Beverly,

We keep picking on the 47% of Americans that do not pay taxes but yet we keep excusing the 66% of corporations (domestic and international) that do business on the American soil and pay no taxes.

We don’t care that half of Americans don’t pay taxes because according to IRS they simply don't make enough to pay them. Whatever the reason is (high medical bills, making only minimum wage, etc) - the net income is not taxable.

But we do care that corporations that have billions in PROFIT will go back to the tax rate prior to Bush.

We also don’t care that the very corporations that took the bailouts from Bush are the corporations that moved their addresses to countries that have no tax laws simply to avoid taxes.

We also fail to mention why Bush simply did not make these tax cuts permanent!!! To all of you who simply have a wet dream of being rich someday (I am assuming that is the reason why you would want to protect the 2%), please look up why Bush did not make his tax cuts permanent. (I hope that if you will look it up, you will believe the answer).

The gop and corporations have still controlled policy since 2010 elections blocking all the dems initiatives. Same stagnation as the Bush years. The Dems need to find some gonads, You all must like being in slaved and monetarily raped by Corporations. Hello soylent green!

Just one more reason to never vote on the freaking 'Republican' ticket. Disgusting pigs at the trough never wanting to leave their feeding frenzy!

Ah, America the beautiful!

It's quite possible he understands the republicans are quite willing to wait until January for the new congress to be seated before making a deal, and he may not get as sweet a deal he can get now. Rather that have the unemployed have to wait another month or two, it's better to make a deal now to help those folks. Even I don't agree with a lot of what he does, maybe the left should lighten up on him a little. Or is this putting too much of a happy face on it.

We keep picking on the 47% of Americans that do not pay taxes

Um, we should be picking on them. They should contribute like the other 53%, shouldn't they? If this number were 20%, it would be more acceptable, but 47% - way too high.

but yet we keep excusing the 66% of corporations (domestic and international) that do business on the American soil and pay no taxes.

I am absolutely with you there! Time for the corporations paying no taxes to contribute - CONSIDERABLY! We are missing out on billions of dollars in revenue.

Personally, I would like to see the tax cut increase expire for anyone making over $1 Million per year rather than the current level of $250,000 (or $200,000 if you are single) that Obama is touting. Small business owners who make between $250,000 and $750,000 provide a large number of jobs for people in the United States.

The poorest Americans paid 14% tax in the lowest bracket until 1979. Prior to that, they paid as high as 20% tax. I see no reason they can't pay an 8% tax now. The lowest bracket is @$12,000. 8% of 12000 = 960. That's effectively nothing in light of what the poorest receive.

The argument stands that the US needs to both raise taxes (minimum 2% all income levels, top tier 4%) and cut government programs. The reason for this, is that in looking at 100 years of history, tax increases are always followed by reductions in the deficit. Tax decreases are always followed by massive deficit increases. Tax increases are typically followed by a 40% decrease in GDP growth. Tax decreases show a GDP growth increase of about 20% over 3 years (based on data since 1954 - at constant currency).

All that said, is 20% GDP worth the massive debt that the US now has? In 2009 alone, the US spent 1.5 Trillion dollars more than the tax receipts it took in. Our debt now stands at 13 Trillion dollars, a 16% growth over 2009, which was 19% higher than 2008. Add in the fact that the US government has printed $4 Trillion in cash ($1 Trillion Bush's last year in office, and $3 Trillion since), it stands to reason that we're very likely going to face massive inflation in the next 2.5 years. Thankfully the Fed has taken some action to pull about $2 trillion out of circulation with TARP repayments.

Final conclusion, if the deficit isn't controlled in the next two years, it is extremely likely that world leaders, world bank, other multi-national institutions will put to vote that the US $ should no longer be the world reserve currency. Should this come to bear, the US $ would be worth about 1/100th of what it is today.

So, I ask, do I want to pay $1,000 more a year in taxes, or do I want to pay $80,000 for a 42" flat screen in 2 years? Answer's simple.

We have had these tax cuts in place for over two years and unemployment has stayed above 9%. Will someone please explain how extending them is going to work magic and lower unemployment now? This will be used against the Republicans (and the rich) in 2012 when things don't change.

Obama has no backbone. To be a true leader, you have to have a backbone and be able to stand up to the thugs who try every trick in the books to defeat you.

Obama caved into the republican-Corporate Teaparty and now the caveing in will never end. Once you give up a fight with those republicans they will not stop till they get 100% of their way.

The Senate minor said His only goal was to defeat Obama in 2012, Then he said that he is not interested in Jobs for our Citizens or getting the Defecit under control. His only goal for the next 2 years is to defeat Obama and nothing else.

I voted for Pres. Obama, but if he caves on his promise to expire the tax cuts for those couples whom make more than 250k, or individuals that make more than 200k, I'm looking for someone else to vote for in '12. He's disappointed me more than enough times: no public option (Medicare buy in), negotiating for prescription drug prices, back room negotiations on the HCR (cornhusker kickback (eventhough it didn't get enacted), gator aid), and every other major piece of legislation. His weak salesmanship of even popular items: DADT, Wall St. Reform, START. It seems that he doesn't believe in what he is doing. Clearly, the President can't explain it to the American people. I'm ready for someone who believes what he says. Maybe Russ Feingold, or Howard Dean, Kent Conrad (at least he can express why he wants to cut spending, and how).

President Obama has no choice but to compromise with Republicans who want a tax cut on income above $250,000 in order to get an extension of unemployment benefit for the unemployed. If the majority of the electorate doesn’t want the President and Democrats to compromise with Republicans then the electorate needs to quit electing Republicans/Tea Partiers and elect Democrat super majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Howdy, RV

What you're asking for would take a re-write of the existing tax laws. That is a different subject. The 47% do pay taxes, just not federal income taxes as their income, following standard legal allowable deductions, does not add up to the amount requiring them to pay the federal income tax.

Only about 3% of "small businesses" would be effected by the rate change.

The link shown below might help clarify the 47% statement often given in posts regarding taxes-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Beverly in Chicago said, "It means no one is understanding how deeply the President wants the middle class to continue to exist."

You're operating from a false premise that only the president (or the left) wants the middle class to succeed. Both sides want people to succeed. They simply come from different points of view.

The left wants to make people dependent on the government for their success, re: putting people on welfare and other social programs so they don't have to be responsible for themselves.

The right believes that every person should pull their own weight and it's the responsibility of each individual to make sure they have the proper job skills so they can get a good job.

Check history to see which side has done the best job at driving the economy. You may be surprised at what you discover.

Wow, what a wonderful idea. But lets do a little history lesson. What party has been in control of the purse strings now since 2006? Gee might that be the Democrats? They won a majority in the hOuse and Senate in 2006 or have we forgotten that? So under Democratic monetary leadership, we have multiplied our deficit, passed an untenable healthcare bill and led the country into 10% unemployment. Yeah, lets elect more Democrats!

Hilary Clinton in 2012 anyone with backbone - Show some class and announce your withdrawal

I like Obama on a personal level he will drink a beer and have a beer summit over a local non-issue, enrich the drug pharmaceuticals which cuts off the freedom of Americans to participate in real capitalism, not push the public health option the American people wanted when explained correctly, thus maintain the monopoly of the business of health, create a consumer protection agency with no teeth, bring on ex-Goldman Sachs and Solomon Bros. Wall Street employees to become the financiers of the government. What ever happened to your pledge of a new America of the people, for the people and by the people? I could go on and on but I am busy this morning. I have to mention caving in on the issues that put you into the White House Mr. President; one more time, you do remember the Public Option? Ending the Two Wars instead perpetuating the “Living With War” posture and militarism of American culture. Maintaining and even expanding a militaristic Empire and thus draining our Treasury and now not fighting for my grandma's Social Security, real classy. Now enriching the rich and adding to the deficit instead of fighting for the tax break and other benefits so needed and deserved by the middle class, you do remember posturing as a fighter for the middle class? It was asked to keep this short and classy and so I ask you to announce that you will run seek re-election and let a real reformist run the last insult would be for you to run and thus split the ticket and give Sarah Palin a free ticket to the Presidency because you see you are a the lamest of lame duck presidents that I can remember in my life time. I would never ever vote for your sorry butt again. Now, you show some class and get out now so the American people can select a suitable replacement and get out of the way. Show some class and support your replacement. I will repeat that Mr. President, you are one slow learner, SHOW SOME CLASS AND WITHDRAW and support your replacement. I will give you this you are the smoothest talking bullsheeter since P.T. Barnum.

There, short by my standards and even classy now please reciprocate in the interest of the country. For once you show some real Class- withdrawal now

Hairy and The Witch still rule for a few more weeks. It's up to them (Dems controlled by progressives).

Beverly:

Obama took office in Jan, 2009 with unemployment at around 5.5%.

Obama has instituted numerous of his "agenda" projects, notably various "stimulus" fiascos that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

With each of these nymphomaniacal-spending fiascos, Obama has injected the BS term "create jobs".

After each of these stimulus and other spending fiascos, the unemployment rate has increased.

Obama's unemployment rate has steadily risen from 5.5% to 9.8% in 22 months, hitting a high of 10%+ early in 2010.

Anyone who continues to support and believe Obama's failed agenda is suffering severe brain damage. Get a clue in your "understanding"!

The 47% do pay taxes, just not federal income taxes as their income, following standard legal allowable deductions, does not add up to the amount requiring them to pay the federal income tax.

Hello vwterry. The remaining 53% pay the other taxes AND federal income taxes. Again, I think that they need to contribute to federal income taxes. The biggest problem that I have with the 47% who pay no federal income taxes - many of them get more money back on their income tax returns than what they had withheld.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

I'm not ok with this.

Howard Dean would NEVER be elected to be President of the United States. He is way too radical.

FINALLY, the Obama kool aid drinkers have woken up. It's too late now.

I love this crap about the working class and lower middle not paying any taxes.

I bet not one of the people complaining though would give up their child tax credits, their mortgage interest credits, or their standard deductions. All three of which help the lowest wage earners pay 0 federal payroll taxes.

How about we just go to a system that says you get the first $21,000 tax free and you pay 25% on everything after that? That is lower than the middle class rate is now. Of course you wouldn't get the tax credits, but we would have lowered your taxes and made those low income people pay their fair share.

We need to raise revenue to pay down the debt and increase the value of the dollar. We need to cut spending and separate SS from the general budget. We need to make drastic cuts in Defense and par back the Medi's to essential services.

Point is we need to make hard choices and frankly no one but the real fiscal conservatives are willing to admit it.

End the tax cuts, extend benefits because we protect our own, and start making some politically unpopular choices that will actually fix our nation. Or stay greedy and watch this country enter into austerity measures in 10 years when our bond market collapses.

Whether it be individuals or businesses, the deductions and loopholes used are given us by the government. Why blame them. Blame the source. You, I, or anyone else, will take every legitimate deduction we can. That's the American way. Revise the tax code/IRS and go to a flat tax, national sales tax, or consumption tax, and we just might get somewhere.

RV in GB#1,

If an employer freeze raises but increases your health insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pockets (one example) so it results in your net income to become a non-taxable will you blame yourself? Or if you get laid off (that's about 10% of working population) or you lose your well paying job and take a minimum wage paying job, will that be your fault?

We are living during times where corporations are laying off people who make decent money and replacing that workforce with employees who will work for half the money and the third of benefits. There is a big insurance company where I live that is doing that. Also, everyone knows that if they continue to use the vacation time that they earned (if you don’t use it, you lose it) you will be replaced. It’s implied because sending a memo would of course be a suicide but everyone knows it.

Why do they do that? To increase profits. And do they get to pay more in taxes? Of, course not because they pay ZERO.

I was simply questioning why so many people pay no taxes and get away with it? I am of course not considering those working for cash but that’s not a significant number.

RV in GB#1...Post #1.17 - you are right now lets even the dollars out$$$$$

But you are as Obama you a stricken with amnesia, those that don't pay are all the Red states but one. All the Blue states are creditor states that pay more into the government than they receive back. Did that ever cross your mind?

You sound like Obama smoke and mirrors. Should I repeat that for you? Every Blue state but one pays more into the government in taxes thanthey receive in Federal tax dollars for everything from Medicaid, food stamps to infrastructure, did you get that?

This is an easy concept to get a handle on in CA. we get back something along the lines 74 cents for every dollar we send to Washington yet we can't meet our state budget. for a few years give California dollar for dollar which comes out about $18 Billion and we will solve our state budget. We are not asking for a handout or free money just give us back dollar for dollar for once. Is that asking to much? Look at he per-capita we still pay more than all the Red States on that level, I repeat on a per-capita basis we pay about $8,500 per resident.

Lets get real and stop with the rhetoric? Do you and all the rest of the posters today with your slant understand this concept? You want to talk of taxes fine!!!

Give California back our money and get out of our states financial pockets!!!

IndependentThinker-796986,

Bush took over in 2001 when the unemployemnt was about 4%. When he left the office in 2009, the unemployemnt was about 7.6% (some report even 8.5%). Net difference = 3.6%

Obama took over with unemployment rate of 7.6%. In Dec of 2010, the unemployemnet rate is 9.8%. Difference = 2.2%

Who do you think has worse stats?

Post Script to #1.22

Please over look the typos I had to type and carry on a conversation, and answer the phones and post #1.22. I am at work, working in California so I can pay more into the Treasury more in taxes than we will get back, dollar per dollar, which if we did our state budget deficit would be solved. I am off the phone for the moment but have to get back to work to pay my taxes.

Friends:

Take a look at this independant survey of small business owners. The vast majority of these make less than $250,000/year. The BS about the tax relief for millionaires hurting business is made up of whole cloth, just another lick-spittle talking point that turns out to be a lie.

If anyone has other reliable data I am interested in reading, so post back!

http://bx.businessweek.com/small-business-operations/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fseekingalpha.com%2Finstablog%2F321507-james-rickman%2F63533-entrepreneur-study-uncovers-demographics%3Fsource%3Dnew_post

What part of, NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT, is addressing the CORE ISSUES, which America needs to solve for her future.

America is in decline, borrowing (robbing) against the future, growing government, failing to address the Military Industrial Complex, failing to address government salaries, and retirement packages, social security, and all the government entitlement programs!

The tax issue and continuting to entitle people who do not want to work at "survival jobs" because they make more on unemployment, does not address the real issues for the government.

America is in trouble! (and the clock is ticking)

sumthin fishy - How right you are this is common knowledge I thought

I would think the American citizen would not be so gullible and see past the slurs and lies I can only assume the bull just keeps overwhelming reality. When will the American people see past these front groups as the "American Chamber of Commerce" how much media exposure has to be sent over the airwaves? How much print media of the real facts as you stated has to be printed?

I'm I the only one, along with you, that knows most small business owners by far after all deductions earn less than $250,000 that is for an individual it is $500,000 for a married couple most are married. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

The "small" businesses that Republican lawmakers say will suffer if the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire are not so small after all. Some of these businesses, which include big names in engineering and finance, are "large" in terms of revenue, payroll and distribution, but "small" in terms of ownership.

According to the Republican tax logic, a small number of owners are the sole criterion for a "small business." Such businesses, which according to the Joint Committee on Taxation accounted for 94 percent of all U.S. businesses in 2007, include partnerships, sole proprietorships and S corporations that allow owners to report profits and losses on their personal tax return, rather than on the company's.

"'Small business' is a brand name".

Businesses with billions of dollars in annual revenue fall under the small business category. Bechtel, a global engineering and construction company that is considered a "small business" under this logic, took in $31 billion last year. Ferrell gas, a propane company, earned $2 billion in revenue last year. McIlhenny, another "small business," which makes Tabasco sauce, made $250 million in revenue in 2007.

Other names include auditing firm Price Waterhouse Coopers and private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Also on the list is the collection of "small businesses" owned by the billionaire Koch Brothers, who this year tied for fifth on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans.

The Republican "small business" designation, the report said, would apply even to individuals with no employees at all. It could include actors, athletes and authors – even President Obama.

Some people will never learn to include the GOP, who really don't care about anyone, but themselves. When the taxes go up, businesses are motivated to hire and grow their business in order to get their tax deductions rather than paying all of it to the taxes. What businesses needs is a special tax deduction or credit (cash off your tax) that motivates the companies to hire new workers.

There is no valid option in this survey, so I didn't select one. As for the option #1, Democrats are NOT forced to give the GOP what they want, and they shouldn't.

Republicans blocked passage of extending tax cuts for EVERYONE on the first $200,00 earned (including the rich), because is didn't include EXTRA tax cuts for the rich. The extra tax cuts should have been handled as a separate matter, but Republicans thought they wouldn't get it, so they block everything. There's another article on MSNBC.com today saying the Republicans won't pass the START nuclear reduction treaty until they get their tax cuts for the rich.

Let the voters see what the Republicans are really about. Don't give in to them. If they want everyone to lose the tax cuts of the first $200,000 - then let the voters see that. And let the voters see the START treaty not get ratified, which will also deteriorate relations in opposing Iran developing a nuke. These are three separate issues, and they should be voted on SEPARATELY. The Republicans are holding these things hostage until they get what they want. DON'T GIVE IN TO THEM.

For those of you complaining about the 47% of the people in this country who pay no income tax, another way to look at it is that we should be ashamed that such a large percentage of our people make so little money that they are unable to pay taxes. Perhaps instead of looking for ways to squeeze more taxes out of incomes under $20,000, we should look for ways to provide jobs that pay more than that much money to more people. That would increase the tax base.

Independent Thinker - yes

There used to be a great program I think it was called the 'WIN" program way back under president Ford along with other hiring programs that gave a tax exclusion not a credit for hiring new employees, or there was a combination of both it has been awhile now but I remember that was a very successful program, then there is the idea you implied that is to me a little vague. That is most likely my fault the point is there are ways for small business to hire but I think I get your idea. If not a direct credit than an exclusion from reportable gross income for small business. There are a host of good small business incentives to hire from our history we don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just use our smarts and implement what worked in the past tweaked for today's environment. Most large business concerns showed great profits report's for the last quarter I hear as a group Americas large corporations are sitting on two trillion in cash but they have no desire to hire better outsource and do more with less. It is small business that will pull us out of the mess but instead no tax break unless the 2% that control 95% of the wealth get a big fat tax break. What a crock and fraud on the American people. I think I am with you as I understand your post. Have to run pardon any typos I am typing at hyper speed for me.

Take Care and Good Luck

RV - it's simply not true that the wealthy pay the same "other" taxes as the rest of us. They only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes up to $106,800 of earned income (7.65% tax right there) and they don't pay those taxes on ANY unearned income (capital gains). So, no, they're not pulling their fair share.

Did you read Warren Buffet's article in the NY Times recently? Do you realize he challenged the Forbes 400 CEO's in 2007 to show him that even one of them paid a higher tax rate than their secretary? To date, NOT ONE has been able to do so.

Don't buy the smoke and mirrors - the bottom 50% of us pay more taxes than the wealthy and most corporations in this country.

To quote Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM, "We have no problem with regulation, just let us know what it is" in response to why more companies aren't hiring.

How can one person make so many mistakes is baffling; Obama elected by the middle class, to end endless wars, a public health option, stop business as usual in Washington, end the trillion's give away to Corporate America, clean house in Washington; instead, many appointments had to go vacant because of those backgrounds, unpaid taxes, prior associations, continued the war and expanded , gave more to banks and industry, backed off , and passed a health care bill which is a give away to insurance and no public option, if he wants to save what is left of the Democratic party, he should resign from office !

Frankly, I think Hillary Clinton must have stolen Obama's mojo after the last debate. Since she now has a least 2 more balls than he does, maybe it's time to let her have a whack at that "vast right-wing conspiracy".

after spending most of the weekend on the ledge ready to jump off of my support for Obama I am now firmly back on solid ground. After doing more reading and listening to 60 Minutes, I'm OK with extending the current Bush Tax Code for the top earners as it will allow Obama to get some compromise from the Republicans on other important legislation.

It's also important for the educated members of the electorate to remember the tactics used by Republicans the past 2 years and make sure you vote in 2012. The same old tired rhetoric of lower taxes equal job creation has not and never will work. It is simply a smoke screen to distract the uneducated from the Republican's real reason. They want to make sure their rich buddies continue to get richer and in the meantime helping Republicans to get elected.

Great article by the Washington Post:

Five myths about the Bush tax cuts

Summary:

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

According to the Congressional Budget Office and other authorities, extending all of the Bush tax cuts would have a small bang for the buck, the equivalent of a 10- to 40-cent increase in GDP for every dollar spent.

Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.

2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

A main selling point for the cuts was that, by offering lower marginal tax rates on wages, dividends and capital gains, they would encourage investment and therefore boost economic growth. But when it comes to fostering growth, this isn't the whole story. The tax cuts also raised government debt -- and higher government debt leads to higher interest rates. If estimates of this relationship -- by former Bush Council of Economic Advisers chair Glenn Hubbard and Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen, and byoutgoing Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and myself -- are accurate, then the tax cuts have raised the cost of making new investments. As the economy recovers and private borrowing rises, the upward pressure on interest rates is likely to grow even stronger.

I have used standard growth and investment formulas to calculate that the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts on economic growth has therefore been negative -- and it will continue to be negative if the cuts are extended.

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

One theory holds that the country's long-term budget shortfall is "just" an entitlements problem, the result of rising costs associated with growing Social Security rolls and increased health-care spending (via Medicare and Medicaid). Republicans like this idea because it plays down tax increases as a potential solution. Democrats like it because it makes the recent health-care package seem like even more of a triumph.

But it just isn't true. The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020.

According to these same projections, the yearly deficit would rise to 6 to 7 percent of GDP by 2020. The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.

Compounding the problem: By 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.

Not a decent choice of selections. With the Bush tax cuts extended, unemployment benefits extended, this will cost America another $500billion added to the deficit next year. Simply amazing how these fat rich republicans will hold the tax cuts over the heads of poor people, entering the holiday season on unemployment. America is beginning to truly show her colors, and it's all GREEN, to the fattest, whitest, richest, while forgetting all about the middle class, until they need to be re-elected.

But hey, who cares, the rich republicans, and their lobbyist, will be sitting back, eating fat steaks, drinking Pappy Van Winkle 23 year old Family Reserve, and smoking Cuban Cohiba's.

We don't have a revenue problem in this country...we have a SPENDING problem. We take in a huge amount of money in to the government coffers, and the politicians on both sides spend more money than we take in. We need to stop spending. If we don't we are going the way of Greece.

The reality is that the Democrats realized that if a Democratic Congress didn't pass the extension of the current tax rates, the new Republican Congress would do so in January, and the Republicans would have cast the Democrats as favoring a $3 Trillion tax increase on the middle class.

The Democrats wasted 2 years when they controlled everything, and only now, when faced with a Republican House of Representatives in 4 weeks, are they doing anything for the people.

I agree with you some what, however, President Obama should have put up a fight.

The Dem's. should have reduced the Tax cuts to 13 month, and jobless Benefits extended for 24 month.

Get rid of both parties-do away with bi-partisan politics. Make politicians run without any party backing. Neither party is able to see beyond the "maintaining control" factor long enough to do what the American people need done.

As much as I hope you are correct (and I sincerely hope you are correct). Obama is great at the campaigning game (lets be honest- its the ONLY thing hes shown himself to be good at). So in 2012 my guess is he'll rev up his base of the ignorant, come up with a few catch phrases, start calling Republicans "the enemy" again and probably win by a very small margin. If we were to really examine the facts, he hasn't really stopped campaigning on a local/state level scale and he'll probably get back into full defense/campaigning mode in 2011.

If we were to be totally honest, the founding fathers had it right with the electoral college- the idea being that the average American isn't smart enough to make the right decision...

The rich used to pay 90% income tax 60 years ago. They're getting a deal now. Let's raise their taxes to 70% and call it a bargain.

I would propose that the term rich be qualified by something however. I mean, if you live in most parts of the mid west- 250k certainly qualifies you as rich. If you live in the suburbs of NYC or Boston (most of the east coast...) 250k means that you can afford certain things but you certainly aren't rich. Especially when considering local taxes and the like which are undoubtedly higher. This is when it starts really affecting people who, per this article or these posts are rich, but in reality are at home clipping coupons like the rest of you. There are major MAJOR differences between 250k in Westchester or Nassau County and say, Plattsburgh...

This will probably not be a popular post but....

If we tax the top 2% at 100% we still won't solve the deficit

(Likewise, if we tax the bottom 40% at 8% it will have the same small effect)

I don't pretend to have any answers and it's popular to say "tax the millionaires" but it's just not right to raise taxes on anyone in these down times. Letting the "Bush tax cuts" ride for three more years and extending unemployment are the right things to do today.

None of these things will "solve" the deficit--these are small steps to be assured the deficit doesn't grow like crazy anymore. Truthfully, solving the deficits means cutting military, medicare, and social security--and if you don't touch those, nothing will change.

You may say it's not right to raise taxes on people during the down times, but the rich got much richer during this recession--it's not down times for them.

Don't you think in three years, there'll be just as big a fight to keep these tax cuts going? If the economy is doing well, Republicans will just say, "You can't raise taxes when the economy is doing well--that'll make businesses cut jobs!"

These tax cuts haven't created one job--they're not about to start now.

The debt increases are caused by Obama, the Nymphomaniacal-Spender-in-Chief's nymphomaniacal-spending.

If you want to be appalled at something, this is it.

Bart nailed it. These cuts are not creating jobs. If they were I would be cheering for them.

Tie the tax cut to job creation. You get it if you create jobs like you say this tax cut is meant to. If you don't create the jobs then we know that you were just blowing smoke up our collective asses to increase your profit margin.

Independent Thinker - do you know what nymphomaniacal means?

As simple as it sounds. We dont really have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. Both sides have put their pet programs in place, and they have a life of their own now. They will not give them up easily, no matter waht the damage to this country.

Both sides will have to come to the realization taht we can no longer afford to be all things to all people. We need a government as described in teh Constitution, not was it look like today. I think both sides would be happier.

Extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% adds the same amount to the deficit over the next 75 years as the shortfall in Social Security. Still willing to give it to them?

RealAmericansFirst.......the error in your argument with SS and Medicare taxes being capped for high wage earners is that the return on those programs is also capped. If there was no earnings cap, then the SS benefits paid at retirement should also reflect the higher contributions that a high wage earner would contribute. You can't have it both ways and be fair. Unless you don't want to be fair and are just looking at the high income citizens to pay an even larger share of the tab to run this country. The only fair thing to do is let the tax cuts expire for everyone. But that would expose the Democrats long standing position that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. What a lie that turned out to be.

People of my generation almost certainly aren't going to get back as much from Social Security as we've paid in. I think it's YOU who can't have it both ways and be fair.

Nothing will be passed in congress for the next two years unless it proudly displays the "REPUBLICAN GOLD SEAL OF APPROVAL". This is the new reality. get used to it.

The current tax rates haven't created any jobs? Have you not looked at the unemployment rate for the last 10 years? In 2000 it was 4.0, and from 2001, 2002, 2003 it went up to a high of 6.0. from 2004 to 2007 it went to a low of 4.6. Can you honestly say that the unemployment rate went down almost 2% with no jobs being created? That takes some serious mental gymnastics to accomplish.

See www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaa1.pdf

Carole-691329

Are you really so naive that you would think that raising taxes on the middle class by $3 Trillion over the next 10 years would not have a negative impact on the economy? Perhaps an Economics 101 class would help.

OK, tell us. What IS going on in the US? Frome where I sit the rich get richer and the middle-class and poor are screwed.

Anyone who carried water for the GOP will likely be among the first to drown.

The GOP is UNAmerican!

The problem with the current economy is that since late 2007, nobody is getting richer. Until the economy stabilizes and some of the unknowns become defined - like taxes and health care implications, corporations and investors are unwilling to invest in expanding businesses. This is the only way that unemployment will improve.

The Democrats understand what is going on in this country, they just think people are more important than the greed of the Republican party for the wealthy. I hope you are wealthy, because once the "Fat Lady Republican Party" starts singing in january, they will hacket all the things that might benefit the middleclass. The poor don't stand a chance of a snowball going through hell, so we won't go there. We have asked for this, so we deserve it, let's hope that once "China" owns us completely due to borrowing more money, we can be bought back by our grandchildren, great grands, great great, grands and so forth and so on. Our jobs will not come back and we will pay more taxes and higher insurance cost;So Let everybody say "Thank you GOP"; Six month or A year from now we will all see and feel the mighty of the GOP on the middleclass and the poor, we are expendable you know. You have forgotten one thing, had the Republicans been so rightous for all the people 10 years ago, we would not be in the hell of a mess. Please don't say Bush had a Democractic House and Congress, the Repos hacket Obama and no one care, so why didn't the public demand Bush be removed????? Think about it, I rest my case.......

Beau Bennett said, "OK, tell us. What IS going on in the US? Frome where I sit the rich get richer and the middle-class and poor are screwed."

Change the position of where you sit! You have fallen prey to the class warfare spiel that the Dems promote that you can't succeed unless you take from the rich and give to the poor.

The rich are simply people like you who had an idea and made it work by working hard.

Millions have come here because this country is viewed as the land of opportunity where anyone can succeed through doing what it takes to succeed.

Stop limiting yourself. You can succeed too. Got an idea? Get a mentor if you need one and make it work.

Getalife,

You still have not answered the basic question posed. What is going on? There is no empirical data that suggests that these tax cuts have generated jobs, and the unemployment rate shows that it has not done anything. TARP has not freed the funds for businesses to receive short term loans to get producing again, so that failed too.

Bush made this temporary because he knew that it would no longer have any effect after 8 years. His top economic advisers agree with him, and made the argument that even 8 years was way too long.

Everyone is complaining about welfare, but not one person is ready to cut the corporate welfare train. Cut the subsidies and make these corporations actually work for their money. How about that as an ultimatum for extending the tax breaks?

It sure does seem fishy that a few people at the top got so much richer in a few decades while 95% of the country stagnated....

And as for the appeasers who say "they earned it" I just gotta laugh. Yeah, they earned it while operating in the USA. The people who made the country possible see the rich increase their wealth while they stay still. That extra wealth could not have been achieved without the whole nation.

The problem I see with the dems is that they don't feel that everyone should pull their weight. They want the people who have worked and saved to pay for those who haven't. Just how long are the working people supposed to support those who don't? Some are truly having a hard time finding work but we all know that there are a lot who just sit back and enjoy the free income. It's free to them but not to the people who are paying the taxes that make it happen. Many of those drawing unemployment are not the primary breadwinners in the family and this is extra money.

Many business people who live on that cusp of $250 are waiting to see if it is going to cost them more than their business can support before they make a move to grow their business. If they can keep their income below $250 and make more money than if they let it prosper, why wouldn't they just stay where they are?

Those corporations that are so hated sure do create a lot of jobs. Go downtown and watch the people flood out of those big buildings at closing time. There is an upside and a downside there.

armurray - you are mistaken. You say no one is getting richer, but with the help of our taxpayer bailouts, large corporations, hedge fund managers, and banks are raking in unprecedented profits and giving unprecedented bonuses. SOMEONE is getting richer, but it's not you or me.

Au contraire, armurray - Corporate profits are already back where they were before the recession. In fact, they turned their biggest profit ever in history last quarter - over $1 trillion. PROFIT.

So where is that money going? Not to creating jobs. It's paying ever-more-exorbitant CEO salaries (which were already up to 531 times the average workers' salary in 2009), fat bonuses, dividends, mergers and OVERSEAS infrastructure development.

At least if it's taxed, it stays in this country and works for ALL of us.

From the NY Times:

Our Banana Republic

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.'s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

The mandate delivered by the majority of voters in the mid-term elections was to take from the middle and poor class and give to the rich. The sad part is the majority of voters who elected Right-Wing Politicians are middle and working class Americans. LMAO. ;-) :-)

Dtruthwillsetufree said, "The mandate delivered by the majority of voters in the mid-term elections was to take from the middle and poor class and give to the rich."

Your premise is incorrect. The argument in congress is about letting small business owners who put most of their taxable money back into the business keep more of their money so they can grow and hire more people.

The mandate delivered by the voters was to "stop the nymphomaniacal spending".

Why are so many of you in denial about that?

The mandate was also a recognition of what an incompetent buffon Obama is, but that's another issue.

"The argument in congress is about letting small business owners who put most of their taxable money back into the business keep more of their money so they can grow and hire more people. "

Only if you consider a multi-billion-dollar corporation to be a small business. This WAS and IS a redistibution of the wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich. Just what the Repubbies want.

"stop the nymphomaniacal spending".

And not allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire is 100% against stopping the spending. But then, the rich really needs that money.

Your premise is incorrect. The argument in congress is about letting small business owners who put most of their taxable money back into the business keep more of their money so they can grow and hire more people.

GetalifeVirginia,

The "small" businesses that Republican lawmakers say will suffer if the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire are not so small after all. Some of these businesses, which include big names in engineering and finance, are "large" in terms of revenue, payroll and distribution, but "small" in terms of ownership.

According to the Republican tax logic, a small number of owners are the sole criterion for a "small business." Such businesses, which according to the Joint Committee on Taxation accounted for 94 percent of all U.S. businesses in 2007, include partnerships, sole proprietorships and S corporations that allow owners to report profits and losses on their personal tax return, rather than on the company's.

"'Small business' is a brand name".

Businesses with billions of dollars in annual revenue fall under the small business category. Bechtel, a global engineering and construction company that is considered a "small business" under this logic, took in $31 billion last year. Ferrell gas, a propane company, earned $2 billion in revenue last year. McIlhenny, another "small business," which makes Tabasco sauce, made $250 million in revenue in 2007.

Other names include auditing firm Price Waterhouse Coopers and private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Also on the list is the collection of "small businesses" owned by the billionaire Koch Brothers, who this year tied for fifth on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans.

The Republican "small business" designation, the report said, would apply even to individuals with no employees at all. It could include actors, athletes and authors – even President Obama.

Hey everybody! Wake up! Any money that is put back into a business is not taxed! Businesses are taxed on NET PROFITS. "NET" means after all expenses (materials, labor, equipment, and overhead) are deducted. I see that argument over and over and it is a fallacious argument.

Hey, IndependentThinker - if you think the spending is "nymphomaniacal", did you also come up with the term "teabaggers" for your movement?

Hahahahaahah

Does seem that I.T. is really trying to make that the new catch phrase. Suggest he/she sends it to the great creator of catch phrases, Sarah "you betcha".

heartlight3

Most small businesses don't know exactly what their NET PROFIT is until well after the end of the year. By that time they are already spending their NET PROFIT on the next years business. If you think a small business owner pockets ever penny of his NET PROFIT you don't know much about running a business. You must be a progressive/liberal who is employed by some mean nasty business owner who enables you to put food on the table or afford that big screen TV. Wait a minute, I mean enjoy your big screen TV and spend your food stamps.

You mean Democrats are so rich they don't need to shop at Walmart?

So the idea is he should have screwed me by allowing my cuts to expire to make a point with the creeps on the other side? Now that's thinkin.

Just Another Poet, I think yes is the answer. I'm a socially responsible Democrat. If the middle class can't continue to get a tax cut, which by the way is 98% of Americans, then I believe that Americans should collectively "suffer" by paying down debt that we all collectively ran up. Everyone wants "free" money, until they have to pay for the "free" money later (with interest). Make no mistake about it, ALL Americans will have to pay for this. With the possible exception of the "rich" who gets to set prices. They can account for taxes by incorporating them into the price of their products. While the rest of us pay for products which pay the "rich" taxes (the ones they pay). While the average American will pay for the increased cost of borrowing by paying higher interest on large purchases. So, in actuality, you aren't saving anything by the tax cuts, its just your perception. Your perception is wrong.

You've got it.

No one is complaining that the Republicans were willing to let millions of people unemployment compensation run out, in order to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy. It has been proven that when people receive unemployment compensation most of the money is returned to the economy, purchasing food, and clothing, and paying utilities, rent, mortgage and other bills. What has not been proven is that allowing the tax cuts to continue for the wealthy will create jobs.

If he didn't compromise, perhaps he could be credited with actually doing something he claims he stands for and would be the proper thing to do, for once.

Don't hold your breath.

When should unemployment compensation end? Never? I remember when people could draw 6 months of unemployment and that was it.

When should unemployment compensation end? Never?

Unemployment compensation should end at the same length of time, not one minute more or less, than the tax loophole giving tax breaks to corporations to move jobs overseas was in effect. If it was in effect for twenty years (back to Unca Ronnie and George 1) then unemployment compensation should last that long. Unless, of course, the Repubbies would like to reimburse the American people for every dime of tax money given out through that treasonous act.

Well said, EGlide. What some people don't seem to understand is that we give away BILLIONS in corporate welfare every year, but they want to pin all the fault on the unemployed (lazy, you know).

And, frankly, I think those pallets of cash we're shipping to Iraqi and Afghan warlords could be used to maintain a few "hearts and minds" right here in America, too.

I agree that we give billions away all over the world instead of taking care of our own. I also know that there are a lot of people who don't work when they can. I also agree that we need to bring jobs home so lets work on protesting the tax loopholes that encourage corporations to move jobs overseas. How about opening our waters back up to the oil companies who provide jobs to the people here? If it's ok to allow other countries to explore our waters and give the oil to China, why can't Americans work those waters. There is enough blame to go around.

RussMK,

What you don't seem to understand is that if you make $250,001, you would have gotten the same tax cut for $250K, and would then pay the Clinton era tax rate on the next $1. Republican "fiscal policy" is a disaster for this country.

I understand what you are saying, RussMK. A house in Alabama costs a lot less than a house in northern Virginia. A person making $250 in the NE isn't nearly as wealthy as a person living in Alabama and making the same salary.

What kriblet is saying is that EVERYONE, even those making over $250k a year in taxable income, are getting EXACTLY THE SAME TAX BREAK on their income up to the $250k level. US tax rates are marginal, meaning only the $$ over each tax bracket's threshold are taxed at a higher rate.

So what the GOP is really holding unemployment benefits hostage over is a 4.6% tax rate change ONLY on income OVER $250k a year ($500k for couples). Does anyone think that's fair extortion?

How long do you feel people should be able to draw unemployment? Two years is a long time. If you can't find a job in two years, maybe you should consider going where the work is.

And where is that, exactly? India?

There are currently 5 unemployed for EVERY job opening in this country. That includes the ones that most people can't qualify for, like brain surgeon or nuclear physicist. The actual ratio for the jobs most people are applying for is probably 50 or 60 to one. Our local Costco got 600 applications for ONE $10-per-hour cashier position.

So, please tell us, Linda - where do you want the unemployed to go? Out of sight and out of mind is my guess.

Great!

Sweet!

You lie.

And cede the field to the teabaggers? Over my dead body. I'll be dragging myself to the polls to vote against these fascists until the last breath fades away.

RealAmerican,

How are the Tea Party folks fascists? Isn't part of their platform SMALLER government, LESS regulation, MORE personal liberty? How is that fascist? That doesn't sound at all like Mussolini, who want MORE (read that as absolute) governemt control of the means of production.

MSNBC, CBS, Reuters, and ABC ALL seem to share the same news information, the only opposing voice to them is fox run by Rupert Murdoch. Keep on swallowing Beck's histeria.

You all should watch Fox once in a while. You may learn something.

From watching Faux Noise I learned to not watch Faux Noise. Unless I want to be lied to.

Your savior, Obama, can do it. It will expire 12/31/10 if Obama does not get in bed with your hated republicans. If the "Bush" tax cuts are extended it is Obama's fault!

The ball is in Obama's court. Have you "staunch supporters" talked to him? And what will you do when he betrays you?

Lucky, well said. While I am sure that I don't agree with you on most of your political views since I am pretty conservative, you are exactly right on this point.

So, Pat, you feel that the failure of the Dems to go more to the left prompted the electorate to move to the right? Sorry, I don't by that little piece of illogic. Now, if you said the the failure of the Dems, including President Obama, to control the narrative of the recent campaign, was the root of the problem, I would agree with you.

By allowing the right to get away unchallenged with outrageous lies designed to scare people into voting for them, the Dems sealed their own doom. I guess we agree on the cowardice of the Congressional Democrats. I don't think Obama is a coward or weak; he has to deal the hand he's been dealt, which features the likes of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and their ilk as part of his so-called majority. The 60 vote ironclad majority was made of smoke and mirrors -- never really existed and led to a lot of unrealistic expectations. Exactly how did you think Obama could force those weasels to do what he wants them to do?

As far as Obama's future is concerned, I think you are selling him way short. Way short.

Well said, I second that!

There is at least one prominent member of the House with spine. Her name is Nancy Pelosi. The smear job done on her by the right has been outrageous; the silence in her defense from the left has been deafening. For those on the left who say Obama has no spine, I have one question: did you stand up for him or for Nancy Pelosi, even once? To a friend, a relative, a stranger at the car repair waiting room? Even once? Maybe you should check your own spine.

Supporters need to know that support doesn't end on election day -- you don't hang your candidate out to dry and then attack him. You continue to fight for him. The Republicans continued to attack; Dems sat back and took it. And I am not talking about the elected officials only; I am talking about YOU (not you personally, pat, but people in general) if you worked for Obama and then just sat back and watched.

The game isn't over, pat.

Good for you, pat, thanks for defending her, she deserves it and our thanks to boot.

I think Obama is a very bright guy who can learn a lot from what's happened. I also think he can learn a lot from Bill Clinton, who managed to do pretty well in similar circumstances, though he did move to the center. See, I don't think Obama was ever that far from center, to be honest. The left just latched onto a few ideas and convinced itself that he was one of them. And, he isn't. So, live with it and understand the forces at work here. He is a positive force in the right direction, especially when you consider the alternative.

The $250,000ers or more pay their fair share? Don't you know that 43.4% of all tax filers do not pay any federal income tax? This isn't a tax cut, it would have been a tax increase. The government needs to cut spending first, then talk to me about additional revenues which they can't stop spending. Politicians are like kids in the candy store, can't seem to say no to anything.

Mike-1573028,
Your plan is fine--except there is no plan. What are these cuts going to be? Did you see the reception that the Deficit Commission plan got? Yes, it was a tax cut, one that went on far too long, and even Bush didn't intend for it to be permanent.

Think about it 250K equals 20K+ a month. Two months income for these people is almost as much as the median annual income.

Fair share. Interesting term. I think everyone paying 20% of everything they make is fair. Why do we need a graduated tax system? Why do people who don't make $200K always want to take more away from the ones that do. If you really want fair,then have everyone pay the same percentage. I would bet that wouldn't make you very happy!

It would? Knowing people who make 10k a year with a masters, I can say with absolute certainty that they would NOT be happy. 20% of 10k is way too much. Quit being a greedy idiot, learn some economics, and know that you need a graduated taxation system.

Wake up liberals and get off the "screw the rich" bandwagon. The top 2 % of wage earners already pay 40% of the income taxes. There are just not enough "rich" people to screw and still fix the economy. It's time for the middle class to stop whining and pay their "fair share".

But the top 2% pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than the other 98% of us. And you do realize that income over $250k taxable is almost certainly discretionary income, right? Unlike the $46k median household income in this country, which is certainly spent on necessities.

Basically what you're saying is that the rich shouldn't have to give up any of their toy money - the poor should take it out of the food on their tables.

Fascism by definition is a right-wing dictatorship. Mitch McConnell "The Turtle", wants to be "Patton" already. But we need a Mussolini. Who would look the best with his arms folded and his chin jutting out? An orange one would'nt look right. How about Glen Beckerhead? He's got the fat, chubby cheeks for it...

"Wall street bankers own us and there is no gop or democratic party."

Exactly on the mark PP , here is a quote from a past proponent of this form of government.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

beave:

By your definition (mussolini's) every government is fascist? Could be.

Yes, I guess that could be true but it is much more obvious in ones where capitalism/corporatism is left to run rampant with no regulation and oversight------you know, like ours. Governments that play to this format and have no social consciousness usually don't go on in the same form for too long historically. When the unchecked greed of a tiny percentage of a population grinds the rest of that population under their proverbial boot heel, things need to be brought closer to center IMO. Social democracy, for lack of a better term, is what this country was founded on and that is obvious to anyone who reads the preamble to the Constitution. Governments always fail when they become tipped too far to either the left or right. The good of the many always outweighs the good of the few.

Duce! Duce!Duce!

Just wait until the GOP starts taking the point on reducing SS and Medicare, then you'll see all the losers that voted for the GOP come out screaming.

Conservatives don't want to pay for the debt but wanted sooooo badly to defeat Obama.

Can't wait to hear them scream.................

agreed!!