So did you expect the GOP/TP to love the plan? I didn't.

Yes Ron, but are you not encouraged that we are all - republicans and democrats- focused on cuts, cutting and reduction?

A true step in the right direction, right Ron?

Plus will this be a plan, or a "vision?"

Unicorns and fairy dust do not a budget make.

So how many jobs did the tax cuts create between 2001 and 2009 ?

Using my Obama Calculator, which counts both created and saved jobs, the number it produces for this time period is in the millions.

New Waves, EXACTLY, I seem to remember those that got the huge cuts in taxes suddenly laying off millions of people, jobs were LOST due to the tax cuts, sent overseas since those with the tax breaks then had the money to move their operations. Since they are SITTING on top of over $2 TRILLION it is time to tax the hell out of them. They complain about "No Demand" how can they expect any increase in demand unless people are working and making money to SPEND? Just cutting spending, on ideological paths, ones that actually HURT those who are unable to find work, are already poor and/or may be losing their houses WHILE GIVING GREATER TAX CUTS TO THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE WAY TOO MUCH, is just a way to send this nation into a greater tailspin. If the Repubs were SERIOUS about cutting the deficit, they would Embrace tax hikes, they would Embrace removing ALL of the Corporate Welfare and tax loopholes and tax breaks for any and all corporations, they would Embrace removing a large number of our overseas military bases and would institute a tax on EVERY Wall Street transaction. The last, alone, would be enough to pay off our National Debt and FULLY fund our Government in a single year.

But NO, the Repubs and those Dems who have been bought off by the very corporations that are raping the nation dry are NOT serious, they do not care about the "Little People": those who make less than $1 Million/year as they do not hand them tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars "For their campaigns".

It is time to get the Corporations, Banks, Ideologues and Credit Rating Companies OUT of our Government and give it BACK to the people, you know, the ones who actually vote, and then get ignored immediately after? Is it too much to ask for SANE and RESPONSIBLE politicians? There are nearly NONE on the right and a diminishing number on the left. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

TO: Ron Indiana who wrote:

"So did you expect the GOP/TP to love the plan?..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Tea Baggers are a bunch of whackos that don't have clue about anything they're doing, which is how our economy got screwed to beging with.

B. Honest,

We don't need to raise taxes, we need to close loop holes and deductions for everyone. When Obama backing liberals like Warren Buffet can go on national TV and tell the world that he pays less in taxes than his administrative assistant, the problem isn't the tax rate it is the tax code. Maybe you liberals should fix that problem--but I didn't see that happen in the 111th congress--just a lot more spending. I guess if you cut out tax loopholes Charlie Rangel would remember to pay his taxes from the past 17 years, or even Barbara Boxer would remember she owned a second house--that her son lives in:)

it created OR SAVED 6 million jobs.It would have been much worse if not for the tax cuts....See how easy that is.

American Girl,

The Tea Baggers are a bunch of whackos that don't have clue about anything they're doing, which is how our economy got screwed to beging with.

And the liberals are a bunch of non-math majors that believe that if you spend more than you have long enough, you won't be in debt. Why? Because you will be bankrupt. And you have the nerve to call a group of people "whackos". I wish we all had those "rose colored" glasses that you all on the left have. Hate monger!

JS1 - YOU LIE! - I asked you the same question back in November and your answer was "Not Many"!

Typical - you can't even keep your lies straight!

Bush's tax cuts in 2001 were temporary cuts that produced little. The cuts in 2003 resulted in a little less than 8 million new jobs created before the crash.

You idiots do realize the crash was a credit problem, not a tax problem, right?

B.Honest-

I agree - get rid of subsidies - let the free market determine the winners and lossers instesd of the government trying to make lossers into winners.

Ethanol subsidies are absurd. Sugar subsidies and American sugar costs twice the world market. For every job it protects we lose 3-4 other jobs with candy manufacturers moving over seas. Every subsidized green job costs 2-5 other jobs. Insane.

Your problem is that the liberals are the ones who want to engineer and control our country, they want to move to the green agenda instead of free market energy.

Without tax manipulations, subsidies, etc. - how do the libs control anything and everything, how can they pick the winners if they don't have it rigged?

THEY CAN'T. That is why liberalswill never do away with subsidies and the tax code that allows Obama's buddy Immelt and GE to pay no taxes.

BigBear62, maybe you need to get the Repubs to STOP BLOCKING all of the bills that would have closed down the tax loopholes and tax breaks, you know, like the ones that are part of the OVER 400 bills that the Senate Repubs blocked using their 'Rule 22" fake filibusters. The Dems have been TRYING to fix the problem, but as always, Those who are trying to fix the problems are always strongly opposed by those benefiting from the status quo.

And besides, what have the corporations done with their tax breaks? Sent the money to the Chamber of Commerce and similar organizations to pay off politicians for MORE TAX BREAKS!!

Big Bear:

How quickly you forget. Last year Boehner and Cantor presented the Republican budget proposal...without numbers. Just three pages of notes is not a budget.

Now tell me who are the hate mongers? Not I.

Ron,

I am guessing that 3 pages of notes is better than 100 pages of numbers that require that we spend more than we take in. But isn't that the Washington way--spend what you don't have, let someone else pay for it.

What about our President, saying just a few years ago that our leaders should not raise the debt ceiling? Now he says he was wrong-why? So he can spend more of what he doesn't have.

Great Math there Dawg:)

So........

If the Bush tax cuts, which also helped balloon our debt, created so many jobs....how did they do so?

Well, since we know the housing boom was what led to the economic growth in the Bush years, logically, the right must be suggesting the tax cuts led to the housing boom.

And, since the housing boom led to the housing bubble, which led to the crash, is the right inadvertenly suggesting the recession is the fault of the GOP and Bush?

----------

Probably not, but this is yet another example of how their ignorant arguments circle around and round.

House Speaker John Boehner. “But the one area that we know we're not going to get very far on is the idea that we're going to raise taxes on the very......RICH! pretty much sums up the gop.

Republicant

Are you trying to be ignorant?

So that is your defense for the GOP/TP not having not having numbers in their budget? And tell me again who are the hate mongers. Surely not the militia groups, John Birch Society, the KKK, Tea Partiers with guns at public town hall meetings, etc. Don't bother telling me that they are the true American patriots.

American Girl:

Enjoyed your comments. It can get a little tough in the "mud pit". Just duck when mud comes you way. Then throw a little to keep the opposition on their toes. Keep posting.

dazzie,

Taxes are in many respects punitive. The government raises taxesall the time to discourage certain behaviors, ie big, big taxes on tobacco products to discourage smoking, they talk about raising taxes on soda to keep kids from getting fat....on and on. The more taxes that are placed on something - the more that activity is discouraged.

Why additionally tax the rich that create jobs? Aren't you discouraging their activity - getting richer by creating more jobs?

When you increase the capital gains tax - aren't you discouraging investment?

Do you guys understand anything?

Where's the jobs those tax breaks were supposed to create? China does not count, the RICH invest outside the US people need to get a grip on reality ...

bob,

No. Just trying to make sense of your ignorance.

Don't like it when the crap you are fed is opened up to show how ridiculous it is, huh?

"Using my Obama Calculator, which counts both created and saved jobs, the number it produces for this time period is in the millions."

Careful, there, Smiff- someone will accuse you of 'glibness'.

bob-8111111 give tax breaks to small business, they create jobs. can you name a few mega- corps, that opened any manufacturing plants in the us lately.

Or not, SMiff. I'm guessing 'or not'.

bob,

You don't appear to understand much beyond what you are fed on cable news.

The rich do not create jobs just because they are rich, and the top 2% certainly do not.

Jobs, especially in a recovery, are primarily created by start up bussinesses. Then small businesses.

This is why there is no credible economic evidence that shows raising taxes on the top 2% would have a major effect on economic growth.

Of course, you wouldn't know that from watching right wing cable news pundits blather on. And we all know those pundits know so much more about the economy then.....um.......economists....

"Aren't you discouraging their activity - getting richer by creating more jobs?"

Now, here's a total load of crap. MANY of the rich get richer via mergers and acquisitions activities that result in companies being able to CUT payrolls! It's one of hte reasons they do it. 'Splain that, now, Einstein.

No BigBear - That was George Bushs' credo. It's the Republicans that spent with abandon and created the mess we are in today. If you recall when Bush came into office he had a surplus to work with and proceeded to turn it into a deficit. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to link this disaster with President Obama. Oh and BTW.....we've had tax cut for the rich now for what....six years. Where's all the jobs that the Republicans claim will be added if we only continue to tax cuts for the rich. I say BS. We've been snookered.

Republicants / dzaffina

You guys don't seem to understand what rich is according to Obama and the liberals.

According to IRS statistics, roughly 2% of US households have an income of $250,000 and above. That is what Obama is taliking about 250K +.

250,000 is hardly rich. These are the small business guys - the guys that create 85% of new jobs!

You guys literally do not even what you're talking about, who the 2% actually are!

Amazing.

Awww DBO, what in the heck would you know about getting rich?

Get back to work. :)

Ron,

And so your defense is that it is okay to over budget by $1.29 trillion dollars--money you don't have. Where is your answer to that? It is easy to blame others for mishaps, but if our President was really concerned about debt/deficits he wouldn't keep spending more than he has.

And talk about pages:

The president's plan, outlined in a seven-page White House fact sheet, draws many of its ideas from the December recommendations of Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission, which proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.

As in the commission's plan, three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases. One quarter would come from additional tax revenue.

Just off the MSN website. 7 whole pages--wonder how many #'s are on that page:)

And don't forget about your own wonderful groups of mongers;

Such as the Black Panthers, Green Peace, AFL-CIO, and all of those Socialist/communist parties of America--But having grown up real close to the state headquarters of the KKK--I will give you them as "hate mongers"--but I have never endorsed them, or any other group you listed, I just agree with the fact that we are "taxed" too much, especially when our government does nothing but spend money they don't have.

And if you have read my post from the past, I have been advocate of raising taxes by eliminating the deductions & loopholes of our tax code. Not raising taxes, with more loopholes, to make more people pay.

I say when the Repthugs bring back ALL those jobs they lost, we maybe can talk about a tax break for the rich. Until then............no way. The Pres. is right on the money. As my dearly departed Mother used to say, " don't cut off your nose, just to spite your face"

Laurie,

What Budget Surplus?

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Even has links to the US treasury that will back up his information.

Pulled a Feisty/Bev/Navy and cut & paste--I learned from the best of them;)

Spanky-

"Awww DBO, what in the heck would you know about getting rich?

Get back to work. :)"

Can do, Mr one-liner. BUT- tell me I'm wrong on the M&A take....

Michelle,

Are you talking about those jobs that were lost from 2006-2010 elections, when the democrats controlled the congress and the budget and the tax codes?

If you haven't watched the news lately, since the Obama Tax Cuts and the election of a new congress the # of jobs in this country has risen, and the unemployment rate has dropped. But I guess that is all a myth, reported even by MSN.

Ermm.. Debunked:

www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

Sorry, The accounting method used to pull that report is not the standard reporting form. If you really want to do that, then Bush is going to look even worse then he already does.

Question here.

Do we subtract the 14 million jobs lost because of Bush too before giving a final answer?

bob.

There is no credible economic analysis that shows raising taxes on the top 2% will have a significant impact on the economy. There is even less then no evidence that suggests raising taxes on the top 1% will have a huge impact.

There is credible economic analysis that shows cutting spending has a far greater detrimental impact on the economy then raising taxes on the top 2%.

Which is why you tried to switch the argument to a dispute about what is rich.

Call rich what ever you want. The fact remains raising taxes on the top 2% will have much less of an economic impact then cutting spending.

Try thinking for yourself, and you won't have to spin in circles to rationalize the drivel you were fed.

Repulicant,

You are wrong. Lots of evidence that raising taxes increasing both revenue and job creation. The rich don't want to pay the taxes so they invest their money. Give tax breaks only for new jobs in America. Nothing else. CBO has already scored Ryan's Voodoo economics budget and it was not pretty. Will increase deficits while increasing healthcare costs for the elderly. Why do you hate old people? It will also cost jobs. Why do you hate the middle class and new college grads?

I'll put my money on the Presidents budget. Obama 2012.

Mike,

Thanks – During our last debt crisis after WWII, when our debt to GDP ratio was worse than it is now, the wealthy were willing to help pay down the debt. During the first few years the top 1% paid a tax rate of 90%.

Recently several billionaires have gone on record saying they are not only willing but should be required to pay more.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Mike,

Thanks – During our last debt crisis after WWII, when our debt to GDP ratio was worse than it is now, the wealthy were willing to help pay down the debt. During the first few years the top 1% paid a tax rate of 90%.

Recently several billionaires have gone on record saying they are not only willing but should be required to pay more.

Other than democrats like Buffet and Gates - which repubs have made that commitment? Have the Koch Bros said that?

Dennis,

they are not only willing but should be required to pay more.

well, maybe the democrats will sponsor a bill that will close the loopholes in the tax code. That alone would raise a lot of money. But if Buffet and Gates are so concerned, they can always donate to the Federal Debt relief fund I mean in 2010, there was less than $3 million donated to help with relief. We are $600K today. I have put in $100, have you and Warren & Bill.

Dennis can you provide an accurate source of the 90% tax rate on the wealthy. Here the only thing I found

"How did we get out of the Great Depression? After World War II, the U. S. sharply cut government spending and slashed the top corporate tax rate from 90 to 38 percent. This anti-government spending approach worked miracles and finally triggered the recovery from the Great Depression. My book, written with my wife Anita, entitled FDR GOES TO WAR (Simon & Schuster) will be out in the fall, and in the final chapter, we describe the recovery of the U. S. from the Great Depression. The U. S. had only 3.9% unemployment in 1946 and 1947."

I payed 87,ooo in taxes on 287,000 income. How much did you pay? Thats what I thought

Democrats = Compassion ; Republicants = Compassionless

No Paul

Democrats=Thieves, Republicans=Thieves, Politicians=Thieves

o-3061786

I payed 87,ooo in taxes on 287,000 income. How much did you pay? Thats what I thought

Im going to go ahead and declare BS on this one. Exaggerate much?

Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.^[3]

Year$20,001$60,001$100,001

1930
10%
21%
25%

1932
16%
36%
56%

1934
19%
37%
56%

1936
19%
39%
62%

1938
19%
39%
62%

1940
28%
51%
62%

1942
55%
75%
85%

1944
59%
81%
92%

1946
56%
78%
89%

1948
56%
78%
89%

1950
56%
78%
89%

1952
62%
80%
90%

1954
56%
78%
89%

1956
38%
62%
75%

1958
38%
62%
75%

1960
38%
62%
75%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#1930_-_1960

ksw,

Marginal tax rates 1913 - 2008

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/03/90-tax-rate-back-to-1950s.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080918143013AAub523

That's 30%......probably NOT BS.

It's interesting to note how quickly taxes went up at all levels during WWII and that they stayed high for nine years after, yet it was still a time of amazing prosperity.

So much for tax increases killing the economy.

Why, the Democrats need to increase the tax rate to offset their spending habits! Have you ever met a Dem who didn't like a spending program that would enable their voting base to accept more entitlements?

Have you ever met a Dem who didn't like bigger government?

Have you ever met a Dem who would consider reducing entitlements?

Ha!

Think about what you just posted safe.

You're getting down on dems for actually trying to make sure a program is paid for when they enact it.

Wouldn't that be filed under the category of "fiscal responsibility?"

Look at the Republicans, they aren't shy about enacting popular programs, they just do it without any thought of where the money will come from. Screw it, another administration, another generation will take care of it, we need votes now.

Oh that's right, they found jesus after getting stomped in '08 didn't they?

Yeah. We see how that worked out during the recent budget debate didn't we?

Tell me the truth about Obamacare and how fiscal responsibility was utilized then? Or maybe about the fiscal decision to bail out: wall street, Government Motors, unions, Libyian War, escalating the two Bush wars.

Now how about the lack of leadership when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to enact a budget last year. How much interest did the taxpayers pay for that issue of fiscal accountability?

We will see who finds jesus after getting stomped in this election cycle after getting kicked during the mid-terms.

What I find funny is for the two days I've been this liberal site to try and understand the view. I have seen at least 10 references to why the Rich can't pay more tax like after WWII when they paid 92%. Answer me this, from your own statistics above, are YOU willing to pay the 81% and 59% so everyone pays 1944 tax rates?

I didn't think so................

So are poor and seniors making over $43,000? Did you read the article?

Unemployment is finally starting to come down because of the bush tax cuts being extended.

Rob in ma-3189632

Unemployment is finally starting to come down because of the bush tax cuts being extended.

LOL! It took 10 years and billions in deficits created by tax breaks to "start" to reduce unemployment? LOL!

I half wish bush could have been elected for another few years, just so i wouldn't have to listen to all this right wing BS.

There was lots of right wing BS under Bush. They just kept it "secret."

Countrygirl: "I am a Repub"

No you are not. Neither are you a country girl. You probably are in Manhattan.

The template for phony moonbat posters always starts with "I am a Republican, now outraged by extremists blah blah blah"

Bob-1887910

The template for phony moonbat posters always starts with "I am a Republican, now outraged by extremists blah blah blah"

Of course - because people cant be a republican AND criticize the titled taxes in this country. Dolt.

Last time I checked I was in Cochise county Arizona. Same place I was yesterday and the day before that and all the way back to 25 Aug 2008. I have voted Republican since 1980. My parents, grandparents and great grandparents, too.

I am getting tired of the Republican mantra. If our representation is from the PEOPLE, the the PEOPLE need to start standing up to be heard!

God bless the Countrygirls! Your right lady and I love you for saying it. Recently I've switched from Dem too Independent because of the polarization. If voting Repub or Dem, occured to me that your part of the problem, not any solution. What is the end game of the Repub's? Why are they so insecure? Believe it is because they're scared. Scared of not being able to get all remaining scraps from the table. They have accumulated all the main courses and now their going to get OUR measly scraps. Maybe their ideology is virtuous. Maybe we would be better off if control of every aspect of our lives were in their hands. Maybe, but I choose to fight back. Convinced working Americans will lose this battle right along beside me, but fighting what I believe is the GOOD fight, I will.

Who are the corporations? They are you and me (as direct shareholders or in our IRA or 401k). They are the dividends that grandma is getting since she can't get anything from CD's. Higher taxes on corporations flows right through to the cost of their product. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the free world. Corporations can move, you know. Countrygirl - I think you have it wrong.

bob.

The extremist always starts out shocked that someone who is a Republican hasn't bought into the tea nut ideological mantra, and thinks for themself.

Thinking does not appear to be a trait of right wing extremists. Nor does thinking for oneself.

Hope and change is working a lot better than in 2008 when I was living in a tent in the mtns after losing my home, work and nearly everything because Bush and the Repub Congress spent the country to the brink of a depression. Ergo, why Bush initiated the TARP payments. Go learn some history and please don't get your 'facts' from FOX.

hey wait, heres an idea, why doesn't the government just shrink down to enforcing and keeping Americans safe, after all that's all they were for. I know all you liberals want everyone elses hard earned money from hard work and good investments like you deserve it. here's another idea for you get a job no one owes you a thing. we've all seen libs and unions bring down the biggest corps. in the USA. Remember without Corporations or employers there would be no employees. bust the unions, put people to work. the teabaggers are the only sane thing going right now

Bazooka, The unions did not bring down any big corps, what brought them down was massive bonuses to their execs, even in years that they lost money, making shoddy products no one in their right minds would buy because they were cutting corners on costs, their bad investment gambles and the leveraged buyouts that left corporations owing more to pay off the leverage than the company was worth, as well as some corporations being forced out of competition due to greedy investors who would buy a company and immediately move their operations overseas...if you want to blame the REAL cause of corps failing, look to the banks and Wall Street. Unions only comprise some 13% of the work force and are the ONLY real reason that we actually HAVE a middle class, instead of just Robber Barons and Peons.

Without employees there would be no corporations nor would they make their massive profits off from them. If the corporations and rich want to pay less in taxes then they need to step up to the plate and HIRE so that other people HAVE the money to be ABLE to pay taxes. It really is that simple.

The Tea Partiers are so detached from reality that they have no idea what sanity really is, after all, look at their so called 'leaders'. Can you really call Palin, Bachmann and Trump sane?? I do not think so, they all have delusions of grandeur and an over rated sense of worth. They laugh all the way to the bank over how they have fooled so many people to vote for their idiocy, getting the sheeple to slit their own throats for their Corporate Commanders!

Sorry Bazooka.. they tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Guess what happened to it? Went down in flames because there was an expectation that the Governement would also keep the peace, and it failed. (ShayRebellion).

The purpose of Government is to Protect it's citizens, and ensure that minority opinions are not stomped out. Read the ENTIRE constitution, dude, not just the little bits you like. (Like.. hey there is a constiutional mandate for a POSTAL SERVICE, guess the purpose of government isn't just for defence now is it? Least not according to the Consitution.)

Because he was born into a rich family and has never had to balance his checkbook?

Rob unlike an ideologue The President is doing what can be done whether I like it or not! If Gitmo could be closed I'm sure it would be. I'd prefer a President to actually look at a situation and determine if there's sufficient resource and other options than what his base dictates or what the party line is. Its called selling out to most irrational conservatives and liberals but rational people calls it pragmatic and compromise. No wants an irrational party to represent them whether they are liberal or conservative. Just because I/you like it doesn't mean it works.

Walt - It probably depends on what and how you are measuring. The stock market was very flat during those years (50's and 60's). If the DJ index measures the general health of the economy, then it wasn't really that good. The real test then is, how were you or your parents affected during those years?

Sorry all. This gets repeated at #31. Not my doing.

The DJ does not measure the general health of the economy. It is a fictional number puting fictional price on fictional stock, that only exists because a company claims it does. The DJ represents what the Financial sector believes the health of the country is, not what it actually is.

While stock sales have their purpose, once they are sold they no longer add to the economy. They are nothing but bits of paper that trade hands, shifting money back and forth so that Financiers don't have to pay taxes on it.

Funny how you only show the top brackets. Why didn't you include the middle, 84%, and the lowest, 59%. Don't want to pay YOUR share as long as everyone else does, nice

Turn off the cable news.

The jobs lost were lost as a result of the recession, and the jobs created in the last decade were created because of the housing boom, not the tax cuts.

Unless....of course, you are saying the tax cuts led to the housing boom, which led to the recession....making the recession the fault of Bush and the GOP??????

I don't necissarily agree the tax cuts caused the recession, or the boom....but ok. Doesn't really make your spoon fed argument, however.

(See what happens when you repeat things you know nothing about?)

If they leave the country with the jobs, they should be required to leave altogether(no homes or operations in the US) and also lose their citizenship&be denied VISAs hereafter. Such people clearly are not interested in the good of country, only in their own personal benefit.

Sadly, I don't make over $250K. Yes- I might find the plans set out this afternoon long over due.

Why don't we just have the top 3% pay all the taxes and save the rest a lot of paperwork?

47% of the people pay no taxes. so if everyone pays a fair share we would not have to raise taxes on the rich again!! cut some intitlement programs forced on us by liberal idiots. money problems solved everyone lives happily ever after.so when does the democratic base (liberal idiots)want this to start?

Agree...

Trickle down is a failed policy of the 1980"s who major accomplishment was the largest transference of wealth in US history. With tax cuts given to the wealthy, over 80% of US wealth was transfered to the top 1 to 2% of Americans. The long term effect of this policy can be seen today. The wealthy are NOT crearting jobs nor investing in the economy. They are investing in a cheap stock market and saving their gains. Jobs are created by small business owners who are handicapped in this economy due to the credit crunch. So stop the trickle and lets let the wealthy pay their fair share...35 to 39% and watch the deficit decline rapidly over the next few years.

Thats the whole point we are not for anything that muslim in the whitehouse wants in fact if our guys do their job we can stop the Obumercare garbage and yes anything else this idot comes up with the next year or so.But you your to far gone so just keep drinking the kool-aid.and watching MSNBC. just remember your leader (LOL)will be gone in 2012.And yes that will be Bush's fault too.

Starting to think Obama should say he wants to cut all taxes for the rich to 0 and that we should become a christian nation and all those other horrid ideas the baggers want... then the GOP would move against it (as they have no brain but to criticize the president) and the dems would be against it and we'd get our country back on track...

Tony:

The largest transference of wealth in US history occurred in the 1980's under that reknown SOCIALIST Ronald Regan. It was his "Trickle Down Economics" policy that caused it. With tax cuts given specifically to the wealthy, over 80% of US wealth was transfered to the top 1 to 2% of Americans. The long term effect of this policy can be seen today. The wealthy are NOT crearting jobs nor investing in the economy. They are investing in a cheap stock market and saving their gains. Jobs are created by small business owners who are handicapped in this economy due to the credit crunch. So stop the trickle and lets let the wealthy pay their fair share...35 to 39% and watch the deficit decline rapidly over the next few years.

As for for the"lazy bastards" who won't get out of bed...

Unemployment is at 8.8%. It was well over 10%. So according to your math some 20 million Americans are lying around waiting for their exorbatant unemployment checks to arrive. Check the lines on the job fairs, they wind around the block. Check the job market for professionals and graduating students. Check for construction, manufacturing and other blue collar jobs. They doesn"t exist. I don't know what alternative universe you live in but reality and truth do not exist in it.

KATHY-533653

It is the tax payers who should decide the fate of this country not just voters.

Would that be the tax payers who pay their fair share or just all tax payers? So you're saying the very rich that pay nothing don't get to vote. GREAT IDEA!! MMMM...yeah we would need to amend the Constitution...no biggie right? One more thing...who gets a free government college education, a free government mortgage or other free government stuff? Please pass the info on for everyone to investigate.

@ T-Bag Loser:

They only good thing or truthful thing you admit to in your post is that your a minority... but I won't let a simple thing like democracy or the constitution get in your way...you guys really don't read that thing you keep carrying around do you?

@ Ira:

Yea its mind-blowing, I'd say I'd like to know WHERE this BS comes from but its obvious its all from Glenn Becks mind... if we get lucky maybe these idiots will start thinking the world is ending and hide in their bomb shelter with their 900 guns and miss the vote.

If only the government gave us free education, like in other developed countries, we'd still be pulling the most professionals out and have a large amount of highly educated people able to get us rocketing forward... instead we cut their funding, destroy public schools and force good smart people out of the country... another problem, the smart are leaving this country because they literally cannot keep working here...