the ONLY thing they in Congress can agree on is increasing the deficit and the debt that our children will have to deal with, and getting reelected. However, 60% of people say ok? Can't have it both ways folks. and SKIDDY, blaming the democrats for this is an enormous joke. when people want the deficit and debt cut, but then approve of a tax cut for everyone-they are tooting a lot of hot air out their a$$e$. This is why the problems will not be resolved without a major disaster hitting the financial markets--AGAIN.

So when are we going to get around to figuring out how we will pay for these tax cuts?

Eric-913730

So when are we going to get around to figuring out how we will pay for these tax cuts?

You dont pay for tax cuts.. Tax cuts me LESS money comming in, so that means the Gvmnt needs to NOT spend as much. Hard concept to wrap your mind around I know.. BUT we have to do it everyday in our lives.. About damn time the Gvmnt started dong it too

Jeremy, we will pay about 800 billion for these tax cuts.

Bush cut taxes and went to war X 2.

That is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I know that's a hard concept to get your mind around.

Extend the Bush era tax cuts to try and fix the Bush era economic collaspe, who would have thunk?

I am ok with part of this bill but what I do have a problem with is all the pork crap. Apparently these elected officials are on deaf ears and I blame the American voters for not going after these crooks who are stealing our children's future by the wasteful spending and careless acts on our deficit. Now these crooks want to pass a 1900 page pork bill for their budget. !!!!!!!!!! I hope this country colaps just like Rome in the past. Maybe this will wake up this country for their enormous spending habits. Shame on you America for your stupidity.

If people are so worried about the deficit, which they claim to be, then they shouldn't be opposed to cutting spending AND increasing taxes. That's the fastest way to cut debt. . . increase the amount coming in while simulteously increasing the proportion of that money going to that particular issue.

Jeremy-960164, ever heard the expression "Nothing is free", the debt being run up while these "breaks" are in place is what we'll have to pay for, eventually.

TonyO-2419155, raising taxes would be okay, if everyone paid taxes. A flat rate would get the illegals and cheats.

It's not tax cuts that have to be "paid for." It's the spending that has to be paid for.

Now, 60% are in favor?

That's weird, one week ago, 68% were against them.

Strange how deceptive the Media can be....

Maybe Wikileaks can publish the actual truth.

It is impossible to pay for tax cuts. Taxes are revenue. We pay for goods and services, not revenue. We need to fix our structural problems instead of feeding it more revenue.

Cut WHAT, Jeremy? What, specifically, do you want to cut? A child can say "stop spending." Tell us all exactly what you would cut.

Okay, Rusty. Let's go along with your disingenuous game of semantics.

When will we start to figure out how we'll pay for all the things that we will not have revenue to pay for now that we're extending tax cuts to people who have more money than GOD, and don't need the tax cuts?

Oh...we'll just cut them? Specify what we'll cut to pay for these tax cuts.

Nancy, if the tax cuts were to expire revenues would increase for the government thereby decreasing the deficit. By keeping them the same, we continue to have to borrow money to keep the taxes this low.

That costs all of us money !!!

Therefore, the tax cuts cost money and we need to figure out how to decrease the deficit not increase it.

Here is an article about how the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the deficit.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966

Cuts: Congressional salaries. Entire NASA budget (no more govt. sponsored forays until they become more affordable). End the welfare programs and blame Republicans when bodies start littering the streets. At least the herds will get thinned, starting with society's least able to integrate.

No more DOE. Let students earn their way, instead of taking loans which equal half a lifetime to pay back. How many sub-literates are graduating into a saturated market? No more subsidies to farmers and universities; no more intelligence agencies. No more immigration until we can manage borders; and all illegals deported, no exceptions. All government programs end until they're proven essential.

Then maybe that 14 trillion can get whittled down a little.

Goverment do not need money to provide tax cut it won't create deficit , leave to die Bush taxes is a hike tax and we all pay for it , actually only 50% of the taxpayers , the other 50% don't count because they will never pay income taxes anyway.

These "tax cuts" have been around so long that they might as well start calling it like it is ... they voted not to increase taxes while extending unemployment benefits. I agree with the comment that this means the government needs to reduce spending. What business or person would continue spending beyond their means in anticipation of a future increase in revenue or income? People have to make tough choices; the government needs to as well.

Very Funny, The people that complain that taxes aren't high enough are the people that make under $250,000 a year. Let me tell you THAT IS NOT RICH!!!!!!!!!

Brandon, that's 60% of 1,000 people, not 60% of all Americans. Polls like this are just about the most useless source of information I can think of. To think that 1,000 opinions can possibly reflect the beliefs of 350 million is ridiculous.

It is impossible to pay for tax cuts. Taxes are revenue.

OK, if we're determined to parse words how about a more accurate question? What has to be cut from the budget to compensate for $90B/year in revenue reductions that are specifically and solely beneficial to the wealthiest 2% of society?

There, that accurately describes a situation in which services need to be cut or more debt accumulated so that rich people can become rich even faster than they are already while providing no benefit to 98% of Americans.

I see Eric still don't get it. You will someday my friend. Just stay awake and listen.

"so that rich people can become rich even faster than they are already while providing no benefit to 98% of Americans."

So the 2% of the population have to pay for the other 98%. What is wrong with you? We are in the way to be a welfare society

Personally I think they should have done a planned phaze out. Yes taking more money out of the consumers pockets will hurt the economy and probably double dip the recession. But also true, we need to bring down the deficit.....Why couldn't they have voted to keep 85% of the Bush Tax Cuts this coming year and then cut another 15-20% the next year and so on. The public has gotten used to this tax cut and it will be hard on the economy to get rid of it all at once whether now or later.

We also need to curb gov't spending in a big way just like most of its citizens have been doing recently. We need to stop paying money to countries just because they lost the war. (Money that we borrow from other countries because we don't have it). We need to get rid of the drain illegals have on us, and we need the gov't to get rid of some of the entitlement programs that make people lazy and unproductive. Time for across the board 20% cuts.

Jeremy - cutting income leads to borrow and spend. I remember my chagrin when I found that my Ex-wife was paying the 1st mortgage with our 2nd mortgage fund when we should have been more frugal and I should have been watching. And she had an MBA. Although the concept of cutting spending to match income makes a lot of sense, the treasury belongs to the people, and short changing it with the intent of forcing a Ronald Reagan style least government upon America should have been done by the Republicans. Instead they spent like a drunken sailor and left the tab for the democrats to figure out and fellow Americans to pay down. Unfortunately we can't get a divorce from our congress but can tell them to get our finances in order.

John B,

Actually it is estimated that 52.7 million U.S. households own stocks in one form or another, and 35.9 million households which own stocks or mutual funds outside retirement plans, where the capital gains tax would apply. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 2.59 people per household, so let's do some simple math:

Line 1: 35.9 million households X 2.59 people/household = approximately 93 million Americans.

Line 2: 93 million / 310 million (total population) = approximately 30%

Conclusion: The capital gains tax affects 30% of Americans, not 2%. Perhaps you were doodling in sixth grade math class? Just a guess.

We used to have Pay As You Go which expired in 2002. The Republican Congress and White House started to really pile on the debt about the time we invaded Iraq. They also proceeded to pass even more tax cuts in a time of war.

Eric - The government spends way too much money. They need to cut programs, stop earmarks, stop pork and reduce the size of government. That will not only pay for the cuts in taxes but reduce the debt this country faces.

Hopefully the new congress will do just that. They have promised to take a 10% reduction in all expenditures associated with their staffing, travel and expenses. That's a start. Now they need to look at all the crap programs the government has and eliminate them.

The federal government is a bloated, oversized and out of control spending machine.

Jack313............ Here is how you pay for the "tax cuts" which are not cuts, but things are kept the same.... 1. Send the illegals home and quit paying for their education and health care 2. Stop welfare for people able to work. 3. If your then elgable for welfare, drug tests are mandatory to get each check. 4. You now have a big time budget surplus so enjoy!! Anymore questions?

The bottom 80% of American households owned 8.9% of stocks in 2007. That's a number that has declined since then. Thirty percent might own SOME stock, but it isn't enough to make a difference in our lives.

Please see table 5a for confirmation. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.

Perhaps you were doodling in statistics class. The top 2% get a major share of their income in capital gains that get taxed at 15%. The rest of us get nearly all of our income in regular wages that pay a higher rate.

If tax cuts "cost" us, then why does revenue go up after a tax cut is put in place?

Because taxes are not a juvenile zero-sum game for you math geniuses. Your dimwitted congress people have built a complex series of laws allowing rich people all kinds of ways to avoid taxes.

So your buying into the liberal class-warfare game only speaks to your lack of understanding of our tax code, human behavior, and history.

How about ask this - WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THE S$%^ THESE FOOLS IN CONGRESS SPEND OUR MONEY ON?

How about cutting every department and salary by 40% to start. Yes, that includes defense.

Don't tell me you can't - the bankruptcy judge will certainly require this be done...

Eric - Don't you get it? The more money we send to Washington, the more money that gets wasted & dipped into, until before long they are asking for more.

Yes, the debt was high when Obama took office, but he has managed to increase that debt by more than several presidents combined.

There should be certain welfare systems, but there are many in this country who won't work as long as the government keeps handing out money. Those who do work are tired of supporting the dead-beats!

The most pathetic thing is the treatment of seniors. No social security raise for 2 years. I don't believe the figures that say the "cost of living" doesn't constitute an increase. Anyone who shops for groceries, buys gas or tries to maintain a home knows differently. We are being lied to! I hope each and every senior remembers this in 2012.

Tax cuts should require offsetting spending cuts. The Republicans have shown their true colors with this sell out. They obviously don't give a damn about the deficit, since they just negotiated for higher spending and a reduction in the revenue to fund that spending. Why the American people can't seem to see through their inconsistent BS I'll never know.

Randy-394876

I see Eric still don't get it. You will someday my friend.

It'll never happen for most on the left. Remember Perot saying NAFTA and China Free Trade would create a giant sucking sound of the jobs leaving the country back in the Clinton years? Remember how the right was saying it'd be too late before the left realized it was a bad idea? Most of the left doesn't. It's Bush's fault to them even though he was still 8 yrs from being elected. Some on the right were for it as well, but the conservative media was up in arms about those guys and naming names then too.

Same can be said for Clinton's call on not taking out Bin Laden, persecution of Oliver North over Bin Laden comments, Democrats screaming about WMDs in Iraq to Bush Sr when he wanted to pull out rather than go in after Hussein, Democrat controlled congress & senate since 2007 and how all of the bills they passed are Republicans fault, and a dozen other instances.

Republicans have their bad apples too. The difference is, right wing media calls them out on it and isn't afraid to call a terd a terd just because it has a party label on it. The Tea Party being against several Republican incumbents is a prime example.

So the 2% of the population have to pay for the other 98%. What is wrong with you? We are in the way to be a welfare society

What's wrong with me? What's wrong with you? More tax savings will be routed to the top 2% than the entire remaining 98%, all with borrowed money since everyone has acknowledged it'll increase the deficit. Is there something RIGHT about making 98% of Americans pay more so that 2% get a break?

Two years is not long enough for a recovery. They should have extended it four. So, this is just more BS, with the politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths again. So what's new? I just looked up the definition of stupid. It said"see politician".

diaper dope wrote

B.) One doesn't pay for tax cuts. The money isn't the governments to begin with. The government needs to balance a budget on what it's people determine they're willing to give to the government not what the government decides it wants to take from the people.

the people would be willing to give nothing. look at how much you all whine about people making millions of dollars having to give a little extra and it's obvious. for you it's never enough no matter what you make.

Looking for revenue? How about a tarriff on goods imported from the far east? They certainly not opposed to taxing us. Turn about is fair play and the result would be the need to produce more here creating jobs. More people working = more revenue.

It is a fact that we can develop some of the best technology which we quickly give away to other countries to produce IE China, India, Mexico, Viet Nam, Tai Wan, Korea and the list goes on.

Maybe the theory is too simplistic but then I guess working for a living is no longer a noble endeavor.

Add balancing the budget and we may have a chance.

I find it interesting that these tax cut extensions would impact the Wall Street bonuses the most, but this connection does not receive much attention. Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire! Call, email, send letters and faxes to your representatives. Force congress to debate, create and vote on a new bill if they want to cut taxes.

You dont pay for tax cuts.. Tax cuts me LESS money comming in, so that means the Gvmnt needs to NOT spend as much. Hard concept to wrap your mind around I know

Simplistic fantasies are easy to wrap your mind around. The problem is, the same party that is gung-ho on cutting taxes has been the worst offender on spending. These cuts add to the deficit because the money represented by not repealing them has already been spent.

Well knock me over with a spoon....the president finally wants to do something that 2/3 of the nation agrees with, instead of opposes. That's a first !

Well I for one am glad that we invaded iraq what with all the wmds my life was at risk.I am much safer than i was when saddam hussein was the leader of iraq.Those hundreds of billions spent make me feel a whole lot safer i can leave my house now without worrying that scud missle might hit me. And I think we should give more billions to our hard fighting pakistani brothers with them helping us catch osama bin laden and all

Gee does those polled realize just how much PORK and EARMARKS are in this Bill? I wonder if their response would have been the same...... (disgusted with Washington!)

Tax cuts should require offsetting spending cuts.

Haven't the republican's been trying to at least prevent new spending by voting no? Except that was the wrong thing to do... Basically the republican's can't win- vote no on spending=evil. Vote yes to let all taxpayers keep more of their own money=evil. And we wonder why nothing gets done?

Time to wake up and stop thinking in a vacuum. Everyone tries to sell the line that higher tax rates equal increased revenue but in the real world, that's not the way it works. Look at, for example, cigarette taxes. Every single time the state raises cig. taxes they see giant dollar signs because they'll be collecting so much more per pack! Only what happens every single time is they sell fewer packs so the higher tax ends up reducing the tax revenue. Income tax is no different. You think that those who have the ability to funnel their money through every possible loophole in the tax code won't continue to do so? They already are at the current tax rates, what would the impetus be to stop once rates increase? And do you really think that those who sit in the income gap between the highest marginal rate as it currently stands ($373,650) and where the democrats wanted to take it ($250,000) aren't going to make some big lifestyle changes because for many, they will see a 6% hike in taxes on a good chunk of their income and find any way they can to minimize their tax liability? And when the jobs that they support start seeing lower demand, there will be more people out of work which reduces the tax base even more- fewer people paying taxes means no matter where you set the rates, revenues will decrease. Add to that the fact that congress has never once demonstrated an ability or even a willingness to reduce spending and you have just successfully compounded your deficit problem.

It sure did add to the deficit. How are we going to pay for this?

Just wait the new Republican House will shock you!

So the bill just couldn't get passed without adding a bunch of pork. Why in the world did the movie industry need a break, why is Puerto Rico getting any benefits?

I keep hoping at some point there will be a politician with enough clout and courage to propose real solutions to the deficit problem we have...unfortunately all we seem to get is more spending and lower tax rates (for now...they are going to have to go up at some point to pay for our lack of fiscal discipline).

Personally, I don't think spending cuts alone will be enough - which means we will need to increase revenues (i.e.; taxes). We can whine and complain about hard decisions now while we have a say in the matter, but if we keep going like we are, we'll get dropped as the world's reserve currency and then we'll really pay a price for our excesses.

And why would't they aggree on this bill...it helps keep more money in their own pockets as well as that of lobbyist I am sure lobbied hard for it to be passed .

JohnB of Des Moines,

I must take umbrage in the statistics that you appear to be espousing.

Firstly, you are cherry-picking from previously skewed data published by G.W. Domhoff*. The ownership of stocks that you cite might be true however it is not accurate. Most small investors in the modern marketplace have opted not to own stocks outright but to invest via diversified investment vehicles such as mutual funds; whether ETFs or traditionally structured funds. Of the bottom 80% you cite nearly 90% have a financial stake in the capital markets of one sort or another. As well, many are invested via their retirement and/or pension funds. Thusly, between 2/3 and3/4 (being that 72% falls between 66% and 75% and leaving for a small margin of statistical erring) of Americans are firmly vested in the capital markets.

By examining wealth and asset ownership in America one can further see the error in your conclusions. Total booked wealth in American, as defined by all assets minus liabilities, is estimated to be between 65 trillion and 80 trillion dollars. The wealthiest 25% is said to own $50-55 trillion or approximately 2/3 – 3/4 of the calculated net assets. With the middle 50% is said to control approximately 22% of booked assets leaving the bottom quartile (25%) possesses the remaining assets.

Included within that top 25% are the super-rich and large institutions, pension funds, sovereign funds and the like. The 10 largest Sovereign funds alone control over 3 trillion in US assets and just the 7 largest private pension funds control more than $1.78 trillion in assets; the aggregate value of all the Ivy-League endowment funds alone tops $100 billion, currently more than twice the wealth of any of the wealthiest men in the world.

The beneficiaries of these funds are mostly the proletariat bottom 80% that you seem to want to champion so desperately; unless of course, you are asserting that California public employees, NY State teachers, NYC municipal workers and the rank and file factory workers at GM(all stake holders of these pension funds) and scholarship students are part and parcel of that elite class of wealth you seem to be railing against.

By comparison the aggregated value of the 400 richest persons/families in the US total approx $1.56 trillion, much of which is theoretical and on paper only as opposed to the mostly public and or tangible assets held by the institutions. While the $1.56 trillion is indeed a tremendous amount of wealth on its own, it is merely pennies to the dollar based on the total sum of the total wealth of the nation.

As well, your conclusion re the income source of the top 2% is incorrect. The bulk of the income earned by the top 2% of individual income earners (I assume you are referring to the top 2% regarding annual income and not wealth-as establish the top 2% of asset owners are in fact institutions establish for the benefit of the many) is in fact ‘ordinary income’ for tax purposes and not capital gains that would be taxed at the 15% rate(the long term cap gain rate, short term cap gains taxed at the ordiary income tax rate of up to 35%). For it to be long term capital gains one would need to be buying, holding for more than one year and selling assets. Dividends (including subchapter S dividends), coupon payments, rent and royalties are all taxed at the ordinary progressive rate.

Seems not everyone was 'doodling' in statistics class, or any of their other classes...

*As a footnote, I am well versed in the writings of former professor G.W. Domhoff...shall we put his 'theories' into perspective? Mr. Domhoff was a psychology and sociology professor at University of California Santa Cruz; never was or is he an economist or economics professor. Mr. Domhoff received his MA from Kent State and his Ph.D. from U of Miami; where he studied the meaning and process of dreams. He became a professor in 1965. At this juncture let me point out that UC Santa Cruz is considered by most as the most progressively liberal university in America; even to the left of Berkeley. His most recent work is a collaboration entitled 'The Leftmost City: Power and Progressive Politics in Santa Cruz', where he concludes that a theory known as 'growth coalition theory', which is not far from Karl Marx's "Urban Theory" for living together, to be the preferable way to govern a city. Think Mr. Domhoff has a personal agenda in his statistics?

nearly 60 percent approve of its major components, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

We are supposed to be impressed with these figures apparently. However, 66 % plus did not approve of the socialisation of our medical system (Obamacare) but we have it anyway. What difference, the opinions of the people of America to the globalists? Unless,--- it supports their agenda.

Gee, that's interesting. Only a few short weeks before, polls showed this:

12/8/2010 - In a Bloomberg News poll released Wednesday, nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed said they favor the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans. One-third said they strongly favor the elimination of the cuts, while 18 percent said they strongly oppose the discontinuation of the cuts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46125.html

September 15, 2010 6:30 PM

Poll: Most Americans Want Tax Cuts for the Rich to Expire

While leaders in Washington remain divided over whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, as President Obama has proposed, just over half of Americans think it is a good idea, a new CBS News/ New York Times poll shows.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html

Gallup poll finds majority favor ending tax cuts for the rich

By Jay Heflin - 09/10/10 07:28 AM ET

A majority of those polled by Gallup agree with President Obama that Bush-era tax cuts for the rich should be phased out.Forty-four percent of those polled want tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and families under $250,000 to be extended, but favor phasing out tax cuts for people who earn more than those thresholds.Another 15 percent favor allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire along with the middle-class tax cuts, according to Gallup...

That means 59 percent favor ending the tax cuts for the rich...

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/117995-new-poll-finds-americans-support-ending-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy

I'd like to see how they posed the question in these latest polls:

NBC/WSJ-Given that people will instantly start starving in the streets and the whole of western civilization will collapse if the president does not bow and lick the shoes of the Rich and extend their tax cuts how do you feel about the Obama's "deal" with the Republicans?

Considering the BS being pumped out by the corporate media defending the "deal" (actually the capitulation and betrayal of their constituents and the U.S. public) i'm not surprised.

This is like a replay of the NAFTA, Bank-bailouts, Iraq war invasion in which the media pull out all the stops to get the public behind something even though at least subconsciously the public knows they are getting royally hosed.

You have to hand to the professional liars and spin meisters in the media, they are as good as Wall Street hucksters selling mortgaged backed securities to rubes all over the world.

The media had people believing that Saddam Hussein had WMD coming out of his butthole and was involved in 9/11 too shortly before the Iraq invasion even though only a several months before almost no one thought that.

It's not surprising that 60% of the U.S. public now believes that Obama did the right thing (even though a few short weeks ago the same percentage were against extending the tax cuts for the rich).

After all a lot of Americans believe in little green men from Outer Space:

Wikipedia:

Opinion polls indicate that public belief in the ETH has continued to rise since then. For example, a 1997 Gallup poll of the U.S. public indicated that 87% knew about UFOs, 48% believed them to be real (vs. 33% who thought them to be imaginary), and 45% believed they had visited Earth.^[24] Similarly a Roper poll from 2002 found 56% thought UFOs to be real and 48% thought they had visited Earth.^[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis

Eric-913730..........it will be interesting to see just how the republican party figures to correct an economy that have helped to creat .

TheOverlord, if that is the case, then why are the Republicans pushing for the full tax break to stay in place? I personally think they should all expire. We are not in the position as a country to be giving away income to anyone.

Agreed.

This deal represents an additional $2 trillion added to the deficit (hear that Tea Partiers?), and paves the way for the elimination of Social Security.

The very idea that this tax deal will be temporary is laughable, since when this deal is set to 'expire' in two years is also an election year. Look for these tax cuts to be permanent, even as RepubliCo. points out that SSI benefits must be cut again because of the reduced SSI taxes in this bill.

Giving away what income? It was ours to begin with. Call it what it would be if they expired. Taking away income!

The top tax bracket earners were taxed at a much higher rate 25-65 years ago. Why are people(the rich) complaining that they don't think those who are way above being well off, should pay more than those who aren't?

From 1950-1963, the federal tax rate on all taxable income over $400,000, was OVER 90%. From 2003-2008, the federal tax rate on all taxable income over $297,000-$357,000(it fluctuated by year), was 35%.

It's obvious that our economy was booming the most and at its best, when the rich(and large corporations) in the top brackets were paying over double the amount of taxes that they currently pay. If it was done before with great success(and the rich still made lots of $$ and their businesses were hiring), then it would probably work again.

How about taxing all income over $500,000 at a 45%, instead of 35%.

And before anyone starts b*tching about how it's "un-American", remember that the US used to tax all income over $106,000-$400,000(depending on the year) at between 50% and 94%(also depending on the year) between 1932 and 1986.

It obviously wasn't "un-American" when the top bracket tax rates were much higher in the past. We had successful economic growth under those tax rates.

The argument of "if you tax the rich and large corporations at a higher rate, they won't hire or do business here", is complete BS. If they leave to do business somewhere else, then hit them with tariffs and import taxes when they try to bring their goods and services back into the US. I bet they'll stay here in the US and start hiring Americans again, it we don't give them cheaper options outside the US.

The US is still one of the top consumer nations. Corporations(and rich tycoon families) don't want to lose the revenue they make off of US consumers. It's time they contributed their fair share, back to the people that they profit the most from.

In the past 10 years, we've had the lowest income tax rates, since before the Great Depression. Taxing those who make many many times more $$ than what it costs to live comfortably, isn't un-American, nor is it unethical. It's already been done successfully in the past 65 years.

The rich use and get more tax breaks than the middle class do. They have more money to pay others(tax lawyers and accountants) to find the loopholes and exemptions, than average Americans have. They also use offshore accounts(legally thru offshore corporations) to avoid paying taxes on income.

yabecoo: Taxes are income for the government entity that is collecting them. We pay taxes for services, so yes it's income they are giving away and we are NOT in the position to be giving away any INCOME to anyone. So, when you are ready to look at DOD's budget, Medicare, SSI, etc. then come back and talk to me. We cannot afford to have X of dollars in debt and then voluntarily cut our income stream on promises that it will make things better, when it clearly has not made anything better.

That 60% proves Americans are dumb as rocks. The wealthy could really

be limited to about 5-10% of the population- so why would an additional

50-55% want those more than well-offs to continue to get a tax break we can't afford? Because those 60% are stupid is the obvious answer.

im for this but im curious as to why you are oppossed

i work and have 2 children having a tax cut is a blessing and it means i may be able to afford some extras i think my kids are more than deserving of .. so im just curious how do you think this will have negative implecations when tax cuts and extended unemployment may give the private sector the boost it needs

-moderate conservative MA

American Lobo,

Bingo! After learning the history of tax rates I make sure to point it out to people when they talk about the "good ole days" and how we have turned into socialists with high tax rates.

So if we are socialists now, what were we for 50+ years when the Greatest Generation fought their way to make this country what it is, while paying a 90% tax rate?!

Soundbite. Please tell everyone your opinion of why the tax cut is NOT a good idea. I think it would interesting to hear different views on it. Please, if you are going to be for or against it, enter your factual information so you will not appear as and uneducated person.

There you go, folks. When in doubt, ask the Overlord. Knows more than at least 60% of the rest of us.....

once again the far left shows how out of touch it is. nice to see the usual 'if you disagree then you're stupid' spin as well. you don't raise taxes during a recession and dispite the constant media droning that this only helps millionaires, these tax breaks help small business, which helps keep people in jobs.

I personally think they should all expire. We are not in the position as a country to be giving away income to anyone.

You're right but completely wrong. You're think the Government is giving away income but it is the tax payer that gives away income to the Government via taxes. But I agree, I am not in a position to be giving away more income to anyone; you, the guy down the street or the Government. It's time to hold the government accountable for their spending and to remove their hands from our pockets.

I agree with you. What angers me the most is that the media is so on board with this and that message we hear from the white house is the "need" to pass this in order to "protect" the middle class. If Bernie Sanders would get more air time, maybe more people would know the facts.

vialjay: since we are labeling ourselves.

Jahmekan: liberal-moderate OH

I have 2 children as well and we all paid the same tax rate, before Bush's cut and there was not a problem until the crooks on wall street and deregulation of key industries messed us up (don't get me started on trade with communist China and outsourcing). A tax cut is not a blessing. A blessing is from god and that tax cut thing is from man. Oh nevermind, I forgot about the 10% tax from the church. Oh, I digress. I don't like that I have to pay taxes, but I enjoy the services that my tax dollars buys. We have the finest military machine in the world (even though we have been overspending on it) and a fairly decent social service structure (when it is not being looted by the special interest). We are not in the situation, where the government can afford to give up revenue right now. I am not opposed to looking at the issue in a few years, if things stablizes and to tie the tax issue to unemployment benefits is just mean spirited. The majority of people are out of work through no fault of their own and yes some abuse the system, but you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Those should have been taken up as two separate issues.

vialjay, It doesn't make you mad knowing there are jobs out there but people don't want them because their benefits pay more? It doesn't make you mad to know you work and struggle every day so someone doesn't have to, or just plain won't? This country is sinking farther down because people are lazy and don't want to work. Why work when you can draw a check. If you don't qualify for this one, try this one, have another kid, quit working, you make too much.... Let the tax cuts expire and stop extending benefits. I think alot of welfare checks and food stamps should be stopped also. Then the money that is saved from not having to pay them every month can go to getting manufacturing back in this country.

Nancy unfortunately for you this is not the United States of ME, but the United States of America. We will all pay taxes and there is no way to get around it, so if the government is to function for the people (even the guy down the street you don't want to give money to), then it has to be responsible, not only in spending, but holding to the money it will need to offset it's debt.

what some one else is doing doesnt make me mad im not mad at the present situation our economy is in

however i can see that many people have the arguement of cutting benefits and stopping the tax cuts but when i think of what doing those things would do to us on a national level it makes me shudder a bit

as i said i work i make just over the poverty line as many people are forced to do (which is actually more than entitlements payout)

additionally i labeled my self so what i dont want to be accused of being a republican or democrat (by the way a moderate conservative also a moderate liberal)

im seeing it like this -2% to ssi (im notpaying for you to retire i can put that into the private trading account i had the foresight to open before this recession began

-2% from federal income taxes and an extension on the child tax credit the way i see it i can pay my rent a few months ahead of time when file my return ...

the billions of dollars it will costhmm let me see ...a freeze on Gov employee pay increases, draw down in afganistan, private sector business increase due to lower taxes and increase in employment due to that (more income tax rolling into the gov id say that is the tip of the iceberg for whats paying for it all)

a few more cuts and self induced paycuts for our politicians and a repeal on the healthcare thing and id say the future looks bright again.

read the news gather the pieces then make an opinion

60% of 1000? and there are about 300 million Americans of which there are a little over 220 million eligible voters. And those polled visit the Wall Street Journal website? pardon me while I roar with laughter about the absurdity that continues every day. This poll was a sound bite itself. is anyone else saying unbelieveable?

Vailjay: I am not against you or anyone else, but it's not just as simple as you laid it out. We want it to be simple, but that is not the case and you still have not mentioned any spending cut from the DoD, because the draw down on the war will not be a cut. Read up on how we funded the war on terror and then make an opinion. I can play devils advocate and say, why should you get a tax credit for having children? Why should the old lady down the street for 50 plus years with out a school age kid pay taxes for the school (we do property taxes for schools in OH)? Not fair to her or other people without children, right? See it's not that simple. We are part of a larger society and we pay TAXES. I don't like it, but we use services that makes us as safe as we can be, so we can have a good school district that will be better for housing value (yeah, I just chuckled to myself). The reason why I am so passionate about this today, is that I am tired of the one liners. If the unemployment extension was bad and unfunded, then why is it good now, when the Repubsgot what they wanted in the tax extension? Same goes for the Dems, if the tax extension was so bad, why bother go along with the Repubs plan? I say let it expire and enact other budget cuts. Trim the fat, where there is fat. If you look at the vine, you will see the the politician has won the day. Keep the people who need help the most arguing amongst themselves and steal the loot while they are distracted. Special interest 2 - Regular Folks 0

Lobo - be honest, until 1913, no one paid any income tax. And when the rates did go up - the original rates put in by the criminals in congress at the time were 1% - 6% and they joked "what are we going to do with all that money!" Here we are less than 100 years later, TRILLIONS in debt and a large % of all of our money being confiscated by these same criminals.

Overspending is the problem, not taxes.

Lazy and broke people always want others to provide, big surprise.

No tax rate will be enough, because it is not treating the problem. The problem is SPENDING! Until these criminals pass a balanced budget amendment and reduce our federal government footprint by a substantial amount, I would not trust these fools with a single penny, as they have proven, both Democrat and Republican, that they LIE, and they will OVERSPEND until we take away the purse.

So Paul, why don't the responsible Republican Conservatives do something to reduce spending, then tailor a tax package to provide the appropriate amount of funding?

This deal represents an additional $2 trillion added to the deficit (hear that Tea Partiers?)

The Tea Partiers are already commenting on it. MSNBC isn't reporting it for some reason, but they had personal interviews on Fox News at lunch.

TheOverlord, if that is the case, then why are the Republicans pushing for the full tax break to stay in place?

You're asking a question that's been answered several hundred times on newsvine over the last few weeks. We're in a RECESSION. Gov't is OVERSPENDING. Taking more $$ out of the ECONOMY so they can OVERSPEND even MORE isn't going to fix the problem (remember payback of 2nd bailout was a "sudden windfall of cash" in an Obama speech, not a payback to a debt). Once we recover from the recession, end the tax cuts across the board for EVERYONE and lower the % of population exempt from federal taxes to under 50% of the population. I think anyone who makes 20% over minimum wage should no longer be exempt and the # of abusable deductions need revisiting.

How many polls showed that 60-70-80% of Americans opposed Obamacare?

The "stimu-less" billS?

Since when does it matter what the PEOPLE think?

Actually, according to the logic of this administration, this should mean a NO vote.

In order to pass something, you must have a majority of the country OPPOSED to it!

Maybe this is the "change" we've been waiting for.

That 60% proves Americans are dumb as rocks.

Funny, I read it as 60% of Americans don't appreciate discrimination. The intellectual elitists of the left are at it again with their divisive rhetoric "You're not smart enough to know what's good for you so I'll tell you want's good you."

vialjay, I'm mad about it and don't see how you can't be. I don't make much more than poverty level myself. You say you make more than "entitlements payout. If you were laid off, would tou make more then? If you could get a job flipping burgers but it didn't pay as much as your "entitlements", would you take it just to get off the system? Probably not. I steam when I think about able bodied people scamming the system for a check every month, living better than I do sometimes on my dime.

Crying 'envy' and 'class warfare', in this sort of discussion, are pointless euphamisms casually tossed around by those too lazy to construct any sort of argument. It's dismissive of actual social inequality, it's ignorant of polls that still show the majority are against upper-class tax cuts on their own, and it's patently ridiculous on its face. Try making some sort of actual argument.

It's the rich creating the class warfare, by trying to wipe out the middle class.

So true, Eric!

Love this statement:

By Dr: Adrian Rogers 1931-2005

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by l;legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives, without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody, anything that the government does not first take form somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not need to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation

Eric-913730

It's the rich creating the class warfare, by trying to wipe out the middle class.

riiight, because the rich really hate the middle class, uh, why?

Eric and Obama Diva. Your mind is not functioning at an eduacted level. To make the statements that we are trying to wipe out the middle class is total missleading to anyone educated. The statement, Everyone is in charge of their own destiny, means exactly that. Please explain to me why you are stuck in what you call the middle class, and also where you work. A lot of posters think that being "rich" is having disposable money in a safe or in a bank. Just because we make the "Right" decisions in life, why do you feel we should be punished? After all, the company you work for, if you do work, is probably considered 'rich" by your standards. Wouldn't it be a shame if the government taxed them so heavy, that they would have to close and you would lose your job?

Skipster,

I'll remember that when it becomes anywhere close to reality.

Oh, and Adrian Rogers was pro-slavery. Nice quote though...

The middle class is punished everyday by things like this recession.

The recession isn't hurting the rich.

I'm sorry if you have to sell one of your 4 houses.

Skipster,

You are assuming that "the rich" did something to earn their place at the top. That is a myth. The majority of rich are that way because their parents were. And the vast majority of the poor are that way because their parents were. But MAYBE if they're lucky and work reeeal hard they can be one of the 1% that makes it to the top. Now that's fair!

I can provide links if needed.

Uncle Shags, are you serious? That is the best way I've heard it explained. That's exactly how I feel, "it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they(I) worked for....".

Better to see that 40% are prepared should class warfare erupt.

Someone else doesn't like paying taxes. Who woulda thunk it?...

Uncle Shags. it is evident you do not have the ability to advance beyond your status. Want to explain why. My parents gave me nothing but what they were required to do. Love and family values and great advice. Get educated, work hard and save your money. You want to make a very lame statement and it shows, you think, like many people of your status, that we were handed our money. That is why you are a complainer and not a explainer.

No skipster, Uncle Shags just has his eyes open.

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has released a report that should deflate this nation’s inflated sense of self and fundamentalist devotion to “free-markets.” According to their findings, social mobility measured according to earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in relation to other developed nations such as Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Spain.

For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education.

So what’s the moral of the story? If you want your children to have more opportunity than you, pack your bags and move to Sweden! Or maybe, as Americans, we can stop promoting the lie of “rugged individualism” and “personal liberty” and acknowledge how much our nation needs sound governmental regulations and social policies such as healthcare reform, reinvestment in public education, and a living wage to short-circuit this nation’s dash to the bottom.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2377/america_ranks_toward_the_bottom_of_social_mobility/

It's the rich creating the class warfare, by trying to wipe out the middle class.

It's the rich creating the middle class. Without someone to sign paychecks, we'd all be on a barter system. Without the "rich" buying lots of goods, the middle class wouldn't be manufacturing anything. Hearing you guys talk you'd think you live in a wood shack by a cotton field and are forced to work for free.

Have you read what the FL shooter wrote on his facebook page Eric? You're saying the same thing he posted before he went postal.

Thanks for setting us straight, Allen. Now I know to be appropriately grateful to the wealthy for their benevolent stewardship of the rest of us.

I'd like to point out how closely your statement echoes the conventional wisdom of the aristocratic societies of old Europe. The Lords of the Manor owned so much of society that they virtually owned the lower classes, too. Be nice to Lord Smythe, he gave you your job, gives you your pay, and he can take it away on a whim.

This is AMERICA, dammit, and we've never worked that way. We've had a strong middle class, with enough wealth to drive the economy and enough ambition to make things happen. Over the last 30 years that middle class has been starved, all the new wealth directed to the very top of society.

So we're at a crossroads here, a place where either we reestablish the middle class or we start bowing to Lord Koch and hope he gives us a good job. It's up to us.

What's it gonna be, America?

Do your own then....

I thought I'd heard of many other polls where the proposal was much more unpopular than popular. I could see that it would be vary easy to run the score up depending on how the question is asked. i.e.

"Do you support or oppose maintaining the current federal income tax rates?"

"Do you support or oppose raising federal income taxes back to the levels they were at before 2001?"

"Do you favor extending the "Bush-era Tax Cuts" for all Americans, for those making under $250,000, or do not favor extending them?"

I could go on all day....very, very, very easy to get wildly different results.

Uncle Shags. I was aware Rogers was pro slavery, but it has NO bearing on his quote. It's a very factual quote with true meaning.

I am about to sign off, so everyone have a great Christmas or Holiday Season and a safe and Happy New Year.

Hear---- BTW... Do you know you are supporting the elimination/privatizing of all entitlement programs... SS, Medicare, medicaid and everything else!

Hey HearMyTruth

Simpleton thinking here, someone says "lower your taxes" and we the people say "sign me up"...and we wonder how we got here to begin with...look at the fine print people, and since you seem to be more conservative in thinking..how do you square going 700B(+/-) more into debt, no really someone please explain how you square this with your GOP "principles/values"...LOL, and please try to have principles/values that extend farther beyond the next election cycle, the hypocrisy is absolutley laughable (both parties included).

The very idea that Republicans stand for government spending controls flies in the face of history.

Common Folk, It has nothing to do with GOP values and everything to do with a group of elected officials who are giving away more than the govenment is taking in. That's how we got here. It's easily solved. Stop spend more than you take in.

Hear- I assume that you mean cut the defense budget, which I would agree to, as it is in the top 3 areas of government expenditures. Also that would mean drastic cuts to social security and medicare, which I am against, as that denies the elderly a source of income and healthcare, without which they could not survive, and medicaid, which would hurt the poor. All the other programs combined make hardly a dent in the budget.

If they would just start working on eliminating the fraud in these entitlement programs, it would probably save enough to balance the federal budget. I for one am tired of the dollars they get from me going to lazy shiftless people who think they shouldn't have to work, just keep getting the freebies.

Skiddy, fraud and waste are less than 10% of the total cost. Cutting is not going to be popular...look at England.

skiddy it would cost more to investigate the fraud in the system than to just hand the money over see you nhave to pay people an exhorborant salary to do it and more than one person. which would come from the same budget. i say elderly, or physically disabled (none of the mental crap) only for ssi and welfare require it for people to show there spending ...i dont know why that isnt implemented is it violating a right or something i mean if i gave my daughter 5 bucks i want to know how she spent it

Those against this bill are clearly against compromise.

HearMyTruth - Amen!

Does anyone really think that just because they cut taxes (and therefore revenues) that the federal government, GOP or Dems, are going to cut spending!?!?! Ha! Right!! They'll keep spending in order to get re-elected...that is until it all blows up!!

Like many folks, there were things in this bill that I thought were not necessare but on the whole, it was truly a comprimise! I just hope that more of the "C" can be achieved over the next two years!

Cutting is not going to be popular...look at England.

Hence the argument against entitlement attitudes. The only reason we don't have riots in our own streets right now is because we weren't already overtaxing the working class to give away freebies like healthcare and college that would eventually have to be cut because it's unsustainable to offer free stuff to people and pass the bill on to those who actually work for a living. I'd love to be able to just keep going to college and get my Doctorates or whatever. I'm a white male and my parents made over $30K a year and owned a home so I had to settle for whatever college I could get on credit cards for 2 years and spent the next 15+ years paying it off.

Hear---- BTW... Do you know you are supporting the elimination/privatizing of all entitlement programs... SS, Medicare, medicaid and everything else!

On a personal level that sounds great to me. I can stand on my own two feet I don't need the Government crutch. Time the entitlement programs took a shellacking.

how do you square going 700B(+/-) more into debt

Simple ... Cut spending which is the real problem in Washington.

Nancy: why not make euthanasia legal?? it's a lot more humane!

Ron:

Is that all you've got to say??

that was short

Duggjr, how about raising taxes on the rich......leave the poor alone, the rich can afford it.

didn't read it all got way to bored as it repeated itself.

Why should the "Rich" pay the "Poor" for sitting at home doing nothing. It's the "Rich" who create jobs and hire people who are willing to work.

In China, Greg? Yep.

"The rich should pay for the poor because they can. They have extra money, so make them give it to the poor."

That is pretty much what I hear from the left. How about this:

"The poor should spend more time working because they can. They don't spend any time working, so make them work. The rich that are already working 60 hour weeks do not have the time to clean up the parks, clean the roadsides, paint schoolrooms, wash police cars, clean up oil spills, rake sand back onto the beach, cook food for the people working and paying taxes."

I personnally do not care what you believe the tax threshold should be for maintaining the Bush tax cuts. I am strongly in favor of eliminating EIC, dependent deductions, and the like, so the we have a "broad" population paying Federal Income taxes like they should.

P.S. If our fore fathers would have thought of it, we should have limited voting to only those folks that actually pay Federal income taxes (not SS, Medicare, etc.) in Federal elections. That would solve a lot of the problems for Americans who want something for free!

JC in G - Absolutely. I do not want to hear about somebody who is taking care of 5 kids and lives out in the country where there are no jobs!

The RICH never create jobs and never will. They keep their money. So, let's be honest here. Its'all just a scam and we will all pay for it one day. We will end up like Ireland, or Greece -- a BROKE Country. Owned by China and India.

Indy. Boy have you been mislead. Yes, We keep our money and only spend it WHEN we have it. If we have credit cards, we don't use more than what we can pay back without paying interest. You want to explain to me and everyone in here, how you came about buying the computer you are on and how much you pay for the internet service you are using, and why you are on the internet now instead of working. I think this will clear it up for a lot of us. And by the way, The United States is already heavily in debt to China.

The 47% not paying taxes statistic always amuses me. They are always made out to be lazy people who are not working. They are never the cashier at your local Target. Or grandma on Social Security. 15% of that number is SS and disability. So that leaves 32% of people who are not making what is considered a living wage. Let's think about who that might affect. A first year teacher with a couple of kids at home. And paying off a student loan. Anyone who is entry level at Target, Walmart, Kmart, McDonalds. I can think of a few production facilities around my area that pay $8.15/hr. Maybe the pre-school teacher at your child's day care. Stop assuming that you know these people. Because you don't.

If our fore fathers would have thought of it, we should have limited voting to only those folks that actually pay Federal income taxes (not SS, Medicare, etc.) in Federal elections. That would solve a lot of the problems for Americans who want something for free!

Our fore fathers were smarter than most give credit for. They basically did think of this. Initially you had to own property to vote. Suffice to say if you owned property, you'd be one of those who pays federal income tax. Unfortunately today America is plagued by the recipient class and the zero liability voter as the zero liability voter (those that pay no federal income taxes) have no incentive not to vote for those that will raise taxes on everyone else. This is where class warfare begins.

Shouldn't you be upset that the Republican Party points to and relies upon this polls as evidence and justification of their attitude that extending tax cuts for the wealthy is something a majority of Americans support?

Even your own choices eliminates the answers most conservatives would give. Extend the tax cuts across the board while we're in a crisis, then not only end the tax cuts when it's over, end it across the board and address the problem of the bottom 50% income earners not contributing at all or being a negative return. 50% of the population can't be that poor when unemployment is as low as it was the first 6 yrs Bush was in office. The bar is set too high in this fiscal limbo contest.

Another choice is to just forget this stupid tax system we have in place and make it a flat tax based on purchases.

The RICH never create jobs and never will. They keep their money.

Oh yeah because my employer just happens to be a homeless guy writing out paychecks for hundreds of engineers every month. */sarcasm*

We will end up like Ireland, or Greece -- a BROKE Country.

We probably will, but those countries have nothing to do with the rich hoarding $$. They have more entitlements and per-capita gov't employees drawing payroll from the working class taxes than we do and we seem to have a party hell-bent on running as fast towards what they're doing as they can.

The RICH never create jobs and never will. They keep their money.

So Bill Gates and Microsoft don't actually employee anyone? Who is it that pays your salary (I really hope it isn't the Government because you'd be making a strong argument for cutting Government spending)? Believe it not, the "rich" do wish to grow their money, or fortunes, and they can't really do that by sitting on their money because by sitting on their money their fortunes actually shrink. The rich look to invest to gain a return on their money and one way to so is to invest and to grow their company and by growing their company they create jobs. So they do actually create jobs and pay people salaries.

@ dapenate

Fine let that 47% keep their tax refunds if they choose to forfeit their right to vote in federal elections. Why should someone who pays no federal income taxes have the right to vote for mine to be raised? Either get some skin in the game or get out.

First of all in order to get tax money back you need to work and pay taxes. It's stupid to say someone who gets money back from taxes doesn't work- that is welfare.

Second is the actually separate issue -welfare, housing, disability, etc. I agree these programs require reform and in some cases they require ceasing.

But what about disability like people born with retardation in some form or another?? Should they just be left to rot in the street? Do you remember what used to happen to people who couldn't take care of themselves? They used to go to mental hospitals where people who could care less with no training would leave hundreds of them in their own @!$%# to rot. Not an exaggeration. What you think finding away to not abandon the less fortunate of our brethren is socialism so f*** them and taxes?? In a prefect world people would do it on there own but they don't.

Thirdly please stop defending the rich. Most do not pay more taxes then middle class because of all the tax loopholes. Also I am a small business owner and raising the taxes on the upper income bracket doesn't affect me. If you really knew about running a business- outside of the Bush tax cuts there are plenty of options for small business owners to reduce there taxes- so please. Don't argue against stuff you know nothing about. I don't need you arguing for me to pay less taxes, I am just fine. You sound like you are ignorant.

That tax compromise is bad joke. Yes you should keep tax cuts and reduce spending but we are in a deficit and if you want a nice country to live where people put a fire out on your house and save you from a murderer and put your rapist in jail and keep the mentally ill away from you and pave the roads you drive on with your kids, and help your severely sick child, or care for senior citizens- then stop sounding so hateful.

Yes government should spend responsibly and we should demand it- but we should cut spending responsibly as well in order to remain distant from the 3rd world countries we say we are not. If we cut spending we will have to privatize services. You want to have a company own your water? Charge you to put out your house fire? A company's concern is profit- you want your life and well being in their hands??

• Yes government has overspent and needs to cut spending - so that means we pass a tax bill with ethanol subsidies. How bout that welfare??

• How about instead of getting rid of funding for education and social services- we don't give trillions to McDonalds, GE, Verizon, AT&T, etc??

• How bout we get rid of subsidies to corporations- clearly they are just free money with no effect on the economy or do you fake conservatives not support real cuts?? Lets see if the Republicans support cutting welfare to their campaign contributors( democrats too for that matter)

• The Republicans are not really conservative anymore they are populist fakes who want to distract from where the real spending issues lie...

How many American work 2 jobs like dapenate said who work for 7-13$/hr. Think about the cost of living without any fancy gadgets etc. If you undercut breaks to those people more people will be at risk for real poverty which means welfare.

My friend lost her job because of the recession for close to a year and ever day she was looking for job going to interviews etc and not just certain jobs all jobs. She finally got a job through a friend making much less but still able to work. She has a child. If she didn't have unemployment she would have been on the street. How would she have been able to get a job while homeless?? It is a viscous cycle. And many of you cannot see the big picture and fight for the wrong things.

You fight against government spending by advocating pulling the rug out from people instead of fighting things like corporate subsidies. Please tell me how that is justified. Do you call yourself a christian as well?

The founding fathers would have been turning in their grave all right.

Only Eric sees no issue giving money to those who do not pay anything- that should say everything about what he has to say! Are you a card carring Freeloader R Us????

I am so sick and tired of this class warfare jealousy thing. Either everybody gets it or nobody gets it. Much to your surprise there are a lot of us "poor" people who understand what being fair is all about. According to you is ok to crush rich people so you can enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor.

IF Congress were really concerned with debt they wouldn't have passed that over bloated "health care" bill that will cost twice as much as they say it will.

Dave

Why do i think you're not one of the poor? Because all Republicans lie

and I think you're lying. 4% increase in taxes will not "crush" any wealthy person.

So it's "fair" that the chances of making it into the top tax bracket from a lower tax bracket is in the single digits? Raising people's taxes who have more than they can spend a couple percentage points is going to "crush" them? Please...

And the health care bill will SAVE money! Over a hundred Billion dollars over the next ten years.

Wake up people. It costs everyone MORE money to not insure everyone!

Could not agree with you more!

JimC - How about you paying my extra 4%?

Jim, I agree with Dave. You go to college, pay off your student loans, work hard and try to become successful. Everyone has the same chance, and don't give me any I couldn't afford it. I came from a very poor family. Most of the rich I know pay their taxes just like anyone else. It's the ultra rich you can blame. I lay blame on many factors. (1) Allowing the Tariff Act. As Ross Perot said, you'll hear the whooshing of all our companies leaving the US for cheaper labor. I say tax the hell out of those companies when they try to ship their products back to the US. Was he not correct? (2) Find the pork, and get rid of it! Also get rid of the Illegal Immigrants. They are breaking our backs with the welfare, medical, etc. Get rid of these things and I think the country will head back on course. It's not the wealthy that are causing these problems. If anything people like Gates, Buffett, are giving their billions away. You seem to forget that when denouncing the rich. I personally am for the straight taxation of what your worth is. No loopholes, nothing.

Very well stated. I am sure there are many that do not know what the TA is. They only beleive what others tell them, an uneducated mistake in life. So many people have made lawyers rich because they wanted to sue someone to get easy money. Of course there are the people that have the need to sue, but take the person that spilled hot coffee on their lap at a McDonalds drive through and won millions. That is part of the problem with the poor society, They don't understand the mechanics of being wealthy. They also have a poor misconception of what wealth is. My family is considered wealthy, not just from the financial aspect. We are a very close family and we have the American dream of being HAPPY.

Jim, it was Beached who mentioned that the debt was going to "crush" the grandchildren. Trying to make it this emotional argument instead of an intellectual discussion. Simple, you want to paint me as some rich person fighting for my measly 4%. Why is the "rich" person the only person who is supposed to sacrifice for this country? What happened to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

As I stated in the post. If you want to let the tax cuts expire, then let them expire for everybody. So many people yell at how great the tax rates were when Clinton was president, but they don't want THEIR rates to go back to what they were, only for "those rich people".

Stop the class warfare and let it all expire if you feel paying off the debt is more important than saving the economy.

Jim, also, why am I a lying Republican if you disagree with me?

Why do I think that you won't believe me if I tell you I didn't vote for McCain in the last election? Would it be because you don't actually think issues through instead of spouting off the party hatred platform?

Uncle Shags, the health Care Bill will not "save" anything over any time period. Congress and President Obama have already prevented some of those "medicare savings" from happening by not allowing the reduction in payments to doctors to take effect. Just like those cuts have been ignored for 10 years already. Congress and the President know that if they actually did make those cuts that a large number of doctors would stop servicing medicare patients. Did you also notice that the so called savings over the 10 years included income from 10 years but only covered 5 years of expenses? What kind of math says that 10 years of income to cover 5 years of expenses is saving money?

I agree with you completely. The ans is to tax everyone at 10% with no deductions. If you make 20,000.00 a year then you pay 2,000.00 in tax's and thats it, it comes out as a payrole tax so you have no worries and you wont need to file a tax return.

10%?! Ha! Do you actually think that is anywhere close to reality?!

We'd be giving our soldiers toy guns, teachers would have 200 students per classroom and we'd print our money on toilet paper.

joejoe - I would even be willing to pay 15% as long as everybody pays 15%!

The idea behind a progressive tax system is to give everyone an equal chance, after all, this is America and we're about equality right?

The massive pooling of resources among the few is un-American. Are you un-American?!

Uncle Shags, you must be joking. The American way is to explore new territories, take chances and make your own way in life. Do you understand what the word Liberty means? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Notice the word Pursuit. It means we as Americans have a personal responsability to go out and make our own way and not leave it to the government to do for us.

Who believes the polls anyway. What do we mushrooms know?? We have one austrailian controlling our media outlets and the wall street journal and another telling our secrets on wiki.com. Where are the americans in all this? Looks like we farmed out everything to australia.

LOL...exactly.

Actually it's more like 60% of us are tired of the spending spree and would gladly cut up the credit card that Washington is using and force them to cut spending and tighten the belt.

Sadly, people like you buy this us versus them argument that politicians from both sides throw to the masses so it only gets worse.

Pat you are not very well informed. The republicans are not the ones that cvaused all this. The dems refused to bring it up for a vote till after the elections.The dems are at fault here not the republicans. Now all the dems and liberals are crying about it and they caused it so do you home work before spouting off.

Joe, what they hell are you talking about? Boner said the republicans would not pass ANYTHING until the tax cuts were approved. The highjacked Washington to get tax breaks for millionaires. They would deny people's unemployment benefits at Christmas time in order to get the rich 4% more cash! Brilliant! And people are defending them!

No one polled me. I am for the extending the unemployment benefits for 2 years. The real unemployment number is more like 20%. That's including people that are "off the books". There are NO jobs for these people and anyone who thinks differently doesn't have a clue. If I was polled I would have told the WSJ that I would only support a straight trade off. 2 years of each NO changes to FICA or inheritance taxes NO PORK added anywhere. And I have a dream that the 2 unpaid wars end in 2011 and the overbloated military budget gets cut by more than 50%.

How 'bout we just lay blame at the feet of those responsible. The government in general...not Democrat, Not Republican, not Liberal...They are all to blame. Maybe if the entire American public revolted by refusing to pay taxes they would get the hint.

Yeah! and they didn't list a Fair Tax as an alternative either.

And, they could have made a few options for what is considered "Rich, Middle and Poor". They could have presented 3 or four sliding scales for each of these groups and floated the division lines between each of these groups. For instance, If they defined Rich as everyone paying taxes on more than $90,000, how would the responses compare to defining the Rich as everyone paying taxes on more than $127,000? They should have given 6 to 7 different levels of the threshold for middle class average income and how the results correspond to 2 to 5 different levels of poverty. Man, the entire poll could have been re-done to include 70 to 80 questions that only a PHD in economics could understand and then we would have gotten some real results that could be interpretted in multiple different ways. We could all have had an opinion on what the results showed!!!

I think Karen posted that the civil war was Bush falt as well

david ...who's been in control of congress since 06...think...think...not the GOP!

where has our country gone since 05!!

only 1 thing to say sooooooooooooooooooooooooo trueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

so you want the people who earned there money to go to those who sit on there ass with there pants half way down there leg ,and have there hat on sideways,and dont want to work, not to mention the pigs who are geting unemployment and not even trying to get a job sir you have no clue what obama is about he is 100% to suport the illegals , the people who sit around smoking there crack havind 10 kids living off the hard working people, he is for the greedy unions who are slowly destroying this country, period.

KD, it doesn't make me sick to see that the rich have the same rights to their personal possessions that the middle class and the poor do. For this nation to treat the rich differently, just because they are rich, should be of more concern to you. If the Dems get what they want, the rich will not stay around, or keep their money here with the threat of it being stolen from them by politicinas. Then the real crying by the middle class will begin, because their pockets will be the only ones left for the Dems to steal from in the name of the poor. I'm certainly not rich, but it still bothers me that anybody can justify taking what someone else has just because he has more than they do. Isn't that socialism/communism?

It's not another tax cut for the rich you fool, it's keeping taxes where they are currently. KD is an example of how the uninformed in this country have the loudest voices.

Yes, I'm sure you are getting your info from Fox and Friends or the Tea Baggers Bible, since you hate all those "lazy" poor people sitting around taking things from you... well, why aren't you mad at the people who earned all their wealth from us -- the middle class labor pool -- and now don't want to give back their fair share to society, as has been the practice until GW came along and screwed it up? The rich are taking money from you with these tax cuts, Buddy, not the poor. Get it? It will soon be a society of rich and poor, so you might want to get all your conservative paranoia, fear and guns in a bundle so you are prepared for the middle class demise... and then you have no one to blame but yourself for allowing (or rather supporting) the rich to do this AND CAUSE MORE DEFICIT. And I thought the GOP and Baggers hated the deficit... that's what all the rallies and the screaming was about right? Or was it all just a bunch of rhetoric to cover up the fact that they are a bunch of scared little racists who can't tolerate the 21st century? The truth always comes out.....

KDWill,

And the democrats do? Oh, yeah, I forgot they really care about us by supporting all illegal alliens, potential terrorists (as not to offend their sesibilities), all the drug addicts, high school drop outs and other societal waste for whom our taxes are paying right now. Yes, they really care. Take from the rich and give to the poor, then everyone will be happy and equal, balance it all out. Been there, seen that, didn't work.

I'm getting a little annoyed (to put it mildly) all of you uneducated people putting down the tea baggers. Do you even know what they are about?. Probably not, but yet you are free in giving your "I am the brightest, most knowledgeable person alive." I'm 65, educated and consider myself a teabagger. I don't go to the rallies, but gather information and make decisions on my own. If you must know, not everyone agrees with issues in the group. I personally can not stand Palin and will do my best to see she is not nominated in 2012. I did spend some time last week calling 11 Senators around the country, that were either going to vote for the Dream Act or were at best waffling. What have you done personally to help get this country back on it's feet other than whine about things that you don't like. As I said, not all tea baggers agree on issued, but we do what we feel is best for the country.

fight there are no jobs for these people. you must watch faux news

can please post the tax % paid by income level so everyone can see you definition of "fair". I know you will say that they have all the loopholes to lower thier income, if this is the case- end ALL loophoes on INCOME tax and let everybody pay a flat tax. Will that flush out your real concern- you do not want to pay anything, you want to FORCE someone else to carry your weight- Another member of the Freeloader R Us club??????

did you pay attention to the last election, it was an ass kicking, we the american people are sick of this president suporting all these scumm who sit on there ass all day doing nothing, earn your money like everyone else, if you cant tough @!$%# and the mass majority of these people are black, the illegals , and the greedy unions period, how i know this i live in the middle of it all, so what you are saying is let the rich suport all these pigs who have there underware showing , and have there hat on sideways, who dont even want to work, thats what the bottom line of this comes to do your homework.

A the turn-out was PITIFUL, the only reason you won was because the left didnt come out to vote. Mid terms are always that way, poor voter turn out. Meanwhile the right bused a few old folks homes to the polls and scared stiff due to lies about the new HC system.

So save the crap.. You didnt win anything as far as public sentiment. Thats why these polls dont mean crap either. Everybody isnt taking them.

Hey Fight, I normally don't respond to Idiot's like you. How about the Black Rapper's and Football Players, Basketball Players, Baseball Players, Corporate Executives who are making millions and paying millions in taxes??? And paying millions in taxes while Poor Ass Uneducated Whites are sitting on their ass in West Virgina, Kentucky and other southern states??? You are a joke and Idiot!!! I just bet your big fat Mommy is proud of your stupidity!!!!!!!!

chuck do your homework you idiot 13% of our population is black you jack off do the math dont give me all this bs about sports figure you clown.

Fight, you write like a guy with a Six Grade education. Ok, maybe 7th grade. You definitely don't have a college degree and certainly aren't employed making a real some of money. Let's face it, the Rich Rapper's would have you shinning their shoes! You couldn't get into their gated communiities. 13% is correct but a lot of that 13% have a lot more money and assets than you!! Admit it, you are a poor uneducated clown from somewhere in the South. Right???

Yes, I have totally noticed a shift in the media coverage in the last few years as it is leaning more and more to the right, largely due to the fact that the networks are owned by large media conglomerates that will benefit from the wealthy tax cuts and everything the GOP can promise them. It soon will be like that with everything... the banks, the media, large corporations and wall street owning the middle class and poor -- lock, stock and barrel. And the only info we get will be their info -- much like Fox News reports now. So all the uneducated, non-wealthy people who rally for the GOP are very foolish and self-destructive in that they are fighting against their own best interests. In fact, the philosophy is to undermine and under-fund the American educational system so as to keep a majority of the masses less educated and fearful -- and therefore, under their control. And "Fight" is clear evidence of this.

Chuck. You want to blame the basketball, football and baseball players for making that money. First off, not EVERY player gets the big money, and second, where do you thing the franchise gets the money from to pay them? Answer. People like you that want to GO to the game and support your team. If you don't like what the players or even Oprah, is making, then don't bother to patronize them. It's your money supporting them, if you wathc or go to the games.

To Chuck Wright post25.5 Let's talk about athletics. How overpaid they are, how most of them can't finish a coherent sentence. Look where most of them are now. Broke, in jail, on drugs. I wonder why they call the football league the National Felons League. I blame the public for most of this. You complain how tight things are, yet you will shell out a large amount of money for tickets, while you can watch the same game on TV. Same thing goes for actors. If your in a serious car wreck, have cancer, etc, who are you going to call? A basketball player, football player, actor? That is one reason our country is so out of whack. People's priorities.

And FYI name calling lowers you to the uneducated.

fight you are a bigot. you are so full of hate you make me sick. go away.

Skipster, you need a reading class. I have No problem with the Athlete's making big money! You need to read my post and then read the post of Fight!! A true southern bigot!!! Now, Petunia, you are a true media airhead! Most of the Athlete's are Not broke and on drugs!! Yes, a few but the overwhelming majority are doing great!! They have big money and assets!! A lot more than Southern Trash like Fight!!