any of those happen to be overseas, tell me how that help our economy?

I'd say, if you give a poor guy a break, that money will stay in the country. Give the middle class a little extra cash, he'll possibly buy something to help boost production, but not always necessarily in the US. Give the super rich some extra cash, I'm pretty sure it will go where it will make more money for them, not jobs.

This is money we can't afford as a country to give anyone, think about it. If I were about to lose my job, house, and all possessions to the bank, do you think I can afford to throw a party for my family and friends? Yeah, I know, some will answer that I can put it on my credit card. Oh yeah, that's the American way, huh?

Let's all be patriotic, let the cuts expire, and put pressure on our gov't., both parties, to stop wasting our money. Then, after we're in the clear, talk breaks for anyone else.

FedupwithFed - They all lie, both parties.

Both are guilty of constantly campaigning for their next election without getting a damn thing done.

Both parties will stick it to each other till they are blue in the face. Who wins? Not "We the People".

We could spend all day quoting lies and contradictions from both sides, where will that get us? If we use that energy to make our politicians accountable, maybe we'll get somewhere.

The problem is, we keep voting for the same crroks in both parties in the name of partisanship.

You can't tell me that's not true, can you?

28 years in congress give me a break, this is why nothing is done to help the American as a people , its that dam good ol boy mindset, on both sides lets set term limits of say 8 years and the house speaker says no he wasn't drinking a Slurpee but rather a Merlot come the hell on these clowns are drinking expensive ass wine while making decisions for us , is this not like your kids teacher drinking wine while on the job? would you stand for that chit? hell no , so why would we stand for our lawmakers getting tipsy while deciding OUR fate? i say throw em all out if they have been there more than 8 years and have a special election and bedone with all this bipartisan bull chit , is it not time we as a people send a message to Washington ?? as we watch all the commie country's around the world turn more into how we used to be in the 60s and 70s we are also watching the USA turn more into how they used to be , am i the only one that sees this??

Just remember, our government has proven it's ability to spend, never save. If there was a surplus, it was due to an increase in revenue, not a decrease in spending. The spending would adjust accordingly. So, you want to give our government more money so they can spend more, so be it. But don't expect any tax increase to solve our deficit problems. It will take much more then simply that.

So sick of people callink it "death tax" that is the republican way of making it sound like if you die, you will pay taxes, which isn't true. y ou have to leave an estate of about 3M to pay ESTATE taxes...grrr~!

I don't care how, it is done.

We all know by now, that any bill supported by the Democratic Parasitical Party, will steal money from the people that earned it and give it to the handouters.

Gridlock,is just fine with me, if we have gridlock, then, Obama isn't spending money.

Any conservative that goes with Obama on anything, will be seeking employment after 2012.

Mark et. al. Libbies

I wish that all of you that are pi$$ing and moaning about the 2% who have accumulated some degree of wealth would expend the same energy kicking the butts of their elected officials that continue to SPEND like drunken sailors. The American dream is the possibility that I MIGHT get to be one of those 2%. I say hats off to them. They are the creators. I don't know where all this volunteering for taxing comes from! If you think you should pay more ... tell you what WRITE A CHECK to the Treasury! But quit this class warfare crap. Your ultimately cutting your own left leaning throat!

CUT Spending!!!! Create some fiscal discipline in the expenditure side. That single effort will go a very long way to fixing the economy. Stop this redistribution crap!

Bush should not have allowed these tax cuts to begin with. Especially when he did drugs for seniors, ruined the balanced budget Clinton had in place, and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let the tax cuts expire. Everyone share in the pain. If those on the right who so passionately want to cut the deficit and think they are the true conservative spenders then they should support not extending the cuts.

Great idea Wolffchad. I would gladly give up the "Bush tax breaks" just to keep the wealthy from raking in more cash. Someone said, the rich have earned their wealth. I do believe that and I would like to see the statistics of inherited money and those who have gotten wealthy through investments. Also, insider trading should be factored into the wealthy gravy train.

Just think of those CEOs and athletes who get millions, for what? Along with movie stars and politicians. Years ago, I read a proposal that the highest paid person in a company should make ten times the amount as the lowest paid worker. It sounds reasonable and fair. No one would go for an idea like that because, a custodian would wind up making a million bucks a year!

Bay,

Sad to see the class warfare crowd has you duped. No matter what tax revenue is collected-or is not for that matter-only spending has to be paid for.

Obama is an idiot if he thinks the Republicans are going to do anything to help the middleclass of America.

End all the tax cuts period for everyone, can't afford them anymore especially for the rich..

Astonished-655682

Perhaps you didn't read the last line in my post. (I've reposted it below for your convinience) We agree that the gov't pisses our money away. But I think these original tax cuts in 2001 were a sort of welfare for everybody, a bonus. We are in debt, spending more won't solve the problem.

Personally, I do OK, and don't like paying taxes that get wasted. We all need to get a handle on this spending, and need to stop holding out our hands for, well, handouts.

By the way, I'm neither liberal nor conservative, but do believe both sides have lost heir way in running this country, and both sides are running it into the ground.

Let's all be patriotic, let the cuts expire, and put pressure on our gov't., both parties, to stop wasting our money. Then, after we're in the clear, talk breaks for anyone else.

Mark,

Then I'll stand corrected in principle and apologize. The one thing that really lights me up is when I see a statement like:

I'm ready to pay my share and live with the tax rates of the 90's

I see now where you were going but the offer to pay more 'share' is the wrong place to start. The starting point needs to be just like you and I would do in our household ... "Where can I be more responsible and frugal?".

This is NOT what Washington does ... what they do is pit us against each other (rich vs poor, black vs white, and conservative vs liberal) ... and then they pander ... and spend.

Washington needs to become more disciplined in it's spending ... and to me that means get smaller. Washington DC is one place where unemployment actually helps with job creation.

... and then, and only then would I consider the concept of raising taxes to anyone. It's kind of like throwing good money after bad ...

To all of you that seem not to be able to understand what I am writing. Read the whole thing but I am going to simply this for you.

1) I 100% AGREE THAT THE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!!!!!! Democrats are guilty of the big government but Republicans EQUALLY guilty in the spending. They just shift it to the BIG military. Bush's spending INCREASED during presidency. So my point is that the hypocrites Republicans scream from the mountain tops at the Democrats for spending but they SPEND themselves. One example - War in Iraq is costing us so far $744, 482, 895, 856 (Since I finished writing this number it increased by ($100,000 in less than a minute). So, please Republicans, admit that you are just as bad with the money as the Democrats. The difference between the 2 is that at least with the Dem people have government jobs that pay for their families. With Repub you have a big military that feed nice billion dollar contracts to the selected few.

2) Tax breaks have added to the deficit, are adding to the deficit and will continue to add to the deficit even if we let the breaks expire. We are borrowing money to cover what is not coming in the revenue.

3) Corporations not only get tax breaks, they get tax shelters. The move their addresses to countries that have no tax laws. Exxon Mobile (yes I know they overpaid the year before so they had credit – that’s what they claim but they REFUSE to talk publicly about any numbers) and GE are prime examples of corporations who make billions in profit and pay nothing in taxes.

4) This country is the only country that allows LIFO way of accounting (no other countries allow this). Companies have tended to use LIFO, which reduces their income taxes.

5) Companies are outsourcing to other companies thus giving them yet another tax break – a huge one.

6) Companies disregarding public safety to increase profits. BP, Halliburton,

7) VP making sweet deal behind closed doors with his buddies (Halliburton loophole, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc)

8) And finally corporate greet that brought this nation to its knees. Toxic mortgages packaged nicely with a pretty red bow and sold to the next sucker. Enron. Tyco International, Qwest, Global Crossing, Dynegy, El Paso Corp., CMS Energy, Williams, and Halliburton (here I mention Dick’s company again). The list goes on.

My point is this stop spending and stop treating these companies like they are the God’s gift to the world. These are evil greedy people that have no problem taking advantage in the system and they don’t care who gets hurt in the mean time. There are good companies out there that cannot do business because they are taken over by these bullies. Until these companies start being ethical companies (oxymoron I know) THEY DO NOT DESERVE ANY BREAKS.

The corporate world is no longer leaking through its loopholes. It’s giving in like the levees during Katrina.

bayllie

Should we borrow $700 BILLION from the Chinese for tax cuts for 2% of the population?
That's what it would cost to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich. And if we do borrow this money, can we afford the interest that will be accumulating on this loan?

_____________________________________________

So I assume you believe the spendocrats (democrats) will freeze their spending? You know as well as I do, once more money starts coming in, the spendocrats will simply justify more worthless programs. Why not quit feeding the beast and start cutting waste, as Obama said he would do, but has yet to practice what he preaches. Besides, where is the billions in fraud that Obama said he would clean up in the medical system?

Burn,

I will direct you to point one of my post that is directly above yours. I cannot help that you people cannot read and understand what your read.

You keep referring to your same posts, as if that makes them any more coherent the second time around.

ChiCity, Burn wrote:

So I assume you believe the spendocrats (democrats) will freeze their spending? You know as well as I do, once more money starts coming in, the spendocrats will simply justify more worthless programs

I wrote:

1) I 100% AGREE THAT THE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!!!!!!

Very hard to unerstand.

It is hard to "unerstand"

I dont understand how leberals keep saying that not raising taxes on the wealthy will cost $700 billionWell with that line of thinking,how much will it cost to not raise taxes on the middlwe class??Why does nobody ever ask that question???

ChiCity,

Before you pick on me for skipping a "d" out of "understand," check your grammar. Two complete sentences should not be separated by a comma. So, before you throw stones, make sure you are perfect as well.

Apparently, the only rebuttal you could come up with is pointing out a typo. I applaud you for the contribution to the debate.

I am a fiscal conservative and I say bravo to your suggestion - let all tax levels revert to the 2001 levels for all Americans and we will increase revenues over the next ten years by $4 Trillion which will ease the deficit and the debt. We should also not really abide by PAYGO (pay as you go) and not extend the UEI benefits (already at a an absurd 99 weeks) unless they are clearly paid - no borrowing. We should also improve on the UEI benefits program and the welfare program to insure that they are hands up and not life styles by putting limits on the number of weeks/months that a person may receive the benefits. We should eliminate all tax deductions and have citizens pay the appropriate tax for their income levels (this includes eliminating the child tax credits, the mortgage interest credit, charitable donations, etc.

Let's level the plaing field for all

Amen to that. Then let's write a budget that fits the revenue stream, not adjust the revenue stream to fit the budget.

I'll agree if we get rid of all childcare tax credits and refund checks to those who pay no taxes.

And stop all foreign aid other than food and medical aid. No weapons for the Israels etc.

I totally aggree. All or nothing and the reality of the matter is that the country needs nothing. The Government like the US people need to learn to live within their budgets and this tax bill is just a smoke screen for the real problem in the US. Over spending.

all of you are right . these are great suggestion for the rich. the poor wiil still spend all they can get there hands on and the rich will add assets. GOP 2012 + flat tax = all is well.

ChiCity

Amen to that. Then let's write a budget that fits the revenue stream, not adjust the revenue stream to fit the budget.

You keep harping this idea as if it is some complex or novel idea. Saying the revenue stream should dictate the expenditures is no more valid then saying the expenditures should dictate the revenue stream.

Not everyone is a tight ass in this country like you who wants to drive on public roads, use public services and be protected by the military all while only paying 5 bucks a year in taxes. Some people dont mind paying their share.

Mike-416,

Exactly what is someones fair share? Is someone's fair share, in your eyes, wher you get to coast and someone carries your fat a$$ on their back?

I've already started preparing my taxes for 2010 under two scenarios. The first is that I will have to pay (under the current system), and the second is that I will have to pay even more (if the tax cuts are allowed to expire).

I'm not rich (I make a little over 157K, but I have worked hard all of my life since I was 13), but because of the fact that I am a widower, my late wife and I were responsible, my house is paid for, we invested so that we wouldn't have to rely solely on Social Security and medicare, and my kids did not "Fail to Launch," I am being penalized to the tune of 35% (soon to be 39.5%) in federal income tax alone, by the time you add in the AMT. When you add another 6% for Social Security, 1 1/2% for Medicare / Medicaid, 7% for the State (and another penalty from the State for making too much) 2.5% for the City Payroll Tax, I'm up to 52% of what I make JUST IN PAYROLL TAXES ALONE even without the 2001 cuts expiring. Add to it the Property Taxes, Vehicle Taxes, License Fees, school zone and hospital taxes, I really am starting to wonder why I continue to work other than I like doing it.

Right now, the government takes home more of my paycheck than I do so that 47% of the country (like yourself and the other whiny assed liberals) can use their deductions to pay nothing. Please tell me why I shouldn't be hot about that. I'm almost 61 years old and I'm getting a little tired of carrying your fat a$$ on my back. One of these days, I'm going to decide that I'm tired of carrying you and I'll just retire. Then you will get to carry me. Let me know how you will like how that feels.

Saying the revenue stream should dictate the expenditures is no more valid then saying the expenditures should dictate the revenue stream.

I guess someone has always balanced you checkbook and, when you over spent they put money in the account for you. I've never bounce a check in the almost 45 years I have had a checking account. But it wouldn't have been that way if I had not made the Revenue stream dictate the expenditures.

Government will always spend the last dime they get and then ask for more because there is no reason not to. There is no accountability or responsibility. Isn't that the liberal mantra? No one is responsible for anything, just do what you want and someone will clean up after you. Sorry, Kid, I didn't do that with My children and I have no plans to do it for you. Its time you started carrying your load because I'm about done with wiping your butt for you!

Mike, it isn't complex or novel, but somehow has escaped congress for as long as I can remember. There are plenty of areas we could cut spending without hurting our infrastructure. As for defense spending, as a left leaning centrist, I have no problem cutting the defense budget.

As for paying my share, I pay a ton. Who are you to tell me what my "share" is? I'm a tight ass because I have a problem paying more than nearly everyone else in this country. That is rich. Easy to call the people paying the most tight. Maybe you could give me your address, I'll just mail you a check.

I don't think the increase to 39% top bracket applies to you because you are making less the 250K. And I'm not sure that "if" they rescind the tax cuts that it would apply to 2010 income anyway. But I might be wrong about that. I make a similar amount of money and I share your disgust with alot of the other taxes you outlined.

great post Chris-382117,

obama is quite full of sh!t. I vividly remember that arrogant, condesending tone he took with Republicans the last time. If he hadn't been so, I would urge the Repubs to attempt a little co-op..however, if they need to be rigid to set things "right"...f him,go for the throat. The man is a far left radical retard who hasn't a clue except for "his" vision for the country, F that.

Take out the trash 2012

Chris - I know exactly what you're saying...my wife and I were in a similar position a few years ago and we decided we'd had enough of it...we left the high paying jobs and are semi-retired doing the odd, fun job for friends. The amount we are contributing in taxes has dropped from 6 figures to 4... People can tell me all they want that tax increases do not negatively affect revenue, but for us it did. (and personally, I'm happy where we are now...kinda nice only working 20 to 30 hours a week instead of 60 to 80)

I don't know how it works on your household, but in mine, the revenue stream DOES dictate the expenditures. When our paychecks drop, the amount we spend on non-essentials also drops. It's either that or we would have to run up the credit cards and we simply can't afford to have a high credit card bill. Actually we are at the point now where we have cut our expenses as much as we can and any extra income we might get goes directly towards paying down our debt. If we weren't doing this we would end up bankrupt. Something the govt hasn't realized yet.

Regardless of what is done about the tax cuts, congress HAS to get back within a budget and stay there. Otherwise it won't make a difference what they do with the tax rates.

Roscue, why are you so angry at Obama, when Clinton was the same. i must say you need to look into your ......self and removed those thoughts that are no longer valid in todays society. Obama was and is a wonderful human being unlike mc cain the snake.

raymond banner

I don't think the increase to 39% top bracket applies to you because you are making less the 250K.

The $250K is for a Family. My wife died in 2006 so I classify as a Single and the 39% starts at $120K for a single. I have relatively few deductions because we paid off our house before she died. Because we were frugal throughout our life together, we didn't have a lot of debt to service. We invested so that we wouldn't have to rely solely on Social Security and Medicare, but that comes with another penalty ... any investment income counts against my Gross since I'm under 62 and still working. That leaves me with the "Standard deduction" raping along with the Alternative Minimum Tax. So yes, 39% is pretty damned close to what it will be.

Mike-416 seems to believe that this is my "Fair Share" of the Tax Burden. I Certainly would like to see what overall percentage of his paycheck goes to the governments et. al. BEFORE he ever gets to see it or how many deductions he has that make him believe that his concept of Fare Share is correct and makes me a "Tight Ass" because I doesn't want to just send my whole check directly to the Congress and the President.

If you want to save a ton of money, kill all the defense programs that the military doesnt want. Congress is forcing alot of weapons projects just to bring home the bacon. We shouldnt be sending the bacon the DC in the first place.

If you make 176 K a year and aren't rich, you are doing it wrong.

If you stopped working just so you wouldn't have to pay your taxes, you might actully discover that A: You DID make more money when you weren't working B: You'd be happy there ARE social saftey nets.

Why are so many here unpatriotic? They hate the president and paying taxes and don't care about anyone else? Why don't you take all your money and go live somewhere else if its so hard on you?

Chris: My guess is that you will have enough to live well, for the rest of your life, and still be able to leave your children a pretty good amount an estimate that you will probable live another 8 or 9 thousand days, and the last 4 thousand days you will find that you will not spend near as much as you thought you would that is if you remain healthy, so you really have very little to worry about!!! on the other hand if you were to only live another say 14 years, about 5,110 days you should have in abundance of money to live Good!!!

Byl

If you make 176 K a year and aren't rich, you are doing it wrong

Its 156K not 176 K. Learn to read. Is that another thing that you missed in the so highly functional public schools?

If you stopped working just so you wouldn't have to pay your taxes, you might actully discover that A: You DID make more money when you weren't working

That is exactly my point. Because of the liberal whiners like yourself that want to tax everything away, I could go into simiretirement next year when I reach 62, work only 30 hrs a week, take a considerably higher percentage of my paycheck home, and actually have time to do the things I want to do. That is especially true if I choose not to start drawing Social Security until I'm 68 or 70.

B: You'd be happy there ARE social saftey nets.

As i said before, My late wife and I PLANNED for our retirement so that we wouldn't have to rely SOLELY on Social Security. I take it, that you did not. Who's fault is that, exactly? Did you pick the wrong career field, perhaps (sociology vs engineering)? Again, who's fault is that. Please, someone call Whine-one-one, Byl needs a WAAAAAAmbulance.

Why are so many here unpatriotic?

What give you the right to call someone else unpatriotic? I served with the 3rd Marines in Vietnam. What service did you join that has made you believe that YOU are so much more patriotic, Junior; perhaps it was the Pantie Raid Squad at the local underachievers school? You'd last only about 30 second at the Paris Island of today; you would last much less than the one I went through in 1968. The DI's would just cut the lace off your panties and send you back home before the sun came up.

They hate the president and paying taxes and don't care about anyone else?

I hate paying a disproportionate share of the taxes so some lazy, entitlement driven, whiny assed liberal like yourself can sit around, smoke your dope, and demand someone else pay your bills, clean up your mess, and wipe your butt for you.

Why don't you take all your money and go live somewhere else if its so hard on you?

If all of us that do pay the taxes did that, then that Government Teat that you are so attached to would quickly dry up and you would have to do something besides whine. You would actually have to work or ... starve!

The problem is that they don't use an increase in taxes to pay ANYTHING down, they just spend it all. I would be totally for a tax increase if it were guaranteed that every cent of it would be used toward the debt.

An economist on CNN said recently that if everyone paid only 1% more in taxes and that money was used EXCLUSIVELY on the debt, it would be paid off in less than 10 years.

Of course, our politicians would never do anything so intelligent.

That's a pretty eye opening statistic.

dale-763548

Chris: My guess is that you will have enough to live well, for the rest of your life,

That is not the point. My point is: What makes Mike-416, Byl, or even yourself believe that my "Fair Share" of the Tax Burden is exponentially greater than yours?

What gives Mike-416 the right to claim I am a "tight ass" because I already pay 52% of my paycheck into the government BEFORE I even see it.

What gives Byl the right to call me "unpatriotic" because I don't believe that I should just send my check directly to the government.

What gives you the right to decide what I have is enough? Is it because I made good decision and they or you did not and , because of that, I must be penalized for it?

The problem I have with the ultra liberals is that they seem to believe that they have been anointed with the right by some Alpowerful Deity (Allah, Buddha, God, Yahweh, or the Great Pumpkin) to determine just how much is enough for someone to have and the rest MUST be redistributed to the masses that, by their own decision, made the wrong choices.

I currently care for an aging stepfather rather than put him in a "Human Warehouse" to die at Government expense. I have amassed what I have throughout my career and that of my late wife so that I will NEVER be a burden on my children; its called responsibility and accountability. What makes you the authority to determine just how much I need to do that? I may, like my both of my Grandfathers, live to be 95+. I may be like my paternal Great Grandfather, live to be 106. Will I have enough if I live that long?

@Chris - "hate paying a disproportionate share of the taxes"

Yet, you get away scott free without having to pay SS tax on $50k/year of income. Cry me a river!

Chris, very well said.

Ghostmaker,,, Your a real idiot. Again get your facts straight, people don't get a refund check unless you've paid more than you should have. I bet you didn't give your refund check back.

Chris-382117

That is not the point. My point is: What makes Mike-416, Byl, or even yourself believe that my "Fair Share" of the Tax Burden is exponentially greater than yours?

Because you make more money?

*shakes head*

bmilleroh

Yet, you get away scott free without having to pay SS tax on $50k/year of income. Cry me a river!

Social Security and Medicare taxes are only 7 1/4 %. I have no problem with paying SS Taxes on the who ting. I do have a problem with paying 35% or 39% of my paycheck to the government while you and yours pay nothing because of all of your deductions for the 7 kids (didn't you ever learn what caused them) , the earned family credit, the low income credit, and all the other things you can deduct so that you pay nothing and I get the bill.

Maybe, as Byl said, all of us that do work and pay the taxes should take our money and go somewhere else. Then, that Government Teat that you are so firmly attached to would quickly dry up and you would have to do something besides whine. You would actually have to work ... or starve!

I have 1 child and am an Accountant with a CPA & MBA who hasn't been unemployed since I was 17 and just starting out in the workforce. I worked my way thru undergrad, CPA exam review and MBA, all raising a child on my own. You can't be paying 6% SS tax since only $106k of income is taxable by SS--you actually pay about 4% of your income to SS. I pay 6%. Once again, cry me a river.

Mike-416

Because you make more money?

I that the sole criteria? Sounds like the old "Redistribution of Wealth" concept championed by Messrs Marx and Engels. Is that the case Comrade Mike? Take from those that earn and give to those that won't? I believe that your Uncle Fidel just announced that, after 50 years of trying, it just didn't work. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev learned the same painful lesson about 1991. But you are free to just keep try to shoot pool with that rope.

You ignore the real underlying problem, which is a systemic problem. Our system rewards our legislators and leaders for spending money unwisely and does not punish them for fiscal conservatism.

Because of this, every dollar you feed the beast, is another dollar down the rathole. Every dollar they get in revenue, is a little bit less pressure to stop spending. The result is that for every dollar we give them, eventually, they will spend it, not pay down the deficit, simply spend it.

The only long term solution is to change the system to address the incapability of legislators and other government leaders to spend irresponsibly. In the meantime, the ONLY check on this tendency is the political pressure brought to bear when we are in a financial crisis, as is the case now. So, yes, extend the tax cuts, let the deficit mount. The higher the deficit, the more the political pressure is to STOP SPENDING, and secondarily, to FIX the systemic problem that got us into this mess in the first place.

I t just kills me how the tax cuts for the creeps who put us here is the most important issue the Republicans are frantic about. How about cutting spending and jobs you morons. The rich do not need the tax cuts. They were meant to expire. They have never brought us jobs and never will. Bush had to give us middle class taxpayers a good screwing to make sure the rich get richer. I hope Obama and the Democrats don't budge an inch on these cuts. Take heed America, this is what the Republicans are all about. A bunch of greedy bastards sucking the money out of the middle class. The rich are getting richer and richer while the middle class is collapsing.

@ Eric,

Bravo! I finally agree on something you posted. And agree completely.

Chris-382117

Many people planned for their retirement. The corporate greed happened and many lost their stock. The Wall Street got bailouts, the retiree got sent to Wal-mart to be a greeter.

I am the whiney liberal you are referring to. I always paid taxes: federal income, state income, sales, excise and real-estate. And in return I get to send my kids to public schools that are on the level of the schools in Romania. Some of them have not seen renovations since they were built in the seventies. Some of them don’t even have enough books. In return, I see people who worked their whole lives lose their jobs and then be told that unemployment is WAREFARE. I know someone who worked for 20 something years and lost her job. She automatically lost her health insurance, too. She was “lucky” because she did find another job quickly. Unlucky because before her 90 day waiting period before her ins. Kicked in she found out she had brain cancer. At that point the ins. company said sorry – no insurance for you.

So yes, I am whining.

ERIC--------- Didn't you libbies just get your fanny handed to you on Nov. 2nd?

Today here you are talking about what the american public wants.

You folks really are delusional, aren't you?

hey chris-382117

i also am a retired marine and ex pow from Vietnam that went through PI and you sound like a lil pantiewaist sissy that would have been sent home for cryin that jodie was home bangin ur girl, if you want to be respected as a marine , quit ur sissyazz whinnin as we marines dont want to be packed in the same box as ur sissy azz.

At the risk of shooting myself in the foot; what does one do to earn 156K/year?

I worked hard all my life. I am a college graduate. I am a widow. I am a mom and a grandma. I am recently retired from nursing. I earn a $1.00 an hour, as a nurse on a med-surg floor. My last job, I earned $28.00/hr. I started in nursing in 1964. I have heard, seen, felt, smelled, and experienced things, that would make most people barf. Yes, I love nursing but not because of the money. I loved knowing, I made a difference. I loved knowing, how to make people feel comfortable. I care. I never looked at a patient's chart to see if they were on welfare or had the best insurance.

Now, I ask you, where is my applause for saving a life. Where in my big paying contract offer? Where is my Oscar? Where is my adoring fans? People have their priorities confused. We value things and not each other. Well not "we" because I value life. I value family. I value friends. I value the contributions I made to society. Unfortunately, my ethics have cost me, a comfortable, worry free life style.

So when all is said and done, I do not like the thought of the John Boehners and the Mitch McConnells, of this world, deciding who is going to pay taxes and who will not. Not unless they agree to put on a nurses uniform and see what hard work is really like.

bayllie,

And I know a a lot of people that had the same thing happen. I am not agains giving them a hand up. I am against people with the same attitude as Mike-416 and Byl that believe they are "entitled" to whatever they want and I have the privelege of paying for it because they are entitled to it.

I'm all for doing what Erskin Bowles and Alan Simpson Suggest. Get rid of most deductions (Mortgage, EIC, and many deductions for the uber Rich), Simplify the tax code and, force the government touse the windfall to pay down the debt instead of spending it like they always do and Hold government accountable. Evidently they already have both the Far Left and the Far Right pissed off so theny must be on the right track.

Chris,

I know that there are lazy leaches out there that take advantage of the system. They always existed and always will exist. We take care of the dead beats so in return they do not come into our homes and steal. I guess this is the price of a "civilized" world. But you make it sound like the 98% of population that is not privileged to make over 250K, as you put it: get to coast and someone carries your fat a$$ on their back? Sorry but I have seen a 90 year old grandmother who worked her whole life and she must continue to work because her $800 a month social security check does not pay her bills. She also pays for her health insurance because Medicare sucks. Yet, we have no problem giving to the billionaires because, why, they worked harder? Everyday, I see good hardworking people that barely make their ends meet. They don't go to the doctors because they do not want yet another bill that they cannot pay even though they are working 2 jobs. When are we going to start taking care of all the people that contribute to the paychecks of the top 2%? When are we going to reward corporations that do not treat their employees like toilet paper – flush it down the toilet when you are done with it? It will land somewhere but it's no longer my problem.

I don't have a problem paying my share of taxes; I pay federal and state income tax, excise tax, real estate tax, and every tax associated with living in this great nation. What I have a problem with is giving all these breaks to corporations (I don't want to copy and paste so please refer to post 1.56. We have become a greedy corporate America. I have no problem giving tax breaks to corporations like Microsoft and Google who are multibillion companies with huge profits yet they treat their employees like assets not cost. I don't even care if Oprah gets a tax break because I know that she won't hire an illegal worker as her maid and pay her next to nothing because what's is she going to do, complain to the Department of Labor?

What I have a problem with is rewarding these corporations with tax breaks and yet they shut down whole towns and take their business to China to pay someone 50 cents per hour with no pee breaks. Or worse, take over a town and start pumping toxic chemicals into the drinking water and call it "cost of doing business."

I have a problem with this country giving tax breaks to these corporations that took their business elsewhere, contributed to the unemployment and now the government is saying to the unemployed hey, we need money so we will no longer continue paying your unemployment check even though you have been contributing to the Unemployment Insurance.

I have a problem with giving money to corporations for doing bad business practiced and almost bringing this country down financially.

I have a problem with allowing 2/3 of all corporations (big and small) not paying any taxes because they took their PO Box to Cayman Islands. And about 2/3 of foreign corporations don't pay any taxes for doing business in this country.

I am sick of seeing corporations (one happening in my town) taking people (and not all of them lazy) who have worked for 15/20 years and replacing them with some 18 year old for half the pay and 1/3 of the benefits and then ask for the tax breaks.

My point is this: I know greed always existed and will always exist. We humans somehow feel that the bigger the bank account the more we are valued. I agree that everyone deserves to be a billionaire and the only thing that holds them back from becoming one is oneself. But I strongly feel that if you have to lie, cheat, and steal to become one you do not deserve any breaks because all you are is a thief in a suit. Not any different than the guy who broke into your house.

I am not looking to take away from the top 2% and give it to the bottom 98%. I am looking for the top 2% to stop taking from the 98% because pretty soon there will be nothing left.

Corporations are slowly cutting their throats. In their short sightedness, they fail to see that if they take enough, there will be nothing left. With everything going up (food, oil, gas, electricity, etc) there will be no expendable income left for most to go shopping with. Sales will go down. Corporations will start seeing losses like it happened recently. They will cry poverty, tax breaks and bailouts. The government will give it to them to "save the economy" thus borrowing more money from China. To repay that loan they will look to cut programs: education, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. Somehow they will not take from the prison business (a big moneymaker=big lobbing) and military (except the benefits for the vets WILL suffer because there is no corporate money to be made there). And the wheel keeps spinning. When will it stop? When this country becomes Russia? When you have super rich and super poor?

both sides have its story and neither side is perfect. But I thing that a simple, everyday, hard working man/woman has more to lose than a billionaire with 5 houses. A billionaire will sell one of the home. An unemployed person will not be able to feed his/her family.

Joe, your pessimism is depressing but oh so true. I just wish that the Democrats would finally grow some balls because the Republicans are like a bully. They will push you down and keep you down until you stand up to them. Then, they run scared. I just don't understand what the Dems are so scared of. That they will get blamed for everything bad? Already done. We cannot blame Bush for the 2009 economy. We were told to grow up and take the responsibility and stop pointing fingers. But yet, every failure during Bush's 8 years of presidency is somewhat blamed on Clinton. Like I said, Democrats, stand up to the bully, please!

It's a bit hypocritical to call the republicans a bully given the last two years. Were the democrats bullies the past two years? The democrats have been completely unwilling to take on any republican ideas, because "they didn't need it". Now the talk of bi-partesinship, when the president needs it is disingenuous.

All politicians play the same games, republicans and democrats. Anyone who doesn't realize this is naive.

bayllie,

mostly you are just ill-informed! but the one definite LIE i would like to correct in your post is that "every failure during BUSH was blamed on clinton".

that's a big LIE and something you liberals have like pathologically convinced yourself of.

GW Bush NEVER played the blame game; it's SIMPLY not his style. NOR did his supporters or the Republican party.

maybe you guys have told that LIE so many times, YOU all have convinced yourself, pfffft!

2 years of Democrat control. What do we have to show for it. Massive debt!

To those who want us to pay more taxes, I volunteer you to pay more taxes as for those of us who find groceries going up and up, gas prices going up and everything going up, to pay more taxes means something has to give and give and give. Most people cannot afford that. So you go ahead and pay more taxes if you like, but leave the rest of us out of it. It isn't like we will get a tax break, it is leaving things the way they were. More money to spend if taxes are left there, less money to spend if you tax the people more. You want to get the economy going, cut taxes some more so people have money to spend. Thank goodness, the democrats, the party of spend and spend, will soon be leaving the scene. What a blessing. The rest of you democrats you raise taxes and 2012 is coming up.

Liberals love to be benevolent with other people's money, but their wallets squeek when they try to open them.

all of you are right. everyone has a point. problem is? the world was created with the problem. one is suppose to earn his own way. lay up stores for hard times. and work. GOP 2012 + flat tax = all is well.

Gerald - put down the Blackberry and step away. If a financial adviser to the rich allowed his/her clients to pay the same percentage of taxes as the average working AMERICAN, they would be looking for a new job. You GOP propagandists are so near-sighted that you forget that the middle class is as weak as it has ever been from getting screwed over by the richest of the rich for the past decade.

ChiCity

It's a bit hypocritical to call the republicans a bully given the last two years.

Right - the president who doesnt use the bully pulpit is a bully. If anything - he was a little too nice to congressional repubs.

I love the idea of "unfunded tax cuts". You don't pay for tax cuts. There is a difference that you continue to miss.

unfunded tax cuts is a nonexistent argument. you don't fund what belongs to the people...and we chose to turn the spigot to the beltway off, and keep it where it belongs - in our homes and wallets.

joe mota

and so are the democrats, we don't want any more rep, no more conservative mambo jumbo from the nazi conservative tea baggers, who want to take away our human rights.

tin foil hat on too tight, lu? wow, what a load of bull hockey.

1-tea party sole aim is to return the role of the fedl govt to it's Constitutionally limited functions. there are 22 of them. all else belongs to the states and the individual.

2-what human rights does the gop want to take away?

what scares libruls about the tea party is the fact it refocuses on the individual, which is who the Constitution was written for. the left wants the country to think in a collectivist mindset, a la europe. well the American people woke up. sorry. game over.

ChiCity,

I will call anyone a bully who uses scare tactics to get their point across. Here are some examples of a bully:

Any political party that plays a 25-minute ad from the GOP airing in swing states, intended to scare white voters by referring to Obama as a "secret Muslim plant" and "socialist Commie terrorist" is a bully. How about:

Obama as the Angel of Death and the Joker?

American babies sent to China as slaves?

FEMA concentration camps?

Obama’s Death panels?

I can keep going on but all I am going to say that saying these things is not only pathetic but sad and un-American. This propaganda is forced on the public by the Republican instigators (translate: Tea Baggers)

Someone like Chris Christie bullying a man on national TV was priceless. It showed exactly what the Republican Party is made of: boogie man, euthanasia scares and concentration camps paranoia.

I'm waiting to see the jobs created from the first round of tax cuts, the non-permanent set-to-expire tax cuts. Let's get back to fiscal responsibility and cut military and welfare, and bring back corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy. Let's look to when America was great so we can get back to it. Let's all work together for America instead of this unpatriotic mantra of "I got mine!"

In preparation of not expecting the current tax rates to go past the end of the year, I layed off three employees last week. So for those that say the current tax increase issue will not create jobs please be aware there are 3 families that have already been affected by it.

Jwright-1317095

In preparation of not expecting the current tax rates to go past the end of the year, I layed off three employees last week.

nice try and not a good one I might add.

You can disagree with me bayllie but it doesn't put those three back on my payroll.

ChiCity

I love the idea of "unfunded tax cuts". You don't pay for tax cuts. There is a difference that you continue to miss.

If you have a budget of X dollars - and provide a tax cut of Y dollars thus reducing your revenue - you have 2 options.

1) Reduce spending (which didnt happen)
or...
2) Borrow Y to meet your budget

You seem to be the only person on Earth that doesnt understand how tax cuts and budgets work.

so you make your decisions based on "maybe?"

Sally

Hey dummy

Mike-416, please refrain from making personal attacks on other Newsvine users. Mind the Code of Honor.

Using not-so-clever, subtle insults that dont use direct nouns to insult someone - OK

Calling someone stupid - NOT OK.

Got it. Looks like I will have to be more subtle.

Mike, you don't seem to get it. We can argue semantics all day, but the situation doesn't change. As I have said, I am for letting all the tax cuts expire. That being said, this revenue has not been there for the last several years.

Again, this tax cut isn't new. It is Obama looking for a way to pay for his spending initiatives that he has already made up his mind on. Obama jumped on the expiration of the tax cuts to justify more spending. I'm done with you Mike, good luck. I'll be fine, hope you will be too.

Ghostmaker,,,,, You keep proving to America that you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the eyes or maybe your just to stupid to accept the truth. It doen't matter how many facts you are given showing that Bush/Cheney and the Repubics created this mess. You like so many Repubics will blame anyone so you don't have to take responsibilty for putting our country into economic collapse. I'm also not happy with Obama and the Dems because they haven't shown any back bone when it comes to fighting for what they ran on. They are spinless to keep thinking that the Repubics have the concerns of the American working class. Also how many times will you keep supporting the Repubics when time and time again they have proved to America that their first priority is to make sure the rich and Corporate America keeps making their millions at the expense of the working class and the AMerican economy.

winkler,

I agree. We are in between one party that is holding pictures of the president as a Nazi and another that just rolls over and takes it. I am not looking for a fight. Far from it. I am actually exhausted from all the fighting before November 2. What I am looking for is for the president to stop trying to please the ``party of no.”

With all the millionaires in Congress calling the shots, they just don't get the struggle of what it’s like to lose a low paying job & then not be able to find another job.

Joe, spare me, please. The Democrats are any different? I'm laughing like hell. Your Democratic Speakers of the House and Senate are a fricking joke; 13 trillion dollars in debt and counting.

JOE------- You are absolutely correct.

if any conservative goes along with Obama on anything, we will be waiting for them, in 2012.

We now understand any dem bill will steal money from the people that earned it and give it to the handouters.

We're done, no more.

Thanks, Joe and John.

You and yours showed me that the entire politicial process is a waste of time, and we are already a police state, and we're a third rate country and most of us just didn't know it yet. Glad you were here to set me right. Anybody who isn't rich conservative should be dehumanized by calling them freeloaders and scum, that way they are not people anymore, just a minor inconvience. Much easier to throw out of their homes and such. After all, you personally are the entire USA, everybody else is here by accident. And here I thought a government was here to serve the public, the entire country. Shame on me, I even thought Lincoln said something about "of the people, by the people, for the people", I missed the word Conservative or rich in there. And I actually thought congress was suposed to work compromises.

Anyway, thanks for showing me how narrow a mind can get.

Amen

By that you mean the lower and most middle class will actually begin to pay some federal income tax,whicj they dont or very very little,actually anyone who makes between $25000 and $40000 and has one or 2 kids actually gets all their taxes back and then some,I made $38000 in 2008 and actually got a check for roughly $2000 more than I paid in taxes on my return,so people who make under $24000 usually get all their income tax payed back to them and with one or 2 children you get $1000 per child tax credit,the people who are gonna get screwed are the ones making over $200,000,they get to pay more so a lot of people can pay absolutely nothing in federal income tax,andf than get a couple $thousand dollers in EIC or child tax credits,so the liberals arguement that the middle class has to pay more in taxes if they dont extend the tax cuts as they are now,is a total joke,Most Americans pay very little if any in federal incime tax,How would they like it if they had to pay %25 of their income and get no tax return.Why are democrats so adamant about penalizing successful hardworking people so a large percentage can pay absolutely nothing!!!!!!!!!!

right. make less than 24,000 w/ 2 kids and one can get back over 2,000 more than they pay in. GOP 2012.

Gerald, put down the blackberry. GOP = Greedy Old Propagandists

Brock, I can hardly see past your atrocious spelling to understand your point.

FamilyDoc - Agree with you! It is insane to think a family income of $50K could pay nothing in federal income taxes with tax credits for this and that. Let the tax burden be shared by all, even those making $24K a year - good on post #4.3.

Lets start with the businesses that hide headquarters in foreign countries and the wealthy who tuck everything away so they can avoid taxes. All the while not creating jobs. Let them all expire, and trim the budget so it fits your revenue stream, start with defence.

I agree but how do you get Corporate America to pay their fair share when the likes of GE, B of A and others pay zero taxes. First deal with the loop holes for the wealthy and Corporate America then everyone will be willing to pay their fair share.

I thought our tax dollars (i.e. the bailout) saved jobs? Which is it? The values of their stocks were destroyed. Obama keeps touting the bailout as necessary because it saved "hundreds of thousands" of jobs. Can't play both sides of the fence.

see my response to Eric please

Robert, I agree with that plan.

Businesses are not created on the purpose of job creation and paying taxes,they are started to make a living for whoever has the drive and desire to improve their life for themselves and their family,No one besides the government could afford to do that,Do you really think that businesses are started to create jobs and pay taxes ,so the government can keep themselves in business,Businesses are started by people who want to make money and be their own boss,they have no responsibility to hire people ,Why would they hire new employees if they dont know what the future is going to be(somewhat)See,unlike the government businesses have to plan things ahead of time and do things a certain way or they will be out of business,Government doesnt think more than a year ahead of time,By the way those of you that havent figured it out,heres a hint,Obama care is going to be a large cost on all businesses,without knowing how much,businesses cannot plan ahead,by the way Obama care is going to have companies shed employees,not hire them!!!!!!!!!!

How many poor people have you worked for?

When did the poor start writing payroll checks, matching payroll taxes, paying unemployment insurance, paying for health insurance for all those employees they employ let alone the overhead to run whatever business they own?

I'd like to meet them?

How do you think they made all that money? The tooth fairy? Face it, your golden boy in the White House has no problem throwing you all to the wolves. I hope he does let the tax cuts expire. That alone will pretty much gaurantee he'll be a one termer and help lose the Senate and other House seats at risk in 2012. Hey, do you like apples?...(apologies to Will Hunting)

ChiCity

I thought our tax dollars (i.e. the bailout) saved jobs? Which is it?

Wow. You just keep posting gems one right after another.

So EITHER the rich create jobs OR the bailout saved jobs? Nice critical thinking employed genius.

gerald from ga

need creates job! GOP 2012

Repubs are now in control of the house - where are the jobs?

read my lips. need creates jobs. not pubs,dems,rich or poor!

Mike: The current House of Representatives (111th Congress) is still being led by a democratic majority. Pelosi is still the Speaker of the House. The new congress won't be sworn in until January. Do try to pay attention.

Go USA-851295

Mike: The current House of Representatives (111th Congress) is still being led by a democratic majority. Pelosi is still the Speaker of the House. The new congress won't be sworn in until January. Do try to pay attention.

But where are the jobs they promised? I gave the new house as much time as they gave Obama to fix the catastrophic mess he inherited.

Where are the job?!?!?!

Mike, continue to make personal attacks, I really don't care. You seem like a really angry person.

Obama is on TV constantly defending the bailout because of "all the jobs it saved". You seem to espouse to the Obama school of thought... Logic would dictate that you think the bailout was a good thing then. If you continue to follow this through, you can't say it is a good thing then support someone saying that the bailout saved all the rich people, and their yachts... I'm prepared for another nonsensical personal reply. Don't let a logical argument get in your way, it hasn't so far.

Mike-416 - "Repubs are now in control of the house - where are the jobs?"

Duh... Have you ever taken a basic civics class? Similar to those offered in elementary school or perhaps the level needed for citizenship? We are currently in a lame duck session of Congress Sparky... And much will need to change before businesses begin hiring!

mike is going to lose his food stamps to buy cheetos and mountain dew, sit in grammy's basement and .......now he has to go pump gas...aawwww poor mikey!

no mikey lad, the president said the stimu-rape-us package would keep unemployment below 8%, said it would create or save millions upon millions of jobs - btw not 1 permanent private sector job saved or created, he promised the moon and the stars but delivered meadow muffins. got it?

blak,

you don't "sit on profits". that cash is typically back out the door in 30 days or less, paying for things like, oh wages, benefits, mortgages and rents, insurance, marketing, purchases of goods and services, etc.

hiring just because you have cash is a piss poor business practice (and if you're a publicly traded company it's an open invitation to class action shareholder suits). first there needs to be customer demand, and customer demand doesn't get better until there is some sense of certainty how their finances are going to look. they have skyrocketing medical costs under obamascare with limited choices to contend with now, there's a $1.3 trillion sucking sound revving up for jan 1, that will siphon more money from employers and taxpayers alike. so no, no consumer confidence, no consumer demand, no hiring. obambam created the conundrum that is keeping employers from hiring, when typically there should be a full scale expansion taking place by now.

Do you infer that the poor create jobs? Get a life!

wildweasel66-358178

mike is going to lose his food stamps to buy cheetos and mountain dew, sit in grammy's basement and .......now he has to go pump gas...aawwww poor mikey!

no mikey lad, the president said the stimu-rape-us package would keep unemployment below 8%,

Sorry buddy - been working since I was 12, have 2 college degrees and never once had to use any assistance of any sorts (disability, unemployment, SS). How about you? 10 bucks says you are some tea bagger on SSI disability. Any takers?

The president said it wouldnt go above 8% - it went to almost 10%. Are you that simple that you dont understand how unemployment could rise - despite our best efforts - during the worst financial crisis since the depression?

314159

Mike-416 - "Repubs are now in control of the house - where are the jobs?"

Duh... Have you ever taken a basic civics class? Similar to those offered in elementary school or perhaps the level needed for citizenship? We are currently in a lame duck session of Congress Sparky... And much will need to change before businesses begin hiring!

Me thinks you dont get sarcasm. Did you actually use the word Duh? havent seen that in close to a decade.

Mike, here is a straighforward question, I would appreciate a straight answer:

Obama said that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus was passed. He used that to sell it to the public, and congress. Should he be held accountable for his own self-imposed promises?

I understand how unemployment works, but isn't it fair to say that he sold a bill of goods that didn't live up to his own hyperbole? Similarly, would he have gotten the votes had he said, "if we pass this, unemployment will continue to go up to almost 10%"? It is a fair question.

Mike-416

I agree with all your posts.

Kuche, perhaps you would like to respond then to 5.18?

The reality is that Obama's agenda and policy direction is nearly diametrically opposed to the republican ideology. So of course they are going to vote against Obama's legislation. The same goes for the democrats. The key is to try to find some middle ground. These days the fringe, on both sides, are pulling the middle ground further apart from one another, making compromise nearly impossible.

chicity you are correct about not finding middle ground. AND THANK GOD!!!! The dems had no time for the repubs over the past two years and pushed through way too much left wing nonsense. The repubs are going to first bring the country back to where we were and THEN we can compromise from there.

Right you are. The Republicans only say "no". They don't have any ideas, just "no". And make sure that the rich stay that way.

Why say Yes to bad ideas,Doesnt make sense,or does it!!!!!!!!!!

I don't want the GOP in charge of both houses and the presidency in 2012. The have complete republican control will be just as disasterous as having complete democrat control was for the past two years.

Until we can get more than two parties representing us, I'd rather have a minor dem majority in one house and a minor repub majority in the other.

rep. don't disagree with Obama because they don't like or can't work with his policies. those old conservatives are just plain racist, for example: Mc Connell is now is support of banning earmarks, when he did not want it 2 years ago when Obama suggested it. now Mc Connell does, and he came out and said so but made it look like it was all his idea. the rep. don't want to work with the president for other reasons then the ones they tell the world, shameful.

What is shameful is playing the race card. Obama's policies are completely opposite of the ideology of the republican party. That isn't racist, it is a different world view. Get a grip.

"The reality is that Obama's agenda and policy direction is nearly diametrically opposed to the republican ideology"

You mean like last December when the Republicans threatened to filibuster emergency funds for the troops in their effort to stave off a vote on healthcare?

It is so frusterating in this site. Any answer you get doesn't ever actually respond to the issue, it is always, "oh yeah, well what about this..."

Chi,,,,, Now you know how real Americans feel when the Repubics keep saying NO. When the Repubics won't give any alternatives to Obama proposals. All the Repubics have shown America is that they are for the Rich and Corporate America. They want to hold the continuation of taxes cuts for the working class hostage so they can keep the tax cuts for the wealthy. They won't extend unemployment benefits unless they get the tax cuts for the wealthy. If you can't see them for their self serving agenda and making sure they repay their corporate contributors then your a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

You really hurt my feelings winker. I'll be an idiot then. An idiot with two degrees, a free and clear house, active in my community and charities, employed... Can you imagine if everyone were like me. Oh the humanity.

I assume when you say, "real americans", you mean everyone that agrees with your liberal ideology? Arrogance coupled with ignorance, dangerous combination.

YEAH, Let get that Obama. He didn't fix the recession in 6 months, and didn't bring all the jobs back in a month. Lets get a rope, and string him up.

I can see the Reps are really concerned, like they always are. All they care about is themselfs and chapping their lips on the mega-rich and Obama bashing. That will bring the jobs back. oh yeah, I forgot, the jobs will magicly appear if only we can get rid "him".

doesn't work that way edward. GOP 2012

I agree - lets go ahead and put the tax rates back to the Clinton era and assuming people stayed employed we will have an extra $4 trillion in 10 years. We get to add a whole bunch of people back to the tax rolls because they dropped off when the Bush tax cuts took effect. Of course the people at the bottom will be pissed because their rate will go from 10% to 15% a big increase but then they got the biggest cut 9 years ago. If its good enough to raise my taxes back to Clinton era - lets raise everyones.

How do you borrow when that is what the current rate is. Why not get realistic and call it what it is. A Democrat TAX Increase. It's not a cut for the simple reason that's what the rates are at.

The money of the wealthy is burning a hole in liberal's pockets- can't wait to spend it!

you are all right. borrow, don't spend. expire, don't expire, spend other peoples money. GOP 2012

What about the comments made ON THE RECORD by Regan's former budget director who states "1. The Tax rates on the rich should revert immediately to pre-Regan levels. 2. The statement that "Regan proved deficits dont matter" is a lie - Regan proved NOTHING of the sort 3. The Republican party since Regan has lost its way because their First, Second, and Third plays are always "Cut Taxes on the rich" 4. Not ONE SINGLE JOB has EVER been created as a result of Tax Cuts on the Rich - EVER.

He further went on to say he was disgusted with the current Republican party because they had lost their way.

Return the tax code to pre-Regan levels and then work on a simpler, cleaner, fairer framework that benefits EVERYONE AND provides the revenue necessary to PAY DOWN OUT NATIONAL DEBT.

I own 3 small businesses and plan more than 2 years out - like most corps. The biggest expense we have is people (labor) and then Healthcare. Before I hire another person I have got to know as best as possible what rates are going to be 5 years in advance. How about a 5 year extension. Even if you told me the 5 year tax rate I am still in a quandry because of HC costs. I think Repubs will repeal and replace ObamaCare in 2 years but I am not ready to trust any politician enough to hire as many people as I could. I am in a 2 year wait and see period. The November midterms that we just had have convinced me to hire replacements if people leave. Not having many people leave these days tho.

Finally someone who knows what the real world is like!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can the entire tax system and replace it with the Fair Tax.

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Social Security has to be removed from the general fund. It's been robbed for years by both dem and repub administrations.

The fair tax or a flat tax is the only way to go!

wm 3758... The taxpayer debt created by the bush tax cut did not create any jobs from 2000 to 2010. In fact, the rich got richer. we currently have the largest gap between the rich and the average worker ever and the rich still refuse to create jobs. How will not changing anything produce a different result?

all of you have something right in what they say. all of you have a special need. it is called self interest. and that my friend is the interest that is to high to pay. GOP 2012

atheist,

if no jobs were created under bush, why was the unemployment rate less than 5% most of his term? just sayin

If you want the economy to recover and for jobs to be created, I suggest that you start referring to those reckless Republicans as Herberts like I do. Make them show how they are different from Bush and Hoover.

i say self interest is the interest that is to high to pay.

hoover's disaster was to raise taxes and expand the federal government.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alBsmRS72DyM&refer=columnist_shlaes

here's an idea - why not try doing what harding had to do to counter the depression woodrow wilson left for him - reduce taxes, reduce size of fedl govt, etc? result? roaring 20s.

Is there any question left in the mind of any conservative, that the handouters wuill never change?

The handouters will continue to want some one ellse to pay their way, right up to their last breath.

Let them, contact your elected reps, urge them to set up a national referendum, on dividing the country.

That will make the libs happy, they can buy everything for everybody, the rest of us can go back to running a country the way we did when this country was the envy of the world.

Let Congress balance the budget first. Otherwise all they will do is spend whatever they manage to get on 'pet projects' instead of paying down the debt.

I would actually like to see them prove that they can live within a budget and at least try to pay down the principle on the debt.

both right. GOP 2012

And Europe has their "magical" socialized medicine and still failing!

both right GOP 2012

never worked before. your right.

Ah the word "no". The right wingers favorite word.

Joe-- the Dems also use "no" a lot. The Repbublicans wanted the Dems to pay for extending the unemployment benefits and to have a debate on them but the Dems said "no"

Hey left winger how has welfare worked? Seems to me it managed destroying the family unit!!! But in the end I assume that is what you all wanted.

And extending unemployment has made joblessness stagnate. Why get a job when you can sit home and get paid? It is meant for help, not an income. Two years? that is ridiculous! Get two jobs to make up!

The democrats don't like to remember that they were the original 'party of no' and that they actually had a higher filibuster rate.

yes party, no party, right party, left party, your all right. what will work?

Fixing the problem instead of fixing the blame might work. Too bad the politicians don't understand this.

Ignore the libs, do not go along with Obama on anything.

You know now, any thing he favors will be stealing money from the people that earned it and giving it to the handouters.

Remove any conservative that votes to go along with Obama, on anything.

You listening conservatives, 2012, we'll be waiting.

Thank you...I was pointing that out yesterday as well (here: #9.2).

This is not something new, it's what the republicans had recommended doing in an effort to help true up funds for the war - but it was frowned upon and then they were ripped into for the war that we're still in and the fact that it's unfunded.

How "funny".

I'm from NM and I was taught the same values as you. These Socialists need reminding why they came from Europe in the 20's and 30's and why people are still coming to the US both legally and illegally. Opportunities to succeed through hard work. Socialism doesn't work. Looke at Europe.

what if this is as good as it gets?

Good one karen. But no right winger will agree. They support the rich and fight for them even though it is against their own interests. As far as the Vietnam comment above....where have you been? We all know that Vietnam was a mistake. As far as WW2, those guys fought for freedom thank God. We all enjoy that freedom and the radical right wants to take that away. Let those wackos take over and you will have labor camps for all who oppose them.

Joe B---so you are saying that the Dems would support letting all the tax cuts expire? Yeah right. Tell that to the Walmart working momma with 5 kids getting her 5000 child credit. The libs will never support making the poor pay their share.

I have a problem with it! ALL the politicians will keep spending it! They did it with social security and they'll continue to do it!

Turn off the money faucet! Politicians have to be held accountable for the OVERspending. We continue to give them a free ride!

you are all right. what to do?

you are right. what next?

your emails didn't work. i sent email to let the rich get richer. they listen to me.

You have got it right. There is going to be a lot of nothing getting done in the next 2 years. 0bummer ignored the Repubs for the last 2 years and created the biggest mess we have been in - in over 50 years. We are not going to help out 0bummer do anything but repeal the junk he has crammed down our throats in the past 2 years and then in 704 days we will vote the marxist out of office.

News flash. The problem is from the financial crisis of 2008.

Go ask Barney Frank & Chris Dodd - Fannie and Freddie caused the financial meltdown and they were heads of the committee's that ran those institutions. Dubya warned 17 times about Fannie and Freddie and the Dems did nothing. Barney even admits he was wrong when he said that Fannie and Freddie were sound. You can see it on YouTube if you like.

Read below and you can find out where the jobs have been. You won't like it.

Actually Tarp has mostly been paid in full. The rest of it was Obama's Stimulus that did nothing plan.

Add to that -

The democrats were in control of Congress starting in January 2007. Congress controls the purse strings, not the President.

The President can propose, but Congress writes the budget.

At least they are supposed to. The majority party is responsible, but didn't do one this year.

So guess who fell down on hte job again --- democrats.

The only other time this country was run without a budget was also under democrats back when Jimmy Carter was president (2 years running).

add to that me wanting to get richer.

Irene I totally agree with you. Bush's tax breaks for the rich were only passed with the stipulation that they would expire in 10 years. The ten years are up PERIOD, end of story. There are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs (don't know how that's possible since Bush's Tax Cuts should have kicked in by now, don't you think?) because of outsourcing. So on one hand you have the Republicans against extending unemployment benefits for MILLIONS of people, but NOT COMPROMISING on letting Bush's taxes expire for 2% of the richest of the rich. For those of you patting yourself on the back for making it...getting rich by your hard work, there are millions who have worked just as hard every day of their life and not been as fortunate. They are the working poor. They work 2 jobs and still find it hard to put food on their table. OBAMA DO NOT BLINK ON THIS ONE! This bi-partisanship has not worked and it NEVER WILL. They have blooded the water and are coming in for the kill. Most Americans have your back on this issue. They say let Bush's taxes expire and do whatever you have to to keep the middle-class tax cuts in place. It's totally amazing. On this site they are people saying to hell with Americans who don't have jobs and have no way of getting work, but advocating borrowing more money just to give the wealthiest people in the country more money. WTF! LET THOSE F-ing taxes expire! Use that money to help the millions who actually need it, not just so that the top 2% can buy a new yacht, house or sock it away in some f-ing tax shelter. OBAMA DO NOT COMPROMISE ON THIS. THEY HAVE SAID THEY AREN'T WILLING, SO DON'T YOU BACK DOWN. If you do, you won't have my vote in 2012 and that's a promise. Enough with the bi-partisan bulls--t! ENOUGH!

Lets get the commies out of office and round them up.

those are good ideas and while all of you are doing all of that i'll just get richer.

Well Gerald we all hope you get as rich as possible. If you worked for me, displaying the type of attitude that you do, I'd fire you on the spot just for being smug and insufferable.

and james you would be right to do that if i displayed that attitude in your presents. thanks that is the responce i deserve!

John if it were true that this was a land of equal opportunity, I'd agree with you and in your heart, I believe you KNOW that's not true. I offer two examples...my grandson goes to a school where they don't have enough text books. It seems that the teacher has 25 text books, but 35 students. I know of another school where ALL the textbooks are collected at the end of the day from ALL the classes. When the children have homework, what are they expected to use? Plus the books are often close to 10 years old. We have tried to buy him the books, but they are out of print. This doesn't level your equal opportunity playing field to me. This is just not happening in my city, it's happening all over America and it is just going to get worse. The schools in the wealthiest counties worry about new football jerseys for the team. The ones in the poorest cannot find money for textbooks for all the students. Equal opportunity is talked about a lot, while in too many cases, it's just that, talk.

Well oldlady... it sounds like your state isn't giving out the money allotted to it for education by the feds, equally. The idea of equal opportunity isn't about everything being equal between rich and poor, it is about making the most of what you are given and working hard to succeed. If you expect everything to be given to you then you will never amount to anything because you won't try to better yourself if you can get by on handouts.

The schools in the wealthiest counties worry about new football jerseys for the team. The ones in the poorest cannot find money for textbooks for all the students.

While I'll agree that stinks, wouldn't it make sense that the ones getting taxed the most should have said money spent on their school district? I mean...that's the way the local monies are supposed to work...aren't they?

When we were looking for our home (as opposed to what was previously my home) we interrogated the ratings of the school systems and determined which locations we wanted to live in based on that. Once we had that, then we determined what house we could afford in that specific school district.

Sadly, we had friends that did the same and bought a house across the street from one of the best schools in the county. Then they decided to bus kids in and out and his kids were shipped off to another school roughly 30 minute drive away in a 'lovely' part of town so that others could benefit from the high taxes that he pays - suffice it to say, he's pissed and is contemplating pulling his kids and putting them in private school.

Well OLD LADY--------- Maybe you all should do what is needed to be done, instead of waiting for someone to do it for you.

When we ran into that problem we ran sales, volunteered to do work at the schools, what ever we had to do to get books for all of our kids.

We tried the electeds first, if you have no money, you have no money..

Take care of it or move to a school district that is concerned about their children.

Its been 9 years since the end of 2001 when the first tax cuts went into effect and then the 2nd round was in 2003. We had 52 straight months of job and economic growth with 8 million new jobs created. That ended in 2007 when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi got hold of the purse strings. Don't take my word for it - use Google and look it up. When Reid & Pelosi came in unemployment was 4.9% and the Dow was over 14,000 - Again - don't believe me - use Google or Bing and you can find out the truth yourself. The questions need to be asked of the Dems who had control of the purse strings beginning in Jan 2007 and were gonna show us how to do things. Go look on YouTube at Queen Nancy Pelosi preening and crowing about how great things were going to be!

That tired old argumenjt has been debunked so many times I can't count that high.

And why in the Hell should I attempt to make your point for you? Do your own homework.

The graph shows that while the number of non-farm jobs grew by at least around 20% in every other decade since the 1930s, we added virtually no jobs in the 2000s. It's not just that the recent recession wiped out more than 8 million jobs. Although high asset prices made the economy seem healthier that it was, job growth was actually sluggish throughout the decade. Our GDP grew less than 18% over ten years, more slowly than in any other decade since the 1930s, and just half the rate of the previous three decades. And when the asset price bubble burst—causing home values and stock prices to crash—it wiped out a huge part of our national net worth, making it the only decade for which data is available in which the average net worth of the American household actually declined.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/GR2010010101478.jpg

Do you really believe raising taxes will create jobs,come on, this talk about cutting the deficit if taxes are raised,the govt will just spend more,Maybe they get a balnced budget for one or 2 years,Dem or Rep will find some way to just screw it up the following year,The way to do it ,is, a flat tax for everyone,Say %10,no deductions,no refunds,You make $30000,you pay $3000,you make $1,000,000 you pay $100,000,how can that not be considered fair for everyone,you make more ,you pay more,but than again those making( $10,000 -$45000)really dont pay anything if they have kids ,so they like the way it is now,and those making a million relaly dont pau $100,000,they actually pay$350,000,so which group is already getting a great deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Washington Post that's a great left wing paper, Sort of like New York Times. Newsweek
Huffington Post (Soros funded) MSNBC, NBC,CBS, ABC. All liberal a lot with heavy communist leanings. Can't forget good old MSN in that mix.

good points. me get richer.

Ghostmaker surfice it to say that you're full of sh--. To say that they are communist leaning, is BS! You are probably one of those who think that only Fox and the other media sources run by Rupert tell the honest to goodness facts and truths..that they are the only sources for the Real and True Americans to keep their information from, correct? The actual facts are that MOST of this country's news sources come for Conservation outlets. Conservatives rule the airwaves. I recently heard a rumor that one such group wants to buy MSNBC. Why? I believe it's so that the only news and views Americans will have will be from the right. It's the same with National Public Radio, they want them shut down also. As I've stated Conservatives rule the airways!!

True realist, let me get this straight. We let the tax cuts expire and that will create more jobs, is that what you're telling us? Please tell me how that works. Please tell me how we increase taxes on everyone (excuse me, the 47% who actually pay taxes) and that is an incentive to purchase, spend, start new businesses. I'm trying to understand that when I'm taxed at a higher rate (higher taxes = lower income), I'm going to spend more. Isn't it supposed to work by earning more = spending more? How does that work? Oh I know, redistribution! Let the rich pay for everything. What happens when the well runs dry? What then?

True...the tax cuts were not just for the wealthy. The tax cuts were for everyone (and included in the tax cuts is the $1000 child tax credit). Either all tax cuts are extended, or none of them should be.

Most people are against tax cuts being extended for the rich (and $250K is not rich) because it doesn't affect them personally, but how would you feel if you were married and made $250,000.01 and paid more in taxes than the married couple next door who made $249,999.99? The couple making 2 CENTS more would actually have a lot less after tax income. If someone makes more through hard work and determination, they should not be penalized.

good point, i want to be more equal than you and more rich.

Quit blaming the rich for not hiring people,why should they,businesses are not started to hire people and pay taxes,they are started for the owners to make money,as much as they can,Employees are usually the biggest expense for companies,(wages,payroll taxes,wokmans comp insurance)so why would they hire more employees when Obama(being the genius he is) implemented mandatory health care,which no one really knows the added expense for this new law,People I have talked too say that if this isnt drastically changed that they will lay off employees probably,certainly not hire new ones,And good ol Obama does this rite in the middle of a recession,so if my employee expense is going up next year and I still make the same amount or less than the followung year,do you really think that I am gonna hire new employees,no,I probably will have to leyt some go,Why wouldnt I,Remember I didnt start a business for the sole purpose of giving people a job and paying taxes,If you disagree,than get off your butt and start a business for the sole purpose of paying taxes andgiving someone a job!!!!!!!!!

Jealousy is an ugly thing...

And the poor will never pay for anything but expect others to give to them.

No morals if you are rich,wow,I guess I will be poor and have morals and suck off everyone else who works hard and applies themselves to do better,rich people never donate to causes to help the world be a batter place,it must suck being a push over and having no desire to do better,heres an idea smarty pants pushover,Why dont you loosen up your morals a little bit for the sake of humanity and become filthy rich and then donate all or how about half your money to people like yourself and see if you are a little rezentful against people like yorself for expecting a handout for being lazy!!

Joe you can feel free to add a few 100 thousand on your tax bill. I do not feel the IRS will mind. If you so feel that they (government) can spend it better then you. Feel free to go for it. Matter of fact I really got to wonder how libs cry for others money. Yet they seem to be the ones that never pay there taxes or make 40 grand mistakes. So I challenge all you wonderful liberal folks to double your taxes and pay. Prove how wonderful you all are. Show us conservatives the error of our ways... That will be your 2010 tax revolt.

Great idea! Like the millionaires who wrote the letter to Doughbama to raise their taxes, why didn't they just write checks instead?

let me be more rich.

Ticked off...

Jealousy??? Even the most wealthy among us, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates...agree that unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy are detrimental to the welfare of the entire nation...

Show me what THEY have to be jealous of...! Short-sighted fools like you make a choice. When the choice is your maintenance of your financial well-being at the expense of everything else, your greed overcomes common sense. If the nation fails, due to hyper inflation caused by the Fed's printing presses that are running at full-speed, believing you will be exempt from the effects of a failed currency and failed economy is a fantasy that feeds the arrogance that will serve to destroy you AND your financial security.

BLU------- Not illegal for them to pay more taxes, IRS will take everything they give them.

If I want to do something I do, If liberals want to do something they want to make everybody do it.

Joe, So the rich are rich because they have no morals, they don't donate to charity and never pay taxes? OMG! Do you have even the slightest idea how stupid you just made yourself look? Check to see what Bill and Belinda Gates pay in taxes, donate, and ACTUALLY DO, with their own hands to help the poor of the world. Jealousy breeds contemp and that describes your stupid attitude to a T, contempable and jealous.

So true John.

How many of the whiners played around in school and did not take advantage of the free education that was provided to them? How many made poor choices to use drugs or alcohol and ended up losing jobs due to their choices? How many refused to do a job because it was "beneath them" and instead chose to not work?

How are any of these situations the fault of the rich, "holding the poor man down"?

Actually I put it down to a liberal school system designed to cause the failure we see.

Well said John. Spread the wealth my a$$ !!!!!

I, too, hitchhiked to work in my earlier days - went to college while I worked full-time - raised my family - helped my community and neighbors. However, I don't mind paying my fair share to live in America - I want good infratructure - clean water - good schools for my grandchildren - good police and fire protection. I think these are things most of us want, but they don't come free.

I agree with you Will. But there seems to be a huge disparity between the rich and the middle class. I have paid my fair share of taxes and earned every penny of my take home pay. I have been a widow since 1994 and I was the primary provider for my family. Now, that I have turned 65, it appears, the vultures are going to take my retirement. I defy anyone of those pampered sponges, to work as a nurse, for over forty years. Or a policeman. A fireman. A waitress. A construction worker. I am tired. I am afraid. I am not going, to sit by quietly; while some slug, takes away, what I have earned.