Nice "talking point".

Ever think for yourself?

Amazing, isn't it? The Liberals most hated tax cuts of all time, The "Bush Tax Cuts", the same cuts that the Liberals have demonized for 10 years, the same cuts the Liberals blame all the current ills of the economy on, the reason the Liberals hate Bush so much, those very same Tax rates will now be extended by a Congress that has a massive majority of Democrats in the House, a huge majority of Democrats in the Senate, and a far left Liberal President in the White House. And it's the far-left Liberal President that brokered the deal to do so!! He also enlisted a former Democratic President of the United States to sell the deal to his very own party.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Surreal.

Take it or leave it Liberals! And it looks like you'll be taking it.

Once Congress, controlled by Dem majorities in both houses, passes this bill and sends it on to the Dem President who will sign it into law, don't these become the "Obama tax cuts"??

No.

The tax cuts funneled money out of our economy. They were an extension of Laffer Curve trickle down , "voo-doo" economics. Coupled with the off budget SPENDING that Bush and the republican congress engaged in, the national debt exploded while BUSHIES could argue that his deficits weren't so bad.

The economy didn't tank because of deficit spending. It tanked because of under-regulated industries being given the green light to commit fraud. The false prosperity bubble was intended to first enrich the upper 5% as it grew, and then reward the upper 2% when it had to be bailed out by the "taxpayers". Privatized gain and socialized pain.

Which means Republicans will be grateful and vote for Obama in '12. Naturally, right?

Joe in Albany

A question for the FR lefty liberals:

Once Congress, controlled by Dem majorities in both houses, passes this bill and sends it on to the Dem President who will sign it into law, don't these become the "Obama tax cuts"??

See posts #1.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:47 AM EST and #1.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:35 AM EST

Those are my answers.

Once Congress, controlled by Dem majorities in both houses, passes this bill and sends it on to the Dem President who will sign it into law, don't these become the "Obama tax cuts"??

DN: No.

Well I'll guess they'll then be the "Clinton tax cuts" because the ex-prez seems to have a better argument for the current tax rates then the current-prez seems to have. The current-prez seems more angry with everything, and looks like it's more important he goes to Christmas parties rather than work at getting tax rates defined for individuals and businesses.

Looks like Obama has outsourced another job. In this case, his.

Joe,

For now and all time they will be known as “the extension of the Bush tax cuts”.

JoAnnaSmith, at the risk of being a complete buzzkill to you, the President made a deal with the GOP to extend the Tax Shift.

The words you're looking for might something more along the lines of, "Thank You".

Da Noid- 'ME Firsters' don't do 'thank you'.

Y' big silly.

Dear Da Noid: This "Tax Shift" as you call it must really irritate all you Leftists. I mean, how long have you and you ilk been ranting about the "Bush Tax Cuts"? Obama and his little friends Nancy and Harry have had two years to set tax policy, their tax policy, for both individuals and businesses. Two years where they could have passed virtually any policy they wanted, or, just let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire without lifting a finger. But they didn't. Now, after they have ignored their duties as legislators for 2 years, it's once again just yet another emergency for Obama and the lame-duck Democrats. They have to do something, and Obama went behind the Democrats and made a deal with the very Devils themselves, the Republicans!

It's must be killing you.

...the reason the Liberals hate Bush so much...

There are plenty of other reasons we hate Bush.

Paul-977599

Ever think for yourself?

________________________________

Paul, if you're asking me if I believe 9/11 was an "inside job" orchestrated by Darth Cheney like you believe, the answer is no. I also don't wear a tin-foil hat with antennas like you do either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Two years where they could have passed virtually any policy they wanted, or, just let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire without lifting a finger. But they didn't. Now, after they have ignored their duties as legislators for 2 years, it's once again just yet another emergency for Obama and the lame-duck Democrats.

It all would have boiled down to the same issue...the Senate Republicans would have fillibustered and that would be that...but, once again, don't let details stand in the way of a good rant.

You certainly are the hater crowd.

So when do you think the Democrats will stop holding the American people and businesses hostages and figure out what their tax plan will be starting in, oooh, 19 days? Think that's enough time for the all the Americans and businesses to prepare for those rates? I guess they'll be working the holidays to rebalance their 2011 budgets based on what ever the Democrats finally cook-up.

DN:

It all would have boiled down to the same issue...the Senate Republicans would have fillibustered and that would be that...but, once again, don't let details stand in the way of a good rant.

Do you on the Left ever stop whining? You could let the tax cuts expire without one vote noid. You could have had Billy Clinton use the bully-pulpit, only because Obama looks to be too shy to do so, to blame the Republicans for raising taxes on the middle-class. But no, you didn't. And now Obama is dealing, and getting rolled by, the Republicans.

"There are plenty of other reasons we hate Bush."

All equally irrational, I presume?

"There are plenty of other reasons we hate Bush."

All equally irrational, I presume?

He let Osama bin Laden get away and decided to chase windmills in Iraq instead. Seems like a pretty rational reason to me.

And he, Bush, refused to allow an uhindered security clearanced investigation into the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Easy there, Da Noid-

President Obama's had a two year shot at nabbing Bin Laden, and his results don't look a heckuva lot different from President Bush's, do they?

And...I'll let future historians sort out Iraq.

They'll likely have a bit more perspective than we do.

Obama didn't have him surrounded at TORA BORA, and then let him escape. Bush did.

Bush had how many years?

...or am I not supposed to talk about that?

SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're supposed to let it go and move on.

DN: Bush had how many years?

Four more than Obama will have.

DN: ...or am i not supposed to talk about that?

Talk about it all you want. Obama is a lame as the lame-duck Congress he's fighting with.

I love the righties here, all swaggering about the tax cuts.

Don't you remember that you ran on reducing the deficit, and that this tax cut package is larger than the stimulus you assailed Obama for.

Congratulations running on fiscal conservancy and raising the deficit by another trillion dollars...hypocrites.

MB-

And...I'll let future historians sort out Iraq.

They'll likely have a bit more perspective than we do.

Really? An unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation requires "perspective"? Okay...

The Spanish–American War was a conflict in 1898 between Spain and the United States.^[6] Revolts against Spanish rule had been endemic for decades in Cuba and were closely watched by Americans; there had been war scares before, as in the Virginius Affair in 1873. By 1897–98 American public opinion grew angrier at reports of Spanish atrocities, magnified by the "yellow journalism". After the mysterious sinking of the American battleship Maine in Havana harbor, political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the government headed by President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war McKinley had wished to avoid.^[7] Compromise proved impossible, resulting in an ultimatum sent to Madrid, which was not accepted.^[8] First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

Substitute democrat for republican, and Hearst with the New York Times and I think I have your historical perspective in retrograde...:)

Da Noid

Two years where they could have passed virtually any policy they wanted, or, just let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire without lifting a finger. But they didn't. Now, after they have ignored their duties as legislators for 2 years, it's once again just yet another emergency for Obama and the lame-duck Democrats.

It all would have boiled down to the same issue...the Senate Republicans would have fillibustered and that would be that...but, once again, don't let details stand in the way of a good rant.

_______________________________________________

The Dimocrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate from January 2009 to mid-January 2010. Had they chosen to do so, they could have passed any tax bill they wanted and the R's could have done nothing more than complain about it. If the lefty liberal Dim politicians want whine and cry about this bill they only need to go as far as the nearest mirror to locate the people at fault.

Joe,

You know that someone is gonna come on here and say they didn't have that majority, because Lieberman was an independent or something like that.

But, why didn't they just allow the filibuster to take place, so that people could see it happen. Take a chance and see if they can do it. Grow a pair, take it on, don't just back down because they threaten it. Besides, everyone that watches C-Span loves a good filibuster:)

But you both are willing to continue to repeat the supermajority LIE over and over, as if that makes it true.

You reveal yourselves to be propagandists.

Didn't Clinton literally let Bin Laden go well ahead of 9/11? There may have been a missed opportunity to capture him during Bush's presidency but I think had Clinton chosen differently there'd have been no need to go on the hunt for him to begin with and 3000 more Americans would still be alive to tuck their kids into bed and kiss their spouses good night. But remembering that would detract from the Bush-bashing fun I suppose so it's best we just forget it...

Paul,

Technically the Democrats had a super majority--from July 7, 2009 through August 25, 2009 & from September 25, 2009 through February 4, 2010. In these cases, they had 58 democrats & 2 independents that caucused with the democrats.

The fact is though, the democrats never allowed the filibuster, they were "faked" out of bringing legislation to the floor. Sometimes you have to bring it to see what actually happens. The Democrats never played the game with the republicans. They just accepted their threats and backed down.

Joe it was not filibuster proof. Ever heard of the blue dog dems?

"never allowed the filibuster"

That makes absolutely no sense. You can't stop a filibuster if 41 Senators support it.

dangerfield-

With all due respect...I suspect that historians will deal with many aspects of the Iraq War, not to exclude the issue of whether the conflict constituted an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

The cease-fire that ended the Gulf War contained provisions that Iraq was required to adhere to...any violation of those terms could be considered a provocation. At least, I believe some historians might take that view.

Further, I don't believe that either us of can weigh the impact or outcome of events...good or bad, set in motion by the forced removal of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. Not yet, anyway. Those will play out over many years. I'm simply not prescient enough to make that call...even with wikipedia's help.

That's what the historians will do.

Suzy numbers-

I suppose actually checking your story filled with "didn't, maybe, I think" etc. would detract from the attempt at deflection...do a little reading next time and at least you will have your half-truths and insinuations straight...:)

Suggested reading;

Ghost Wars by Steve Coll

Fiasco by Thomas Ricks

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright

Against all enemies by Richard A. Clarke

Then perhaps you won't be so quick cast aspersions...

There is no question now that the attack was unprovoked. First you want to hide the facts for decades and then you want to quibble over semantics. It is called guilty demeanor.

Paul,

Your democrats never made the Republicans go through with a filibuster. If all 41 or 42 Republicans went into the action, yes, it would have been hard to end, but at the same time, it would have halted the work of the Senate, for all the world to see. The democrats should have made them stand up there and go through the process. But since they did not, the republican scare tactics worked against them.

Sometimes you have to make them show whether or not they are bluffing. But that would take courage on the democratic side.

Please, Paul-

You're a 9/11 "truther"...

That's my opening and closing argument.

"not to exclude the issue of whether the conflict constituted an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation."

If that is one of the issues you feel is in historical dispute....

Unprovoked;

Not provoked or prompted: an unprovoked attack.

Sovereign Nation:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

This is more a dictionary than an encyclopedia or wiki issue...

They didn't attack us...America doesn't strike first. There is no amount of historical perspective that can change that fact, hence my reference to the Spanish-American war.

It may well turn out that the law of unintended consequences smiles on Iraq and the country becomes a beacon of democracy in the middle east, (hell, Viet Nam's economy is doing better than OURS right now!) and transforms the entire region into a USA love-fest, but the end does not ever justify the means.

Whether it is Spain by way of Cuba or Iraq under UN sanctions; They were a sovereign nation who did not attack us and it was un-American to invade them.

I heard you the first time, dangerfield.

johannasmith1 - If I were you I wouldn't be so smug. These things have a tendency to come back and bite you in the a**. You and your "ilk" might do well to remember that. I submit to you that President Obama will use the Republicans aquiesence on deficit spending to beat them over the head with in a few months. It's going to be fun to watch the Republicans squirm at the thought that they happily added 900 billion to the deficit to give their wealth constituents a big tax break.

You seem to have this backward. You can't make someone filibuster. There is the real filibuster, which stops everything else from taking place. It only takes one senator to do it. He doesn't need to ask permission. If he gets help, the filibuster could last for days. If they have a cloture vote and get 60 votes, it used to require 67 but they lowered it when they introduced the two track FAKE FILIBUSTER RULE 22, the filibusterers still are entitled to waste 30 more hours of the Senate's time on "debate".

Without a cloture vote, if the real filibuster ends due to fatigue, the Senate can then hold an immediate vote on the bill pending and pass it with only 51 votes.

He was offered to Clinton on a silver platter and Clinton passed. Think what a different world this would be if Clinton did his job.

Big Bear 62

The republicans are to lazy to filibuster. The republicans that stopped everything for the last two years, should pay their salaries back. They did not earn it. I really think it is funny when a republican starts moving blame to the democrats for what they have done. Where is the courage of the republicans? They make the messes and then blame it on the democrats. They are cowards, just like the tea party, they carry their guns and try to frighten people. They are just bad jokes.

Actually I'm pretty sure the republicans DID do their jobs in the last 2 years and earned their salaries more so than the democrats did. Most of the republican representatives actually LISTENED to the people who put them in office and voted as their constituents requested of them whereas the democrats said voters be damned, we know better and pushed through a lot of legislation the people did not want. Probably why so many dems lost their jobs on Nov. 2...

The republicans never had to filibuster, because Harry would never bring anything to a vote to see if they would filibuster. Either he believed them, or he was afraid that they might be right on some of the bills. In fact, many bills could be passed, but they load them down so much with pork, they wouldn't get them through.

If Harry would have called for a vote on some of these, just to get the GOP to filibuster and shut down the government, they might have won some extra races this past fall, but NO backbone helped the GOP, so much so, that the President is having to compromise on his policies.

The republicans did not earn their money. And they did not listen to the majority of people . They listened to the Fox network and the rich. They are not a party that cares about America. They used to be a party that people respected, even when they disagreed with them. Since George Bush, they are a party of hate, owned by the rich and for the rich. Not for America.

suzy -- at least 70% of the population want just to sunset tax cuts for top 2% of the country. based on that I don't know how the republicans actually LISTENED to the people. they brand well, for sure. when they say cuts for all americans, the psychology of this that they grip your patriotic visceral cord, as the democrats wanted tax cuts for all BUT the top 2% who really don't need it. unless of course you are part of this 2%...

just a question for ALL AMERICANS, left liberals, wacko rights, middle of the road avg folks, does anyone read outside of the lines? both dems and repubs have to take full blame for this thing. but what is most important is something NONE of you catch on to because of your narrow focus and preconceived notions, our U.S. Bond ratings!! Moodys for one has put out fair warning that if and when this thing goes through we face the real probability that they will downgrade our rating. for the uniformed it may not sound like much but if they drop it down even one level we can add hundreds of billions in long term debt onto the already staggering price tag. what happened to all the tea party supporters in congress who promised to hold in on increasing our national debt? i happened to see the half wit michelle bachman or however she spells her name, but she in her wisdom said last weekend that government debt is not linked with the taxes we pay? that may fly with my 3rd grader but with anyone who passed on to 4th grade math it doesn't. our government's debt is our debt and debt to our children and their children ms. bachman. every time you and your cohorts spend, it is us that get stuck with the bill. ten years ago i was happy, we had a budget surplus, the economy was great, we had no wars and then came the decade from hell. year after year of poor tax policy. billions in tax gifts to the super rich leading to debt levels never before seen, budget deficits became every larger and wars lets have one, two, three if you count the war on terror, four if you count the war on drugs. every single person we voted into office since 1988 should be fired, republicans and democrats, clean up the whole darn place. and to the voters that put them in office, you are just as responsible if not more for being so stupid as to vote in people not once, but twice even 3x after seeing how irresponsibly they've spent our tax dollars and racked up this nation's debt, our debt. after eight years of bush and the republicans getting us into record breaking debt then to be followed by two years of democrats, all i have to say at this point is we have some really stupid and ignorant voters in this country and not one heck of a lot of hope for the future as a consequence. i agree completely with all the recommendations made by simpson and company. they are the only ones making sense but sadly because what they have come up with is the best way out of this nightmare, well i don't give their proposals a snowballs chance in... imho it is to late, the systemic problems along with the debt are insurmountable and we had all better savor what we have now because third world america is just around the corner.

BigBear: The republicans employed the Fake Filibuster 400+ times. It has nothing to do with Harry Reid calling for a vote. It has nothing to do with calling the repub's bluff.

The minority of 41 senators get to determine if a bill can be voted upon. When they say NO, it is the fake filibuster which keeps the bill from ever coming up for a vote.

Temporary. Sure. Yeah, this will be a great issue for Obama and the Democrats to run on in 2012. If Obama and the Democrats didn't get enough snot beat of them this time around, wait until 2012.

So, then, the proper postion of Obama to the Repubs would be "eat it on a stick"?

I like it.

JoAnna, perhaps you missed the results of the November election. Republicans ran on the premise that ALL the tax cuts needed to be extended, and they crushed the Dems in that election. They are simply doing what they promised to do, extend ALL the tax cuts.

Call them anything you want, but 1. it was really great to see Clinton take the mic and say tell us all that the Bush rates are much better for the countrry than the Clinton era rates; and 2. YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA I get to keep more of my money. Damn nice of that Obama guy.

Spanky,

Was that a Howard Dean type yell?

JoAnne Smith 1

You are a bad joke. The democrats did not get the snot beat out of them. By your terminology, you must be a senior, a tea party member. You think that the previous election was a mandate, you are wrong. Reagan, Clinton, Bush all lost the house in their mid term. You need to stop watching Fox not true network and watch a real news program. You are totally misinformed. Why do you want the rich to have all the money? Why are you trying to destroy America? Why are you trying to turn America into a third world country? Why do you resent people having health care, when they are not rich? Why are you so filled with hate?

I agree. And GOP stands exactly for corporate welfare. Interesting how they get the little man to vote against his own interests though isn't it.

Corporate welfare is a really stupid term. Corporations set their prices to make a profit after expenses. The higher we make their expenses, the more WE pay for their products. Are you so retarded that you can't even understand the most rudimentary economic constructs? No wonder democrats destroy economies.

By keeping prices down, that is in the little man's best interests! Man liberals are dense. If you wanted to know why you were slaughtered in Nov, your lack ot basic understanding of economics is a good start.

Since we the people voted them in, it is the American voter that is holding the radical leftist agenda hostage. As of Nov 2 the republicans are our proxy.

How do you "rob from the poor" ?

Even if you took 100% of everything ALL the poor in this country have and gave it to a single truly "rich" person, it probably wouldn't even equal half of what they do pay each year in income taxes!

Why do people follow a party (Dems) that wants ALL the people in the country to be poor and dependent on the government?!? Sounds a little too much like the ruling class Lording over the poor, weak, peasants to me.

Pay your taxes to your king, or else we'll burn your homes, throw you in prison, take your children, and do unpleasant unmentionables to your wife.

Remember our history. A larger government, with more money, more power only equals more corruption. Don't believe that? Look at the mistakes even the Republicans made when they were in power.

We need smaller government. THE ONLY WAY TO GET SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS LESS TAXES!

(Note that doesn't mean we don't care about the poor people who are struggling. It just means that we believe MORE in the goodness of the American heart. If we can get government out of the way, allow more families to keep what THEY earn, then THEY will look out for the needs of their communities so much more effectively than any government bureaucrats can!)

Search your souls... you KNOW it's true. If Dems want higher taxes, can't THEY voluntarily pay more?

Go away and don't come back until you know what those terms mean. You're intellectual dishonesty and crowing over it makes you look quite silly.

vwterry

I agree with moonlight your name calling and hate spewing are counter productive to the discussion and disgusting in civil debate

Moon and Robert,

The right have been the ones calling Mr. Obama those unfounded names and I was trying to point out the irony in the present circumstances. I do in fact know the meaning of those words and think their application in the present political environment is crazy and dangerous.

Sorry for any confusion my attempt may have caused.

vwterry.... You are forgiven. ;) And my apologies for the misunderstanding on my part. As you can see though... having to deal with folks who have no idea what socialism, 'marixism' etc brings out the knee jerk reaction in some of us.

It must have worked. As I read down to other posts by Moon and Robert I see that they are coming at this conversation from opposing sides and I was able to piss off both. I love this country.

vwterry

Please do yourself a favor and get professional help. That is if you have insurance.

Rick,

I have never heard nor seen anyone say that the government owns all of anyone's income. However, reality says that there are things that need to be done for the country and the federal government is the best way to accomplish those things. The question is how much should be done and how much should it cost. How best to fund those things that make this country a step above the others.

Keep the conversation inside the lines.

Ok vwterry,

What things should be done by the federal government?

Protecting borders? Supplying finances for infrastructure? Providing retirement for everyone? Providing medical care for everyone? Feeding everyone? Giving everyone a job?

Really, what should the federal government be doing? Should they balance a budget? Spend only what they take in?

BigBear, to your questions=

Yes, which they do to the extent they can. Yes, we do need to be able to get around. No, by careful planning most can provide for themselves, I have done that personally. Only those in need, we will pay one way or another and planned is always less expensive than unplanned. We have more wasted food than any other country in the world, private sector should be able to assure adequate food resources so everyone has enough. Not necessarily, private sector jobs are always better but there are legitimate public sector jobs too. Yes, absolutely. Yes, whenever possible.

I just don't see these issues as all or nothing. They are each part of a very complicated total and I thought the statement "Why is it that so many liberals come at taxes from the perspective that the government owns all of our income and therefore they are doing us all a favor letting us keep some of our money?" takes away from the serious discussion.

vwterry,

There are some things that can be agreed upon, but the fact that we the people get taxed on so many things and yet, the government leaders seem to spend it trying to get votes.

SS should be set up as a get out what you pay in program.

Our gasoline taxes should be spent to rebuild the highways & bridges.

Our borders should be one of our first priorities.

Health cost should be regulated, not mandated.

Of course a liberal wouldn't want it pointed out that they believe all money is the governments. They never like being exposed. Why should I agree with, or have to pay for, what YOU think the government should do? Why not make that portion of the budget a line item option on the tax form? We can all agree on the basics, it's all the socialist crap, the control crap that I think the vast majority would not pay for if given the chance.

In general, conservatives want government out of their lives, liberals seem to think government is the answer to all things. The private sector creates wealth, the public sector only redistributes it, after taking a big bureaucratic cut off the top. We need wealth creation not redistribution, and especially not all those hundreds of bureaucracies that administer those programs.

Considering Nov 2, I'm by no means alone. STOP SPENDING! The latest Rasmussen puts spending above balancing the budget! How many different ways does the public have to put it before the politicians listen?

maybe what you all aren't getting is that because a certain amount of private citizens or corporations have taken advantage, it is apparent an honor system doesn't quite work. there are always some people who feel they are above the law and that being part of a nation, one does ones part.

being free isn't free.

By all appearances, the inmates are running the asylum and have gotten to the keyboards. good night and good luck.

wwaugh

you better be from Oregon or Washington to be calling yourself a donor state

he might mean california

Robert: I do live in Oregon. If you do live in Ohio you live in a welfare state also. Ohio gets 1.05 tax dollars back. You can thank the West Coast for your welfare.

Hillary 2012? Are you kidding. You are dreaming. Don't let another Liberal anywhere near the Oval Office again.

This would require her to primary Obama, and would cause a huge divide in the party. The black vote would probably stay home if she defeated him in the primaries, and guarantee a Republican President.

She already said she is through and I believe her. As a conservative, even I think she would have been way more competent than Obama.

I totally agree! I think some general consensus needs to happen about what people want. Me: less debt ridden country 2) a country that doesn't owe China a dime 3) loop holes closed that allow for companies to more easily outsource jobs 4) incentives for companies to stay in the US (doesn't necessarily need to be tax related). 5) cut in military spending.

Extend all Bush tax cuts, decimate government.

wake-up! dude, did you know that's what hitler said before his rise!

I agree with you Louisiana Dan. The Obama administration and democrats think only they know how to spend your money better than you do. Thank God the democrats will no longer be in control of the House and hopefully they will loose the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.

The bush tax cuts were only a part of the problem. Lack of regulation enforcement and oversight created the false prosperity bubble which burst on Bush. GBL Act passed the Senate 90 - 8. This is where the trouble began.

Rather then giving the money to banks and car dealerships... that money should have gone straight to the American people. Betcha there would have been less bad debt existing today. WHY do rich folks and govco think that giving money to businesses is the answer?

louisianna dan -- did you know it was the clinton surplus that paid for the tax cuts? and now that they want to extend for another two years, this will cost us a few unpaid billions.

conservatives are always going on about doing things for the people. but relief for the veterans, assistance for the middle class, public/universal healthcare -- republicans always vote these down. you all can't be rich, so i'm just wondering, if these programs can help you start, why wouldn't you want to try it?

cause you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? no. you have to interview with people if you want a job. you go to a bank to apply for a loan, you borrow money from a friend. i mean, everything you need, you must work with a community of people. there is no such thing as "on my own." you belong to a country, and network community. so work with your country. what is the big deal!

Do you even KNOW what the terms you listed mean? (ie socialism, capitalism, "marxism"... etc) I seriously doubt it. Marxism isn't even a method like socialism, capitalism, and fascism are. Sounds to me like you're trotting out talking points from others.

I'm betting those numbers you mentioned are not necessarily defined as rich so much as they are seen as levels of return when it comes to taxes. I don't covet someone else's wealth either but do you honestly think the rich pay THEIR fair share? I don't.

Just how much of the "Rich's" money is their fair share? 39% , 55% or 90%? Does the fact that they have worked hard, and invested their money to build a business mean anything to you at all? How is it fair to take money from the "Rich" when so many people rely on welfare and food stamps while not paying any taxes at all? Yet generation after generation somehow manage to stay on welfare. Giving people money to do nothing is just not the answer. Don't start talking about how horrible I am, I am only referring to welfare, NOT unemployement benefits.

How is it fair, to take someone's estate after they are dead. Taxes have already been paid on that money, so why should it be taxed again? Someone tell me, what is wrong with the wealthy being able to leave their estate for their families, people on welfare certainly don't deserve it.

moonlight-1568889... Can you point out the difference between Socialism and Fascism? TIA.

grin... why yes... yes I can. Socialism has it so that govco takes the money and spreads it to the general populace. Canada would be an excellent example of that being a democratic socialist country. Fascism has it where the government takes and dictates. It doesn't really give to the people. It suppresses the people and controls industry whereas socialism does not. See.. oh ... the US.

Thanks - I see - both take over and run all the major industries of a country for the people -unlike communism which takes over all business in a country. Both Socialism and Fascism (National Socialism) take all the money. The people in Socialist countries are happy and wonder why more don't take to it.

I remember all the happy Germans who got out of the depression first with it. Such happy faces - more so than even the people from the Socialist Democratic Republic of Canada. Are all major forms of production run by government appointees in Canada? I missed that.

So, you mix the business form of Socialism with the political form of dictator/republic and conclude it is the political form that makes the difference. If Hitler had only been elected - it would have been all better?

Capitalism, distribution of wealth based on merit, equality of opportunity.

Socialism, distribution of wealth based on need, equality of results.

Communism, government ownership of means of production.

Fascism, the coercion of a person or persons by means of force, threat of force, intimidation, or propaganda.

Since humans are inherently capitalist, socialism must be forced on people, hence fascism is a socialist construct. All fascist states are socialist. There is a ruling elite that keeps the majority of the wealth, the majority are forced to split the leftovers. An excellent example was Castro's giving everyone a rice cooker as a present when he is worth millions.

Note that fascism is not only by force, it can also be propaganda driven. Many "soft" socialist countries rely on this method.

Most countries are a mix of the above. America has been growing more socialist and more fascist and people realize that this is not in their best interest. Capitalism is the only proven successful governing philosophy since that is the natural state of humanity. From "I'll swap my sea shells for your bag of grain" to buying and selling on E-Bay, it is who we are and have always been.

The class warfare was started by George Bush, Dick Cheney and the republicans. They want two classes of people in America, the very rich (their people) and the very poor (slave labor). Why do working people become republicans? They are voting against theirselves, the rich sat and laugh at you, because they can manipulate you. They have you trained.

Really? And where are the jobs again? WHY is unemployment so high if jobs are being created? I don't care what Obama says. Personally.... I think you repugs should have won the last election. You guys need to be taking some responsibility for what you put others through. The only way I can see that happening is if you feel the same things. Enjoy. :D

moonlight

If the jobs are not going to come from the business owners (you call them the enemy or the rich), then where are they coming from?

Economists from the left have stated in support of the compromise bill that it will have a 1% positive effect on GDP growth in 2011 and create a million jobs minimum, so it sounds like it is at least part of the solution.

Maybe this compromise will lead to others between the Pres the Dems and the Reps that will help right the economy altogether. I know it is against your ideological stance but it might be good for "all the people" don't you think?

It must really burn the butts of you liberals that after the vote, it will be forever more the Obama Tax Cuts of 2010!!!!

Put your grown up pants on and tell your Senator and Representative (of whichever party) that you expect them to work together for the good of "all the people" regardless of political ideology.

moonlight-1568889... Jobs? To quote the DIMs -"just think how bad it could have been" -raising taxes in a depression. LOL

Jobs are being created - just not more than the 150,000 per month it takes to adsorb the population growth alone. Both Reagan and Bush (2001 Bush Tax Cuts) faced recessions we could have turned into depressions by raising taxes. They lowered taxes and the jobs were created in record numbers.

We tried lowering taxes in 2001 - nobody today is even proposing a tax cut - on the table is the status quo taxes of the last decade. If DIMs want to see job growth - LOWERING taxes (and big government spending cuts) might be worth a try. Where are the jobs? ... Where are the tax cuts to generate new jobs?

Robert don't EVER confuse me for a liberal please. Don't. I am a centrist. I think both parties have some good ideas but for the most part... both are completely mucked up. And I don't call all business owners rich. Corporations employ people but they take a lot more then they give. Contrast that to smaller businesses.

Grin... taxes were at much higher levels years ago and the country did a lot better then in the last 10. You're welcome to research that a little further if you like.

moonlight... taxes were a lot lower for most of our history too (certainly before 1920) -which rasised us to world power. I just don't remember the government RAISING taxes during a recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be just that - increasing the taxes the government wants to collect, removing that money from the economy, and then injecting it into pork projects (including welfare) to buy votes. The poorer we get, the more dependent on government handouts we become - the Socialist model. Yippiee..

Bush got unemployment down to 4.6% with this same tax code. It is not taxes that are standing in the way, it is government spending. You can't spend your way out of a recession, you have to grow your way out of it. You certainly can't grow government and expect prosperity.

These cuts will stabilize unemployment until a slower recovery can kick in. An even better idea would be to lower taxes even further for a year or two. Again, we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

A temporary byproduct of the false prosperity bubble, why do you continue to cite a statistic that didn't last?

Republicans won the biggest victory in 70 years with a platform of extending all Bush tax cuts, repealing Obamacare, and making Obama a one term president. Do you at all comprehend the meaning of that?

By all means keep going in the same radical left direction. It will be that much easier to flush the rest of you in 2012.

It's too bad they can't put each item on a bill by itself and let votes land as they will. This whole putting all the pork etc into a heavy discussion item to get things passed is pathetic.

We agree on that - I'll write the Tea Party reps about that. You write whoever you think represents you in Congress. I hear both sides defending the pork to buy votes - sorry, compromise? I almost fell for the Obama compromise - always been for principle - and not the principle of buying the other guys vote with something that can't stand on its own.

Deal?

Let's just say I wish I had their accountants.

moonlight

as we determine the "fair share" of the rich, what is the "fair share for the over 40% at the bottom of the income tree that pay zero tax.

is nothing a fair share?

some of these low income filers get back more money then was deducted from their checks, rsulting in them paying a negative federal income tax.

is less then nothing a "fair share"

A revised tax code, without any deductions, where everyone pays a specified perentage of their income is where we need to get to.

this increase in contirbutors and a fair distribution curve of rates would result in more revenue to the government and everyone would have a stake in the game

someone who pays no taxes has little standing in my view to complain about how the tax money is spent

A lot of agreement here today - LOL- kill the bill.

Those greedy rich guys - they know if taxes are lowered, then the economy will improve -jobs created and their profits will go up - just plain greedy. Let's show them by raising taxes, giving those taxes to the unemployed, and let those greedy capitalists suffer with plummiting profits. And those superior middleclass types where 90% now have jobs - higher taxes will bring them down a knotch or two. Kill the Bill.

Grinspoon97 - just as I wrote in my open letter to the president, we have known since 2001 when The Bush Tax Cuts were passed into law that they have NOT helped our economy. In fact, they have resulted in the poorest performing U.S. economy since World War II.

Anyone who believes that extending the Bush Tax Cuts will somehow miraculously improve the economy has had their head up somewhere it should not be for the past 10 years! The Bush Tax Cuts have NOT worked. Extending The Bush Tax Cuts will NOT work. That is the simple fact of the matter.

The bush Tax Cuts did the job. Look at the unemployment in 2002 and then in 2006 - jobs added/recession ended. How quickly you forget.

Continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will not help now - further cuts, if they were on the table, would. Raising the taxes, by letting the cuts expire, and raising the amount of taxes the government takes - will hurt.

Try it - Kill the bill if you think that will create jobs. LOL But please don't compromise!

I wish I could kill the bill Grins..., because if I could I would. But I have some questions for you...

1. Why do you ONLY cite the years 2002 to 2006? Bush was still in office and his tax cuts in force in 2007-2008 when the ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY CRASHED DURING BUSH's PRESIDENCY?

2. Sure the Unemployment stats looked okay from 2002-2006, but what about 2007-2008 ON BUSH's WATCH? (Here's a hint, they sucked!!!)

3. IF the BUSH TAX CUTS were so great for the economy, wouldn't they have prevented the BUSH RECESSION in the first place?

4. You say "The bush Tax Cuts did the job." EXACTLY WHAT JOB DID THEY DO except reward the rich by robbing the middle-class and the poor?

I have not forgotten a thing about the effects of the Bush Administration and its many and varied illegal and unethical activities and their disastrous effects on this country and the world at large.

You are CORRECT when you write "Continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will not help now -"and you should have stopped writing there. Further tax cuts will only make a bad situation worse.

One last question for you:

5. When The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire, why NOT allow them to expire as apparently George Bush himself intended that they should when he proposed the cuts with a specific expiration date? When Milk in my refrigerator reaches its EXPIRATION DATE I throw it out, because that's the safest and healthiest thing to do. The Bush Tax Cuts have reached their EXPIRATION DATE so they need to be thrown out as well.

Grins... DO NOT BOTHER ANSWERING ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS unless you intend to answer them with logic and factual information that you can back up. Thanks!

LOL - I say, Kill the bill. Let taxes go up on every American on Jan 1. Let the DIMs say NO on Jan 2 to the same bill. Let Obama veto. Go ahead, make my day!

Penicillin was a miracle drug in the 50s. Cured what ailed you. The bugs got used to it. Government still grew. The Reagan cuts spurred the economic recovery after Cater until the Dot Com crash. The Bush cuts recovered the economy after 9/11 until the housing bust of 2008. You think an injection of ebola virus is just what the economy needs? By all means - kill the bill for all.

unemployment was 10% in 1983 and went to 4% in 2000 -- Reagan Tax cuts of 1981.

• Unemployment was 6.3% in 2003 and went to 4.6% in 2007 - Bush tax cuts.
• Unemployment is 9.8% (actually 16%) in 2010 and goes to 23% in 2012 - if Bush tax cuts expire

Bush wanted the cuts to be permanent - compromised on 10 years. He figured by then everyone would realize the cuts (and more) were necessary. The Obama socialists think more taxes and welfare will lower the unemployed. They stake their shot on that for 2012. I say, kill the bill and put it to the test. The RIPs do not have spending cuts and more tax reductions on tap. They default - happy to hang a poor economy on Obama. Obama says compromise to give cover - he will claim extending the cuts were to improve the economy and gee look, they didn't -

Continuing the cuts willl not fix anything. Killing them will kill the recovery and throw us into depression. The Tea Party and RIPs have not proposed spending cuts and tax cuts to actually fix anything. The only way forward is to kill the bill and suffer the consequences enough to actually begin the recovery.

Grins... I read your crazy gibberish rants above, but you didn't answer any one of my five questions. You can't, can you?

So sorry - need to use small words and underline for you.

Why do you ONLY cite the years 2002 to 2006? Read stats for years 1983 to 2007.

wouldn't they have prevented the BUSH RECESSION Continuing the cuts willl not fix anything. The cuts still have their effect, but the deficit and spending continues - DIMs think a good economy is a mandate to tax and spend - if they cant TAX, they borrow and spend. Bush cuts can't support an ever increasing load.

reward the rich by robbing the middle-class and the poor? There was no class warfare of jealousy to the cuts. As you see when you try to remove them. You rant with the unsupported acqusation.

why NOT allow them to expire as apparently George Bush himself intended? The RIPs wanted them permanent but settled for a compromise of 10 years. You want to kill them - be my guest - KILL THE BILL.

Prolog: The Senate bill is now loaded with Reid crap - ethanol and biodeisel subsidies... and a lot more pork. I hope these are poison pills to kill the bill. Don't you think the bill should be clean to the "compromise?" I would prefer each of the "compromise" elements be a seperate bill. You?

The real fixing of the economy will be in the cuts in spending next year - killing the cuts will cause pain - the first of much before we get to a stable economy again.

Let me ask you just one question: Suppose only the tax cuts on those wealthy are killed. That fix it?

Um, they are tax cuts? - They WERE tax cuts from 10 years ago. Remove them and you will see INCREASED TAXES. Here is the test: Let them expire and look at your paycheck in January. It will be smaller with more money with held to pay MORE TAXES. That's a tax raise -

You are trying to sell it as a teaser rate that goes up after 10 years -like an ARM. It feels like a tax increase, acts like a tax increase - you want it to quack?