Time for Democrats in Congress to bring back the issue of the millionaire tax.

And this time Reid, Schumer et al. must INSIST on it

TIME TO INSIST.

Think the GOP will hold any more town meetings after this last go round? Last time, one had to pay to attend one of their town halls. Now, I bet they just skip them and go to the mall.

Democrats must not cave in. 99% are watching. I do agree with the speaker that short term fixes do not help anyone. We need something long term that will bring about stability in the economy as a whole.

I expect the POTUS to go with this idea and that it must be paid for by raising taxes on the top 1% or like Boehner said, the job creators, they are the ones who's been eating the pie. This is no time to deal or play politics as usual.

@GOPisextinct

I now have to clean my moniter off! LOL

Boehner is the "tax cut nazi"......."middle class.....no tax cuts for you".

"Only tax cuts for millionaires".

concernedone,

Why don't you ask the folks in Nebraska (I do believe it to be a red state) about THEIR feelings on the pipeline. FYI, one of the people wanting a hold on the pipeline, to see if they could move it, was the REPUBLICAN governor of Nebraska.

Pathetic.

Heck of a job, Party of No/Teathuglicans.

Governor Dave Heineman (R) Nebraska

“I am pleased that Nebraskans have been heard. We’ve tried to make it very clear that we support the pipeline but oppose the route over the Ogallala Aquifer. I hope we can find a common-sense solution, change the route and begin construction of the pipeline.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/administration-to-delay-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html?_r=1

JoJo ... you can google it for free ..."gop town hall meetings + entrance fee"

phine - I understand the issue with Nebraska. I also understand the entire project does not have to be delayed based solely on the rerouting of PART of the Nebraska section. The rest of the pipeline can move forward with what, 85% of the remaining route OK'd?

This is partisan politics at its finest! Think of all the good things we gain with this pipeline:

1. Decreased dependence on foreign oil.

2. Increased number of jobs domestically.

3. Increased tax revenue.

4. Less "friendship" money we have to pay oil rich middle east countries.

5. Investment in America!

Etc.......

BTW, I found an article that spelled out what I'm trying to say. Yes, the Nebraska routing should be reconsidered, but don't stall the entire project...

Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday voted unanimously to reroute a controversial proposed U.S.-to-Canada oil pipeline away from an ecologically-sensitive region in the state, and the governor quickly signed the measure into law.

Governor Dave Heineman signed bills to reroute TransCanada Corp's proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline away from the ecologically sensitive Sandhills region and Ogallala aquifer and to fund an environmental study for a new pipeline route.

Was the Jo talking? I have her on ignore. Stupidity like that bores me.

@concerned

You also realize most of the jobs will be in Canada? I think we need to look at the pipeline, but just remember, it is NOT the golden goose. So, don't believe all those job numbers, okay! And also remember, we all need clean water.

Ahh JoJO, you are speaking to me ... tell me darling; what part of your heart did I melt?

Phine - Like I said, YES, the Nebraska portion does need to be addressed, but not to the detriment to the entire project!!!!! Let's just say we AGREE with clean water, OK?

Also, I never bought into the estimated 20,000 jobs created in the United States. I read an article last week that said this was probably double what the actual number would be. Still, 10,000 jobs and a long list of other positive things make this a winner in my book.

I'm trying to look at this with "big picture", macro consideration. There must be at least a million miles of pipelines that already cross a map of the USA. It isn't like we haven't jumped these hurdles before.

Boehner must be pissed off because the hooker with a case of booze didn't show up in time to touch up his tan-line!

@Feisty

Important question here. Is the plastic Jesus a bobblehead that you can put on your dashboard? That could make the price go up, you know.

Concernedone ... Canada's oil is foreign oil. It belongs to me and my fellow citizens. Feel free to invest in Canada.

Doesn't all oil go into a "pool" anyways that the whole world buys? Each country doesn't just keep its own, but pools it altogether is my understanding (can you say exxon, bp, etc.).

concernedone,

Do not trust the numbers that Gas & Oil company give about job creation.

In Ohio they told Gov. Kasich that if he pushed for shale mining in Ohio it would create 20,000 jobs. Now that he backed it and the legislation has passed and become law the new estimate is a modest 2,000 jobs.

You don't understand how government figures.

2,000 jobs over ten years is 20,000 jobs. LOL

ideo - Sorry, my bad... In my haste, I worded that poorly. The last time I checked, the USA and Canada "liked" each other. Doing business across the Canadian border (even within my own company) is second nature. I consider Canada to be a regular business zone - same as doing business in NY state.

I should have spelled out "foreign" more descriptively. More like, "Nations who do not necessarily want to see the United States succeed. Nations who need the United States to prop up their economies based on their oil revenues. Nations we are forced to swallow our pride with so as to keep the flow coming our way. Nations (particularly the middle east) that truly view us as the 'Great Satan' and want us dead."

Never thought of it that way but if it works for budgets why not jobs.

Repulsivecons couldn't work with Democrats, now they can't agree with each other. And we expect them to settle a year long deal when they can't extend it for two months to go on vacation? VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS OUT OF ALL ELECTED OFFICES EVERY CHANCE YOU GET!

conceernedone, apology accepted. I will put a hold on the march to burn down Washington once again.

Which is why they want the Keystone Pipeline to go all of the way to the gulf. So it can be closer to the ships once refined.

This argument never makes sense. "Drill here, drill now". Oil and refined oil products are sold on the global market.

They could avoid the keystone pipeline by building refineries in North Dakota and selling it all in North America, but where's the profit in that?

That could make the price go up, you know.

Good Catch!

I hadn't thought of that! ☺

This is how we need to fight back...they want to keep their jobs....how else would they get all that extra easy, free money?

And we're wondering why Congress isn't working period let alone not working for US. A Senator's term consist of 6 years. In my humble opinion no one should be allowed to serve in Congress, in any capacity, more than 12 years.

Senators and years in Congress:

1963
Daniel Inouye D-HI..........................48 years

1975
Patrick Leahy D-VT.........................36 years

1977
Richard Lugar R-IN.........................34 years
Orrin Hatch R-UT............................34

1978
Max Baucus D-MT..........................33 years
Thad Cochran R-MS.......................33

1979
Carl Levin D-MI.............................32 years

1981
Chuck Grassley R-IA......................30 years

1983
Jeff Bingaman D-NM.....................28 years

1985
John Kerry D-MA...........................26 years
Tom Harkin D-IA...........................26 years..........plus 10 years as Representative.......36 years total
Mitch McConnel R-KY....................26
Jay Rockefeller D-WV...................26

1987
Barbara Mikulski D-MD...................24 years...........plus 10 years as Representative.......34 years total
Richard Shelby R-AL.......................24

John McCain R-AZ.........................24
Harry Reid D-NV...........................24 years.........plus 4 years as Representative........28 years total
Kent Conrad D-ND........................24
Herb Kohl D-WI............................24

1989
Joe Lieberman ID-CT......................22 years

1990
Daniel Akaka D-HI.........................21 years

1992
Dianne Feinstein D-CA...................19 years
.
1993
Barbara Boxer D-CA......................18 years.........plus 10 years as Representative.......28 years total
Patty Murray D-WA........................18

Kay Bailey Hutchinson R-TX...........18

1994
Jim Inhofe R-OK...........................17 years

1995
Olympia Snowe R-ME..................16 years.........plus 16 years as Representative........32 years total
Jon Kyle R-AZ..............................16 years.........plus 8 years as Representative..........24 years total

1996
Ron Wyden D-OR..........................15 years

1997
Pat Roberts R-KS.........................14 years........plus 16 years as Representative........30 years total
Dick Durbin D-IL...........................14 years........plus 14 years as Representative........28 years total
Tim Johnson D-SD........................14 years........plus 10 years as Representative........24 years total
Jack Reed D-RI.............................14 years.......plus 6 years as Representatvie..........20 years total
Mary Landrieu D-LA......................14
Jeff Sessions R-AL........................14
Susan Collins R-ME.......................14
Mike Enzi R-WY.............................14

1999
Chuck Schumer D-NY.................12 years........plus 18 years as Representative..........30 years total
Mike Crapo R-ID..........................12 years......plus 6 years as Representative............18 years total

2001
Bill Nelson R-ID.........................10 years........plus 12 years as Representative...........22 years total

Tom Carper D-DE......................10 years........plus 10 years as Representative...........20 years total
Debbie Stabenow S-MI.............10 years........plus 4 years as Representative.............14 years total
Maria Cantwell D-WA................10 years.......plus 2 years as Representative..............12 years total

@winemaker

Giggle:) Good

concernedone

Have you not seen the news stories? Oh I forgot all you watch is FOX.

Oil Companies DO NOT PAY TAXES.

During construction the US may see UP TO 5,000 jobs IF a US contractor is hired.

After construction 5 yes FIVE jobs may be created.

The Tar Sand Oil Will Be Sold to the World Market and Not stay in the US.

The US takes all the Environmental risk and Foreign Oil Companies take all the profit.

ETC...........

I agree with Boehner, the oil pipeline does not belong attached to this bill and neither should it be a two month agreement. I agree with him that the republicans were wrong to try to force the democrats to suck in once again and vote for it. It's good to finally see a republican stand up against his party for a change. Take the pipeline out of the bill and extend it for a year with the capital being paid for by tax hikes on the top tier or at least take away all the incentives they claim but do not actually use anymore to create jobs.

clinth - Imported oil is currently delivered (mostly) into the Gulf Coast region. The coastal area already has existing infrastructure to process and distribute the refined products. It is only logical for us to pipe the unrefined product to the place we can handle it. With a decrease in imports, the ability to refine the tar sand material will be available. Also, what is the alternative??? Build the refinery capacity in Nebraska?

It really has little or nothing to do with the potential to export.

TO CONCERNED ONE:

"This is partisan politics at its finest! Think of all the good things we gain with this pipeline:
1. Decreased dependence on foreign oil.
It will not decrease US dependence on foreign oil because the contracts for the refined oil are already set to go to other countries via the commodity market which is how oil is traded.
2. Increased number of jobs domestically.
6500 temporary jobs according to the state department who was pushing this initially. The number of jobs created (20K to 100K) by proponents of keystone are inflated and CANNOT be substantiated.
3. Increased tax revenue.
How does this increase tax revenue???
4. Less "friendship" money we have to pay oil rich middle east countries.
Complete BS. We are and will still be beholden to OPEC nations until we begin to grow alternative energy sources in the US.
5. Investment in America!"
Investment in destroying America's environment. See BP alsaka pipeline spills, 2010 spill in yellowstone river and the still to be cleaned spill of tar sand oil in the Kalamazoo River in 2010. If this pipeline spills (an eventually it will) it has the POTENTIAL to foul the Ogallala aquifer which supplies our agricultural base in middle America. If that were to happen then where do we get our food from?

Your points are WRONG except for the comment about "partisan politics at its finest." This is a blatant attempt by the house representatives to hurt Obama by combining middle class tax relief with a HANDOUT to the oil industry (Koch bros run the tea party and will benefit from keystone).

A boon for the oil industry (which has bought politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle through campaign contributions) should NOT be part of any legislation that helps the middle class. It simply does not belong in the same legislative session.

AMF

The two month extension instead of just getting this done for a year is silliness. However...

Aside from the "uncertainty" claim being a complete joke from Teapublicans who purposely take things down to the wire like this, with unintended consequences such as the downgrade of our credit rating.... Boehner leaves out a couple of really important things: 1) how the Teapublican House attached crap like the pipeline to their bill, which the president said would be vetoed, 2) how the Teapublican House was going to pay for their version, by cutting jobs, freezing wages, and slashing UE benefits.

Also, if Boehner wants to get all nostalgic about senate rules, perhaps he is against abuse of the filibuster? Riiight.

Others already mentioned Meet The Press and the lame questions asked of Teapublicans like Bachmann. During the span of about five minutes I counted about five lies from Boehner. When these Teapublicans start yammering about "Obama policies," why doesn't the media point out that we are still operating under Bush-era wars (minus one now despite right-wing Hawks), deficits, and the Bush tax cuts? When they say the stimulus didn't work, why doesn't the media point out that multiple, independent organizations have proved it did work? And so forth -- Shame on David Gregory for allowing these false statements to go uncontested!

I hope the Dems stand firm and force the GOP/TP to actually make concessions for a change. And if they don't, I hope the president will stand firm and veto anything that would hurt the economy more than a payroll tax holiday would help the economy, as he said he would. Enough of their nonsense -- Throw the Teapublicans out!

I'm glad I found out that my taxes are going up starting Jan 1. 2012. It sadden's me. But at $20 extra taxes a week over a $1000.00 a year. I will have to cut back on my charitable donations for 2012. About $1000.00 worth. I will also have to cut down on my spending. No new car, no vacation this year, no money left for extra things. There goes the recovery. Nice work congress!

joethelib - I have seen about 22 minutes of Faux News in my life. What the heck are you talking about? You act like we have met? Do I know you?

What has the Democrat controlled Senate (6 years) and Democrat controlled House (4 of the last 6 years) or the Democrat POTUS (nearly 3 years) done to stop the incentives to oil companies???

Sounds like you are stuck in partisan mode. Read up on it brother. You might be surprised!

Also - consider the Alaskan pipeline... Do you really think 5 employees maintain that pipeline? Where did you pull that number out of???

And if you think the tar sands will be sold on the world market, why wouldn't CANADA route the material through the Great Lakes? Why would they be furious that (their words, not mine) Obama would stall this project for political gain (Google it). Why would they threaten to ship the material to China if the United States didn't move it along?

Please provide a link to where you find this material is to be sold on the open market. I looked briefly, but couldn't find and resource that backed up that assertion.

Wow!.....it's worse than I thought....a Democrat's thought process is incapable of functioning beyond 60 days.

And, by the way, it's not a tax "increase"; it's simply returning to the rate specified in the Social Security Law......you know, the one we had before the Inept One suspended it in order to keep his base happy....the one that gives us some hope of actually keeping Social Security funded for a few more years.

First off I am not a Republican I am an Independent. It seems to me all Speaker John Boener is tryingto do is not have to revisit this issue in two months. I am tired of Congress only passing 1/2 measures to just give us a couple of months until we are back doing the same work again. It is time we put these issues to rest at least for the year the president & Boener are looking for.

Also as to the Keystone Pipeline why is everybody saying no to this OPEC is not our friend, Canada on the other hand is. We get 16% of our oil from OPEC and we would get 24% from Canada with the new pipeline. This is good for America it makes us less dependent on foreign oil. It put Thousands of people to work. I work in this industry and I can tell you there are a lot of jobs to be had with this project. It is a safe project Canada, as are the other pipelines that run from Canada. All the Democrats keep saying where are the jobs well here is a big private sector job, that would produce thousands of job but the Democrats don't seem to want it. This will generate a lot of revenue for the states in which this pipeline crosses.

And if you think the tar sands will be sold on the world market, why wouldn't CANADA route the material through the Great Lakes? Why would they be furious that (their words, not mine) Obama would stall this project for political gain (Google it). Why would they threaten to ship the material to China if the United States didn't move it along?

You are officially without facts. You're making this stuff up as you go along. The oil from Canada will be refined in Port Author Texas at a refinery that is jointly owned with the Saudi national oil company and sold on the open market. That is a fact. Also, take a look at this study by Cornell University on the employment claims regarding Keystone XL that you like to spout off about. They are largely lies.

I live in this area and virtually no one here wants this thing going across the top of our ONLY water supply. A large portion of the food in this country is produced in the Nebraska and Kansas area. Pollute it and see how rapidly the country completely crumbles. This is about the Koch brothers and some short sighted unions, that's it.

Link to Cornell study

WTF does the Keystone Pipeline have to do with tax cut extensions? If the pipeline is that good why can't it stand on its own? If republicans were serious about extending the cuts, why would they attach it to a controversial bill? Make no mistake, republicans will get the blame for the tax increases, just like they did back in the 90's.

Bob1136191 - too bad you have no idea what is going on or what has gone on during with past Presidents. First and foremost, President Obama is a good President - amazingly - considering all he has had to put up with from the GOP which is owned and operated by the Koch brothers. President Obama and or First Lady have still made less than half the number of trips dear George and Laura did during the same period of time in office. And, very often the First Lady travels ahead of the President since he stays behind to work until the last minute. Sad little Tea Partier that just can't get your facts straight - or doesn't want to.

If the oil is refined in a U.S. refinery the profits will be U.S. profits. If Canada sends the crude to China the U.S. gets cut out of the deal. Let the pipeline get started and they can find an alternative route while construction is occuring elsewhere. That's one of our country's biggest problems. It takes too long to get a project going.

As for the tax bill, they don't need a two month extension it should be at least one year. All I read on these comments is increase the tax rate for the rich. We are already taxed to death. Cut the size of government and make it the right size so our current revenue will cover the cost of running it!!!

Wow Amused...

I read the oil company behind the project was Conoco Phillips. I looked them up and found:

ConocoPhillips Company (NYSE: COP) is an American multinational energy corporation with its headquarters located in the Energy Corridor district of Houston, Texas in the United States. It is also one of the Fortune 500 companies^[3] and 22nd on Forbes Global 2000.^[4][5]ConocoPhillips is the fifth largest private sector energy corporation in the world and is one of the six "supermajor" vertically integrated oil companies. It sells fuel under the Conoco, Phillips 66and Union 76brands in North America, and Jet in Europe. ConocoPhillips was created through the merger of Conoco Inc. and the Phillips Petroleum Company on August 30, 2002.^[6]

ConocoPhillips employs approximately 29,600 people worldwide in nearly 40 countries. ConocoPhillips is the second-largest refiner in the United States, with crude oil processing capacity of approximately 2.0 MMBD; and the world’s fourth-largest nongovernment-controlled refiner, with crude oil processing capacity of nearly 2.7 MMBD globally.

I'm not making this up as I go. I look things up, then repeat what I read. As I said above, I looked for info where this was to be sold on the world market because I could not find it.

The entire planet knows this pipeline should not go over your ONLY source of water. It has been said repeatedly that the route MUST be changed through Nebraska. The report about the line location brought this out and NO ONE disputes it. Drop the argument!

As for employment numbers, look at the posts above. One educated poster said it would create 5 new PERMANENT jobs. Another said 6,500 temporary jobs. Last week in a story on MSNBC, it quoted one source as saying 20,000 jobs, but the realistic number was probably half that number - & that is where I got my facts - not 'making it up as I go along...' Seems it all is a matter of which story, or report, or article one reads. It doesn't mean You nor I make up facts. It means someone's reporting is completely wrong and is misleading.

spider-737231

And, by the way, it's not a tax "increase"; it's simply returning to the rate specified in the Social Security Law.

Wow! So letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is not a tax increase, right?

After all, these are temporary because of lack of a majority vote even when Republicans had contol, so were passed under reconciliation. Why did Teapublicans resort to blackmail to prevent the Dems from letting the highest rate return to 39.6% then? How about the 2003 additional tax breaks on capital gains and dividends, which were passed during time of war and also under reconciliation, and that only apply to the rich, allowing them to pay an effective income tax rate of only 15%? We'll look forward to your circular argument when the Bush tax cuts are due to expire again.

Or for that matter the small tax cut for the middle class that was part of the stimulus... All that the Dems have tried to do is help the middle class during this Great Recession until they can get around the GOP/TP obstructionism and make the rich to pay their fair share.

JoAnnaSmith the paying for the town halls was on the news. Some of them are:

1. Rep Paul Ryan $15 fee (R-WI)

2. Rep Ben Quayle $35 fee (R-Ariz)

3. Rep Chip Cravaak $10 fee (R-Minn)

No surprise here... looks like the Republicans (House) got what they wanted. Increase Taxes on what's left of the middle class. Congrats Republicans, you can now go on your christmas vacation.

Let's see some original thoughts come from Harry Reid and his gang in the Senate. Really, a 2 month extension so you idiots (most of the 465 in Congress) can fight this miniscule 2% break in SS coming from our own withholding. This is another attempt to paint this as a big deal, people look at your paystubs, this is nothing and they are wasting so much energy trying to convince you that you will be broke or saved with or without it.

Nobody is going to die if this fails or passes. If it makes you feel good to sling the stones at your boogie man, go ahead. Just open your eyes and notice that it really doesn't affect your daily life, it just distracts everyones attention from the real junk that all of Gov is doing to erode our Money, Lifestyles, Future and Freedoms!

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), speaking Monday morning at the Capitol, said that Republicans thought the two-month extension didn't provide enough certainty to the economy.

But his idiocy will? Great job. The GOP just plain sucks. What else can you conclude?

I usually find that Eleanor Clift's columns are either predictably boring or infuriatingly ignorant. Her latest Why No Democrat Will Challenge Obama was actually fairly interesting, although perhaps not in a way the writer intended. First came the admission that although Obama is in deep political trouble he isn't likely to be challenged.

Anyone contemplating a run against Obama must consider the consequences of not only defeating the president, but the likely repercussions to his or her own career. "If he were white, he would have a progressive challenger," says Bill Schneider of the Democratic group Third Way. Because Obama is this historic figure, challenging him would hamper the prospects of anyone who wants a future in elective Democratic politics. "Blacks would be deeply offended by a challenge, and that's no way to score points in the Democratic Party," says Schneider. African-Americans are the Democrats' most loyal constituency, and while they too are disappointed in what Obama has been able to accomplish, they are not going to abandon him.

This isn't surprising, but one seldom catches a Democrat admitting the prime factor race plays when Democrats calculate their interests. The narrative of the invincible Obama juggernaut ignored the main reason he became the nominee in 2008 was concerns the super delegates had over offending black voters. He and Hillary were locked in a dead heat after the caucuses and primaries. The candidate who won the super delegates -- elected Democrats in each state -- would win the nomination. In many states the 90% share of the black vote is all that keeps the Democratic Party viable in statewide races. Indeed Minnesota is not a state known for its large black population but several recent statewide races were won by margins far smaller than the black vote in Minneapolis. Only a handful of super delegates from areas where the black vote wasn't material opted for Hillary, even though many of them had to know Obama's now manifest shortcomings from personal experience.

As I got deeper in the column it was obvious the headline was a misstatement, Clift's gist is that it is unlikely that Obama will have a major primary opponent.

"There's a deep frustration without a solution," says [political scientist Sam] Popkin. "What candidate is able to say he will do more, or fix it? All they can say is, I would have been meaner or louder or I would do better saying no to Republicans."

I can think of a couple of former Democrat governors who would certainly say they would have tried to do far less when it came to spending and regulation, but that message is not wanted from Democrats at the national level anymore.

As Clift goes on to report, those now urging potential candidates to step forward are all from the far left wing of the Democratic Party and here is where it get's interesting. Their stated goal is not to defeat Obama. It seems to be a desire to revive the euphoria of 2008.

Nobody's going to beat this guy in the Democratic primaries," says Nader. "That's not the goal. The goal is to turn him around and make him face up to his promises of 2008." Ideally, several people would step forward and force Obama to debate on Democratic turf -- the minimum wage, labor rights, shifting the tax burden to Wall Street. "Otherwise he's just responding to the crazy Republicans," says Nader.

Environmentalist Bill McKibben is among those being contacted, though he responded in an e-mail he didn't know anything about it, and may have missed it because he's "deep in the weeds" organizing two weeks of civil disobedience beginning this month outside the White House to resist a proposed oil pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Texas. "We're billing it not so much as a protest," McKibben wrote, "as to show that there is enormous support for him returning to the Obama of that election [2008]-the one who, among other things, said that with his ascension 'the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.' And this is the perfect issue to find out if that guy's still there, because he gets to make the call on the pipeline all by himself, with no interference from Congress."

A telltale sign: McKibben and other demonstrators will be wearing Obama buttons that say 2008, not 2012, as they try to reclaim the ideals of his candidacy. They hope to remind Obama who he is, or who he said he was, without the club, or the threat, of a formal challenge.

Which promises are we talking about? Notice that neither McKibben or Nader mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo or the "kinetic military action" in Libya. War it seems is only objected to by America's peace movement when it is being waged by Republican presidents. As for who Obama said he was in 2008, where should one begin? In the ads that one could not escape even on the Food Channel and Nickelodeon in October 2008, the Obama campaign presented him as a moderate who was for fiscal responsibility and more jobs. His promise of an open, bipartisan and post racial government was what appealed to moderate suburban voters. While he glossed over his lack of experience, his demeanor promised a first rate temperament. Obama can't run as a blank slate twice. In 2011 it is becoming obvious to these swing voters the only thing transparent about this administration are its daily lies and endless evasions of responsibility. Nor can Obama hide his left wing politics, the radical agenda of his appointments or his petulant and puerile demeanor. What voters have seen for themselves can't be dismissed as baseless charges from right wing opponents,

A critical mass of voters now understand how they were manipulated. Obama's 2008 campaign had a split personality. The public image was of a candidate who ran as moderate and who made pretty sounding but content-free speeches designed to make him palatable to mainstream voters. It was this part of the campaign that became the focus of media cheerleading, Them there was the behind the scenes campaign. It consisted of a cadre of hard left political operatives who played hardball at the caucuses and who accused opponents of both parties of racism if they raised the candidate's lack of accomplishments, experience, or his decades-long series of connections to far left individuals and organizations. These people understood that Obama might throw them under the bus to win the election, but that was OK because once in office Obama would implement their decades old agenda of statism and cosmic justice.

Three years later this agenda is losing popularity with voters. Their much vaunted promise of "green jobs" has proven to be a waste of taxpayer greenbacks. Their pet cause of "healing the planet" is now at odds with an America that is starting to think an Employment Protection Agency would be a better use of tax dollars than an Environmental Protection Agency as the long term costs of over regulation are being felt both in the job market and the family budget. Each week seems to further demolish the idea that anthropogenic global warming had a basis in science. And of course those wars Senator and candidate Obama opposed are still in process.

As I read the quotes Clift had gathered I was fascinated. Are these people really that out of touch? Or is something else happening? Anyone with political instincts can see that Obama's current political interest dictate distancing himself from someone like McKibben and poking a bit of fun at the rhetorical excesses in 2008. He isn't likely to do either, so maybe what McKibben and his allies really want is to create a conflict where one doesn't exist. If Obama won't move to the center an increasingly vocal left yapping art his heels will allow him to appear moderate and in control to low interest voters.

Then I thought about how perhaps the largest of the now vanishing dreams was how Obama's army of young people was to became the vanguard of decades of progressive rule. A recent Pew poll showed a 10 percentage point increase in the number of white voters under age 30 who identified themselves as Republican since 2008. The latest Rasmussen poll reports that among identified Democrats the older they are the more they enthusiastic they tend to be about Obama.

From a generational perspective, the president earns from 75% to 84% approva l from all measured age groups. However, there is a notable lack of enthusiasm among younger party members. Just 19% of Democrats under 30 Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling his job. By way of comparison, that figure is at 45% among 40-somethings and higher among other age groups.

No job and a huge student loan tab to repay tends to sour one's enthusiasm as bit. Rasmussen goes on to note that:

these younger Democrats are more committed than their elders to voting for a Democrat on the Generic Congressional Ballot. The under-30 crowd prefers a Generic Democrat for Congress over a Generic Republican by a margin of 84% to four percent (4%). In terms of congressional voting, just 56% of conservative Democrats are committed to sticking with the party line, while 20% are ready to vote for a Republican.

Thus it appears that young voters who still identify themselves as Democrat have more problems with Obama as a leader than they have with the Democrat agenda itself. Much of the recent criticism of Obama from the left comes from people with backgrounds in academia. They would have a sense of the younger generation's growing disillusionment.

Thus I suspect a major goal of most of this criticism and talk of primary opposition is precisely to keep younger voters from identifying the problem as a failure of progressive policies. It is better for the Democrats in the long run if all fault is found to be the weakness of Obama's character rather than the unrealistic policies he pursued. Let Obama fall -- or be pushed -- from grace if that means preserving the prestige of all the king's men -- and not a few horse's asses-in academic, foundation and media circles. who safeguard the progressive agenda. After all, the sentiment that you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs has been attributed to self described champions of the down trodden from Robespierre to Lenin and Stalin.

The left always eats their own when they fail.

Wow! So letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is not a tax increase, right?

In reality no it's not an increase. It is simply reverting to what it was and should be. It was a temporary cut as the catch phrase at the time was "trickle down". That hasn't shown to be too effective has it? Unless "trickle down" referred to a warm liquid running down all over the masses.

And btw before you make some assumption I am a 1%-er.

cutie12- The plain fact is that Bush only went back to his ranch on vacations. He did not make the tax payers send him to Hawaii every year and pay for the outrages entourage. He is the best president that is FALSE. You say it is the Rep fault, if you have been following his presidencythan you would KNOW that he that all of Congress for the first 2 years and still did nothing for the American people. This president does not know how to lead and I am tired of him apologizing for America all the time it makes us look week. His failed policies are his and NOT Bush's. THROW HIM OUT IN 2012.

Feisty, as I said yesterday:

The House approves, the Senate approves then the House rejects... the tedium of this Hypocrisy is getting to me. Next thing that Mr. Boehner the Republicans Master Baiter will do is suggest that the only way this can be resolved is by direct intercession by President Obama as he did the last time about this time of year.

President Obama, remember that last time? I would suggest that this time you hold the Congress in Session until they resolve the question; after all, we both know this is just a ruse to make you look bad. Keep in mind that YOU'LL be home for Christmas while they will be stewing in the putrescence of political posturing and positing.

Reposted from 12/18 MY POST

Voter-in-LA

You have me curious. I'm not meaning this as some kind of attack, and I'm not setting you up. I'm just wondering. Are you in favor of allowing the cuts to expire?

As a 1%er, I'd like to hear what you think about this matter.

voter in la...it's nice to see someone in the top 1% actually give a @!$%# about others

Please people you think either party of the rich gives a darn about you or me. Return the tax rate to the rich and give us the middle class a real tax break and not some gimmick. BTW amused the oil would go to several refineries none of which I found was operated by the Saudi's.

Vendetta! No incumbents. Time to show these clowns who their real owners are.

Bob1136191,

Talk about taxpayers paying for excessive vacations. Bush is the man who has taken over twice as many vacations in the same period of time as Obama while starting two wars at that. In fact, many of Bush's news interviews took place with a golf club in his hand. When you have a huge mental deficit like Bush had, it was too hard to focus on anything important for more than a day.

Bill1488,

RE: your post #1.59

Wrong again Bill! Have a look at the FACTS versus your fantasy figures!

nhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtmlumbers.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2011/07/22/presidential-vacation-time?blog=233

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation

http://themoderatevoice.com/83694/more-political-hypocrisy-republicans-criticize-obamas-vacation-time/

http://gymbros.com/2011/11/09/whos-more-bro-george-bush-or-barack-obama/

Now, try another fable!

Why not let the Bush tax cuts expire in the entirety? Why only on a subset of the American taxpayers? I fail to see how it helps us to increase taxes only on a small percentage of Americans. It seems that the federal government is not taking in enough revenue to cover its costs. Fine, I accept that. But if we feel that increasing taxes in the answer, then let's do that. When Bush cut taxes, he did so across the board. So let's have an across the board tax hike, back to where we started. How is that unfair to anyone? It would take the rates back to where they were when President Clinton was in office. The economy seemed pretty good then.

Voter-in-LA

Wow! So letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is not a tax increase, right?

My facetious question, to which you wrote:

In reality no it's not an increase. It is simply reverting to what it was and should be. It was a temporary cut as the catch phrase at the time was "trickle down". That hasn't shown to be too effective has it? Unless "trickle down" referred to a warm liquid running down all over the masses.

And btw before you make some assumption I am a 1%-er.

So then we're on the same page. When I was a 5%-er (before Bush collapsed the economy), I paid up the ying-yang in taxes (single with no kids to write off) and would MUCH rather pay those taxes and be in the top 5%. Only a fool would believe that Bill O'Really would "pack it in" if we revert to the Bush tax rate of 39.6% for the highest bracket.

Judging from the partisan comments left on this board, it is no wonder those in Washington are paralyzed. Those refusing to just "sign on" were put there to stop the runaway train before it is way too late.

2 Mos? That is just a joke. Shame on both parties for not having the guts to duke it out together and come to a LONG-TERM solution to our structural failures.

The unemployment tax keeps getting hiked on the job creators. First it was the actual wage taxes which will now double. Now the feds want their money from each state that borrowed to keep paying unemployment and thus business owners are not FORCED to pay a one time fee assessed by each state each year. So TAXES ARE IN FACT GOING UP on the job creators. I can't tell you how many fees/licenses, assessments, have gone up a lot for each business owner. I swear it is every month another extra charge. This is not including the banking hikes going up for job creators.

Taxes are not only federal folks. Meanwhile start-ups have been declining since 2001. The typical way a start-up was financed was through a home equity loan. That is no longer an option.

Every year we extend unemployment benefits we are digging ourselves a deeper hole. Many of you love to use Europe as a model that has a bigger safety net, but now you can see too many received the benefits, and too few paid for them. The model was flawed and now it is time to pay the piper.

Any tax benefit that is taken away will impact the economy, because then it becomes a tax hike. It won't matter if it is this year or next, the impact will be the same. NOT GOOD.

This is why we need structural change that everybody can then know what the future taxing will look like.

Obama made judgement call to keep with the gimmicks. He is denying we have the structural problem and is still wanting to kick the can down the road. If he believes that raising taxes on the rich is the solution to all our woes, then he needs to get out his chalkboard the PROVE IT. Right now the tax the rich policy he endorses is to sunset the tax cut for those 200,000/250,000. That would bring in about 80 billion annually. The deficit this year is about 1.4 T, with a slighter smaller one projected next year. I am not a math wizard, but surely anybody with average math skills can see that 80 billion won't do it, and in fact may impede job growth. Obama is saying not renewing the payroll tax hike will result in a slower economy. So using his argument the same can be said about taking any group more.

JoAnnaSmith1,

RE: your post #1.11

The answer to your question is YES! Below are citations of charges made to attend Republican 'town hall' meetings!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread742408/pg1

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/running-scared-republicans-charge-fees-to-attend-town-hall-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61454.html

Check'em out!

concernedone - Well at least you stay true to the talking points but let's look at your points:

1. Decreased dependence on foreign oil.

Since the oil will be placed on the international market, it will have no effect on oil dependency. It will be sold to the highest bidder at the market. Most of it will probably go to China. We are currently exporting more oil than we are importing.

2. Increased number of jobs domestically.

The number of jobs created is questionable. The studies that have been funded by the petroleum industry have been "exaggerated" using such techniques as counting a job expected to last two years as 2 separate jobs. They've even included "dancers" expected to entertain the pipeline workers. But lets say their estimates are accurate. How many are long term jobs (maintenance) versus limited construction jobs?

3. Increased tax revenue.

From what source? The petroleum companies currently receive tax subsidies.

4. Less "friendship" money we have to pay oil rich middle east countries.

See answer #1 above.

5. Investment in America!

No, investment in petroleum companies with no dividends.

I really don't have a dog in the fight, I don't drink Nebraska water. Still, if this involves taxpayer subsidies or funding, I'd like to see the actual facts discussed...not the spin. As far as I can see, all this project does is to provide additional revenue to oil executives and speculators.

THE TAX CUT SHOULD BE BLOCKED IT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!!!!!

It's a tiny amount.

60% of the benefit will go to those earning 100k or more per year

The money comes from Social Security

So, we have OBAMA, cutting Social Security funding, to give a tax break thet will mostly benefit those making over 100k per year. It's TERRIBLE!!!!!!

Obama could have targeted income taxes and the republicans would have cheerfully voted for it. But instead, he is willing to cut funding for SS as he specifically targets FICA. WTF is wrong with him?

He is a sellout, willing to play games with SS funding JUST TO GET VOTES!!!!

He disgusts me.

What is this garbage about a tax cut extension?

Each taxpayer owes the government $135,000, their share of the debt. This is for services rendered, and it is money owed. It needs to be paid.

If I were congress, I'd send a bill to each taxpayer due upon receipt. If they didn't pay, they either go to debtor's prision or a work camp. How dare a citizen not contribute his fair share to the collective.

It's wanton hubris. The gall of some folk! Whining over an "extension" when YOU owe the money?

Pay up, deadbeats.

Rickeroo - Sure... yep, each taxpayer (even a 1 day old baby) now owes $135,000. Yep, let's send that child to prison and a work camp because they cannot pay.

I hope your comment is one of sarcasm, because if it's not.. you just won the dumbest comment for the day.

- Sure... yep, each taxpayer (even a 1 day old baby) now owes $135,000. Yep, let's send that child to prison and a work camp because they cannot pay.

The per citizen debt is $48,000. However, only the taxpayers are responsible for paying it, the baby is not.

I certainly hope that as a taxpayer, you would be willing to pay the $135,000 for the "gifts" your legislators have given you?

scrambolo #1.66-If you knew how to do math you would see that Obama and Bush's vacation days are on track with one another, the only difference is that Bush went to a house that he owned. That house is only 2300sf. He worked from there and it didn't cost the tax payers any additional money. With Obama he does not own the places he goes to on vacation and it does cost the tax payers money. This when most Americans can't even buy food let alone taking a vacation. The Obama's like too take separate flights that only adds to the cost the tax payers pay. Just like there daughters 8th birthday in Paris with all of there relatives that the tax payers paid for, or how about there trips to Martha's Vineyard that cost the tax payers millions for the 11 days that they are there. So it really is not the same thing Bush's trips home to his ranch vs Obama going all over the world at the tax payers expense. We would not be saying anything if they where just going home to Chicago. I know as a Liberal you try and use just part of the facts to make it look like as though you are right, but if you lay out the full storey you find out just how wrong you really are.

He has a bad habit of trying to blame Bush for everything. What did he do for us Americans in the first two years when he had a Democratic House and Senate, what got passed in those years? Nothing but health care that 59% of Americans didn't want. We need a president that can lead this country back to greatness not keep it from greatness. He reminds me of a high school kid saying, it wasn't me it was him, instead of leading us he just keeps blaming with no solutions. Bush has been gone for 3 years now it is Obama's failed polices not Bush's. His campaign promise was to bring together the House and the Senate, but he just keeps trying to divided them. The housing was do to president Clinton not Bush. Bush should of put the more stringent procedures back into place and didn't for that he was wrong. The troops coming home was Bush's time line not president Obama's.

You should do some research yourself, instead of just repeating the Democrats talking points. As an Independent I vote for the best candidate out of the two and next year anyone is better than what we have in Obama.

VOTE OBAMA OUT IN 2012! WE CAN NOT AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS FOR FAILURES!

Well said.

REPUBLICANS = TAX CUTS for the rich, and PAY CUTS for working class Americans.

This is funny as anything. The GOP practically writes it's own anti-GOP political ads.

Try this: "Your taxes were raised. Who raised them? The republicans in the house of representatives. You have your taxation, where was your representation? The Democrats fought long and hard for your tax cut, only to be blocked by procedural tactics. Democrats: Lowering your taxes. Obama 2012."

Are we supposed to pretend that we don't know that this ALL about the Republicans trying to make the American Taxpayers pay for the oil pipeline that Texas Oil Billionaires want built from Canada to Texas at OUR expense?

We'll leave the role of "playing dumb" to the Republican Voting Block who are getting played like a fiddle by the GOP and Teabaggers.

If you google it you can find out that the American taxpayers are not paying anything on this $20 billion project. The Canadians are paying for it.

Paul F - the entire Senate went on vacation after a bipartisan passage extending the tax cut. Funny how you - in your total fairness (cough, cough) place the blame on the Democrats when it is the GOP blocking a bi-partisan bill.

American Girl:

I agree. It is time to call the Republicans bluff. Let them end Bush's tax cuts! I can ill afford losing anymore income but it will be worth the risk, to show how much the wealthy influence Republican politicians. I want to see the 1% pay their fair share of taxes and also, eliminate the loopholes, so big business pays too. In the mean-time, the XL pipeline can be built, along side the "bridge to nowhere!" But not on American soil or with American money.

I have read several articles stating, the pipeline will not create new jobs and will destroy our environment. Let Big oil, foot the bill on the XL Pipeline and the can build it via China! I am willing to lose the "Bush tax cuts," now! I want our Democratic politicians to say "NO" for a change.' I ask the Democrats to trust in their base. Stand up against the blackmail and tyranny of the Republicans like McConnell and Boehner. Come November 2012, they will both be in the minority.

Democrats HAVE TO, stand up FOR the middle class. When? Now! The middle class has fought for you, now, it is time to trust us and let the Bush tax cuts go! The extra taxes, especially from the rich, should help turn the economy around and strengthen the programs, in need to support.

We need to revert and put the tax back anyways. It had to happen eventually, no better time than now. A temporary 2 month extension is embarrassing. Extending the problem without a solution doesn't work in Washington. It didn't work on cutting the budget with the Super Committee, won't work here. They (either party) are trying to wait until they get more people on "their" team to push a slanted agenda.

I'd rather see a party, any party step up and start fighting not for re-election but for what will start to fix the problem.

The Senate did not recess. The skunks that left town for their vacations were slinking out under the radar before they knew that the House would have to accept another piece of trashy legislation that the Senate thought was great. McConnell is also to blame. He thought the House would fall in line. The House seems to be the only chamber of Gov that is willing to even do any hard work. BiPartisan is being overused every day. They might as well call it what it is "Agree with the Dems or be villified".

I for one am glad someone is stopping this scrap coming out of DC. They have no real cures and because they are only willing to fight it out in the press proves that the time it wil really take to create good legislation is below them and not worthy of their time. If they aren't willing to work, Fire Them!

Keep blaming the GOP, that 's what half the world wants to see. I don't want to see any more blame games; I just want them to do their JOBS!

Good luck finding a party willing to completely alienate the tens of millions of welfare rats and overpaid public employees. Whether you steal from the 53% of people who pay taxes in order to give food stamps to the 47% who do not, or whether you steal from the 53% to give to public employees making 3x what their private sector counterparts do... it's all the same. They're all welfare bums. Taking them all off the government tit will go a long ways towards balancing the budgets. Finish off with massive military cuts and the return of Social Security to a safety-net, rather than retirement program and this country's budget crises are solved.

Well said Urgay! If they want to tax the millionaires, then they also need to tax the over 50% that are not paying anything! You can't ask for one without the other! EVERYONE needs to pay taxes - even if their share is VERY small - it should be something so they have a stake in this country too. Otherwise they just freeload and only care about getting by for free!

cdahl ~ Yeah. I'm confused. This "tax holiday" affects those of us who pay into SS and are now paying less, right? And this helps us - how? Doesn't this just mean that when we go to draw our SS, there's less in the fund? And at a time when there's so much concern about funding for SS?

Is it supposed to be made up some other way? I've read comments about one of the issues being how will it be paid for. Or does that only apply to the unemployment benefits? This tax "benefit" also doesn't affect ANYONE who doesn't pay into SS - teachers, federal/state employees, etc, etc, etc. I'd rather have a decrease in my Federal Income Tax liability - nothing big - just one like GE has! :-)

Can someone enlighten me? Nicely. Thanks.

Ya'll do realize the the 47% also includes children, unemployed, and even the institutionalized and so on. So quit thinking you are the only people paying taxes. Do a little reading and not from partisan website or book. they are all full of lies

urgay hate to tell you this but you just made up that part about paying in 1500 dollars and getting back 6500 dollars. as an accountant i can tell you that you cannot get back more then you pay in. our tax code does not work that way. the 47% that dont pay taxes is also a fallacy and untrue, since its based on total population which includes children, retired senior citizens, and illegals.

Judy,

My 2 cents is that the cut was supposed to be temporary to fuel stimulus. Not permanent. And I believe that we came out of the recession in 2007, just like the figures said we did. The problem is that we are living in the new economy. The new Global Economy, and we have to learn how to live and survive in it. At some point we will have to stop issuing forever extensions for unemployment insurance, and the 3% SS Tax. And if the economy will not turn around, the time to end it is now. The other take is to extend it 1 year to solidify certainty in the markets. The bad decision is to push the decision off a month or two.

It is my understanding that the money is coming out of SS, but the US General fund is replacing the money taken from SS. Net effect is that the 3% is coming out of the general fund.

On a side note, I am not a fan of raising the federal income tax rates because it hurts small business (S-Corps), and the millionaires and Billionaires like Buffet don't get their income from payroll. They get it from Capital Gains, taxed at 15% (which is why the uber rich pay an average of 17% Taxes).

I am for:

• Raising the capital gains tax by 5% to 20% which will hit the millionaires and protect small business job-creaters.
• Adding as 10% import tariff that will generate 50B per month, 600B per year in revenue.

1. China has a "Fee" equal to 17% to 40% (acts like a tariff)
2. Brazil has a nearly 100% tariff
3. Europe limits the quantity of some goods coming in, basically acting like a tariff

• Reducing Corporate tax rates to be more globally competitive if tariffs are not enacted.
• Eliminating deduction loopholes and making tax accounting simple.
• Taxing all companies, including GE and Big Oil.
• And most important, LIMITING GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO MATCH REVENUES.

My 2 cents.

Well well well. Lets see. They put Bummer in there to lead the GOP. Guess they thought since Ohio went Demo last presidental election, they would have a chance here in 2012. Hell we thought we made a bad mistake untill we elected a Rep to sit at the capital and figure out how to screw whats left of the middle class in Ohio. Went straight for the unions. What an idiot. Now Bummer wants to black Ohio eyes again. Was supposed to be a simple tax break and how to pay for it. The rep put in the pipeline just to slap the pres in the face. Ohh lets not raise any more taxes on the rich. Lets cut something from the poor. 150 million people live in poverty in the US. So lets send more money to fuel other countries. Lets cut SS. Lets just cut every thing there is so we can fuel more wars. Let our country fall apart. People need to relize its not rep or dems. Its both of the back door money grubbin bitches that are selling us out. Vote everyone that dont believe in our freedom out. Anyone that will take our money and send it over seas. Give them the boot. We killed 100,000 iraq civilians. WTF for. Think about it. I have. good job Bush jr ya piece of crap. Fighting daddys war ya just shook a hornets nest. Nice to know we have at least 100,000 families that would love to kill us. And im sure they were all hiding WMD's as well as being taliban. 2 billion a day to fuel both wars. Dont know about you. But that would have sure fixed some roads as well as feed alot of Americans

American Girl, Canadian Investors would pay for the pipeline not US citizens. Hey Gunner is your budget balanced? Seems the word no is an equal opportunity party. Six alternative paths for pipeline ,but no to job creation even though it's backed by the Obama Unions. BTW the war on poverty which has been going on now for quite some time is getting worse, throwing more money at it isn't working, maybe we should try something else.

Judy, Judy, Judy -- Per cdahl's post #2.17 above, the main reason for the stare-down is how to continue funding Social Security with an extension of the payroll tax holiday. The two-month plan would fund it from fees to Fannie and Freddie and other less desirable ways compared to the surtax on income over a million.

American Girl -- Though investors would pay for the pipeline (the Chinese are trying to buy Canadian oil companies for this reason), what could cost Americans is possible eminent domain for the land, and as already stated in various threads, spills that are inevitable. Who will pay for the clean-up, and what if we can't clean up pollution of aquifers? It's a price that can't be quantified.

As for jobs, the real estimate is no more than 7,000 temporary jobs, most of which would go to Canadians. Then by transporting the oil to gulf ports, the oil would be accessible to the Chinese, but most certainly sold on the global market and therefore of little if any value to the US citizenry. As always, Big Oil would be the beneficiary.

But the bottom line is the pipeline should be voted on separately based on it's own merit (or lack thereof).

For urGAY and all the folks spouting talking points about 47% of Americans paying no taxes et al;

It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year.

But what matters in terms of a power analysis is what percentage of their income people at different income levels pay to all levels of government (federal, state, and local) in taxes. If the less-well-off majority is somehow able to wield power, we would expect that the high earners would pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, because the majority figures the well-to-do would still have plenty left after taxes to make new investments and lead the good life. If the high earners have the most power, we'd expect them to pay about the same as everybody else, or less.

Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that's been studying tax issues from its offices in Washington since 1979, provides the information we need. When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.

And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.

Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.

The 47% of folks who pay no taxes at all include millionaires and billionaires. For more information about this study please take the following link:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Diamond60

All I read on these comments is increase the tax rate for the rich. We are already taxed to death.

OK Diamond60, let's go back to the top tax rates under a good Republican President like Dwight D. Eisenhower (91%) or Ronald Reagen (50%)

My, my, my how the 1% can spin and whine!

Neko and Eric

These statements of yours are not correct.

Neko-

Ya'll do realize the the 47% also includes children, unemployed, and even the institutionalized and so on.

Eric--

the 47% that dont pay taxes is also a fallacy and untrue, since its based on total population which includes children, retired senior citizens, and illegals

Now read what the CSMonitor says about who paid taxes in 2010.

The roughly 45 percent of Americans who owe no income tax are heavily weighted in certain groups based on income and family status, according to the The Tax Policy Center, the nonpartisan research group that has run the numbers. More than half the tax-return filers in each of these groups owe no taxes: Those who earn less than $30,000, those who are elderly, and those who are single with children.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0412/Tax-day-101-Who-pays-no-income-taxes-on-April-15

Notice the words "tax-return filers". It does not say more than half of the population. So your statements about the POPULATION not paying is BOGUS AT BEST.

THE TAX CUT SHOULD BE BLOCKED IT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!!!!!

It's a tiny amount.

60% of the benefit will go to those earning 100k or more per year

The money comes from Social Security

So, we have OBAMA, cutting Social Security funding, to give a tax break thet will mostly benefit those making over 100k per year. It's TERRIBLE!!!!!!

Obama could have targeted income taxes and the republicans would have cheerfully voted for it. But instead, he is willing to cut funding for SS as he specifically targets FICA. WTF is wrong with him? Oh sure, first he was going to make it up with the millionares tax that is now dead, and now he's going to charge fees on mortgages..... as if there were tons of people taking out mortgages right now. Face it, he's stealing from our SS funding with some vague promises that he will make up the difference from elswhere. Best case scenario is he uses our money to fund our "tax break" which means tax dollars for tax dollars. What's he going to borrow it from China?

He is a sellout, willing to play games with SS funding JUST TO GET VOTES!!!!

He disgusts me.

By the way, the Filibuster rules were changed to their current state in 1980 by the Democrats. They cry a lot about it now, but they liked the rule just fine when it was them.

All I know is that I want my money back! I want ALL my money refunded from the day I started working and paying taxes at age 16! I don't want food stamps, (EBT), and I don't want any other sort of hand-out. Just gimme back the money stolen from me by a gov't that doesn't perform!

I want my money back! I want my money back! I want my money back! Keep your bus tokens and your surplus Army grub from WWII, I want my money back! All of it; right now! I want my money back! I want my money back!

Yes, but he has a great tan........

Heard his handicap is hurtin from actually being forced to try and do some work. Maybe he could do us all a favor and go back to his tanning bed and his early morning tee times!

Al, to be fair, he's just as bad as Pelosi and Hastert. The Worst Speaker ever title goes to Newt.

Jake, Clinton could at least make a deal with the Salamander Man and it would stand up. How many times has what appeared to be an agreement with Boehner been reached, only to see him backpedal and back out due to his inability to keep his teabaggers in line. The fact that he walked away from $4 trillion in deficit reductions last summer during his talks with Obama in order to save the all important luxury yacht loophole is unconsionable.

I can't help noticing how Boehner injected the little push for Big Business in his statement: ".......which is creating uncertainty for job creators in a time when millions of Americans are out of work". Anyone who has ever been a Republican knows exactly what that double talk means: "which is creating uncertainty for "Big Oil" in a time when that Keystone Pipeline is all that matters and when millions of Americans won't get remotely close to a job on that project.

I think it's amusing. Here we have a bunch of GOP Mama's bois who made a deal with Big Oil long before this president ever took office about this pipeline and now they are running for the Kaopectate trying to make sure this administration toes their line and make this agenda reality.

Boy oh boy...If Boehner, McConnell, Ryan and Cantor are examples of the GOP's finest, is their party in trouble. I think I remember now why I left the Republican party BB (Before Bush).

eric..

great tan? He looks like an orange julius

Indeed, John (Orange-man) Bohener is the worst, the most incompetent speaker ever! I can't wait the 2012 elections to see him lose that position.

So Magnum, are you saying it is okay for the taxes of the rich to go back to what they were? Just curious.

Both sides are idiots. This time the repukes because it was in their ballpark. Next time it will be the demagogues. Independent leadership and term limits. And take away some perks while we are at it. 6 months in DC and let them go back to where they came from the other 6 months. Congress couldn't organize a rock fight and they're about as sharp as a bag full of wet mice. (Foghorn Leghorn in 2012). They got time for the important stuff. Commercials will be quieter and no cell phones while driving, while the country is turning into a house of cards.

unity,

you mean all of the Bush Tax cuts? Including the ones that affect you too?

Well if payroll taxes do go back up, they should go up for everyone 100%...meaning that if 100% of my pay is subject to payroll taxes, then 100% of every ones else pay should be subject to payroll taxes.

Magnum, Hey Jackass, did you say the same thing about the Bush Tax Cuts that were due to expire and return to levels that they were under Clinton. The only President to balance the budget!!!

All this tells us is this is what you get when you elect a bunch of uneducated Tea Bagging Morons who's only intellect is watching NASCAR!!!!!!!

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had a flat tax. If everyone pays the same percentage, there are no tax cuts, breaks, loopholes, etc. More jobs equals more tax revenue, period. It's only fair that everyone has some skin in the game, rich, poor, middle class, business big and small. Everyone in the country is enjoying the benefits of our tax money, everyone should pay. But, it's not fair that some pay 30+% and some pay nothing or even get back more than they paid. Maybe the Federal Government should refocus their efforts and pay for things like national defence and promoting trade, not for social programs and butterfly research. Let the states pay for their own programs like welfare and unemployment without "help" from the Federal Government!

They are not 'cutting' SS taxes to appease billionaires and trillionaires the Dems are cutting them to buy votes from the lower and middle class. Seems some of these people care little about whether or not they'll recieve SS for their retirement, they'd rather spend the money now than take care of their futures. That's the problem with liberals and the left- they don't consider the ramifications of their actions. It sounds good to be able to buy a vote for the cost of $1000 in tax cuts but it won't sound so great when the expected amount of monthly SS checks is diminished because of lack of funds.

In the long run the wealth gap between SS retirement recipients and those who saved or invested for their retirement income will be even larger than it is today. And any retiree who was smart enough to save for decades will also be smart enough to ensure the government doesn't get its hands on our money.

C'mon Boner...Are you that afraid cantor, Ryan, Bachmann, and the resy of the 'Hitler Youth' ??...Show some balls, if you have any....

ProudAmericanVet, I am talking about all of them. If it helps our deficit, then so be it. I did fine in the 90's with the taxes where they were.

Where are our infrastructure jobs? THAT'S what we need!

Vote NO on any bill tied into Keystone. And if the Republicans want to see the American people starve and live on the street by making us not pass anything tied to Keystone....then that's their burden to bear. Maybe THEN their constituents will see them for who they are!

Let Keystone stand by itself and see if it passes.

I can't help noticing how Boehner injected the little push for Big Business in his statement: ".......which is creating uncertainty for job creators in a time when millions of Americans are out of work".

I was a little down on the house until I read the article and thought it through, and I think there is a valid point there. The senate has pushed through another TWO MONTH action, and in two months we will be right back here debating the very same issue again. ALL business has a hard time with uncertainty (not just big business) and this government's inability to provide any kind of certainty (i.e passing a two month extension of the payroll tax) means that businesses basically have no idea how to plan for the future. Will they be in a period of high taxes or low taxes? Will there be more regulation or less? More healthcare costs or not?

So our congress (both houses) can't get their sh_t together and figure out what they should do.. So as a result, they continue to kick the can down the road by passing wee little stopgap measures that don't give anyone a long term horizon to plan by. I honestly don't see this changing anytime soon, unless one party has a super majority in the house, the senate, and also holds the white house. And of course then we will have judges desperately stepping in to deem everything done "unconstitutional".... We have become almost completely broken as a nation and as a government, so polarized in our basic core beliefs that nothing can happen.

unity,

how right you are. no one seems to be mentioning the fact that the senate republicans insisted that the taxes on the RICH stay down and the house is only considering raising the taxes on you and me! but, if all the taxes go back to clinton era rates that means the republicans' business overlords are going to be paying more,too and ohmygod we can't have that! after all, you and are were born for no other reason than to work ourselves into early graves so we can support the lavish lifestyles of the uber-rich-didn't you know that? just ask any tea party congressman. what's sad is that the everyday tea party member on the street doesn't realize that THEY are going to lose THEIR safety nets, too. that the very people they follow want to do away with medicare and social security and most tea party people want and need those services! but, big business doesn't want them, and have been trying to kill both services since they were instituted. why? because, that allows you and me a choice not to work. they want us to be born, live and die in the same place. they want to do away with public education and force our children(not theirs) to work instead. they don't want you to get better when you get sick, they want you to die. they don't want you to retire, they want you to work until you die and then they will drag your dead body off their property into the street. the big businesses today have become quite blatant about their desire to turn this country into a third world country with them as the overlords. they have become arrogant in their attempted political coup because they thought after 30 years of tearing the american worker down, i'm sure they thought they had us desperate enough to fall for their lies. BUT! it hasn't worked! just look at the occupy wall street force going on now for four months! and there is no end in site. they're moving to the internet and they will move into the halls of congress! like the old song says: 'senators and congressmen please heed the call, don't stand in the doorways, don't block up the hall. for he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled. the battle outside ragin' will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, FOR THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'

Rico - your infrastructure jobs was one of the BIG OBAMA LIES. He even laughed about it a year after he blew nearly $1 trillion on "stimulus", which is code for how we rob Americans and give more and more money to liberal owned enterprises like Solyndra and the likes of MF Global and hide-the-billion games.

Most Corrupt Presidency in modern history.

Good luck finding those infrastructure jobs, hey, they only have $3.6 Trillion to spend each year (and growing), what do you expect?

I've noticed that a number of you think that the payroll tax cut is short-changing the Social Security account. It is not. It is the only way that most working people get the benefit. The difference is made up by taking money out of the general fund and transferring it to the Social Security account. This has been repeated again and again, but apparently many of you have not followed the discussion very closely.

Paul F and Fast Z - love the way you two totally distort the "facts," which you don't have. I'm guessing you buy everything that comes out of Michelle Bachmann's mouth! Pretty sad!

What many people fail to realize is that the Social Security Tax cut is being supported by the middle class. Who do you think borrows money from Fannie and Freddie to buy house? Certainly not the top 1%. For those middle class that is die hard Republicans, I laugh at your face. You deserve to get screw more than any other middle class because you simply vote to get screw. GOP is not here to help any class except the 1%, it was made clear last year about this time, when they held unemployments hostage in order for the 1% to get their Bush era tax cut. Kind of odd how they didn't care how it was going to be paid for, but all of a sudden a tax cut for the middle class needs to be paid for somehow or they will not back it up. I guess adding the surcharge for home loan that mostly affect the middle class is the only way to go. GOP THAT IS WRONG!

Paul F, you forgot to mention GWB and Dick about KBR and non bid contract that reaped billions of dollars from the tax payer. They charge 2.50 for a bottle of water they purchase for .25, so go figure who is the biggest con artist here. By the way, the stimulus did work, google it and you're find out about the facts, although if you get the information from Fox, I'm sure there's some distortion somewhere between the beginining and the end.

Wish OWS would work on getting an initiative started for term limits and to cease lobbying. NOW that would be a huge change.

And thanks for the reminder of Dylan. :)

You all do not get it. By allowing the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" expire you are not going to hurt the weathly. You are going to hurt the poor an dmiddle class. To lose the 10% tax bracket, the additional $400 child care credit, and various other credits that the wealthy cannot use because they make too much money, will hurt the lower earning person far worse. Additionally, by agreeing to a 2 month tax exrtension of the 2% decrease in Social security, extension of unemployment, the MEdicare fix for doctors and other providers, it will lead to another showdown after the State of the Union address. This years address will be nothing other than major campaign Propoganda that will come to try to get the President re-elected. He will do nothing about log-jam in Congress which will continue to occur until after the 2012 elections as the Democrats do not want to work together with the Republicans. If President Obama and the democrats really cared about gettign Americans back to work, they would have done a major work initiative 3 years ago when they took over iwth a supermajority in Congress. They didn't do it. All they did was shove a healthcare bill down our throats without even reading whats in the massive 2700 page document. That is what lead them to lose congressional seats in the 2010 election. As long as tghey continue down their road of blame Bush and the Republicans, they will lose a lot more in the 2012 election. It is time the Democrats come to Washington to work with the Republicans instead of forcing issues they know the Republicans cannot move on without givebacks form the Democrats. Until that happens congress will b euneffective.

It's only distorting the facts when someone responds with a comment you don't agree with

Al worst speaker ever,are you kidding? My money is on lets pass the Bill Pelosi botox anyone

ucharette, robbing SS hurts SS robbing general funds hurts other things that have been robbed. What does a two month extension really do, give me a break it's a gimmick for votes nothing less, if they were really serious they would work on a real middle class break. Both parties need to realize they have to negotiate whats good for all the people not just their own party. Stop the spending ,stop the tax cuts for the rich, stop trying to divide the country, stop tax loopholes, everyone have a share in paying taxes it's your country too. How many of you play the lottery? Why?

herzogzwei

Well if payroll taxes do go back up, they should go up for everyone 100%...meaning that if 100% of my pay is subject to payroll taxes, then 100% of every ones else pay should be subject to payroll taxes.

I'm OK with that provided that Capital Gains are taxed at the same rate as income tax.

Didn't anyone read how the 2 month Tax Cut,Unemployment extension and the Doctor Fix are paid for? Let me help you out if you haven't heard. The Funds come from an INCREASE in the FEE that Fannie,Freddie and FHA charges to guarantee a Home Loan. Think of it this was you save about $30 per week for 8 weeks. That's $240 Total. Now the Fee increase would cost a Home Buyer about $15 per month for 360 months. That's a MINIMUM of $540 added cost. This is based on a 30 year loan for a $150,000 House

Paid for by increasing home loan guarantee fees charged to mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration by 0.1 percentage point. The fee would be passed on to homebuyers and woud apply to many new purchases and refinancings starting Jan. 1.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/payroll-tax-cut-bills-as-approved-by-house-senate/article_d4b98b7f-e21f-504b-96b8-564bb1fb3ff1.html

Now that fee would be on EVERY HOUSE Sold that is guaranteed by Fannie,Freddie and the FHA sold for the next 10 years! So we pay 10 years for 2 months of Tax Cuts. Sounds like a Deal to me!!

Benjamin-2070774-It is time the Democrats come to Washington to work with the Republicans instead of forcing issues they know the Republicans cannot move on without givebacks form the Democrats.

You must be joking, any person with a head on their shoulders knows for a fact that the Republican came into D.C with a "No Compromise" attitude. They didn't compromise on anything, last year they wanted the tax extension to cover the 1% so they slap that on to the bill for unemployment compensation without any way to pay for it except to borrow that money from China to pay it off. But all of a sudden the tax holiday HAS to be paid for because it affect the middle class. They can't imagine asking the 1% to sacrifice a little for the better good of the people...because the GOP "God" Glover says so. So guess what, the language in the bill has the middle class paying for it because who else borrows money to buy a home? I feel sorry for those middle class that has to endure the GOP's shady deals but you're one of the people I do not feel any pity for because you're been brainwashed into thinking GOP is for the better good.

The republican/tea bagger party typical bulls#!t. They don't have a clue.

It's just more obstructionism. Why is anyone surprised.

Yeah, I know, Eric. Shocker!!!

Have any of you ever read an article before jumping to your Obama cheer leading positions?

This was part of Obama's Job Creation Act back in 2010. Get a damn clue before you make even bigger fools of yourselves.

Galt-2012

That's all they have. The truth doesn't support their positions so they just echo the idiotic talking points taught to them by their leaders. Can't have the liberals wasting precious energy using their brain cells you know.

You have to be able to laugh. The party of Harry Reid is calling the Republicans obstructionists despite the fact that there are now over a dozen House-passed bills sitting on his desk. But it must be those obstructionist teabaggers causing the problems.

Bush spent the nation into bankruptsy even though obama has spent nearly as much in three years as Bush did in eight.

The Republicans want the nation to fail even though nearly half of the nation are Republicans.

The Republicans are the party of the rich even though seven off the top ten richest people in Congress are Democrats.

The list goes on and on. The Democrats and their followers have no credibilty as they are so detached from the truth.

elliot and fast - you would both be laughable if you weren't so sad. You don't have a clue. Bush's budget figures never included both wars - Obama's do because he wanted to be honest with the country. I know - a totally new concept for the GOP. Pathetic little morons are all the GOP has.

Talk about not knowing anything - the two of your are poster children for that.

Don't forget that the do nothing democrat senate has been operating without a budget for three years now. Which is against our laws. A two month extension? How pathetic. The house of representives agreed on a one year payroll tax cut. And you liberals are harping about a pathetic two month extension by the democrat senate? Also, two pathetic pieces of information. First, this cut should be in the income tax and not payroll tax cut. Why? Because the payroll tax cut comes out of social security, which is already paying out more than taking in. This just brings the date for insolvency closer. Second, $40 per employee will not get employers to hire. It will do nothing.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy as long as the wealthy have some consideration for those in the nation that work to help make their wealth...something most wealthy democrats seem to understand but most wealthy conservatives see as only a drain on their wealth when they become unemployed and even when they are working for them.

That idea came from Obama himself to make it look like he was agreeing to an income tax cut when it really was an employee's Social Security contribution reduction. In other words, no tax cut, just keep some of your own money, which will reduce your future Social Security check, after I'm long gone, of course.

This was a democratic bill introduced last Dec. before the republicans took over the House.

Gop, have to agree with you there, they do make it look like they favor the rich.

Sparky do you have facts to back up your claims? To the Liberal commentator's here, do you ever respond without name calling? Just curious.

wlee - stop the hate crimes!!!! (and also the voter intimidation!!) Your party's 15 minutes is just about up....

Fancy, I believe the deal fell through because Obama increased the spending portion of the Bill from what I remember.

As a small business owner, I totally agree. This creates no uncertainty for a business owner & makes my employees happy!

What businesses need are customers with bucks.

What a novel concept - customers with money! But, that would mean jobs wouldn't it? The GOP/TP doesn't want that part of the concept.

Phine, when Obama had complete control of Congress he could of passed any jobs bill he wanted, why didn't he do it?

Boner would screw a pile of rocks if he thought there was a snake in there.

The real question Ana, is who is in charge of the House? The orange dude or the weasel (Cantor)?

What is a two month extension? How pathetic of the democrats and liberals. Just for you liberals. The Republicans want and voted on a one year extension and your pathetic democrat reid, submitted only a two month extension. Why are people bringing this up?

The problem is that the parties very rarely work together anymore. Instead they simply stay diametrically opposed on every issue and spend a lot of effort trying to make sure the other party does not get its way. That is why the current two party "Reps vs. Dems" system we have is just not working. Which is likely why our founding fathers did not want to have political parties at all, much less a system where there were only two voices in each house of Congress (one Rep voice and one Dem voice) and only two legitimate choices in almost every election. That is why we need some systemic changes to correct the deficiencies that have arisen since our nation began 200 years ago and that are resulting in a system where our elected representatives are focused only on reelection and the needs and desires of the party with which they affiliate and the few large contributors to that party as opposed to what is good for the majority of Americans and the country as a whole.

I encourage everyone to check out the American Overhaul Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org, which sets forth a set of proposed amendments designed to correct these problems. The amendments are focused on six separate areas of concern: Congressional Term Limits, Federal Election Campaign Reform, Congressional Size Limits, Congressional Compensation Limits, Elimination of Party Favoritism, and Federal Budget-Deficit Reform. And, if you agree with the proposals, show your support for the Act, and also share it with your friends, family, and state and federal elected representatives so that we may actually make a positive impact on the future of our nation.

Mark,

Thanks for regurgitating the Republican talking point going forward. "You liberals said no to one years worth of this tax credit" and leave out, "because you didn't want to pay less taxes on the backs of the poor and disabled and public servants". Thanks again for the regurgitation!

Sweetie, show me when the GNOP has ever bargained or compromised in good faith. Then we will talk. Until then, keep drinking your tea.

Schumer is one of the lead clowns in the Senate. He says "Negotiating with Speak Boehner is like nailing jello to the wall". No Chuckles, that would be what it is like to negotiate with Obama. Obama hasn't negotiated anything in his sorry life. For the first two years of his term, he only had to listen to what Nancy P told him to do, and he did it. The result is $5 trillion dollars more of debt (you do realize Obama will soon need to have the Debt Ceiling raised again). For the final and last two years of his term, Obama's behavior at the previous raising of the debt ceiling (which as a Senator he was totally against when Bush asked for the same) was embarrassing to watch at best. Budgets? Obama has no clue. Spending? More is better for Obama, no matter what. Obama has already caved on Keystone, he'll cave again on the payroll tax cut. It is his nature.

Cheryl, apparently you aren't paying attention.

89% of the Senate agreed.

That's both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly agreed.

It's the House Republicans who are holding Americans hostage.

The biggest fallacy of Republicans is the scare tactic that SS is going bankrupt and trying to place the blame on President Obama. It won't work. But it will get him re-elected.

Senate voted 89-11...its the republican teabaggers who have the difficulty negotiating...

And the Bush tax cuts where supposed be temporary and have yet to create any real significant number of jobs yet the GOP Tea Party want them to become permanent. And now that the Senate which passed their bill by a true bipartisan vote not like the one in the house where only 2 democrats voted for it. It seems amazing to me that Boehner says the house bill was passed by a bipartisan vote when there was more than 2 Republicans that voted against it so more Republicans voted against it than Democrats voted for it so how in any way was it passed by a bipartisan vote.

Oh yeah Cheryl, Dems are against jobs, uh huh....... And I guess Newt is for women. And Santa Claus really can fit down that chimney............... lol

Cheryl...Isn't that what Republicans have been doing since January 2009? No to anything President Obama planned? So...Who really is running the country if not your GOP obstructionists?

By the way, your GOP took the House when was that now? Oh that's right more than 1 year ago and still no jobs...not unless providing Canadians and Texans with jobs is the only job creation they know and understand.

Joanne...Clue for you ....Who held up funding the disasters this year in FEMA funding if not your precious little spoiled Tea Brats? President Obama isn't going to spend his presidency kissing control freak GOP butt. He did everything he said he'd do...Your guy had 8 years and spent it chopping wood and swaggering his butt, guns and mouth blazing.

Cheryl, you need to go back and re-read the article. The House GOP is not against the "two-month tax cut", they actually want it to be a "one-year tax cut". So who wants to bankrupt Social Security?

Oldman Phine, Newt did it a lot with Clinton so stop the partisan BS Ewent you and I both know that one of three parts of govt can't do squat with out the others so stop your BS. Obama had that so where's the jobs?

Dan, compromise on what? The house voted on a one year payroll taxcut and sent it to the senate. The senate voted on a two month extension and in the senate version, there were other fees and taxes increased. Cheryl brought up a good point that none of you liberals want to talk about. Do you liberals understand where the payroll tax cut money comes from? For you who do not. It comes out of the Social security fund. A fund that in 2010 was paying out more than taking in. The same one that before this payroll tax cut, was slated to become insolvent in 2036. For any person who has just a little bit of intelligience, it is pretty easy to figure out that if you take additional hundreds of billions out of SSI, the 2036 date will move up. Not one liberal has talked about the SSI financial problem, just like frank and waters did with Fannie and Freddie. It then collapsed. All the democrats can do is nothing and scare the seniors. The democrats are letting SSI collapse to play politics.

replaced by what?...exactly.

Bob-1887910 is just expressing his ideal right-wing orgasm fantasy.....

Bob ...only if enough Dagwoods and Daisy Maes leave Dogpatch long enough to figure out how to press a voting button. We've already had a taste of that Gingrichian BS. No thanks. And how many jobs will Bain Consulting Venture Capitalist Mitt Romney sell off to the highest bidders this time? Forget Paul...Libertarian with more ties to money rich groups than Trump. As for Big Mouth Bachmann...surely her cow mouth overloads her hummingbird brain.

It's killing the righties that every time they knock President Obama, he goes them one better and shows them up. Go President Obama Go! Sane, educated people are right behind you. The others won't leave DogPatch long enough to learn how to read much less vote.

Wow more name calling from ewent what a surprise, you have a serious problem with poddy mouth, a nice word goes a long way. If being educated is calling people names then you must be a genius, I on the other hand would call that uneducated, but that's just my opinion.

Considering Republicans and conservatives have done nothing but point fingers and blame Obama before he even got into office you blow your credibility out the window.

...the choices remain newt the serial cheater mittflip bachmann turner in overherhead luke perrys brother and the republican who wants to smoke pot paul

Yeah that's why they want a year extension instead of 2 months...

... only if the Senate bit on the pipeline bull that they poisoned the package with. If they TRULY wanted the extension to be for a year, they would have sent it through to the Senate the first time without any dealbreakers riding piggyback.

Nice try Ellie... fail.

Imagine that, a years tax break and jobs for the Unions as well as less dependency on Arab oil.

RPE...Sometimes a president is too smart for the GOP and his spine isn't the part of his anatomy he uses most.

With President Obama, it's brain power, not control freak power. Everything this president said he'd do, he's done and in 3 years. Where was Bush's spine? Or is this going to be the one where we aren't allowed to remind the idiots who voted for that loser for 8 years what a failure they voted for.

MY president is doing all we voted for him to do. The only ones bitching up a storm are the Bush losers who thought it was always going to be "My way or the highway". Think again.

What he has done is spend us into more debt, lost more jobs and now he wont give us the pipe line to give us more jobs. Keep drinking the kool-aid and watch America fall.

Once the pipeline is built, who do you think is going to have the jobs?

Sheila, the refinery workers, the people transporting the oil such as truckers, gas station attendants People who maintain the integrity of the pipe.

NO, just blame the Teapublicans in Congress. Everybody knows this??? - where you been at homey???

Black mail

Rocky Mountain...Keystone was a done deal between US Big Oil and CanOil a year ago. The Republicans are just doing their usual smoke and mirrors game so taxpayers won't figure out what a loss this will be to the economy. Texas is so big on states' rights until it tries to ram Big Oil down the throats of states' that don't want their slime ball industry in their state. That's why the GOP was so hot to insist that no FEMA funding could be disseminated to states with disasters unless all of the alternative energy funding was removed....Big time big plug for Big Oil.

Is this what the government in this country is coming down to? The whims of Big Oil? They'll bring in thousands of miles of oil trucks and that idiotic pipeline but the oil will not benefit one single American. The whole intention is to give Canada an exit port to export their oil. Slime balls in Big Oil don't want Americans to figure that out.

And those supposed millions of jobs? 12,000 and all to Canadians. Go read the Canadian papers if you don't believe it.

ewet,you are absolutely right about this being about jobs for Canadians.My brother-in-law has worked for Imperial Oil Exxon for many years, and he says the people he works with are hoping that the Keystone Pipline Project goes forward.They were already told that means more jobs for them.

Oh, you mean like the Democrats who attached the takeover of the Federal Student Loan Program to the Health Bill?

Good point. Please put in print exactly who was responsible for all the BS added to this bill. Name names, call them out.

There is no MIDDLE CLASS! There's the WORKING CLASS, the OWNERS, and the MANAGERS.

Re-read the article you missed the whole 5th paragraph on how the republicans think a 2 month cut is BS and want a full year cut, here I'll paste it for you: The speaker suggested that, instead, Republicans would vote to send their own year-long tax cut extension to conference, the formal process by which the House and Senate are supposed to resolve the differences between their bills. That process has been a relative rarity in this Congress, since most major agreements have been worked out typically through outside, technically informal talks.

You missed the point that the Repubs want all their 'goodies' attached to this bill or it's dead.

Sometimes, the press is so blind to what is going on. CNN had an interview with a GOP House memeber who went on and on about the insecurity and software problems that would be created with "only a two month extension". That is total BS. The issue is not a one year extension vs. a two month extension. The issue is the numerous riders the GOP is attaching to the one year extension. Once again, the GOP House has struck again, and has cranked up the GOP smoke and mirror machine. Why CNN did not point blank bring up the bill attachments the GOP is demanding as a condition to the one year extension is totally unacceptable.

You're right but unfortunately the government is in place for only the 1%. It's their gain, not ours. The US government is ready to hand over $1 Trillion dollars to the european banks while middle class families must scrounge for a $1000 / year tax cut. If they want to get the ecnonomy going they need to take write downs on home loans, on student debt and credit card debt! Why is is that B of A can borrow money at 1% and they loan it back to me at 13%?

MT, because 20 years of GOP Presidents have favored the Big Money. Banks/Big Corp/Wealth use the ordinary people (99%) to feed the few Fat Cats (1%) on the top.

lol. You should pull your head out of the sand. For 50 years, Presidents and Congress have favored Big Money, Banks/Big Corp/Wealth use the 53% who actually pay taxes to feed the 47% of the population who do not.

It's not 99% vs 1%. It's the 53% of people who work hard for a living vs the worthless, lazy welfare scum who want a piece of someone else's pie. You're still in the minority, so you played your hand prematurely with the OWS Movement. You should have waited till the pathetic bum number reached 51% before going all-in.

MT what is this year tax cut? The house voted for a one year tax cut and the senate voted a two month. The $2,000 for the year is a bogus figure. Again, people like you do not understand where the money comes from. It is Social security. Why would anyone want to take more money out of SSI? For others who do not understand the Bush tax cuts. It was not just for the wealthy, it was for all Americans paying income tax. That includes the middle class, also. If the Bush tax cuts expire, all marginal rates increase by 5%. That's right. If you are a person paying income tax, whether you are rich, middle class, or lower class, your taxes will increase by 5%. It's amazing the party of the middle and lower class would neglect to inform people of this. For you who do not believe this.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

And we're wondering why Congress isn't working period let alone not working for US. A Senators term consist of 6 years. In my humble opinion no one should be allowed to serve in Congress, in any capacity, more than 12 years. The list below is unbelievable...Congress...the best scam in town!

Senators and years in Congress:

1963
Daniel Inouye D-HI..........................48 years

1975
Patrick Leahy D-VT.........................36 years

1977
Richard Lugar R-IN.........................34 years
Orrin Hatch R-UT............................34 years

1978
Max Baucus D-MT..........................33 years
Thad Cochran R-MS.......................33 years

1979
Carl Levin D-MI.............................32 years

1981
Chuck Grassley R-IA......................30 years

1983
Jeff Bingaman D-NM.....................28 years

1985
John Kerry D-MA...........................26 years
Tom Harkin D-IA...........................26 years..........plus 10 years as Representative.......36 years total
Mitch McConnel R-KY....................26
Jay Rockefeller D-WV...................26

1987
Barbara Mikulski D-MD...................24 years...........plus 10 years as Representative.......34 years total
Richard Shelby R-AL.......................24
John McCain R-AZ..........................24
Harry Reid D-NV............................24 years...........plus 4 years as Representative........28 years total
Kent Conrad D-ND........................24
Herb Kohl D-WI.............................24

1989
Joe Lieberman ID-CT......................22 years

1990
Daniel Akaka D-HI.........................21 years

1992
Dianne Feinstein D-CA...................19 years
.
1993
Barbara Boxer D-CA......................18 years............plus 10 years as Representative.......28 years total
Patty Murray D-WA.........................18
Kay Bailey Hutchinson R-TX...........18

1994
Jim Inhofe R-OK...........................17 years

1995
Olympia Snowe R-ME.....................16 years..........plus 16 years as Representative........32 years total
Jon Kyle R-AZ..............................16 years.............plus 8 years as Representative..........24 years total

1996
Ron Wyden D-OR..........................15 years

1997
Pat Roberts R-KS.........................14 years.............plus 16 years as Representative........30 years total
Dick Durbin D-IL...........................14 years.............plus 14 years as Representative........28 years total
Tim Johnson D-SD........................14 years.............plus 10 years as Representative........24 years total
Jack Reed D-RI.............................14 years............plus 6 years as Representatvie........20 years total
Mary Landrieu D-LA......................14
Jeff Sessions R-AL........................14
Susan Collins R-ME.......................14
Mike Enzi R-WY.............................14

1999
Chuck Schumer D-NY..................12 years.............plus 18 years as Representative..........30 years total
Mike Crapo R-ID..........................12 years............plus 6 years as Representative..........18 years total

2001
Bill Nelson R-ID.........................10 years.............plus 12 years as Representative...........22 years total
Tom Carper D-DE......................10 years.............plus 10 years as Representative...........20 years total
Debbie Stabenow S-MI.............10 years.............plus 4 years as Representative...........14 years total
Maria Cantwell D-WA................10 years.............plus 2 years as Representative...........12 years total

Right you are! With out a doubt they are just professional pols, more interested in getting re-elected than doing what's right for the country. 535 wealthy moochers in really nice public housing is what they are.

I say we have a staredown over their paychecks while they are staring at each other over raising our payroll taxes.

I agree!

It's not 99% vs 1%. It's the 53% of people who work hard for a living vs the worthless, lazy welfare scum who want a piece of someone else's pie. You're still in the minority, so you played your hand prematurely with the OWS Movement. You should have waited till the pathetic bum number reached 51% before going all-in.

I wonder if you have that worthless, lazy welfare pie-eating scum in proper perspective; especially when it comes to votes and fellow Americans. After listening to you... anyone without a job doesn't deserve life. Revealing and yet profoundly disrespectful republican viewpoint that is echoed over and over again without a shred of basis or truth.

I guess we'll see come election time... won't we?