I would assume the President was referring to the payroll tax holiday, unemployment extension, and the extension of some stimulus tax cuts, and not the tax cuts for the rich.

The President said he did not agree with the tax cuts for the high income earners, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of it--the rest of it is for middle and low income Americans which WILL help with the economy.

Didn't the Liar-in-Chief tell us yesterday that bomb-throwing hostage-takers forced this tax deal upon an unwilling Obama?

It's clear to me... Congress has to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill.

NANCY... Pass the BILL....

What about the extension of the middle class tax cuts from the 09 Stimulus bill? Are those going to be extended? And for how long. This article is not very clear.

The President said he did not agree with the tax cuts for the high income earners, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of it--the rest of it is for middle and low income Americans which WILL help with the economy.

1) There are no tax cuts, taxes will only be raised if enough Democrats can't be found to support the extension supported by Obama and the Republicans.

2) If Obama doesn't agree with the maintaining the tax rates for the top 2%-ers, why did he agree to the deal with the Republicans? It's not like the Republicans were married to that deal. Incoming Speaker, John Boehner, in September said he wanted all taxpayers to maintain their current tax rates in 2011, but if he had to throw the top 2%-ers under the bus and raise their taxes to get a deal done, he'd understand that and would agree to it. Not exactly a hardball position taken by the incoming Speaker now is it?

Uh-oh, Mr. President...

I support the compromise you negotiated, and...as a rule, I generally disagree with your policy initiatives.

But...please.

Don't go there.

That's what you've been saying for months about Obamacare, and the public still isn't buying it.

Alright, alright, apparently some of you are still holding hostages today because of this tax bill thing. Please release them immediately! We've got a deal with the POTUS, and we can always retake those hostages again if the deal goes south. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you listen a little closer and read the following transcript, you will find that Obama was paraphrasing from economist predictions. He said that in the past 24/48 hours many economists have looked over the deal and they think the following things, one of which was a potential to drive down the unemployment rate.

And it wouldn't just be the continued tax cuts for the wealthiest that would affect that. It would be the entire package as anon pointed out. The best things about this are the payroll tax holiday, unemployment extension, and maintenance of some of the other middle earners targeted cuts. These affect the largest segement of consumers.

It should, in theory, drive the unemployment rate down because more people will continue to have more cash in their pockets. The reason that drives the rate down is because these people purchase goods and services thus driving up demand or creating new demand.

In the past year, following the worst of the job cuts, there was a ton of pent up demand. In the semiconductor industry the demand suddenly came back a few months into 2010 and everyone was scrambling to keep up. If people are able to keep consuming the production capacity at a reasonable rate, businesses will have to start hiring to continue to keep up.

The unemployment extension and other continued tax breaks help ensure people can continue to spend when they need to and avoids stagnation. The payroll holiday should make it easier for businesses to hire and maintain profitability. The top level tax cuts may not go directly to spending, but I think that money will likely go to investments. If that is true then that also helps drive growth because new companies get capitol to use for hiring or expansion.

These shouldn't be permanent though. They should be considered emergency measures to ensure the economy has the most solid opportunities to thrive and grow.

It is better to make a deal like this and make sure you get the most important stuff done, than not get the important stuff just to prove some point. Point proving can be reserved for later when so many people are not on the hook for the consequences of taking such a principled stand.

JoAnna wrote:

1) There are no tax cuts, taxes will only be raised if enough Democrats can't be found to support the extension supported by Obama and the Republicans.

Can we stop this semantic debate? Liberals and Conservatives won't agree on what to call these extensions, so why keep bringing it up? Just let bygones despise bygones and lets all move on.

2) If Obama doesn't agree with the maintaining the tax rates for the top 2%-ers, why did he agree to the deal with the Republicans? It's not like the Republicans were married to that deal. Incoming Speaker, John Boehner, in September said he wanted all taxpayers to maintain their current tax rates in 2011, but if he had to throw the top 2%-ers under the bus and raise their taxes to get a deal done, he'd understand that and would agree to it. Not exactly a hardball position taken by the incoming Speaker now is it?

That was in September, before Republicans decided to threaten to block all legislation until a deal was reached. You can argue that Obama caved or compromised, but he never supported tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans got it as a concession to get the bill through.

Aten - I hope those economists are right, but I'm skeptical. I've just never believed in taxes as a strong enough rudder for achieving economic goals.

Didn't the Liar-in-Chief tell us yesterday that bomb-throwing hostage-takers forced this tax deal upon an unwilling Obama?

Where is the lie though, Turtlehead pretty much said nothing gets done until the rich get their extension.

Their holy grail of necessary legislation was to give the rich more money from your children and grandchildrens piggy banks.

Anon: Can we stop this semantic debate? Liberals and Conservatives won't agree on what to call these extensions, so why keep bringing it up? Just let bygones despise bygones and lets all move on.

Anon, I'm sorry that the truth to details distresses you, but to some it's important to understand and use our language to accurately describe what we are talking about.

Anon: That was in September, before Republicans decided to threaten to block all legislation until a deal was reached. You can argue that Obama caved or compromised, but he never supported tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans got it as a concession to get the bill through

The Republicans got feed up waiting for the Democrats to come around to discuss the economy. Instead, the Democrats wanted to talk about Charlie Rangel, DATD, the Dream Act, everything under the sun, except the economy. Drastic measures to get the Democrats attention were required. Obama isn't stupid, he could figure out what Nancy "It's not my fault we lost" Pelosi and Harry Reid couldn't, that American deserved to know what their tax rate would be come January 1st. The deal to extend it only for the 98%-ers was open to discussion in September, and was also on the table after the elections, the Democrats just ignored it. Obama quickly agreed to something/anything that might save his presidency, seeing everything he had done up until that point failed. His crocodile tears since that time are just a performance to salvage his ties with his political base, and from the looks of things, it's not working.

I don't think it would be wise for this president to continue to come up with different excuses for why he helped the rich again.
This is not only happening in this country where the rich are making a stand against the poor but it is happening in a number of western countries.

I don't think that this president understands that you don't make deals with the devil!!!
If you do you will forever be indebted to the devil.

So yes he has open the flood gates for the Reublicans and yes we do feel alone now in this.
But for those like me who will fight for the greater good in every situation imaginable, don't lose hope and continue to put those who are doing wrong in their places.

I really must question your intelligence or just call you a political hack. You state that low marginal tax rates created teh real estate colapse. I am sorry but that is just plain stupid, or again you know it is a stupid statement and think everyone reading your words are stupid, or are a political hack. The past eight years created one of the greatest economic expansions in history with HISTORICLLY low unemployment rates. Atribute that to reasoned margianl tax rates or not, but in no way can a case be made that those rates triple real estate prices to insane levels and then colapsed them. Doe insult people with brains. The second point is that your immorality, greed and coveteousness is sickening. Excuse me, IT AIN'T your money. I suggest if you want more money get and education, apply yourself and earn the money. Suggesting that the "rich" pay for your retirement, kids college, medical expenses, is just plain STEALING. Are you a theif? The answer is yes. The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes. YOU ARE THE ONE GETTING A FREE RIDE.

oldcavscout

Brace yourself - they've open the troll bridge! lol

We already know this Feisty. You're here.

WOW! You SO clever!

Did you think that one up all by yourself or did you have to ask for help? ;0)

Alright, alright, apparently some of you are still holding hostages today

But, how do you release hostages of stupidity?

chilled is still talking about "eight years of the lower rate for millionaires/billionaires" as if everyone didn't know that millionaires/billionaires are not touched by measly commoner taxes. Geez.

Anon posts that that the President was referring to the payroll tax holiday, unemployment extension... when the title of the articale is - Obama: Tax deal will look better with more scrutiny.

Pretty much a diddo for Jody.

Feisty, the half wit nit pikin nit wit is noticing that right wing nitwits on this board are still b!tching and moaning after the President supposedly caved when I feel we right wing nitwits have been VERY, VERY clear in our mocking of Obama and laughing at his incontinent incompetence that led led to him getting punked and out-maneuvered by the Turtle and Agent Orange Crocodile Tears. (Yes -Still mocking)

So JoAnnaSmith, how do we release these poor hostages.

(BTW- I was gonna take off, but it has been fun working with you today.)

Obama: Tax deal will look better with more scrutiny

Is this a Pelosi-ism? DIMs, you just have to pass it so you can see how good it is. LOL

JoAnna - Anon, I'm sorry that the truth to details distresses you, but to some it's important to understand and use our language to accurately describe what we are talking about.

The debate is complicated by the fact that these tax cuts were not made permanent in the first place. The taxes were supposed to sunset after 10 years. You call it an increase; other, just as educated folks hold the opposing viewpoint that it is a reversion to past rates. It's important to use our language to accurately describe our point of view. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, there has been a debate on these boards over just what these tax cut extensions should be called, and it's going nowhere.

I can appreciate that you're forceful in your arguments, but you might, in the future, use your language to sound less condescending. Even if others don't agree with you (and let's face it, you're a conservative poster on a liberal blog on the internet, where no dispute is settled), they might either see your opinion or find it easier to discuss things with you.

JoAnna - The Republicans got feed up waiting for the Democrats to come around to discuss the economy. Instead, the Democrats wanted to talk about Charlie Rangel, DATD, the Dream Act, everything under the sun, except the economy. Drastic measures to get the Democrats attention were required. Obama isn't stupid, he could figure out what Nancy "It's not my fault we lost" Pelosi and Harry Reid couldn't, that American deserved to know what their tax rate would be come January 1st. The deal to extend it only for the 98%-ers was open to discussion in September, and was also on the table after the elections, the Democrats just ignored it. Obama quickly agreed to something/anything that might save his presidency, seeing everything he had done up until that point failed. His crocodile tears since that time are just a performance to salvage his ties with his political base, and from the looks of things, it's not working.

That's fine. My point was that Obama has not said he was for tax cut extensions for the rich, and he doesn't have to. As a president preaching compromise, not everything he signs is going to be exactly what he wants. Hell, even when he wasn't attempting compromise he didn't get that.

bob wrote: Anon posts that that the President was referring to the payroll tax holiday, unemployment extension... when the title of the articale is - Obama: Tax deal will look better with more scrutiny.

I spoke of three things the President might be referring to, two of which were taxes. Having said that, this deal doesn't really have a name yet, and the main sticking point has been the debate over tax cuts for the rich. Considering taxes are at the heart of the discussion, isn't it natural to call it a "tax deal?"

Where's all the liberal talking heads that normally control the first twenty or thirty posts while they pat each other on the back and spew propaganda under these "First Read" ......ahem, articles?

Get up late today?

Looks like you're on your own today Feisty!

ClintHorace

Where's all the liberal talking heads that normally control the first twenty or thirty posts while they pat each other on the back and spew propaganda under these "First Read" ......ahem, articles?

And yet you keep coming back for more... lol

Please see my post #1.5 - it applies directly to you!

The point that everyone seems to be missing here is that spending is and has been completely out of control. Lower taxes at the upper levels, where most small business who hire reside, actually can and do increase employment and therefore consumer spending. That however has about a 6 month lag. Beyond that, while lower taxes at the upper levels can actually increase government revenues through hiring, this actually did happen under Reagan. The problem then as now is if the government continues spending at ridiculous levels, none of this gets solved. The key to the whole thing is a balanced budget and hard core spending cuts. You can blame who you like for our current problems. But Democrats creating a nanny state with our money is the biggest problem in solving our deficit and balancing our budget.

Anon, thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Jo Anna: The deal to extend it only for the 98%-ers was open to discussion in September, and was also on the table after the elections, the Democrats just ignored it.

Not true.

http://www.jedreport.com/2010/11/cantor-says-no-deal-on-tax-cut.html

The Republicans also said there would be no compromises. And that there would be no spending unless it was paid for. So they have broken their promises to the president, teh congress, their constituents, themselves... pretty much everybody.

Just ignore Feisty - no use reading her posts...mostly lies anyway.

Merry Christmas!

ClintHorace,

Yea they pretty much prefer the safety of the herd and post their cut-n-paste progressive thinkforme progress homework in the morning.

Seems like there are a couple more conservative coyotes the last few days and when that happens, they scatter.....

..except for the tough, ole (old?), feisty ones.

Bob: So JoAnnaSmith, how do we release these poor hostages.

Good question. Just give them a bag lunch and send them on their way. Someone will find them.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Am I the only who's noticed that the right wing nitwits on this board are still b!tching and moaning even after the President supposedly caved on the tax cuts?

Yes, I think you are the only one. There isn't one single comment above yours doing what you claim. Paranoid much?

I watched MSNBC last night and Olberman and Maddow were totally ripping into Obama b!tching and moaning that the "compromise" of bipartisanship didn't include 100% of what they wanted. Obama came on TV and retaliated with the fact that if the left measures success in that manner that NOTHING would ever be done. It's probably the first time I've agreed with Obama since he came into office.

Yes, he caved on the tax cuts. Yes, Republicans gave in to things they didn't want too. That's how representation of all constituents works. Remember, this months polls showed 36% relate to Republicans, 34% relate to Democrats, and 30% to neither party. 1/3 of the country (any of the 3) shouldn't dictate to the other 2/3 and definitely shouldn't be calling the other 2/3 population names for not agreeing or their % will shrink even more.

He seems to have suddenly found a new bunch of economic experts too because what he's repeating from them is a totally different story rather than monthly "unexpected" result stories.

John-2006106

It's clear to me... Congress has to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill.

Damn you! You beat me to it! That was my first thought when I read the article!

Mr. President,

You have failed us all. Those of us who voted for you and supported you through your enormously difficult first 2 years have now had it. The only stimulus your compromise will elicit is that which ends up in the rich Republican's pockets. You have not demonstrated the guts to do what we elected you to do. You have gotten sucked into the beltway machine, and have been advised poorly. Your great urge to be the "Great Compromiser" has led you right into the trap set by those rattlesnakes that call themselves 'Our Representatives."

You are now officially a man in a 20 foot hole with a 10 foot ladder. And you've taken the middle class with you.

JoAnnaSmith

That was funnier than Paul- Reynoldswraphat asking yesterday after giving his condolences to the Edwards family if - John could have his balls back now?

Anon: That's fine. My point was that Obama has not said he was for tax cut extensions for the rich, and he doesn't have to. As a president preaching compromise, not everything he signs is going to be exactly what he wants. Hell, even when he wasn't attempting compromise he didn't get that.

There are compromises, and there is giving up on your core economic position. Extending the tax rates for the top 2%-ers was Obama giving up on his core position. And he didn't even have to do that, that was something the Republicans were on public record saying they would have bargained it away.

This is Obama's "Read my libs - No new taxes" moment.

Vote Dem Out!!

Just ignore Feisty - no use reading her posts...mostly lies anyway

I don't think they're lies. Just a bunch of pointless nonsense. She never posts any kind of thoughtful comment about the article she's posting to or seems to be able to debate a point intelligently.

Just a bunch of name-calling rants praising Obama and damning Republicans. All liberally sprinkled with "lol"s and several references to imaginary popcorn.

Pointless.

Yes, I think you are the only one. There isn't one single comment above yours doing what you claim. Paranoid much?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Allen, that you wrote that before you read the comments below mine! ;0)

Like I was saying about the troll bridge... lol

Otherwise you're just babbling as usual...

BTW - isn't it about time for the collapse cowards to start playing their games... you know how they operate... once the thread starts to die down they slither on over and collapse anything that doesn't fit the right wing nitwit agenda.

Wonder why that is? lol

I think the right wing is still sorting out that:

The Republicans compromised when they said they never would.

The Republicans are in favor of increased spending with no way to cover it, when they said they would never do that either.

They are not commenting because they are in shock, realizing that they, along with the rest of us, have been had by the Republican party.

Tax cuts for the rich. What idiot liberal dreamed that lie up so many years ago? Its as if only the rich got tax cuts under Bush. At least that's what the liberal/progressive/democrats would have you think. Until recently...

Now it's tax cuts for the middle class... and no tax cuts for the rich. What is it liberals? Would you please stop talking in circles, you are making me and every conservative out there dizzy. At least make up your minds. For years it was tax cuts for the rich... that's all we heard... completely foregoing the actual tax cuts that appeared in every middle class paycheck. Your spin and lies make me want to yak!.

Somehow you can't get it through your pointy heads that tax cuts are the answer along with spending cuts... emphasis on the spending cuts very strongly. Our government SPENDS TOO MUCH MONEY on nothing programs, caring for illegals and supporting every lazy stoop sitting welfare recipient that won't even bend over to pick up the trash in front of their stoops. It's democrats that have enabled these people of government entitlement to steal from the treasury. The workers are supporting those that won't work and those that are here illegally. I'm getting pretty tired of it and even more tired of liberals that make excuses for their support of liberalism, the emotional disease.

And yet you keep coming back for more... lol

Please see my post #1.5 - it applies directly to you!

Usually they pre-title the article with the "First Read" BS.

I had no idea.

Then when I got here, I noticed the posts didn't start with the same "cast of charachters".

I decided long ago to dismiss any "First Read" articles as rubbish.

So please, excuse me if I don't take the time to read your rubbish.

I've seen it a hundred times before, and I seriously doubt that it differs from any of your other rubbish.

Is there any chance you'd risk venturing onto another thread besides "First Read"?

I've NEVER seen you on ANY other thread!

JoAnna wrote: There are compromises, and there is giving up on your core economic position. Extending the tax rates for the top 2%-ers was Obama giving up on his core position. And he didn't even have to do that, that was something the Republicans were on public record saying they would have bargained it away.

This is Obama's "Read my libs - No new taxes" moment.

Calling a tax break extension of 4%, a total of 150 billion dollars over 2 years a "core economic position" is clearly a reach. Surely he has other, more far reaching plans for the economy. Also, he's far more entrenched in the position that he wouldn't raise taxes for citizens earning less than 200k/year.

Call it a victory if you like, but be a little less dramatic about it.

I got a nice check for $400 the first year of the tax cuts. President Bush reduced his taxes that year by $30k. Quite a difference, don't ya think?

When these tax cuts were enacted, what spending cuts went along with them? Oh yeah, that's right, we increased spending by getting involved in the war in Iraq but just "forgot" to include it in the budget.

gotta love how the Bush name is still hanging around DC.

Obama: Tax deal will look better with more scrutiny! Is this like the health bill that will reduce costs for individuals while improving benefits? You know the bill that needed to be passed first to understand the bill?

With the track record of your president, do you actually believe his statement? Gosh, wasn't he angry at his party yesterday? You have to like this guy.......he's always good for a laugh. And you folks believe he is a great speaker, away from his teleprompter? Right. Well, he will receive his wish - be a one term President, only with a record to make him the worst administrator in history.

Lize, please tell me exactly how cutting taxes to the middle class is taking them down a hole with Obama. I get it, your just upset the rich are getting the same tax break everyone else does. Why shouldn't they? Please tell me! The total bill costs about $900 billion, of that $130 billion goes to the top tax brakets, that means $770 billion goes to the middle and lower classes. But I guess if you can't get your hands to the wealthiest American's money, then everyone should suffer and all of us pay higher taxes. What a narrow minded view of the world you have!

Harry "HARRAH" Reid just said what it will take to get his vote.....He is attaching the "ONLINE GAMING" bill to this Legislation. The PAYBACK Bill for the 5 biggest casino's (they wrote the bill) in Las Vegas....Reid is soooooo despicable and corrupt it makes me ill.

Is there any chance you'd risk venturing onto another thread besides "First Read"?

I've NEVER seen you on ANY other thread

I've noticed that too. I think she feels safe here because she has a lot of fellow libs to post "I completely agree with you" over and over in response to her "comments."

Plus she knows she'd get cut to ribbons intellectually if she strayed from this area. She would have to actually think about what the story said and comment coherently about it.

Plus she knows she'd get cut to ribbons intellectually if she strayed from this area. She would have to actually think about what the story said and comment coherently about it

What I've noticed is I've struck a nerve! lol You all sure seem obsessed! ;0)

Last time I checked... I'm free to post where ever I please. I have been a regular contributor at First Read LONG before it became part of the Newsvine community!

I choose not to post on other Newsvine threads as from what I've seen they rapidly deteriorate into a cess-pool of low info voters trying to throw their weight around. Reminds me of Chris Christie!

"Extending the tax rates for the top 2%-ers was Obama giving up on his core position. And he didn't even have to do that, that was something the Republicans were on public record saying they would have bargained it away."

Except that the Republicans blocked it in the Senate as demonstrated here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B31NN20101204 and here: http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/breaking-republicans-block-measure-to-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts-only and even on Andrew Breitbart's page here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4ec000ac223af687b35012b2d23e1330.8e1&show_article=1

So explain to me again how blocking the bill really means the Republicans were willing to pass it?

Chilled, I think you better go back and read the article again. Quit adding words between the lines .

You bet liibbies, call your electeds, tell them no.

Let all the tax cuts expire.

why do so many think the rich need to pay more. The top 10 % earners already pay 70 % of the federal tax dollar collected. Even obama takes write offs in 2009 obama paid 10 % of his earnings in federal taxes, I know for all the Dem's that think taxes should go up for the rich why don't they just file with no write offs and to those that feel our national dept needs to be payed how about no more EIC no more write offs for all. Before you say i am one of the rich i am not i am the middle class and every year i pay federal taxes do you.

Mari - the rich pay more as a percentage of total taxes, but often are taxed at lower rates than their middle class counterparts. In addition, the income gap continues to expand between the rich and middle class. Whether you choose to believe that a significant portion of the population is lazy and/or that the rich work harder is up to you.

Anon, if you want to be VERY specific about the Bush tax cuts, they expire because they were passed on reconciliation - Bush never had anywhere near the majorities in Congress that POTUS has enjoyed. Budget items passed on reconciliation sundown because of rules implemented during the 70's, via Senator Robert Byrd.

When Congress and Bush were attempting to push through those initial tax cuts, it was to resolve a large surplus - they did not believe that the government should be taking as much excess taxation as they were. This was based on budgetary projections that included continued economic growth based on the dot.com bubble - which, as we all know, burst, negating the surpluses. Combine that with totally NON-conservative spending habits that developed in Congress - due in no small part to the relatively even split between the parties and the 9/11 attacks and the recession that followed AND the wars? Yes, a very very very deep hole was dug.

What no one has yet to acknowledge is that since these tax cuts were passed to sundown, EVERYONE has known that they will do so on 12/31/10 since the day they were signed into law.

The Democrats haven't bothered to deal with this in the four years they've held Congress, two of them with a Dem president.

Why?

Because they're cowards. POTUS - and I add this deal to the list of things I have agreed with since he was sworn in making eight total - was left with no choice BUT to make this deal because of the cowardice of his own party.

And yes, there would have been room for negotiation at one point on the part of the Republicans. After the "shellacking" the Dems took on 11/2? Less likely. After a couple weeks of the Dems searching in vain for their butts with a map and a flashlight? No chance.

Anyone ripping their bodice over this has no one to blame but Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the trained apes in Congress.

And punative taxation is not the solution, no matter how jealous and greedy some of you people are towards other people's money. POTUS - in a possible ninth thing he might do that I'll agree with completely - fully intends to push for tax reform over the next two years and with Reps holding the House and a larger minority in the Senate - this is probably a good time.

This FICA holiday is BEGGING for a fix to Social Security. I don't remember who's idea this was - but I like it: Make all income below $30k exempt from SS taxes, remove the cap and reduce the rate to 5% accross the board. This would solve so many problems at once, and is so simple, it'll never happen.

Feisty, Obama didn't cave, the Republicans caved. Obama got what he wanted, another $900B stimulus package. Now let me guess who's going to pay for that, or should I say who do you think should pay for it? You want to impose megataxation on the "rich - anyone making over $250k, right? You want to make the rich pay, and then pay again because my God it's such a terrible thing to be successful. Why, we should put everyone's money in one big pot and let the Government hand it out like candy, you know, like unemployment compensation.

Anon: Calling a tax break extension of 4%, a total of 150 billion dollars over 2 years a "core economic position" is clearly a reach.

A reach? No, not at all.

Obama is a populist, correct? All during his campaign, at each and every campaign stop, he railed against "The rich not paying their far share". Obama and the Democrats have blamed the entire economic collapse on the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003. Obama and the Democrats made political hay with their populist message of class warfare and rode that wave into their super majority in Congress and Obama to the White House.

Being against the tax cuts for the rich is Obamas/Democrats core value.

And in the end, when it mattered most, Obama walked away from it, like it was nothing, well except for the faux anger he shows to the cameras while trying to cover his tracks.

OMG, another drone...so you like the 15+% unemployment and $15+trillion deficit? My God, Bush has been out of office for two years and he's still printing and spending money faster than a speeding bullet. What should we do? I know, let's create lots of manufacturing jobs like building roads and other infrastructure.

And the best was by Biden - "these people on unemployment need that money because when they get it, they will buy things and that will stimulate the economy and create jobs." WHAT? The sad thing is you all believe it as well...and you talk about these people are putting us on the right track?

relytkof

If it ain't negative; it ain't GOP!!

Oh well, they serve a purpose. If we did not know what evil and ugliness looked like it would be much harder to define the opposite.

To quote the Goddess of Greed aka Bible Spice - YOU BETCHA! lol

Thanks relytkof!

JoAnna: Obama is a populist, correct? All during his campaign, at each and every campaign stop, he railed against "The rich not paying their far share". Obama and the Democrats have blamed the entire economic collapse on the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003. Obama and the Democrats made political hay with their populist message of class warfare and rode that wave into their super majority in Congress and Obama to the White House.

Show me.

There are two rules candidates tend to adhere to: make more promises than you can keep, and speak as vaguely as you can get away with. I heard plenty of "no tax increases for the middle class" and "bipartisan compromise" and "immigration reform is important" and so on, but I don't believe I read that "Tax cuts for the rich should end." He surely implied it, but that allows for deniability later on. A core belief would be one spoken more on. But again, we're talking about a drop in the bucket compared to other reforms with a much greater impact on the economy: HCR, Financial reform, stimulus, etc.

The tax cuts for the rich is Obamas/Democrats core value.

Some more liberal dems might say a public option is a core value, or getting people back to work through stimulus, or financial oversight. All of these have far greater, and a more lasting impact. None of our politicians are so short-sighted as to believe that a 2 year extension of a 4% tax cut is a core value. Are some angry about it? Think they were taken for a ride by Republicans? Perhaps, but they all have bigger fish to fry. We're talking about less than 20% of this bill's value - a bill that's dwarfed in size by HCR and the stimulus, and it's a core value?

After the tax cuts were passed the country had 53 straight months of job growth until Nancy and Harry won control of congress in 2006. Since then monthly job losses have become the norm. A coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't know why everyone is giving Obama so much flack about. I think along with Bill Clinton he is one of the most effective Republican presidents we've ever had.

So far I havent seen any "new job creating" legislation being proposed by the Republicans. Where are all of the jobs that they were supposed to create??? So far I've seen alot of whining and crying on behalf of the rich. Lets all just sit back and watch where the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts gets us?? Can you say "from the frying pan into the fire???"

Repost - courtesy of the Collapse Cowards:

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Am I the only who's noticed that the right wing nitwits on this board are still b!tching and moaning even after the President supposedly caved on the tax cuts?

Their own party is pleased with this compromise... but NO... they've got to have something to COMPLAIN about or they would having nothing to say around here...

Goes to show you what miserable, little drones they truly are and there is NOTHING that would make them happy!

Brace yourself - they've open the troll bridge! lol

Hey, dick(cheney)?

The Democrats STILL hold a huge majority in the House and Senate.

The Republicans that were elected on 11/2 haven't been sworn in yet and won't be until after the New Year. As the minority party, they can only bring legislation to the floor with the permission of the majority. And the Dems still have their special interest agenda - DADT, Dream Act, Reid's online poker legislation - taking precedence over the concerns of the MAJORITY of the people in this country.

Don't be like Keith Olbermann, who is now ending his show with "It's been 37 days since the Republicans took over Congress, where are the jobs?"

They haven't taken over squat yet. Get some information before shooting off your mouth.

Madison,

Seriously? Fux Noise being, and I quote, "[an] outlet reporting fact not opinion". Man, that's rich. Hey, when you'redone up there giving Rupert Murdoch his visual colonoscopy, you might want to rejoin (or at least make application to) the thinking world that doesn't rely on probably the most biased of all the opinion broadcasting channels (they're not journalist from my point of view) as their sole source of information. While scary, it might give you a bit of perspective, that based on the entirety of your posts, you desperately need.

Obama ; Please sir more lipstick for my pig

apologies to Charles Dickens

Is Obama NOW reading the Wall Street Journal, FOX and other outlets reporting fact not opinion?

What warped reality do you exist in. FOX news really! Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and some of the other story tellers at fox would love to meet and see what kind of person buys their bull@!$%#.

Which economists are you referring to? I don't know of too many who actually think extending tax cuts to the wealthy is a big stimulus for the economy. I didn't know FOX news had economists! That's pretty scary!!

Madison I'm from NY too and I can't beleive that you watch Fox news...

You must be from somewhere else because true New yorkers deal with the real not the fake.

Although most of our media are controlled by interest who have an agenda Fox news is blatant with it and it is almost funny.

Fox News and fact in the same sentence... Wow!

LOL Fox News is the only station I can find that has both liberals and conservative people speaking on each story. Maddow and Olberman on the other hand, man last night they were foaming at the mouth and included ZERO input from anyone who didn't believe gov't shouldn't be 100% totalitarian Democrat ruled.

"Biased" is all a matter of perspective. If half of what you hear doesn't fall into the category of "don't care" or "don't believe that", you're listening to biased news and being told what to think about the other half of the story. I prefer to hear what the left has to say and form my own opinion. Hence, Fox News, MSNBC, and many other sources of news for me.

I think anyone who says to watch Fox News only is as brainwashed as the MSNBC ppl who say to watch them only.

So, tell us Steve do you thik the capital investment money is coming from the poor?

Dippo

You people that rant about Fox, and then cite Hannity and Beck as your reasons for ranting about Fox do two things: Make me laugh because you don't get it, and make me sad because the failure of our education system that leads to you not getting it.

I'll try to keep this simple:

Hannity and Beck are OPINION SHOWS. They are news-BASED opinion, NOT reportage. Just like Maddow and Olbermann.

If you bothered to watch the NEWS blocks on Fox, you would find they are virtually interchangeable with MSNBC and CNN news reporting.

News DOES NOT EQUAL opinion.

Get it?

yes pragmatic, but we don't believe the folks watching knows or gets that faux news is an opinion based site. maddow and olberman may foam with the same intensity, but at least they report real news, instead of passing their opinion as real truth.

someone said to me once before, o'reilly is just saying what (folks watching) are thinking. I gotta say, just cause you think it and some folks may agree with you, doesn't make it right. here's a radical example. some white supremacists think jesus is white -- alot of them believe it. really, a white jewish jesus in the middle east. just cause you think it ...

you demwits got to have something ,to gripe about, your president pissed you off and what happens ,hey mlets blame fox news,or we can call the rep.s hostage takers. poor poor libs, I love reading all these comments you deserve every thing you get from obuma.during his campaign he made at least 20 promises not to extend bushes tax cuts for the rich.(can anyone say you LIE)he adds 4trillion dollars to debt and now your saying this tax cut is going to cost grandchildren(news flash)lbs spending us into oblivion,thats going to cost grand children.yes ill say it again poor poor dems,mabe obamas finnaly comeing around.And fox news is the no.1 rated cable news where msnbc is dead last,you people just cant understand that the majority of americans dont like your far left policies.how come ms. Pisolosi;s not saying pass the bill so we find out whats in it lol. she is the dumbest bit&& and ugly too.Ya go celebrate now and find something else to gripe about it should take you about 30 seconds. well its almost timr for hannity so got to gocause i dont want to miss him makeing a fool out of ya. o one other thing,I think I will ask for a layoff tomm.I could use a good long paid vac, I just wish i woud have done it twoyears ago.

relytkof.................. dam just your name sounds like a coomunist, for your information im retired and im one of those above the 250.000 mark so as far asmy typeing goes im just haveing fun, Im really haveing fun reading all the lisbs feeling so sorry for thereselves,hell what did you expect when you elect a man that admitted to being a crack head, saYS HE SPENT 20 YEARS IN A RADICAL CHURC BUT DID NOT LISTEN, ands has ties to known terroist,o lets not forget it took him three times to pass the bar exam.Its no wonder he surrounds himself with idiots like giethner a man that felled at every buss. he was in charge of,ck it out.while your at it scroll up and down this page and and compare the number of cryieng dems versus reps.

Most of us saw this coming anyway. After January we'll have to see how good he is at damage control after all the name calling and closed door meetings for 2 years.

JoAnnaSmith1

I often wonder what these anonymous economists were saying about the economy in 2007, just before the housing collapse? Don't seem to recall too many "canaries in the mine" telling us of the impeding doom that occurred. But now we're supposed to believe them at their word.

Joanna, i saw the impeding boom in late 2006 when the condo markets started to crash. In 2004 over 20k condos were delivered, 2005, 5000 were delivered to the Chicago market, by 2007 that number went down by 2/3rds. yes i saw it coming, only because I'm in construction. i figured a 700 unit condo building, in late 2006 we were awarded the job, by the time we broke ground, they had not sold any more units and had to convert the building to apartments and other condo projects were canceled. Joanna i saw it coming. Donald Trumps 100 story tower in chicago was in deep trouble, from 2007-2009 he did not sell one unit.

Obama care accomplished 2 things for me, it stopped INS companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and the life time cap on Coverage for everybody else. was Obama care exactly what the president wanted, NO, but as close as it was he had to go with it, Look for the new congress to make changes and get rid of the requirement that everybody has to buy in, that was bull crap and should have not been in there (Madan Speaker) . For me HCR was about the injustices with health care companies. my mother was a cancer patient and had her coverage dropped because of fighting cancer for 10 years. Now that can't happen. HCR was personal for me as well as the president whos mother had the same problems with her INS company as my mother did.

Obama care accomplished 2 things for me, it stopped INS companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and the life time cap on Coverage for everybody else.

Both sides agreed that needed to be handled all the way back to the Clinton years. It's the other 1,998 pages of pork and that the entire thing was written by one party with half the country not represented that most of us are mad about. This done all in the name of the other half thinking everyone else is "stupid" and that "they know better". Meh. Bigotry is an ugly thing and most bigots don't even know they are one.

"Both sides agreed that needed to be handled all the way back to the Clinton years." Except the Republicans had 8 years to do something about it and did nothing.

"It's the other 1,998 pages of pork and that the entire thing was written by one party with half the country not represented that most of us are mad about." Except that many of the ideas that originated from various Republicans were included, and the Republicans STILL wouldn't support it. While the two provisions mentioned above are really good, there are lots of other good provisions in the law for those who will bother to read it. How about equalizing the reimbursements for rural health care providers to help ameliorate the shortage? How about requiring insurance companies to pay out 80% of what they collect in premiums for direct healthcare costs? How about closing the doughnut hole for seniors?

Please do tell us in detail how a tax rate staying the same will add to the deficit? Inquiring minds want to know exactly how it will balloon the deficit.

I sure do hope Obama works with the Republicans next year to cut programs - and stop spending. You do know that borrowing and spending adds to the deficit (or balloons the deficit, right?)

Nothing wrong with compromise - as long as the Dems don't have to, right?

vote dem out. it is widely understood that the tax cuts added to the deficit through the last ten years. Why do you, in all your glory, think they will not add to the debt the next two years.

Be real.

Vote Dem,

You're in the running for the most uninformed post of the day! With luck, you might make "of the week"! Your post (as an inquiring mind, presumably) was on "how a tax rate staying the same will add to the deficit"? Well, given that the National Debt has continued to increase an average of $4.14 billion per day since September 28, 2007 that ought to help you. You see (breaking it down for those 'challenged' inquiring minds), if you continue to do the same on both sides of the ledger (revenues and expenses), you'll get the same result. The previous post was that if you increase the revenue (by allowing some of the tax cuts to expire), you can then reduce (albeit by a minor amount) the deficit spending.

But based on your name it's clear that you're just trying to beat down anything that's not a Fux Noise talking point! Obviously one of the Wit quadruplets: Half, Dim, Nit and you.

You didn't answer my question James. How does a tax cut (factually, keeping the tax rate the same as it has been for 9 years) add to the deficit?

talk about sick look in the mirror

Thanks for proving my point, First Timer. Your complete and utter ignorance shows loud and clear.

Who's been in charge of increasing the national debt since 2007? If the Dems are such great fiscal geniouses, why did they wait so long to "solve the deficit problem" by hiking our taxes - especially the "rich" who make $250K per year? They could have taken care of this within the last 2 years - in the dark of night like they did ObamaCare!

Calling others names just makes you look ridiculous and uneducated.

Merry Christmas!

Ballon the deficit? First of all how does leaving rates the same increase the deficit? You might as well say NOT RAISING TAXES WILL BALLOON THE DEFICIT. How stupid are people.

Secondly, for a Democrat to even suggest they care one lick about deficits is so laughible. In jsut two years they added 3 trillion to the national debt. By all measures extending the tax rates to those making over 250k "costs" 70 billion per year. Compare that to 1500 billion in Democrat spending. Descretionary spending has risen 25% in two years while inflation was about 4%. That is governement growth. In addition, spending money will never create wealth or economic growth. Low marginal tax rates do. Sure some one gets spent, most gets invested. Think about if the so call rich spent all their money, how long would they be rich? The fact is the rich invest in business, that is the source of their wealth. This economy needs investment, and stablity in tax rates. Uncertain tax rates is death to investment. Why would you invest in anything if you did not know that rates would be 35% or 90%?

James Reynolds

vote dem out. it is widely understood that the tax cuts added to the deficit through the last ten years. Why do you, in all your glory, think they will not add to the debt the next two years.

Be real.

Okay, this is how I see it. You cut people's tax rate 5% for 10 years, they are allowed to take home more money to their families and spend however they see fit. But government is still spending as if they took that 5% from you for the past 10 years.

Now, they decided that they've spent way too much, and need to come back and take that 5% away from you to plug the gigantic hole they've created. You're not responsible for creating the hole, but they're going to make damn sure you plug it with your money.

So, in order for the hole to quit getting bigger, they need to quit spending, right? Your little 5% isn't going to fill the hole, if at all -- when they keep borrowing and spending more and more each year. All that does is give them permission to come back and take more from you next year. And it continues...

I'm going to record that I have $1 million in my checking account and spend every single penny, knowing full well that I don't have it to spend. Then I'm going to come to you to help me pay it back!

Vote Dem Out is correct. Keeping tax rates the same would not add to the deficit. The deficit would remain the same. The debt however will continue to grow at the annual rate of the deficit, in other words, a lot.

Allowing the tax cut to expire would REDUCE the deficit and therefor the debt. Vote Dem Out would most likely prefer to cut spending to reduce the deficit in lieu of eliminating the tax cuts. I'm cool with that if he'd clarify exactly where he's going to score 1.3 trillion dollars of cuts annually to balance the budget.

We are talking about tax CUTS. Not tax rates.

The tax rate is not necessarily staying the same. The tax CUTS are being extended.

If you cut something, it means you don't have it any more. By cutting taxes, the government cuts its income. This income has to come from somewhere else. Like borrowing. Which puts the books out of balance. And raises the deficit. Pretty simple, actually.

I will type slowly, on january 1 revenue goes up by not doing anything, thus extending the bush tax cuts increases the deficit.

it is widely understood that the tax cuts added to the deficit through the last ten years.

It's also widely understood that spending more than you take in adds to the deficit and that it went up exponentially in 2007-present. The first 7 years were pretty good.

Remember when bailout (borrowed) $$ was repaid in the 2nd Dem Congress bailout and it was called "a sudden windfall of cash" to be spent? If that's not a red flag to you on out of control spending, you need to study more before spouting out what adds to deficits and what balances deficits.

Want a source you cant' call "Faux", here's MSNBC.com in 2007 talking about it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/ns/business-answer_desk/

The biggest chunk (about 25 percent of the $8.5 trillion total) is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion).

Since Sep, 2007 it has gone up $4.14Billion PER DAY http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

$1.5111 TRILLION per year x 3 = $4.5333 Trillion (Sep 07 - Sep 10)

This added over 50% to the $8.5 trillion under just 3 of the 4 yrs of Democrat congress/senate.

That's just foreign debt. When you add the rest (1.4 trillion for one bill alone, a trillion for bailouts, etc), the Democrats under Pelosi and Reid doubled our entire national debt.

You think a 3% tax increase on 2% of the population that amounts to about $5K per person making $200K annually is going to offset that?

Allen - You're dismissing the significant reduction in revenue caused by the recession, and the conventional wisdom stating that governments should run a deficit in a recession.

I'm not saying that Dems are fiscally responsible (or that their opponents are any better), just tempering your response a bit.

As for the the tax on the rich, every little bit helps when you're worried about the deficit.

For the past 10 years we have had a reduction in our tax rates known as the "Bush Tax Cut". The problem is that Congress never"adjusted" their spending to match the decrease in revenue. To say that extending the cuts to the wealthy will add to the deficit is disingenuous. It is a tax increase for them. Extending the "cuts" top everyone else is not a tax cut it is maintaining the tax rate.

Fun how we call it a tax cut for the middle class when there is actually no change but no one wants to call it a tax increase for the wealthy.

If extending the "tax cut" for the wealthy is going to add $700B to the debt, how much is extending the "tax cut" to the middle class going to raise the debt? Trillions? You can't have it both ways. If extending it to one group is going to raise the debt, extending it to the other group does too.

The dems don't want to extend the tax cuts to the wealthy because it will add to the debt, but have no problem extending unemployment payments for another year. Unemployment has a direct impact on the debt, not a fantasy impact like extending tax cuts.

How does the government have any right to tax a persons estate after they die. That estate had been taxed as it was built. Imagine your reaction if the government came up to your heirs and demanded 50% of your savings, insurance and property. But for some reason it is OK to do to the wealthy? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

Dems are complaining today that they aren't sure what is in the current bill and that they aren't being given an opportunity to have any input. Isn't that exactly what the repubs said about the health care? It was ok then but a travesty now?

Bottom line is that the only fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone should have to pay an equal percentage no matter what your income level. Everyone enjoys the benefit, everyone should pay. Progressive tax rates are unfair and lead to rich vs poor mentality.

LOL!! Now that's funny!

I'm almost positive all the Dem nuts are in Congress.

Another rightard with fantasies about Obama's nut sack. Maybe Really Livin needs to come out of the closet.

I'm finally seeing how they got that 'tea bagger' moniker! :-p

LMFAO

first timer, didnt you get the msndc memo? your to suspend all teabagger references until DADT is laid to rest. even Mathscrews has fallen into step on this. get your latest talking point memo from Minister Axelrod, suspend future references until ordered otherwise!

Al in Visalia CA

Another rightard with fantasies about Obama's nut sack.

Wow, this explains alot on why the left preferred calling the right "Tea baggers". I had no idea this was a fantasy about my privates.

Hey James,

I know what you mean about the consumer spending and manufacturing bit. Although, I would like to point out that even though companies like Sony do a large chunk of manufacturing in foreign countries, the company as a whole is impacted. If Sony doesn't sell enough product, they have to start laying off. They have a number of offices in the US and many of those people might be the first casualties if they had to lay off (since our cost of living is much higher than some of the cheaper labor that might be found in other countries).

So, if Sony has a good year they might even give out bonuses and some of that money certainly goes into hands of American's or people living and working in America.

This isn't an across the board sort of thing, but these measures should definitely have a positive direct and indirect effect.

Further, money is also spent on consumption of services. Services are often going to be local, which means not only stimulating national economic growth, but also local economic growth.

I think in general we are looking at the leaving jobs in the wrong way. One way to look at it is to say, how can we get the same jobs back here. That is a tall order and many people will tell you that it just wont happen. Instead, I hope we can start looking at it as, how can we create new job opportunities here, ideally ones that can't go away. Part of that is investing in new technology and new business sectors. That isn't just a government thing though, that is actually something the top earners might be more compelled to do given a continuation of less money going to the federal government.

Of course, new compelling technologies and markets have to open up, but often you can build markets if you have something that is worth while. Take solar technology for instance. When people first started working on solar panels and such, the costs were astronomical, but thanks to innovation and investment, new methods and approaches, this technology is trending towards more affordability and efficiency.

Mass production of reasonably priced solar panels and other things could certainly be a big market that has not really come into its own yet.

Certainly there are many others waiting to be bolstered and I think we should focus more on creating new jobs instead of simply trying to figure out how we can stop the globalization of industry.

"I hope we can start looking at how we can create new job opportunities here. Ideally ones that can't go away. Part of that is investing in new technology and new business sectors. That isn't a government thing though, that is actually something the top earners might be more compelled to do given a continuation of less money going to the federal government."

=======================================================================

The wealthy are currently investing tons of money in new technology and business sectors, only problem is they are doing it in other countries, the corporate lobbyists have written the tax code to make this even more profitable, as for the solar panel industry China is already the leader in that area just like all the other renewable energy technologies, and that was made possible by our corporate owned government, the U.S.A. was sold out, we no longer lead in any industries and it was all made possible by our government, people need to realize that a handful of the wealthy sold our entire country and it's citizens down the river and it's all gone, all the American citizen has to look forward to is a rapidly declining standard of living, grief and despair. Have a great day.

James - I was willing to forego extension of the tax cuts & pony up my extra $750/year which I could do by reducing meals out, clothing purchases, etc. My concern would be the effect of removing these funds (multiplied * millions who would be in the same boat) to presumably pay down the debt. Have you seen any info on that?

whats stupid is stealing private businesses, socialized medice, big government, spendind all the money for the next 100 years, wealth distribution, saying the constitution is getting in the way, paying people for three years to sit home without trying to create any jobs, calling the american people idiots because we don't understand whats good for us, holding the american people hostage because oblamer dosent want tax breaks, illiminating our space program, giving illegals all the benefits of americans for free. i could do this all day. your right, it is disappointing to see such stupidity.

@ Leftleaninglisa...Kinda like what the Dems did when they passed ObamaCare, right? Yea, I thought so....

Amen John!!

Lisa in my opinion the Dem's/Repub's want this bill to increase the deficit so they can gut Social Security and Medicare soon as possible, hopefully without civil un-rest, starve the beast philosophy. The facts are quite clear that Social Security and Medicare can be saved intact, but it would require the wealthy to do more, they don't want to get involved and since they run the government I am convinced nothing short of bloodshed can right what is wrong with this country.

"Republicans are conservatives."

=====================================================================

And the moon is made of cheese.

Hey John,

In general, nearly every talking point you listed is a gross mis-characterization of the truth. While you are entitled to your opinion and I'm certain we would agree on some of them, this approach does nothing to further to positive discourse between two different ideological groups.

Your post is a very good example of what it looks like when someone only takes one side of a story and does not even consider other points of view. It is a very big problem that is extremely corrosive and it is eating away at our very souls.

I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt though. Especially since you may not have posted such an inflammatory response unless you were otherwise inflamed.

Lisa,

I do understand how it can be easy to see people as stupid or idiotic when they don't see something the way you do, but certainly you can see that fanning the flames of outrage does nothing to actually resolve any real problems.

Perhaps you were trying to be funny or get a rise out of people for fun. If that is the case, well it looks like you got your reward in John's post. However, this tit for tat does nothing to foster the real discourse that people need to better understand each others positions.

Perhaps if we could all start having real conversations about these issues and recognize that we all have something invested in the success and failure of one another then we might be able to reach some common ground. The principled stand and refusal to compromise is one approach, but it is not a long term strategy for consensus building and cohesion. It will only serve to drive us further apart.

I am glad the republicans compromised a bit on this and I am glad the dems did the same. We need positive action, not divisive inaction.

left, republican does not equal conservative. here in delaware we fired a rino. you will see more replaced in january, and another wave in two years.

stand by, the patriots are coming. the Republic will be restored.

A Candid Interview with Mitch McConyall

Interviewer: Thank you for speaking with me today. Let’s get right to it. To what do you attribute the amazing string of Republican victories of late?

Mitch: Genius.

Interviewer: You’re a genius?

Mitch: Well, yes, but not just me -- the entire Republican organism.

Interviewer: You’re saying George Bush is a genius?

Mitch: (Laughs) I’m saying his installation as President was sheer genius. George as an individual is, as we say in Kentucky, dumber than dirt. You Dems attacked him for being stupid and our base felt sorry for him and loved him even more. Worked like a charm.

Interviewer: I’m confused.

Mitch: Of course you are. You’re a Democrat. Or, as I should say, a left-wing Commie Marxist un-American Socialist.

Interviewer: (Looking offended.) I’m trying to be fair in this interview; there’s no need for name calling.

Mitch: Of course you are trying to be fair. That’s because you’re a Democrat – and basically stupid. And the name calling is important. Having called you all these names, no decent Republican will even listen to what you have to what you have to say.

Interviewer: I don’t understand…

Mitch: Of course you don’t. We’ve been working the same old rope-a-dope routine on you Democrats for decades now and you still don’t get it. Here, let me explain it to you. It’s political judo. Take the deficits for example. When we were in office Cheney said “Deficits don’t matter.” We proceeded to start two wars, not raise taxes and create a massive debt crisis. Got it?

Interviewer: Not really.

Mitch: Like I said, you’re stupid. Now that you dumb Dems are in charge, we make the case that deficits DO matter. We blame the crisis on you. We will use the crisis that we manufactured to cut entitlement spending. We’re going to end Social Security and Welfare. This will free up more money for the Defense industry who are all Republican supporters. Defense contractors do well. We elect more Republicans. Life is good.

Interviewer: So where do you go from here?

Mitch: Well, we make the Dems in Congress look incompetent – unable to govern. We do this by delaying, opposing, obstructing – making Government the enemy.

Interviewer: And Mr. Obama?

Mitch: (Frowning) We like to refer to him as the Kenyan. That undercuts his legitimacy. He didn’t give us as much to work with as President Clinton, so we’ve had to be creative. I personally came up with the idea for the Birther movement. And, of course, all we have to do is suggest that Obama wants to restrict gun rights and our base is all over him. Anyway, the Kenyan is toast. He’s a one-term president.

Interviewer: Won’t ending or reducing Social Security and other entitlements hurt your base?

Mitch: Of course it will, but we’ll convince them that it’s the Dems’ fault that they can’t afford health insurance and are eating cat food. They’ll be angry for two decades and we’ll use that anger to elect more Republicans.

Interviewer: You are a genius!

Mitch: Absolutely.

Thanks for the laugh SequinBob

Republicans are conservatives. They want lower taxes, and less government spending.

You lost all credibility in your argument right there. Or are all Democrats people who strap bombs on their chest and go into the Discovery Channel building or ram whale boats?

Not everyone who doesn't think like or vote like you you can be stereotyped like that. Many Republican voters were people who voted for Obama in 2010 and Congress/Senate democrats in 2006. Many November Republican voters educated themselves on who was in power & who voted for what since 2007 rather than just blame it on Bush when Pelosi & Reid passed a bill and sent it to his desk to sign.

Remember, whether they have a (D) or an (R) by their name, they're politicans and lawyers. Blind trust in people who got us where we are now is beyond naive.

Take it easy JUNIOR, your misogyny is showing...

I thought it was my epidermis showing.

how do tax breaks increase the defecit? government needs to spend alot less and quit giving so many entitlements. government is increasing the debt period.

I agree John. How else do we lower the deficit? Quit spending for one.

The Dems would never dream of spending that "extra" money they want to take from the rich on a stupid deficit. They're going to pay back the UAW or their progressive cronies again, or give it to the poor through some stupid new entitlement. I'm sure they've even tagged it to spend on ObamaCare, which would be a complete joke and waste of money!

Just keep spending more money and bitching about the deficit Dems. You look like fools.

@ Jody...We Conservatives pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and National Security, police, fire, social programs through our taxes. We make up a majority of the % of taxpayers in this country - since only 20% consider themselves Democrats.

Entitlements are a problem - and did contribute to this economic mess we're in. When people buy houses that should never have qualified, stop contributing to pensions, healthcare, and start holding their hand out for government freebies, who's stuck paying for it? The majority of the taxpayers in this country!

By the way, did you cash your checks from Bush? How much and how often are you going to contribute the extra 5% tax you're so willing to pay to help bring down the deficit? Do you actually trust Obama and the Dems with that money to spend it wisely? You do know they're currently drafting another stimulus - and want to send a ton of money to Afghanistan again.

I would say funding a decade long war also contributed to the deficit significantly. Spending is out of control...but not just that, spending in the wrong places...money wasted. I'm not convinced it is the tax cuts at all. And besides, why would I want the government to have more of my hard earned money just so they can waste it??? I would rather pay taxes knowing it is being taken from me and being well spent. Afterall, we do choose which charities we know are worthy to donate to and which are not, right? Sorta the same principle. Tax cuts won't add debt...but tax cuts won't help pay off the debt either. Get it in gear, Washington, and stop it with the c@ck fights already!!!

Another point.... if we all do pay more in taxes, I have no faith whatsoever that they will use it to pay the deficit, anymore than I believe they will use it to pay back Social Security. Please tell me, does Congress have a proven track record of showing a good faith effort to protect our money?... They've shown they love to spend it. They are much better at protecting their a$$es, pardon my language. :)

you forget that the tax cuts for all Americans for 10 years added about $4 trillion to the debt.

No, spending $4 trillion more than they took in added $4 trillion to the debt. $1.2 trillion on HCR and another trillion on bailouts didn't help.

I would say funding a decade long war also contributed to the deficit significantly.

$1.1 trillion since 2001. http://www.costofwar.com/ That's $124 billion a year. Obama and the Democrats spent more than a trillion in the first year. It does contribute significantly, but remember the military costs $$ whether they're at war or not. Ending the war today won't make all the soldiers stop needed paychecks, food, supplies, etc. If you subtracted all of the static costs and didn't pretend they wouldn't exist if there were no wars, it would be significantly less. With both wars included, it's only 5% of the annual budget. It should bother everyone that the gov't spends 20X that (the other 95%) annually.

Exactly!!!!!

Too many years of blaming Bush and Republicans for everything I guess. Amazing that given this fact, many on the left are STILL trying to blame the Republicans for their inability to act with supermajority.

Excellent post RGiles!

The GOP doesn't care about people who aren't rich, they just want you to think they do.

Replace the word GOP with Democrats and you have the same thing. Stop waiting for someone to save you. Be your own person. Go get what you want instead of asking the government to hand it to you. BTW, how has the Democrat war on poverty doing since the Great Society 40 years ago?

Replace the word GOP with Democrats and you have the same thing. Stop waiting for someone to save you. Be your own person.

The Democrats aren't leading a war on the poor and unemployed. You right wingers are of the opinion that since you have yours then everyone else can go ahead and fend for themselves. Yours is a cold-hearted world where there is no community, but every person for themselves, and that is sad.

And no, we're not waiting for someone to save us. Most people just want an honest shot, the Dems are angry because the game is rigged. I'm of means, more than I can use. I have no problem with paying more taxes because our class own most of the wealth in this country, disproportionately.

Was it because I worked harder? In some cases, but there was luck and ingenuity involved too. But I got here from a lot harder spot, and from what I've seen most people don't have the same ladder or opportunities waiting once they climb it.

Most people just want an honest shot

What in the hell is stopping them?

most people don't have the same ladder or opportunities waiting once they climb it.

Sounds like that old glass ceiling excuse again.

And no, we're not waiting for someone to save us. Most people just want an honest shot, the Dems are angry because the game is rigged. I'm of means, more than I can use. I have no problem with paying more taxes because our class own most of the wealth in this country, disproportionately.

No one is stopping you from paying more in taxes if you want. You don't even have to call it a tax. Since you have more than enough, go ahead and donate it to the government. I won't stop you. I love how all the rich on the left want to say I don't have a problem paying more taxes. Then do it alread and shut up. Or do you want an award. I know I'll make one for you. A big blue ribbon you can wear around all day.

Hey FactoftheMatter, why do you actually have to be taxed to give more? Why can't you just GIVE your money to government and leave the rest of us alone?

Oh, because it wouldn't be "fair" then, would it? But you have not problem with leaving tax cuts in for some and raising them for others, do you?

In actuality nobody really gives a damn how well off you are. Most of us are just trying to have a decent life and save some for the future.

Twice we've started from the very bottom, unemployed, with kids, just looking for a job. And we've made it out by WORKING, not by sitting on our butts waiting on the welfare "entitlements" to roll in.

If you actually check, Democrats are leading a war to keep the poor in poverty and get the unemployed in the same group. Don't think so?

Who's controlled EVERY poverty area in this country for DECADES? And what do those people have to show for it? More poverty, high crime, poor education, and of course lots of wonderful entitlements that keep exactly where Democrats want them. Democrats don't really "care" about those people, they just want their votes and they are willing to use taxpayer money to buy them.

We have "ours" because we worked for it. Sometimes we failed and had to start over. But we WORKED for what we have.

Pukes like you are the ones that don't care about ANYBODY, as long as you got yours of course. If you really did care, then you'd just plain GIVE all your "extra" away. But you don't do you?

Since you are so well off, have you bought a home for someone needing one, a car, or a lousy meal? Hell no you haven't. All you want to do is sit there with your "success" and complain about "right wingers" and Republicans.

We drive a 9 year old van and rent because we weren't fooled by Barney Frank's "it's every American's 'right' to own a home" garbage.

But we're RICHER than you are because we don't believe that the government knows better than us what to do with our money. We tithe, we give to charities, we actually do buy meals for the poor. What do you do besides brag? We're happy to help others, and we aren't like you, looking down your elitist nose at everyone else.

It's people like you that think keeping millions of people in virtual slavery is just wonderful, as long as they vote Democrat of course.

The Democrats aren't leading a war on the poor and unemployed.

Neither are the Republicans. However, there IS a class warfare debate being sparked by the left against those evil ppl who make more $$ than you or I.

You right wingers are of the opinion that since you have yours then everyone else can go ahead and fend for themselves. Yours is a cold-hearted world where there is no community, but every person for themselves, and that is sad.

Um, no, ever hear of Christian charity groups, soup lines at churches, etc? You know, the ones the left keep bashing and talking about how "evil" they are for behaving the way they do? There do seem to be waaaay too many on the left buying into your way of thinking though where your vote is bought through preaching hatred and intollerance of those who aren't like you.

But we're RICHER than you are because we don't believe that the government knows better than us what to do with our money. We tithe, we give to charities, we actually do buy meals for the poor. What do you do besides brag? We're happy to help others, and we aren't like you, looking down your elitist nose at everyone else.

Uh, no, I don't think the IRS is going to buy that excuse when it comes to tax collection time.

The funny part is the government is going to keep spending money anyway. The government basically borrowed money to give rich people even more money. What about all the outrage about the deficit?

You're happy to help others Allen, but you only help on the condition that you choose who to spend on. If that were the case why would I want to have a public education system when I don't have kids? Why would I want to spend to fight the wars?

We have things to go pay for and acting like the debt we all owe is confined simply to your individual needs is selfish and shortsighted. I'm not an elitist, I'm just making fun of the people who think that the GOP is on your side. All they're interested in is continuing business like they did under Bush, which was to borrow and spend and grow the income disparity even more.

How much better is that really than taxing and spending? At least then we don't have to pay billions in interest just to service our debt load.

Sounds like that old glass ceiling excuse again.

Um, no, I'm talking about the young people Jobseeker.

I know some kids who just graduated from college and they're trying to find any kind of work they can get their hands on. These kids weren't the ones who took out subprime mortgages or loaned out money for them, but their generation is the one that is getting screwed.

First we'll have the military youth fight in two unpaid for wars.

For the ones not in the military, those who could have bought a house and made the payments won't be extended credit because financing is hard to come by. That's on top of the college debt for an education we told them that they should have not realizing that many shouldn't have bothered.

Also, they'll have to wait a couple of more years for the social security money to go through, which I'm guessing by that time will hardly be enough to fuel whatever vehicles we're driving 50 years from now.

So yes, nothing is stopping them, they should just go out there and lift themselves up by the ol' bootstraps. It's not like we messed up and left them with pretty bad opportunities at every turn. But, hey, why should I care, I'm an elitist remember?

Nancy Pelosi borrows 5 TRILLION dollars in less than 4 years and you say Republicans are trying to bankrupt the nation?

The ONLY reason the Democrats want to raise taxes at all is so that they can have more to spend, NOT to pay down any deficits they're running up.

Government gets expanded by 40% in the past two years, we're going to have three years in a row of OVER 1.2 Trillion dollars budgets, and you blame the Republicans for that?

Wow, you really are lost out there in LiberaLand aren't you?

Don't you think odumbass and the rest of the scum libs have done a great job? Maybe you should look at what President Bush did and compare it to odumbass? Take the freakin' blinders off!

Wow, you say the Republicans are speding us to bankruptcy. The only reason you say that is because the top 2% got tax breaks too. That only accounts for $130 Billion or 14% of the cost of this bill. The Dems have no problem spending the other 85%, it just the top 14%. By the way, that 2% of the country that is getting this additional tax break already pays 60% of the total income taxes collected each year. I wonder, would you still be saying the same thing if the bill had passed and instead of spending the $130billion on the top 2% it was spent on the middle class. I don't think you would. You're only ticked that those with more money than you get a tax brake as well.

the gop is about thier billionaire friends, the party for the wealthiest.