http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

Now that's what I'm talking about...

Not only did Senator Sanders threaten to filibuster he made good on his promise! Nothing like walking the walk...

Thank you Senator Sanders for showing the right wing cowards what a filibuster REALLY looks like... :0)

I realize it's not a true filibuster because the righties beat it out of town already... but he sure is proving his point!

I may not be in 100% agreement with what he's doing but at least he's a man of his word unlike the morticians on the other side of the aisle!

Better yet....go to NBC or Bloomberg.....C-span is not far Left enough.

"Bernie" would do better if he went down the hall, to the men's room, and talked to the corner enclosed area. Of course talking to any empty Congressional Chambers will be his highlight of the day.

Another tweet, another .50 cents.

would do better if he went down the hall, to the men's room

Larry is that you? *tap tap*

Seriously, what is up with right wingers and men rooms?

Larry is that you? *tap tap*

Great imagery. Larry is that you? ROFLMAO

All talk, no action. If he really meant it he'd do a real filibuster, not grandstanding to get his name out on CSpan, etc. Like usual, our politicians are great when it comes to posturing, not so great when it comes to the nation's (read: not special interest groups, but actually America's) business.

Another blow-hard Democrat ready to spend other people's money but refusing to cut anything. He can get in line with the rest of them.

Let's see what happens Monday when the Senate is really open for business. Where will we find him then?

How about the MSM including this piece-- report on what Senator Sanders and Brown are pointing out in the flfibuster..A real one not the fake crud the republicans!!

Journalists report the facts --do it on the news...It is your job! No 30 second soundbite --use those fancy whiteboards--- that you love so much! Do not give the republicans 'equal time' --report because there is NOT ONE REPUBLICAN ON THE FLOOR! Total disrespect....despicable gop!

Reagan, I don't believe there are more than a handful of Democrats, either, and there is no business he's tying up. So much for the Republican bashing thing. Nice try, though.

The fact that Bernie Sanders is babbling incoherently is hardly news...

However, the duration of this current rant is indeed noteworthy.

Somewhere in the cosmos, Strom Thurmond must be smiling.

GO BERNIE!

norm903,

Rant about "spending other people's money" if you must, but this is about taxation ..... revenue, not spending. The tax cuts did not work. But your Republicans want to continue the fantasy that rich people will create jobs just because a tax cut will put some more money in their pockets.

It's clear that everyone wants to cut spending, but neither the American people nor the Congress is willing to cut anything substantial from the budget. Your Republican friends want to continue a low tax rate that torpedoed the economy in spite of the fact that it will substantially increase the deficit, and they have no plans for budget cuts that will come anywhere near the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Imagine that, Bernie the socialist is more fiscally responsible than the GOP. (Who isn't?)

Without budget cuts we will either need to raise taxes or the deficit will grow ..... a lot.

Why do you libs worry so damned much about what other people earn?

Yea, old Bernie is really proving a point. Proving how stupid he is to be bitching to the Republicans that ARE NOT THERE.

I can hear him at the mike now "HELLO , is this thing on?"

What an idiot.

Don: Deficits are caused by SPENDING, it isn't a taxation issue. As far as cuts go, cut everything, make everyone suffer. NO DEDUCTIONS, means test everything, cut entitlements, freeeze or cut pay and gov't pensions, "pay as you go" less 2% or whatever % you want to start paying down the debt.

The gov't gets plenty of money, time to live within its means. End of discussion. Republi-crats are all the same; differences are at the fringe, the other 96% are all the same. Spend to get re-elected, public be damned.

Don, I take it you are for raising everoyone's taxes then, including the middle class?

Why do you consrvatieve worry so much about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes and lives?

(wow- there's an echo in here....)

It's about time someone grows a spine, and pulls an actual Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type of filibuster on these pricks.

Of course it would have to be the lone Independent in the Senate, since the other two parties are completely corrupt, completely bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Keep going Sen. Sanders. Go as long as you possibly can. We're watching. We the People are with you.

And to proud republican-1888838;

It doesn't surprise me that your Republican pals aren't there in the Senate chamber doing the job they were elected to do. Very typical of the Luciferian, I mean Republican Party. This is exactly why the rest of US can't have an adult conversation concerning how to solve the pressing issues killing this country.

Your precious GOP is comprised of man-boys with the mental capacity of spoiled rotten CHILDREN!!! They can't have everything their way, can't rubber stamp their billionaire Umbrella Corporation buddies' agenda to amass all of the wealth and enslave US all. So go pout in some dark corner of your little world like your CONservative pals until Bernie gets tired of talking.

uh.....................yea.....................o.k.

Too bad the reporter who wrote this story couldn't be bothered to include some of what Senator Sanders is saying in the story. What could have been serious reporting is just fluff.

We have a Champion! Get behind Bernie!

still want to see the bottom of my size 12 govt issued boots?

Nah! But I am curious as to how many sheets of newspaper you need to stuff the toes of your supposed size 12's?

STLMike

I think the tax rates should go up for lots of folks (including myself) and I guess the answer to your question depends on what you consider "middle class." Most people who have a household income of, say, $150,000 can afford to pay a higher rate. Just for comparison, the top tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was approximately 80% ..... the sky did not fall and the economy did not collapse (as it did following the tax cuts earlier in this decade).

For those of you with the simplistic response that it is not a revenue problem but a spending problem, you are wrong. Or, more correctly, you are no more than half right. Deficits occur when spending exceeds revenue and, since there is absolutely nobody who can find $1.3 trillion in "over-spending" the solution to the problem is both reduced spending and higher revenue. It's pretty simple, really. If your household was running a deficit you could reduce spending OR generate more income. Most people would try to do both, right?

But I think my most important point is that the idea that "high earners will decide to create a job just because a tax cut gives them more disposable income" is very, very foolish. No one creates a job just because they have money .... I would hire an employee because they can put that employee to work doing something that will generate more income that that employee costs me. That is the only reason. If that person will not generate income for me, that person will not be my employee. Why would I believe the Republican fantasy that rich people will create jobs only if they have a tax cut? Why would you believe that?

Henny Penny, er, I mean Don, I could cut the 1.3 trillion. Of course, it would mean a lot of people would have to give up their cigarettes and beer, and go out and find a job, and lots of people would have to give up the freebies they're getting (that includes the so-called rich and corporations), and a great many of our soldiers would have to come home (what do we need with over 200 military bases overseas for, anyway?), the politicians would have their pensions cut severely, and a lot of union contracts would be broken, but hey, you're right, keep spending, keep printing the money.

Sorry, I don't feel much like sharing any more of my bread (nice Henny Penny pun, don't you think) with you. You get enough.

Does Bernie ever have anything to actually contribute? Seems as if he is taking a play from the Republican playbook and just criticising rather than offering solutions. To quote the lame president in office, "do you have a better idea?"

Hey Bernie, how about you worry about your state first and clean up all of those polluted bodies of water, then you can push your socialist agenda to those that will listen. Here's a hint, it might behoove you to do it when there are actually people in the chamber. lol.

Excellent point...

Thanks for reminding one and all that Senator Sanders is skewering the compromise agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts that was crafted by President Obama.

That's what all of this is about, isn't it?

Lol...!

I'll be the "Bernie Girl" and make a new video called "I have a crush on Bernie".

I don't care why he's doing it or when he's doing it...everything he is saying is spot on and needs to be said. Thank you Senator!

Amen, Carianne!

Matthew, Houston, TX

You go, Bernie! Keep telling the truth. To bad the members of the Republican/TP Inc. party are not there to hear it. Not that they would believe any of it but then the truth and facts never seem to interest them, anyway.

It should be on FOX NOISE, Rush, Levin, Daily Caller, redstate, freepress, Human Events, mediate, etc.; maybe in a different format. You think?

10-4 that, Bev. Too bad that won't happen either. I'll bet Faux Noise never even mentions it.

Hey Patty, I'm neither a millionaire or a billionaire. Would it be alright with you if I got a tax cut? Or anyone making over the mythical, magical $250,000 threshold not rate in your book? How about $150,000, is that "stinking rich" to you? I know plenty of folk who believe anyone making over $50,000 is rich.

Perspective is a funny thing. And of course it's always easier to cry out that the other guy get taxed more.

Patricia

And when the tax bill is not voted on and tax rates for all (even the liberals of the so called middle class) go back to the higher rates of the Clinton era, and the tax breaks cooked into stimulus (like MWP, EIC, Child Credit, Tuition Credit, etc) expire and UEI is not extended will you still be happy.

Then the Republicans bring up a bill extending the tax rates for all retoractively and will the Democrats then vote to permanently deny the middle class the lower tax rate

Okay with me I want all the tax rates to go back up and UEI to not be extended

If you are making $50,000 a year, do you really NEED a tax break? Because people who are desparately trying to find jobs to feed their families NEED a break. People who need childcare they can trust and afford so they have the time to work NEED a break. Are you going to starve if you don't get this tax cut? There are people out there who WILL starve. Tax cuts are a waste for everyone. Pay your damn taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes, leave America. We threw tea in Boston Harbor for the right to pay taxes to our own government. Taxation with representation. Remember that from school? America: love it or leave it.

I was appalled that Obama came up with the 250K figure. That's way too low and I believe they would have had more success if the threshold for be wealthy was say one million a year. With that said, it didn't matter anyway because our spineless president caved in to the republicans wishes. He has become an extension of the Bush/ Cheney administration.

I for one would have liked for all the tax cuts to expire, along with repealing all the tax breaks the large corporations get. They pay NO taxes and outsource their jobs to wherever the labor rate and environment regulations are non existent.

America is in real trouble and all anyone can worry about is their taxes raising. Start learning Chinese.

Quit with the phony outrage over $250,000 being too low. $250,000 is just where the previous tax rate starts. So, $250,000 is the base and you only go back to paying the previous tax rates on any income ABOVE that amount. If you're saying you can't afford to pay an additional 3 to 5 percent in taxes on income over $250,000 then perhaps it's time to tighten your belt a bit like the rest of us average Americans have had to do.

Nice, Carianne. I voted.

Spanky - you DO get a tax cut. On the first $250,000 you make. Everyone gets that with the Democratic plan. The millionaires just want a bigger tax cut than that.

Spanky,

What do you have to say to the people who believe that tax rates should be higher FOR THEMSELVES. It's foolish for people like you to think that everyone wants higher tax rates only for someone else. I think that people in my tax situation (about $65K per year, no kids) should pay more. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet believe that there should be a substantial inheritance tax. Almost all of the Congressional Democrats who support higher taxes for the higher income taxpayers will pay more taxes under the proposed end to the "Bush tax cuts" for upper incomes. So it is not just taxing "someone else." Some of us are ready to pay our share .... how about you?

In the overall scheme of things, this country spends waaaaay more than it can raise in taxes from the average taxpayer.

The consequence for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a 3% increase if tax deal faiils. 3% for Don (above), 3% for Warren Buffet. Don would pay roughly 2K more, Buffet (based on 1B), would pay 30M more, and that's before his tax masters get done with it. Who does this stand to hurt the most. Bigger question, was Don more responsible for this mess, or was Buffet and his ilk? Sure, there's more people like Don, (actually fewer in the last twelve years) and the smaller amounts add up, but Don isn't a big player (are you?), and the bankers, industrialists, etc., were in large part, the problem.

The whole shared pain argument is horse manure.

It boggles my mind that so many of you kids still don't think the Obama-agenda has anything to do with why you no longer have the majority in the house and a much closer tally in the senate come January... It's kinda cute watching the tantrums actually.

Suzy- It's kinda cute reading comments from clueless imbeciles like you who have put us in the sh*tcan that we are in economically by electing morons who run up the debt and deficit so that the rich can have can even more disproportionate wealth at a time when the country is still reeling financially and trying to recover from the asinine policies of the past decade.

Republicans stand in the street with your pitchforks pissing and moaning about the debt and deficit (most of which was ran up under Republican adminstrations since Reagan- that's a fact) and then the first thing your elected "leaders" do is hypocritically push for policies to add nearly another trillion to it. It's blatant hypocrisy and it's just amazing that Red state America is too damn stupid to figure it out because sure as not, they will be back in the streets blaming Obama again in two years.

This has nothing to do with the Obama agenda. It has to do with what is fundamentally right and wrong.

Well, Eric, it appears we differ on our fundamentals then. I think it's fundamentally wrong to take from those who earn and give to those who are capable but choose not to. I think it's fundamentally wrong for our government to continue spending money it does not have and cannot recover. I think it is fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional to force American's to buy a product or face penalty taxation if they choose not to. I think it's fundamentally wrong that our government has used tax payer dollars to bail out companies whose legacy costs exceed their reasonable expectation of profitability. You can try to convince me that we've recovered our investment but A) millions of dollars lost to stockholders will never be recovered- this is the wealth many private citizens amassed as their retirement nest egg and they will not ever see it returned to them and B) it is only a matter of time before the next time they crawl to Congress with their hands out for the next bailout- again, the legacy costs are unsustainable. I think it is fundamentally wrong to demand compromise until compromise is struck then hostage the American public (to borrow a phrase Team Donkey seems to love these days) because you've been told you must give a little to the opposition instead of just get everything you want and shut them out as has been done for 2 years. It is fundamentally wrong to demand more in tax dollars without showing any signs of cutting spending in exchange. As I've stated before, I accept that tax revenues will need to increase in order to dig ourselves out of the hole we're currently still digging and have been for years (yes, Bush years with a nifty acceleration since the Obama administration has come to town) but there are many steps that need to be taken before I will accept JUST increasing taxes on ANY income bracket is necessary- cut spending in ALL areas of government. Cut non-essential programs (as in social security and disability can stay, Medicare and Medicaid can stay but welfare needs a diet. If you're capable, you need to put forth effort on your own then we can talk about helping you the rest of the way needed to make ends meet). Stop the new money spending train. Re-write the tax codes to level the playing field for all tax payers and close the loopholes that only benefit small sections of our tax base. Keep tax rates where they are in the mean time to allow whatever slow recovery we're seeing to continue so that we can get people working again and increase the tax base. The problem with the so called "cost" of these tax rates remaining at current levels it that it assumes there will be zero growth over the next 2 years. If we keep disposable income in the hands of individuals where it can go back into the market place, we increase demand which should increase jobs which increases the tax base and lowers the supposed "cost" of tax breaks. Though if the numpties in Washington would wrap their heads around the concept of working within their means, we wouldn't even need to have THAT conversation...

Erico, you just couldn't avoid the peronsal attach against Suzy. She made no attacks agains anyone, other than a generalzied group of people that continue to whine about the Presidents deal with the Republicans but then you have to come right out calling her an imbicile. I stopped reading your post right there and reported you. While you may not agree with what she said, enough with the personal attacks. It's getting old.

And while I'm at it, Fiesty and Red, can you ever say anything on this board without insulting the other side. For God's sake. We know you don't like Republicans. I really don't like Democrats much but the daily attacks are really getting old.

Lastly, Newsvine, where the heck have the moderators gone lately? Tyler? Sally? Nope just crickets still.....

Suzy-2005071

"Well, Eric, it appears we differ on our fundamentals then. I think it's fundamentally wrong to take from those who earn and give to those who are capable but choose not to"

I think I see part of the problem. Suzy has a valid point.

Problem is, how to determine which people are capable, but choose not to work, as opposed to those that are capable, but had their jobs yanked out from under them and sent overseas so the wealthy CEO could make even MORE?

Oh, and by the way- Suzy has a point about not wanting government to spend on things that aren't necessary. You know, like Iraq.

"numpties" ???

See DriveBy! We can agree!

I'm not so sure it's that difficult to determine who is capable but choses not to work as opposed to the capable but unable to find work. If you're actively looking for work you're part of group 2. If your only job has ever been waiting for your government check to roll in, you're in group 1. I will admit, there is a tricky 3rd group that's a little harder to place- those who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own yet chose not to actively look for work until their benefits run out. We have a family acquaintance in this category- frankly I say if you chose not to make any effort to help yourself I shouldn't have to support you, but I accept that others may see it differently so we can leave this group open for an up or down vote on a case by case situation. Deal?

My only argument with you on Iraq is that we can't undo the fact that we have personnel boots on the ground so we must continue to fund their actions. Whether what got them there was a good call or not is an issue I chose not to debate at this point because it's a moot point, they are there and we must support them until they can be brought home without further destabilizing the situation in Iraq. So when I think of unnecessary government spending I'm going more with road construction projects to put in round abouts (HUGE ordeal in Wisconsin the last couple of years). When every member of the community is screaming we don't want them, when the roads being ripped up and "improved" were quite literally just replaced within 5 years time and are in no other way needing repair, simply being "improved" because there are tax dollars available to do it, this is unnecessary spending. When stimulus funds are being spent on high speed rail lines few will use and most do not want but they are being build because there are government funds available, this is unnecessary spending. But that's just my take on the situation.

Suzy makes good points, but seriously; If you make over a quarter million per year, you very likely didn't earn it with actual hard work. You most likely earned it by f**king people over.

There are exceptions, but they are very far and few in between.

Suz- I can sympathize with you point of vew on 'the groups'. I was out of work for a full year. I made plenty of applications to a lOT of places that might have the job I was familiar with and trained for. I ALSO applied for stock boy at WalMart, the local grocery chain, as a 'gopher' for an auto pars chain, as a peddler of ice cream for Schwan's company..... you name it. I can't sit on my duff and not work. There are many like me- and when their unemployment runs out, there goes the house, car, etc. etc. THEN we'll have more folks on the welfare rolls.

No, I don't think people that WON'T work should get a damned thing. Thing is, a LOT of people on the left feel the same way i do about that, but get painted with the 'freeloaders' brush just because they ARE liberals and want to see ALL Americans enjoy the good life this country used to be famous for.

And yes- our definitions of 'necessary' will always be a little off. That doesn't make one view exclusively right or wrong.

STLMIke- I could give a sh** less if you reported me or your self-righteous indignation of the comments that others make. Republicans and Tea Party morons trash Dems on a daily basis through all of their garbage shows on Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc. You guys are just getting a taste of what you have been dishing out for years. Get use to it. Their are a lot of Dems that have had it with the bulls**t hypocrisy from the Right.

GO REPORT THAT.

Suzy - Republicans ran up the bill through tax cuts to the wealthy and imperial crusading around the globe. Nothing was paid for and now the bills are coming due. When a bill comes due, you pay it. You don't put it on the credit card again and kick it down the road. You Republicans lied and manipulated your ignorant base as always to come out and support people who were going to bring down the debt and deficit and yet the first thing they do is negotiate a deal so that adds even more to it. That's about as simple as it gets.

If you Republicans don't like taxes than maybe you should have considered that before you went and indiscriminantly invaded other countries and spent like drunken sailors in a whorehouse for the last 8 years. If you are concerned about debt and deficit the Republicans have zero credibility. Look at the debt and deficit since Reagan. Nearly all of it has grown under Republican "so-called" conservatives.

Erico-I may be mistaken....nope don't think I am, but the Republicans that were voted in haven't taken their seat yet. Your whole argument just ran to a dead end by that statement.

And look at the debt prior to Reagan. Democrats have had a LONG history of deficit spending.

And control of the house and senate has been pretty balanced since Reagan. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

He never Stood for anything. We tried to tell you that. but you voted for him..

Not as big a joke as you guys running the mama grizzly.

Hey remember when Bernie tried to put forth his health care plan on the senate floor? The mean old republicansd sought to have it read, aloud, but Bernie literally ran and hid (with of course the help of Reid).

Yeah, there's your man of conviction. If this is what you dems have been reduced to support I actually feel sorry for you.

Patrick

YOu are so focused on Ms Palin who may not even want to run and likely won't be the nominee anyway

BUt there will likely be a Republican elected President at the rate the left is screwing up lately

Spanky. If they wanted it read they could do what Bernie is doing. No one could have stopped them,

Your should look up what happened. The Repulicans started to read it, but Reid, in a proceduarally improper manner, literally pulled the plug. Just a fact.

Sanders is a monkey, as evidenced by his unwillingness to allow his own bill to be read on the senate floor.

nin. The phones are ringing of the wall with people who support him.

Probably the same people calling over and over again...

JoAnnaSmith1

The Socialists in our government will do anything to hold on to their power and their entitlements.

Um, Lady No Jo

There's only 1 socialist in our government.

Yo Bev, I certainly do not expect you to understand, but you may want to look into the name Donald Berwick. Perhaps he may be considered to be like Bernie. Just a little bit.

some of these "rich" own businesses that employee your children or farms that feed you sorry socialist fools. if you want to tax someone, take 75% of the wages from congressman and senators, plus tax the retirement and healthcare that you average folks cannot obtain. they do not live in the same world as you do, they have made sure they are insulated from all laws that they pass and you just dont know how much it costs you. i worked on capitol hill for 16 yrs and can tell you for a fact they get many perks you cannot get and would only dream of. the offices are exempt from any osha rules, can pay under the minimum wage and work the employees any length of time they choose. they can fire on a whim and hire those who are totally incompetent. enjoy getting family into colleges they have no business being in at cut rates while you struggle to even get a loan to go to school. wake up people, these guys are not your friends or your voice. they have their own agenda and live for it. not you or america.

EGM you make an interesting point- everyone's crying about the loopholes the "rich" can take advantage of to lower their tax liability yet no one wants to consider who put them there and who has the power to remove them. All congress needs to do is revamp the tax code and close the loopholes but who among them has had the nads to do so? None because they'd have to start paying their own fair share in the process...

Suzy - The Debt Commission recommended closing many of the so called "tax loop-holes" the Democrats are constantly whining about.

When a Liberal wants to raise taxes, and wants to not say they want to raise taxes, they talk about "Closing loop-holes" which really means "Raising taxes".

JoAnna- Do you see the discrepancy in your statement? The Debt Commission are mostly conservatives, not liberals.

Hearlight3, no, JS1 does not ever see the false logic, outright mistakes or hypocrisy in anything she ever posts. I pretty much ignore her unless I'm feeling a little frisky and want to get a rise out of her. When it comes to economics, she is kind of like a first year med student: she thinks she knows what she is talking about but is totally clueless.

Watch, she'll come back with some stupid snide remark that is meant to insult me, try to justify her previous stupidity and her friend bob will chime in with, "Good one, JS1." while everyone else laughs at their feeble attempts to 'get' me.

Heartlight3: JoAnna- Do you see the discrepancy in your statement? The Debt Commission are mostly conservatives, not liberals

Dislike to use the wiki, so if the information is incorrect, please provide the corrected information:

"The Commission includes 18 members — six appointed by the president, six members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and six members of the U.S. Senate — 10 are Democrats and 8 Republicans."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

And probably a fairly even split of conservatives/liberals.

Nice to hear from you again Matt. Hope all is well with you.

Go ahead, JS1, you know you want to post. Your fingers are hovering over the keyboard just itching to reply, aren't they? You know they are.

But then, if you do post, you will just confirm what I said and I win. We can't have that, now can we? But you just really feel the need to try to 'slap me down', don't you?

Come on, go ahead, JS1, give it your best shot.

And why, exactly, isn't Mr. Buffet sending his fair share to the government every year? He certainly could choose to do so.

Great post RESESQ12, thanks. It stands to reason that those in the highest bracket should not receive a tax cut extension since they are already getting a tremendous tax break. I'm not an economist, but this does seem somewhat anti-middle class. Seems like we need a level playing field. And if not, it makes more sense to me that the higher the tax bracket, the higher the taxes– not lower. Again, not an economist, just my sense of it.

Obtuse - Suzy-2005071 is thy name.

Try to keep up there, hon. You have obviously totally missed the point.

Well Matthew, you are certainly entitled to opinion, though I think you're entirely off base. I don't really think Warren Buffet has any reason to speak on behalf of any tax payer in this country other than himself and, perhaps, his equally wealthy friends. If he can laugh and say his tax rates are absurd, he's more than welcome to make up the difference of his own accord, but why should he speak for my bosses or my brother's family who make no where near the kind of money he does and will actually feel the affect of the democrats tax increase?They and others in the lower end of the redefined wealthiest tax bracket (Because there is a significant drop in the bottom end of that tax bracket from Clinton-era levels) will cut back on their spending which will negatively affect economic growth. And when their income decreases, they are less inclined to give me and the rest of the staff raises and bonuses which would otherwise increase our buying power in the market place. And since I don't expect Mr. Buffet and his uber-wealthy friends are going to encourage congress to re-write the tax codes and close the loopholes they benefit from to reduce their tax liability each year any time soon, I think really his opinion on the subject has no merit.

Whoosh!

Suzy, that was the sound of the point once again going over your head.

But to answer what you said . . .

So if Mr. Buffet has no reason to speak on behalf of anyone else, what gives you the right to do that very same thing? Hmm? In debate, it is not allowed for one person to claim the other has no right to a tactic that they themselves are using.

Further, your reasoning has been proven to be false and not based on any empirical data which makes your conclusions inaccurate and moot. Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest does not create jobs nor does it raise the level of wages of those that are not wealthy. The empirical data actually shows the opposite over the last 30 years. The wealthy have gotten the lions share of tax breaks while the income of the 4 lowest quintiles, adjusted to constant dollars has decreased. In other words, Suzy, you are supporting people and policies that have only made you poorer and less able to support your lifestyle. Do a little research before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Oh, and Mr. Buffet and his uber-wealthy friends have encouraged congress to rewrite the tax code to make things fairer. In addition to being extremely wealthy, Mr. Buffet has a PhD in economics (or is it finance?) so his opinion is a lot more informed and valid that anything you might say. Once again, do a little research before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

She has the same right to speak as you do, Matthew. The right that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That same right is being used by Warren Buffet and you liberals to claim that we should all pay higher taxes. Yet you take Buffet's word as 'gospel truth'.

I would like to see him put his money where his mouth is. He says that he should pay more in taxes, then why doesn't he? The federal government does accept contributions to the treasury outside of taxes.

Why don't you just accept that he wants higher taxes - as long as they come from someone besides him?

Well said egm!!

Obama agrred to the deal but it has to be passed into law by the representatives of the People and the People overwelmingly oppose the idea of giving the tax cuts to the super-rich. The 'real Americans' are those of us who still believe in government by the majority not by and for the elites. You ulta-conservative/Faux-newser types are not in the majority...you happen to control the Republican Party right now, but our phone booth is bigger than yours.

Well said or poor on substance? EGM where are the facts to substantiate your claims? Or is this agenda based wishful thinking, which, frankly speaking, sounds so perfect in its ignorance you ostensibly don't know that you know nothing at all.

I think it is the latter, Richard. Many of the right wingers who post here really are too uninformed to have a clue about what they are talking about.

Actually the case for lowered taxes is found in teh government's own statistics. Every time that tax rates have been decreased, tax revenues have increased. History speaks for itself.

What has caused the deficit and the deby is the SPENDING and the only way that the debt will actually decrease is to stop spending.

Actually, I would like to see Congress actually PROVE that they can decrease spending before they even consider raising tax rates. Otherwise, they will still spend because they have absolutely no discipline when it comes to the people's money.

Wrong, Tammy, that is a right wing canard that you have swallowed whole. Lowering taxes does not increase revenues. Period.

Kinda like the unions and the stimulus money???

you have it wrong, paul. the republicans want to continue the SAME tax rates for all. neither you nor i have the first clue where all the campaign money comes from, so get off your sactamonous butt and find the real truth about campaign finances. i dont know and neither do you. all i know is that the political class in this country are a bunch of foolishly unamerican twerps, anthony weiner comes to mind immediately. quit squabbling over your politics and look after the people who put your stupid asses on capitol hill. paul, what you should worry over is how far into the pit this country will fall if taxes go up, not what dems or reps want in money for a campaign. if we go bankrupt there will be no campaigns, there will be no dems or reps, there will be chaos and rebellion, bullets and blood, so quit with your stupid idealogy and be an american.

There you go again...accusing anyone that disagrees with you as un-American. You, sir (or M'ame), are the pot calling the kettle black!

Paul

And liberals want to give whatever they can to whoever they can, especially the lower middle class non-working base

And the liberals got the most of their money from the unions and socialists like Soros

Not much difference really

egm - are you actually saying that you think increasing the revenue stream to the country is going to cause it to go bankrupt and adding $850,000 to the debt is going to decrease the debt? Good one.

Patrick

Are you answering those lines

or

Repeating the left talking point

Robert. No, but I am ignoring the republican talking points.

Patrick

So you don't know if he is getting any calls or not

That is the point I was making

I think he has some good ideas, both sides have some good ideas, compromise is what we need and id nothing gets done because he talks from now till New Years it will hurt the folks he claims to care about much more then it will us independents and the conservatives that want no tax increases on anyone

He actually said that his office received 2000 calls yesterday in support. Do you think he is lying?

unemployment would be at 16% instead of 10%.

You do, of course, realize that every poor and middle class tax payer benefited with reduced tax rates in the Bush cuts, too, don't you? And that those same poor and middle class tax payers as well as a lot who have a zero liability at year's end benefited by a doubling of the child tax credit among others, right?

And if memory serves, the intent of the Bush tax cuts was to encourage people to save. But how many of us did that? Imagine if the majority had. The impact of today's job market and housing bubble would have been significantly smaller if more of us saved for a rainy day instead of spending all that we bring in and mortgaging ourselves to the hilt.

Do you have any original thoughts, Suzy? My goodness but you do have the Republican talking points down pat. The poor and middle class (i.e. the 4 lowest quintiles of income earners, or 98% of income earners) got an average $400/yr (the poorest got about $17 and the top earners of those quintiles got a bit over $6,000) while the top quintile averaged over $100,000/year.

Yeah, the poor were 'dancing in the street' because of the 'benefit' they got from Bush. Yep, they should have gone out and started a savings account and saved that $17 because they'd be RICH by now, I tell you, RICH with their $170 savings account. Those ingrates!

Matthew, can you make a point without resorting to insults or should I just accept this as normal if I chose to engage? I'm good either way, just want to know what I'm in for.

AS for as the real effect of tax cuts, I did the math in a post a while back. Since I don't feel like repeating the process, I'm just going to copy and paste. The quote was speaking more of spending power than savings potential but the math doesn't change either way.

Based on the marginal tax rates for my income bracket this year to next year, assuming $100,000 which is vaguely close.

I'm taxed at 10% on the first $17000 we bring in or $1700 , that would increase to 15% or $2550

I'm taxed at 15% on the next $40700 we bring in or $6105. This rate should remain the same

I'm taxed at 25% on the remaining $42300 or $10575. This rate would increase to 28% or $11844.

So currently we pay $18380. If the tax cuts expire we pay $20499. Difference of $2119.00 or $176.58 per month. No kids so luckily the 50% reduction in the Child Tax Credit doesn't take a bite out of me but that's a $1500-$2000 swing for a few of my friends.

And your point is, Suzy? This somehow rebutes my point?

Insult? What insult? Just pointing out the obvious.

And you think I'm obtuse? The point is, even for the lowest tax bracket the increase if the tax rates expire is more than $170 annually. Looks more like $850 to me. Which takes a big chunk out of the monthly budget...

Whoosh! again, Suzy. Sound familiar? Again, you have missed the point or are being deliberately obtuse.

The point was that people in the top quintile pay less in taxes, as a percentage of their total income (t not as defined on their tax form), than the other 4 quintiles. They do not pay their fair share and should not continue to get the Bush tax cut break. The Republican/TP Inc. party is holding that lowest tax bracket hostage to give the upper tax bracket, who are already getting an unfair advantage, even more of an unfair advantage. That is called redistributing the wealth upwards by government policy.

From what you said earlier, you are not in that top quintile and are therefore advocating that people who make much more than you - and have an unfair tax advantage that you do not have - get even more of an unfair advantage. That is just plain stupid, Suzy. And as I would tell my kids, I am not saying you are stupid, I am just saying that you are doing a stupid thing.

Now do you get it?

....a "numptie'?