Shaun-4252305,

Are you sure you want to go back to Clinton era tax rates? It means raising taxes on everyone...

Arnyrray;

Yes I am ok with it, heck under Clinton things worked well...

"How about paying my share also? That would be fair..."

Spoken like a true rightie...wants to Live in America, doesnt wanna chip in at all.

libsux - Don't act like the "special interest causes" you mentioned are only coming from the dem side. If you know anything, you know it's both sides that are at fault for this.

Republicans classify Defense spending as an entitlement that should never, never, ever, ever, be cut. No matter if the weapons never work and are useless in the types of wars we have been fighting at the behest of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

Chuck -

FYI - Defense is actually mandated by the Constitution (do you even understand what this means?), and is a required function of the federal government. It is NOT, by definition, an 'entitlement'.

Social Security and Medicare, while technically not entitlements, become entitlements when the recipient receives more (than paid in + interest returns) than they actually pay in - especially as those accounts have been robbed blind by Congresses - democrat and republican - since they stopped keeping the boxes locked. These federal benefits are not mandated by the Constitution, and as such need to be reasonably managed to allow taxpayers to recoup the taxes paid into these programs when they retire. So far, that has not happened . Changes will have to be made to both programs or they will become bankrupt sooner rather than later.

Medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, Section 8 housing, and all other aid programs are entitlement programs and will have to be cut back, especially for those who do not really need it. The stigma of recieving public aid should be returned to the equation. This type of aid should never become a way of life.

Illegals should not be receiving any aid whatsoever - anchor babies should not be treated as citizens when their parents have no intention of becomint citizens. No schooling should be provided for them either. If they go to a hospital, they should be reported to the INS and deported. Their country of origin can pay their bills for medical care, housing, incarceration, and the like.

Entitlements should be available ONLY to US citizens, and then only for a minimal amount of time.

We cannot continue to spend money that we have to borrow on things that are not required by our Constitution!

Tammy-311614.....

It is taking the Liberals some time to comprehend what you stated.

Maybe they will have a response next year AFTER the Presidential election.

Tammy. Your so called hateful word "anchor" babies are American citizens...the moment they take their first breath.

But, then again, you being conservative you only care about the fetus. It has nothing to do about being pro life. Because once a child is born, they are off your (and other conservatives) radar.

Regarding the approximately 47% who do not pay federal income tax...

Aside from the many self-employed/business owners who misuse write-offs to show zero income, and the fact that the poor (even folks who don't work) pay other taxes such as sales tax...

One main reason the working poor have been given tax credits (like the child credit, which is discriminatory so I would like to see this ended) and therefore receive refunds that basically wash whatever they paid in federal taxes -- A long time understanding on both sides of the aisle is that tax breaks for the working poor is one way to compensate for not indexing the minimum wage to inflation.

The minimum wage should be indexed to inflation anyway IMO, which would make it about $11/hour right now. There's a lot to this, but it's the same double-dip argument on behalf of the poor that righwingers make about capital gains or corporate taxes for the rich.

So the Democrats defeated a plan to extend ALL the current tax rates, and now the House will pass a plan to extend ALL the current tax rates.

Then, after lots of rhetoric, they will agree to extend ALL of the current tax rates for another year.

Whoopdedoo.

This is so predictable.

Businesses are not going to expand and hire more workers as long as the uncertainty of lots of new taxes and fees is hanging over them if they dare to expand and hire new workers.

By the way - Did anyone notice that Obamacare imposed about $300 Billion in new taxes on business owners over the next 10 years - one of the biggest tax increases in history - yet hardly a mention in the liberal media - and now Obama wants to punish them even more for being 'successful'.

Honestly, Obama doesn't have a clue when it comes to encouraging economic growth - He makes 'All of the wrong moves', and then finds someone to blame when people can't find jobs.

I would love to pay taxes..If I had a job!!!

Chuck-2258469 -- In addition, the Teapublicans are arguing that cuts to defense spending (NOTE: They are fighting cuts in spending, that's the first hypocrisy) will be cuts to jobs. So government creates jobs, but only in the Military Industrial Complex.

To the RWNJ spin, spin, spinning. You call it tomayto, I call it tomahto.

The Bush tax cuts were temporary because these were passed under reconciliation--and narrowly even so. This is why these are tax cuts, and not the current tax rate. Likewise, if these expire, you can't call it a tax hike. Get it?!

Clearly the repubs no longer care about the middle class and poor. Clearly the repubs do not represent the middle class and poor. Tammy is a perfect example of telling everyone only the middle class and poor have to sacrifice. Tammy knows she is trying to spin and put the economy crash on the middle class and poor. Blaming them for being on food stamps and needing social programs to keep the alive. At the same time Tammy and repubs want more of your money. The greedy rich do not want to pay for the problems they caused, making millions lose their jobs, homes, marriages, etc because of how they crashed the economy. Tammy and the greedy rich just don't want to pay their share of the damage they caused, they want the middle class and poor to pay for more tax breaks under Romney and Ryan plans.The repubs want MORE OF YOUR MONEY! McConnell Plan gives the rich more tax breaks and the middle class and poor more taxes.

Why would any one vote republicon knowing they are still doing the same banking scams and fighting stronger regulations that would protect the people of our nation? Every action repubs have taken has been to prevent the economy from getting stronger, just to make President Obama a one term President.

Vote President Obama/Biden 2012

The 2nd round of Bush tax cuts which we still have now were passed with 50 votes and Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote using 'reconciliation'. We were told that they would increase revenue for the federal government and reduce the deficit.

The only solution is to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and start from scratch next year.

The majority of Americans want the rich to pay more taxes.

You see, folks, this is why the Party of No is called the Party of No.

Starsailing, if we were asked if we wanted to pay more taxes, or would we rather that Starsailing should pay more taxes, I guarantee the vast majority would say Starling should pay more taxes. Tried to break that down as simple as possible for you........

The rich are not protesting higher taxes. They along with most of us are tired of the foolish ways the govt. spends the money.

The majority of Liberals want the "rich" to pay more. How in the fk did Obama come up with $200K being rich there star? And let's fk them even more, and say only "one" person in that marriage can be "rich" How fk'n mathematically challenged can one dumbass POTUS and Senate get?

Thankfully Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), (the Republican masquerading as an independent), will soon be gone. It will be interesting to see what Obama can accomplish with the backing of both houses.

He had it for his first two years in office. You are looking at it.

The party of no was created by Obama to get his healtcare bill through. The senate is playing silly little games, apparently to justify their salaries.

A nice Yahoo article from the CSM had a lovely quote from Senator Patty Murry, D-WA and member of her party's leadership went on record as stating that 'if there wasn't a deal by January, her party would be willing to let all the tax cuts expire to pressure Republicans to give ground'. According to Obama, the only thing standing in the way of extended tax breaks for the middle class is the GOP. For those that don't realize it, we are pawns people. NEITHER party is acting in our best interest, and NEITHER party is willing to compromise whatsoever. Not only are the Republicans saying it's our way or nothing, so is the Democratic party. In an interesting twist, some Democrats are wanting to allow the tax cuts for people making up to $1,000,000 instead of $250,000 - an action that Obama is vehemently opposed to.

Well, at least we know where both parties stand with regard to The People:

Democrats: For the benefit of the majority of The People.

Republicans: For the benefit of the majority of The People Who Also Happen To Be Corporations.

Contrary to popular belief, ther wasn't a 60 Dem majority at any point, since Obama took office. There are 2 Independents that caucus with the Dems, and one of those is Lieberman. It took what, 6 months for Norm Coleman to give up fighting for his seat that went to Al Franken. Then there's Ted Kennedy, whose health was failing him and subsequently died before finishing out his term, as did Robert Byrd of W.Virginia. Please stop spouting misinformation. Also realize that Blanche Lincoln (Ark), and Ben Nelson (Neb) were DINOs, and Mary Landrieu (La) is very close to being a DINO also.

Kevin says the rich are not protesting higher taxes...? Are you kidding? They are doing it now to the max! Repubs held the country hostage last year to keep the same low taxes from expiring and caused the nations rating to tank!!!!! McConnell again said more tax breaks for the rich or no deal. Kevin stop watching fox news and forget your spin nonsense....christ!

Do search on....fox news dumber ...and see studies that prove people who watch fox news are actually dumber for it!

Lani.....All polls have shown the majority of people want the rich to pay more taxes.

Including repubs.

If people were asked if lani should have gone to school at least once in his life...they would all agree.

Obama/Biden 2012

Shaun-4252305:

I am middle class and am willing to pay more taxes as long as the bush cuts are not fully extended. I am in favor of extending them for middle class, but no one else. We need to go back to Clinton era tax rates

That would mean that Congress would be controlled by the Republican Party (1995-2001). Plus, the lowest tax bracket would receive the highest tax increase - from 10% to 15%.

People complain about the jobs problem well here an Idea the FED's need to stop giving the freeloaders low interest loans, they have no incentive to create jobs, you want a loan well how about puting people to work for it, simple as that, You've got too PAY to PLAY, there are no free rides.

So, the libs do what they do best! And that is try to divide America and offer no solutions. The fact is that raising taxes on the so-called rich will do absolutely nothing to benefit the economy or those who aren't the so-called rich. Yet, the dumbos are out praising Obama and the libs in the Senate as if they were doing something constructive. I guess their logic is that those making more than them are "rich" and thus are likely to hire more people for more money when they have less money in their pockets. Yup, sounds like a winner to me.

And that is try to divide America and offer no solutions

Hey witchy-witch: You do realize the tax cuts proposed by the democrats applies to every single American, right?

Witchy....you do know Rove's master plan to divide and conquer the middle class plan worked. Rove and repubs got the repub middle class to hate unions(even though many of them are union members) and got repub middle class to vote against themselves while getting those minions to vote for him and his rich friends.

Imagine that divide and conquer middle class repubs against the other part of the middle class.................TOO FUNNY THEY VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES !!!!

RoyWilson: Well said. If liberals would actually take a college economics course and have even a basic idea how an economy works they would understand why the policies of this president have failed.

For a business to make money they must make more than it costs to produce. Otherwise why produce. But with so much uncertainty like:

1) What will my taxes be as soon as January 2013? They don't know-so they wait.

2) What will my costs be when ObamaCare is fully implemented? They don't know-so they wait.

3) How will the new Dodd-Frank law affect my business costs? They don't know-so they wait.

4) How will increased regulations affect my business costs? They don't know-so they wait.

5) How will the incredible increase in the money supply (Federal Reserve actions) affect inflation which affect my business costs? They don't know-so they wait.

And here we have a president that is creating more and more uncertainty in the private sector forcing businesses to wait even more. Then the president actually says that if you have a business you didn't build that on your own? And liberals want to reelect this anti-business president for another four years to damage the private sector further? Amazing..............

reddev: You do realize that the dems have not proposed any tax cuts don't you? What their proposal is is for taxes not to be raised. And even then, if you just look at the headline (you'll see it in the article too, but you don't need to actually read it because the headline is accurate, for a change), the prevention of tax increases does not apply to every American. I'm not going to tell you who it doesn't apply to, I'll just give you another chance to read the article to figure it out. Please tell me again why the headline is misleading. If you make $500,000 a year your taxes won't go up, is that right? Then go back to my post and tell me how great it is for everyone.

starsailing: Nice try, but you don't exactly have a grasp on reality. Unions have the idea that money grows on trees. I can't tell you how many times that union workers told company employees to stand firm so they can get better wages only for the employees to find themselves without jobs because the company can't afford to pay what the union is demanding. What do you think happened at GM and Chrysler? Do you really think that the public would continue to pay $5000 extra for cars just so the employees can get paid what the union says demands that they receive? The fact is that Scott Walker and the legislature SAVED a heck of a lot of jobs. The union was perfectly willing to hang a lot of employees just so that the ones remaining could say that they were making more money. That's hardly representing ALL of the union members. No, they don't vote against themselves. They vote in favor of keeping their jobs in light of economic realities rather than hoping that they are among the lucky ones to survive, while hoping that the company will also survive. I can't tell you how many times I've seen union workers sitting in bars proclaiming that they won't work for less than (so many dollars an hour), all they while being unemployed for years because the reality is that there aren't jobs doing what they were doing for that many dollars an hour. Now, starsailing, I'm sure that I must be wrong and that you own a company that is unionized and you are willing to pay whatever the union demands and that it hasn't affected your bottom line at all. Such is the mentality of the union man.

ProBiz,

Spare us all your self-adulation. Both liberals and conservatives go to college and both have taken economics courses. If you had been paying attention in yours, you would understand that it is far from a science, but really just theory. BTW, did you happen to notice that private sector jobs have actually risen vs the steep decline from the policies?

If you had an ounce of brain power, you would understand the comments POTUS made: Did you build the road you drive on? Did you build the school you attended? Did you build the grid which delivers you electricity? Did you write the textbooks you studied?

Instead you want to focus on a few choice words, as if that is the message. That works ok for the drooling ditto-heads; not so much for those that use rational thought.

It's obvious you don't agree with POTUS... try to use some logical reasoning as to why and maybe people will take you seriously.

Funny Witch - you completely missed the point. Does the solution give a tax break to every single American? Yes, it does.

kevin, you say that the rich are not protesting the taxes it's only because they have the money to pay them.

sam, the only ones getting low interest rates are the rich that can afford to pay their bills and buy new cars therefore getting their credit score way up there, as for putting people to work ,that is easy for you to say because you probably have a job, how about finding those jobs that you think exists and let us know about them cuz there are still a lot of people out of work.

Tammy: The Constitution doesn't mandate any particular level of spending on defense. Defense spending is treated as an entitlement in every sense of the word. In addition, there's no clear relationship between how much is spent and how well protected we are. Obviously weapon systems that don't work are at best a waste of money and at worst, a danger to our troops when they rely on weapons that fail to operate properly.

We could cut defense spending in half and still be fulfilling the constitutions requirements and in any case in what world does defense mean the ability to invade every time a republican president wants some action?

Illegals should not be receiving any aid whatsoever - anchor babies should not be treated as citizens when their parents have no intention of becomint citizens.

This is a pointless argument since a change to the Constitution would be required and that is extremely unlikely. I also think that citizenship should be based on the parents, as in other countries, but at some point we just have to move on. Our political system has lost the ability to be practical.

Sacto: So you are aware I actually TEACH college economics so spare ME your "I know more than you do" response. Primarily because you were wrong on so many levels.

1) It IS a science hence the reason Economics is taught in the Social Sciences department. Yes it starts out as "theory" but has been tested empirically on so many levels. Yes, still some debate in certain areas but there are some proven concepts such as when taxes decrease consumers have more money to spend and DO spend more. That is factual. The debate is by how much (called the Marginal Propensity to Consume or MPC). When taxes INCREASE consumer and business spending (aka "investment") decrease - that is factual. The debate is by how much (again MPC). So when Obama wants to raise taxes it WILL decrease GDP - the debate is how much.

2) The comment by Obama saying "If you have a business you didn't build that" was DIRECTLY related to business itself and NOT roads and bridges as he is trying to say now - and here is how I know that. As much as Obama is a dangerous and anti-capitalist president he IS a very intelligent man. He doesn't speak clearly incorrect English. The word "that" is singular like regarding a table he would say "are you going to use that". If there are chairs nearby and he was referring to chairs he would say "are you going to use THOSE"!!

So if he was meaning to say "If you have a business you didn't build the roads and bridges" he would have said "If you have a business you didn't build THOSE"!! The key word is "those". Obama said what he meant and that was a person did not build a business. This whole "roads and bridges" argument is to try and backpedal to the individuals not smart enough to see the difference (I wouldn't have expected YOU to fall into the "not smart enough" category but I guess I was wrong).

3) No I did not write the textbooks I studied (and use when I teach) but I have seen and used probably somewhere around 50 Economics textbooks over the years and there are a couple interesting points that EVERY textbook states and is undisputed:

a) When you raise taxes GDP decline and unemployment increases (ceteris paribus)

b) When in a Recessionary GDP Gap you either increase government spending or decrease taxes (or a combination of both). You CAN'T increase government spending and INCREASE taxes - that neutralizes the two and becomes uneffective (like our president)

c) When in a Recessionary GDP Gap you must give the private sector stability and a way of knowing what the policy is of the federal government AND the ability to know what is expected over the next three years in regards to policy changes, taxes, regulations, etc. (which this president is doing the opposite - again creating uncertainty)

I suggest you take another economics course because you must have had too much bong resin remaining in your brain at the time you took it last time.

@sacto: please tell me what school you took your economics class. I want to make sure my kids don't pick your alma mater.

Explain to me what your economic philosophy is. The president is not following any economic philosophy taught in any college classroom.

Explain to me how a "middle out" or "bottom up" economy is implemented. It resonates with the uneducated and uninformed populace. But, what does that look like?

The president is merely pandering to his base. Liberals have the notion that all business is evil. Business owners are greedy slave drivers who only exist to enslave their unfortunate employess. The wealthy (an ever shrinking group these days) are evil and only got their wealth as a result of theft. Obama knows full well what he is saying. Add his anti-business remarks to his actions of enlarging welfare geometrically and what you get is a man hell-bent on creating a socialist state where all things are run and controlled by the government. Socialism allows for private ownership of business but it tells the business what they can produce, who they can hire, how much they can pay them, who the business can sell to and regulates the business at every turn.

Essentially, under Obama, business owners are the renters of their business, they get to keep the place clean and pay for repairs and cover medical costs for the employees. They also get to be the unpaid bookkeepers for the government, they get to distribute their income to the government so that the government can 'redistribute' it to any and everybody, regardless of whether or not they are productive members of society or useless drones who only suck the system dry.

reddev: Huh? Sorry, but saying black is pink or to is fro doesn't say anything. Saying to people that we are going to raise your taxes but we are giving you a tax break is just plain dumb and misleading. Regardless of how you want to define things (and you certainly don't want to use normal definitions), taking more money out of someone's pocket so the "government" can spend it as it pleases is not a TAX BREAK! It is a tax increase. And since their taxes are being increased, you can't honestly say that EVERYONE is getting a tax break.

Which, gets us back to the original premise. There is no tax cut being proposed. There is no solution of the problems we are facing. If you owe a million dollars then holding a gun to someone else and taking $20 to help pay off that loan is no solution to the problem. That is in essence what the dems have proposed. This will help no one. Sure, people who get their thrills by watching someone else have it socked to them may gain a momentary spike in adrenaline, but the fact is that they are no better off for it. And they will be a heck of a lot worse off if the one they stole the $20 from is the one who pays their wages.

greatpretender - actually, in the past taxes were raised during recessions and that is what helped us get out. Try reading history!

Hmmm . . . seems to me that technically we are OUT of the recession. It offically ended June of 2009 per economists.

Are we where we want to be? Heck no, but we are slowly climbing up.

greatpretender is an appropriate screen name for Republicans lately.

hey, i'm just repeating what your great leader said!!

you calling him stoopid?

i had a dog named benji..i miss that little joker!

and we are in a recession! That occurred at the end of the George W. Bush regime. You know, after FOUR tax cuts for the millionaires and Billionaires that were going to bring us prosperity from here to eternity. Um, it did, for the millionaires, Billionaires, The Caymans, Ireland, Switzerland, China, et al.

pretender......its not raising tax's...its letting a program die. Should have been gone years ago. Thanks Repbs/Teas for the mess the whole world is in.

And you wonder why Romney bets His money in foreign banks. Traitor!

prays -

Sorry to disappoint you, but letting the current rates expire WILL be an increase in taxes. It will probably throw the country' economics into a tailspin - especially with Obamacare and the increase in FICA rates tossed into the mix as well.

Tammy-311614.....:Sorry to disappoint you, but letting the current rates expire WILL be an increase in taxes. It will probably throw the country' economics into a tailspin - especially with Obamacare and the increase in FICA rates tossed into the mix as well."

That is exactly Mr. Obama's Anita Dunn's goal.

All these Obama initiatives are not coming from the West Wing but from his "special advisers" and NOT his Cabinet members. BTW, when is the last time Mr. Obama met with his Cabinet ?

Let all the tax cuts expire. The tax rates worked in 90's....why can't they work now? Should be any skin off the butts of the middle class, should it? The Dems have been telling us for years that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich anyway. So it shouldn't have much effect on the middle class to let them all expire.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm not afraid to pay an extra 3 to 5%. Oh but capital gains will go from 15% back to 28% for Willard. Poor thing. He won't be able to hide as much money in the Cayman Islands.

You see, folks, this is why the Party of No is called the Party of No.

And what do you know. Again Democrats are creating laws to TIE THE HANDS OF BUSINESS!

But thankfully GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are pressuring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to ban robocalls to cell phones.

Committee Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.) and Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), and others wrote to the FCC in December to oppose such a ban. The FCC released the letter and its response on Thursday. Thank heaven for the telecommunications lobby!

Support your GOP congress. We want to receive ROBOCALLS on our cells phones morning thru night, Mon thru Sun, holidays included. WE do not want the Democrats to create laws forbidding these important Robocalls. Enough regulations! Let freedom ring and ring and ring and ring and ring and ring and ring and ring.

And this is why the party of Jackasses is called the party of Jackasses.

Guess we now know what business ol frankie is in huh?

Tell you what Jon, I'll hug your elephant while you kiss my a$$. Is it a deal?

LMAO, Rich. I doubt he takes you up on it though.

I love the way liberals are saying how we are moving in the "right direction". Hogwash!! Let me list for you the Obama accomplishments.

1) Since Obama took office we have had a net LOSS of jobs. He will be the ONLY president in history to have LESS people working than when he took office.

2) We now have the lowest labor participation rate since the 60's

3) We now have 1 in 7 on Food Stamps - highest percentage since the program was started

4) We have the highest percentage on Welfare since the 1960's

5) We have the highest percentage of unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression

6) We have to lowest GDP growth over the first term of a president in history

7) We have had more companies relocate OUT of the U.S. in the last three years than any other three year period in history

And I can go on and on. This president by ANY economic measure has been a total failure.

But let's play a quick game. Let's assume for just a moment (I know it is scary) but assume John McCain and Sarah Palin won the election in 2008. Now read my list above again. Do you liberals think for a MOMENT you would be telling me we are moving in the "right direction". Do you think for a MOMENT you would be defending John McCain and Sarah Palin for the condition of the economy today? If you were being honest you would tell me you would be YELLING and SCREAMING that they have been a complete failure on the economy. And I would be agreeing with you. Now, remind yourself Obama is president. What do you say NOW about the condition of the economy?

Probusiness: The economy pretty much sucks and we all know it. The difference is we think Obama's tenure spending stimulus on creating jobs by bailing out states and for infrastructure projects was more effective than the 1.5 trillion Bush used mostly for banks and financial institutions.Maybe you should google what happened the last half year of Bush's presidency where we lost 5 million jobs, 11 trillion in net worth and 400 billion a year in IRS receipts with these many millions dumped on unemployment, food stamp and welfare roles right before Obama became president. You'll find lots of good articles and it's never too late to get an education.

Most of the TARP money paid out by Bush/Paulson admin has been paid back to the treasury. The TARP money given to GMAC and GM, not so much. Guess who authorized those funds? Most of the ARRA monies were wasted as the shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready. Bailing out state and local municipalities that overspend is only a solution if you plan on continuing to bail them out year after year. Don't even get me started on the "Green" monies given to Obama's contributors. They saw a better return on investment than anyone in the stockmarket.

Middle class Joe announced in 2010 that we had the summer of recovery. Blabbermouth Debbie Wasserman-Shultz said in June 2011 that the Democrats own the economy. Two examples of when Democrats thought things were improving, but they have been backtracking ever since.

The Democratic Party just needs to quit playing games with taxes. Decide once and for all how much of peoples money the government should be entitled to take. Then if they get their way, there should be no reason they cannot balance the budget.

But everyone should know that these tax increases on "millionaires" are meaningless. A drop in the proverbial bucket. They won't cover the tab of more then a couple days spending in Washington, and yet liberals are frothing at the mouth thinking the Democrats are solving our deficit.

Nothing more then political theater in an election year. Much like every election brings out promises to reform the tax code, promises that are now decades old. The simple truth is these tax rates will do nothing to even slow the hemorrhaging and everyone in Washington knows it.

This country is doomed, not if, but when. The math is pretty simple with the deficits we are running and the unfunded liabilities we are on the path of no return. No one in Washington cares, and no one in Washington is trying to prevent it from happening. They are all about letting the good times roll, and hoping their name is lost in the mix when disaster strikes.

Here is where the American people are completely stupid. Do you really believe that those in Washington would tell you that the nation is going to collapse financially? That would cause panic and accelerate the inevitable. Nope, Washington is all about smoke and mirrors and preparing for the day they have to pick up the pieces. Death, taxes, financial collapse, all facts of life.

Fear not, our President has found a solution to our countries problems

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is creating a new office to bolster education of African-American students.

The White House says the office will coordinate the work of communities and federal agencies to ensure that African-American youngsters are better prepared for high school, college and career.

Larry: So interesting you suggest I get an education but yet you don't do suitable research to begin with. Let me educate you and give you a history lesson at the same time.

It was the Summer of 2006. George Bush was president. The economy was doing great. How can I say that? Well all economic indicators showed that but the PROOF is that the Democrats were not running a campaign on the economy. They couldn't. It was doing great. They ran a campaign on the wars and how it was time to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. So they convince the voters to elect Democrats to take over the House and Senate and the voters agreed. So now Democrats take power of the Legislative Branch in January 2007 and block EVERY policy that George Bush wanted AND had been doing over the previous 6 successful economic years.

But now Democrats could control George Bush and did not allow him to continue the policies that had been successful. What happens in late 2007 when these successful policies could not continue due to the Democrats (BTW, the first party of "No")? That's right the economy starts to drastically decline. Of COURSE it will decline with constant threats of tax increases and blocking what was successful policies. So the Democrats force the economy into a collapse and somehow AND SOMEHOW convince the unintelligent voters it was George Bush's fault (how Democrats blamed Bush for what THEY did was actually quite remarkable but simply confirms the unintelligence of the Democrat voter).

So somehow Democrats get reelected AND win the White House. So now Democrat policies are pushed harder and the economy collapses even further hitting nearly 10% unemployment under Democrat rule. And AGAIN still somehow AND SOMEHOW blame Bush (AMAZING the incompetence of the typical Democrat voter!!). But the people are smarter than that and realized their mistake in 2010 electing Republicans to the House. Amazing how the economy, at least marginally, stabilized in January 2011. Why? Because the people realized that although Obama has damaged this economy the Republican House can at least STOP further damage.

So here we are. Businesses are anxiously waiting to find out what happens in November. Will Romney win which will bring back common sense private sector supporting government or will Obama the anti-business anti-capital president try to complete the disasssembly of our great nation.

So businesses wait. They can't invest because they don't know what is going to happen. Heck they don't even know what their taxes are going to be in less than 6 months!! What will ObamaCare cost them? What will Dodd-Frank cost them? How will the strengthened EPA affect them with new arbitrary regulations and increased costs? So we wait. The economy CANNOT recover any time soon just because there is so much uncertainty. When there is uncertainty businesses "wait". And the Democrat party, and Obama, have done NOTHING but create more uncertainty. So we wait.

That is the lesson for today. Thank you for visiting my class and learning something today and I hope you continue to take the time to continue learning what is ACTUALLY happening.

I am not spamming.

I am taking a chapter out of the beloved Reichwing "Bush Doctrine" of a preemptive strike with the knowledge that I will be censored by the Right...despite not violating the COH.

You see, folks, this is why the Party of No is called the Party of No.

What about the middle class folks who don't drink coffee and drive a 9 year old s**t box?

thats why they call the dems the party of tax and spend

Stick: I'd agree, but only if they eliminate the loopholes for the rich. Romney won't release his taxes because he had years he paid no taxes even though earning 10's of millions of dollars. Make tax laws fair then do a blend of cuts and taxes to get the deficit down starting with cutting defense spending and getting us involved in less foreign affairs.

He paid over 3 million in income taxes in 2010. Where do you get that he paid NO taxes. You should contact the IRS if you think he's cheating on his taxes. If I made that much money, you could bet your bottom dollar, I'd put it to use in places where I'd get the best return on my money. The US isn't that place anymore.

We have a simple choice this November, let the Republicans run this country into the ground, or let the Democrats run this country into the ground. There is nothing serious happening in Washington, and this tax battle is political theater that comes around every election.

This country is doomed, and no one in Washington cares. Plain and simple. There is no way we can amass the level of debt and come up with the money for our unfunded liabilities. The math simply does not compute. It is not as if Washington is going to tell everyone to prepare for the looming disaster, but rest assured they are.

I often wonder if either side really cares about the average American. I truly don't think they do. I'm amazed at how many vulgar rants are allowed on this discussion. Four or five I've read so far should have been collapsed, but weren't. The American people will find a way to take back this country, and I've got an awful feeling it won't be peaceful either.

yup

This is a Liberal rag Never, just everyone obviously thinks you're a fuggin moron I guess.

Yes they did, and most of them are over restricting abortion. That sure isn't the way to help create jobs, much less help the middle-class. Is it just me or do the Republicans think that passing abortion bills equals passing jobs bills? I say that considering they ran on JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBs!!! in 2010, and when they get into office, it became ABORTION!!! ABORTION!!! ABORTION!!!. They have no incentive to help the American public, because they believe that if they can just make the economy stall out or become worse, then it will pay them political dividends in Nov. It seems, the insanity continues.

Adler - The republican-cotrolled House has at least done their job and passed a budget, both last year and this year!

What has Reid done in the Senate? He's declared them DOA, along with every other bill passed by the House! Budgets are required by law, and he will not even allow them to come to the floor of the Senate for debate, let alone reconciliation!

Has he even tried to pass an alternative? NO!

You need look no further than Harry Reid to see who the true obstructionist is!

actually since you brought it up... yes the House has passed the budget and BOTH times it was stalled and almost shut down the Federal Government until the poor little Republicans got an extension for those "Rich Man Tax Cuts From BUSH. TEMPORARY TAX CUTS according to Bush that was to be used to create JOB INVESTMENT that NEVER HAPPENED. You seriously need to pull your head out of the sand or wherever it is and pay attention. The Republicans have done NOTHING to try and help the AMERICAN PEOPLE and create jobs... they talk about cutting budget items but they passed a BUDGET that spent BILLIONS MORE than the DEMOCRAT version as well. So much for Tax And Spend Democrats.... its Tax a Little Less and Spend More REPUBLICANS.

Sorry, Tammy, you are wrong. I haven't really paid attention to your name before, so don't know if you are new or not. If you are a new poster, welcome. If you have been here forever, then sorry I didn't catch up to you before. You do have a way with words and you do not make spelling mistakes, etc. You are just so wrong on the issues.

Tell me what the Senate has done. Besides vote in gay rights for Barney.

Jon, it is a bit hard to get anything done when one party decides to filibuster 99% of all bills brought to the floor. If you need further proof, you have to look no further than Jan. 20, 2008, for that is when the filibuster became the norm, rather than the exception. Maybe this helps tell you what the senate has done.

Tammy: Democrats are able to vote what they believe and aren't tied to a pledge made to a corporate lobbyist in order to get elected. A lobbyist that even someone like yourself has to know isn't worried about what main street republicans pay but his corporate sponsors.

Definition of OBSTRUCTION

1
a : the state of being obstructed; especially : a condition of being clogged or blocked

Guess who is ostructing these bills? He won't even bring them up for a vote.

If they're bad bills, they should just vote them down, but NO, the real party of NO won't even bring them up for a vote.

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing redundant Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.

Quote:
H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act

The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this legislation, the agency will continue with its plan to implement burdensome new rules and regulations on American businesses that will have a significant negative impact on America’s economy while having virtually no positive impact on global temperatures.

Quote:
H. J. Res. 37, Disapproval of FCC’s Net Neutrality Act

H.J. Res 37 would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet providers. Net neutrality is likely to cripple competition, restrict innovation, reduce employment and raise costs for all consumers—all of which would only exacerbate the current economic downturn. These job-killing regulations would involve significant new controls on the Internet that would have significant implications for investing in innovation and broadband deployment.

Quote:
H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards. This would reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards to help increase job growth.

Quote:
H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act

This bill is will amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The increased accountability will help to prevent harmful job-killing regulations.

Quote:
H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act

The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. Federal bureaucrats should not be reversing the business decisions of private employers. Washington already has too many harmful regulations that hurt job growth. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act would help ensure that the government agency does not over step their bounds by dictating decisions made by private sector companies.

Quote:
H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN ACT)

The TRAIN Act would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The agency often understates the negative impact its rules will have on jobs and energy prices. This is why we need a committee whose sole purpose is to analyze the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations. The TRAIN Act would push back against the EPA's unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations that raise energy prices for consumers, destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Quote:
H.R. 2681, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect which would place burdensome regulations on the cement industry. The cement industry estimates that the rule could destroy as many as 4,000 jobs. The Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act would stop the unnecessary cement MACT rule which will cost thousands of jobs and hamper economic growth.

Quote:
H.R. 2250, EPA Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would help to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners estimates that the regulations will cost 244,000 jobs. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act would help to roll back unreasonable regulations and save thousands of American jobs.

Quote:
H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

The bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard. This bill would further slow the EPA’s Regulatory Trainwreck and could save thousands of jobs in coal-rich states such as West Virginia and Ohio.

Quote:
H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act

The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) would establish statutory deadlines for sales of certain oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce net direct spending by $25 million over the 2011-2016 period and about $40 million over the 2011-2021 period. Restarting offshore leasing will help restore thousands of jobs.

Quote:
H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

The bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration has delayed or canceled offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill would jump start offshore oil drilling by implementing a 30-day deadline in which the secretary of the U.S. Interior Department would have to make a decision on the Gulf of Mexico drilling permit applications. The bill would likely help to create tens of thousands of jobs and strengthen the economy.

Quote:
H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act

The bill would reverse President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act and amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources and would establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal. Reversing the offshore moratoriums will help restore thousands of jobs.

Quote:
H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011

The bill would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months.The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 would speed up the permit process to help create jobs.

Quote:
H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act

The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011. A Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, has long sought to increase the capacity of its Keystone pipeline system in order to bring more Canadian crude oil to American refineries. The North American-Made Energy Security Act would boost jobs and lower the price of gasoline for all Americans.

So apparently the only way to create jobs is destroy the environment?

The EPA is not the enemy. They're here to ensure that your business has a viable, life-sustaining planet to to thrive in. Especially if you want this planet (and your business) to be around for your kids and grandkids.

If you can't meet the regulations of the EPA, it's because you're doing something wrong.

Next thing you know you're going to say we should get rid of all the 'job-killing regulations' the police department enforces.

Really, Sunoco is getting out of the refining business. Since a buyer wasn't found for the sprawling facility DE, it has be shut down on July 1, just like the company's other old refinery 12 miles to the south, Marcus Hook, which was idled in December. Several weeks later, ConocoPhillips closed its adjacent refinery on the Delaware River. Together, the three refineries employed 1,200 workers represented by the United Steelworkers of America and nearly as many salaried and contract workers. They manufactured 50 percent of the petroleum fuels produced on the East Coast of the United States. No body has stepped up to the plate. Where are the small business that are suppose to fill the void? I'll tell you who is going to fill the void, the Indian's. They built a refinery just supply the US and EU because it's not worth it to do it here and they know it. Say goodby to all those jobs. Yes, the EPA is destroying jobs, sending them overseas forever.

In other news, looks like Obama's BFF and "jobs czar" Jeff Imelt is closing his Xray division in Wisconsin and moving it to Beijing.

But whatever, you guys seem to like what Obama's doing to the country, carry on!

:-)

Awesome response ben!

ben, think I fell in love with you. Just over your post. Sweet.

How sweet of you to say that, slightly. And now that the Senate has passed a tax extension for middle class only, the pressure is on the GOP-controlled House to do likewise. It will be tricky for them to get out of this without looking like puppets doing the bidding of the 1% who hold their strings. President Obama brilliantly maneuvered the GOP into a trap, don't you think?

I do not want the estate taxes to revert to the 55% tax. We started with nothing, put ourselves thru college, both worked. It is NOT the governments money . I worked hard for my family not to send the U.S.Court of Appeals to Hawaii!

While I understand that sentiment, please consider that with out estate taxes, money consoldates further and further with-in a very few families. This is how the Aristocracy of Europe founded itself. Conserving it's money, and hording it's cash, from generation to generation. Estate Taxes ensure a constant churn of cash back into the general pool.

It is the primary way of ensuring we don't end up with a U.S. Aristocracy that can never been un-entrenched, and doesn't have to work to earn it's money.

I will spend it down first. I really started out with nothing. Grew up in a loving family in a two bedroom tiny capecod. My husband and I lived on one income. Saved and invested the money to pay for our sons education and other needs. It is currently worth about four million. Forty years of being very conservative with the money. Maxed out 401Ks. Now we can take care of ourselves in retirement and leave something for our sons and grandchildren. It is NOT the government's money to blow. I do not hoard our money. We just do not need a new car every three years hich, btw, is the average here.

That's fine. The effect is exactly the same.

Yes but why should it have to be so? Working hard,including getting an education or trade or starting a business is denigrated by so many in the discussion. They won't go out and make their own way. Complain because they have no education, or developed a trade. Anyone whining could have done what we did.

LULU....Then "Stop Your Whining & count Your Blessing" Shame !

@praysalot. Why should I pay because you did not get off your lazy a$$? I am grateful for what I have accumulated after starting out with zip. I give to various charities that actually accomplish something. But the federal government and the Maryland state government just blow money. I chose not to but a new car every three years and did not go on super vacations every year. But the Feds send themselves to Las Vegas and Hawaii on regular schedule. Do you think I should pay for that? You are the shameful give me what I am owed person. Envious, greedy, someone else should ay for me. shame as you say.

lulu98 - If you don't already have one (and I suspect you do), get yourself (1) a good financial planner; (2) a good estate attorney; and (3) a good accountant. You can gift that money to your children over your remaining life in such a way that taxes are minimal. But it's tricky so make sure you get some really, really good people to put the plan in motion.

LULU...are you off your meds? 55% tax rate is NON-EXISTANT. if there was ever a 55% tax rate -America would never have a second generation wealthy family. The taxes would take it all away when the "Originator" of the wealth died. Please stop quotes from Rush and the LOONEY TUNES that feed that garbage to the masses. As far as for me ....return to the 30% rate that is closer to the actual tax on my FREE INHERITANCE CASH and I will be totally HAPPY.

Lulu: Do as Annie says. Or give the money and stuff to your children now. Please, just please, do not give them a painting with a stuffed bald eagle on it. lol

So lulu, this is where you got offensive as so many do. You had to get hateful yourself. It's a lot easier to start calling people who don't happen to agree with how you want to do your taxes lazy, and you have no clue how hard anyone on here works. I understood you not wanting to have to pay taxes...who does? But when you start calling people lazy just because you don't like that they feel taxation percentages need to be fair you lose any sympathy anyone had for you. I work hard too and have since I was a child, and my whole family does, and just because we don't happen to have a lot saved back or a ton in the bank doesn't mean we don't work our butts off.

That is just really offensive.

@daveyboy. You do not have a clue. Federal estate taxes will go back to 55% for estates over one million. You need to figure it out. It is exactly what Obama wants.

@ram. Started with nothing and no one gave me anything. I am tired of hearing from the person who dropped out of high school, dropped out of college, has twelve kids wondering where it all went wrong. You are the hater. What have you done to succeed? I worked all day and went to college at night.

daveyboy, look it up - it was in an article today. Originally Obama and the Dems were pushing for a 55% tax rate on inheritances over $1,000,000, but graciously knocked it down to 45%.

How is this just or fair? We're flat a@@ broke, so it doesn't even apply to us, and I can see that it's ridiculous. Let's say I worked hard all of my life. That means that the money I saved back was money I earned, most likely from a job. So I have already paid taxes on this money. Any interest I have earned on this money has also been taxed over the years as well. Now that it's "left over" after my death, this money is to be taxed AGAIN. Double jepordy could be argued at this point.

Lulu...any chance of getting you to buy me a newer car? I do windows and put down the seat.

With most of the wealthy crying over being taxed too much, they maybe should follow the example of some other wealthy people and move out of the country so they can keep more of their money and pay less or no taxes. Oh yeah, you also have to denounce your citizenship as well. It seems to be a new fad of some sort, for the wealthy.

MonkeyMo....once money changes hands it becomes INCOME for the receiver. Doesn't make a damned bit of difference if YOU already paid taxes on it. It's a new TAXABLE source of INCOME for them.

lulu98 is quite opinionated.. and uninformed. The estate tax in question is an INCOME tax, not an OUTGO tax. The dead people who "worked hard" for the money are not being taxed, the living people who "did nothing" for the money is being taxed.

That's how it works to pay for precious tanks and B52s and nukes and space shuttles. She doesn't like that but, hey, dead people have no worries... and don't pay taxes. I doubt that she has taken advantage of gift tax rules and given one single dusty penny yet.

As for being so frugal with cars and not taking fancy vacations, etc... that was her choice. Her boring choice. A multimillionaire with a 5+ year old Chevy who went to Disney World a couple of times. My little life is SO much richer.

@savvy. As usual you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. The money I earned is not for the government to waste. You make assumptions about me as you do of others. UK travel was very nice, love the cafes in Paris. Wiesbaden is my favorite small city. El Convento in PR quite nice. US travel fun as well. Never owned a Chevy. Not a put down, just not me. My kids and grandson have benefitted much from our income including down payments on houses. I never said I did not enjoy the fruits of our labors. Just do not need a new car every three years, and that would be because the cars I buy are meant to last. You are the boring one here.

The problem lulu, is that there are millions of people in this country working just as hard as you and your husband did back in the 70's who can BARELY keep their heads above the water. I understand you think that hard work should pay off, the sad fact of the matter is that TODAY hard work does not pay off like it did even 30 years ago. I can completely understand why believe estate taxation to be unfair however this country was founded to thwart the tyrannical control of aristocracies and monarchies and unfortunately our country today is looking more and more like an aristocratic democracy, where those with money control our politicians and legislation to a degree that they get to keep all that money. You really didn't build that 4 million on your own, a lot of people worked very hard throughout history in this country so that you could enjoy the success of the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Do your kids really need 4 million to be successful themselves? You don't think 2 million might do just as well?

The Democratic Party has historically been the party that understands what it means to be the underdog. They fight FOR us - not against us.

Obama/Biden 2012

Go on the Comedy Channel Diane, you're a riot girl.

Anyone but those two Dumbasses Diane mentioned 2012

What would republicans care about jobs? Romneys 59 point plan includes plans to enact free trade agreements with 5 more countries including Panama and Columbia. It also proposes bringing in 1.25 million high tech workers claiming a shortage though employment data states unemployment in those categories is double what it was prior to the recession Romney claims bringing in 1.25 million new workers will create "support" jobs like selling our new immigrants Big Macs.

It wasn't businessmen like Romney protesting free trade agreements which gave businesses cheap labor it was liberal union workers. I remember once when Rush Limbaugh was going on about illegals only working in jobs Americans didn't want I called in and asked him if that was true since the labor department claimed there was 8 million jobs considered jobs American workers wouldn't fill what were the other 12 million illegals doing. He babbled something and cut to break.

Off your meds there fella?

Democrats have voted to shutdown small businesses to further increase unemployment.

Do tell why you think they would want further unemployment. To make Obama lose the election? Oh no, wait - that's what the Republicans are trying to do by filibustering all the infrastructure jobs bills.

Good one, Zardos!

Jamie - your entire post is bullsh*t! No one has voted to shut down business. In fact, the President proposed a tax cut for companies that bring jobs back to the US - blocked by the GOP. Get real. This is what is needed to help people. I realize you have no comprehension of how things work but try to figure it out!

Oh and, clearly the ones doing drugs are the far right!

Obama/Biden 2012

Jamie any time you morons on the right think you can drive us out of the country give it a try you'll find it isn't going to be easy, not every liberal is going to roll over and show you his belly, Civil war, don't make me laugh the impotent south couldn't get it up the first time.

Please explain to me how extending tax cuts for 98% of small businesses is akin to shutting them down. Can't wait for someone to ACTUALLY ANSWER this question.

Jamie...Obama does not have authority to write any laws....if someone was trying to close small business and the economy down it would be the CONGRESS. Specifically, try looking at the antics of the House Of Representatives....or as it is currently...... The House Of Special Interest Representation.

He just shut down about 2000 small businesses, eliminating an estimated 5,000 jobs a few weeks ago. Oh, but we aren't talking about that, are we.

For those wondering, remember the much touted transportation bill the president signed a few weeks ago? Buried in that piece of legislature was an amendment that Roll Your Own cigarette shops would have to pay a drastic increase in taxes. Every shop owner contacted reported they would be closing their doors. (Do a google search to confirm.) I don't care if you support the shops or not, the end result is there are now a few thousand more people out of work because the President chose to sign this bill without striking that clause from it.

Roll...your own...cigarrette shops...and how much fed money has been spent for those cancer patients?.....and they just roll ...cigarettes.......

MonkeyMo - gotta tell ya that one about the cigarette shops stinks like 3 day old fish. Someone contacted selected shop owners who were ticked off & spouted off. I'm betting they did NOT shut down their shops nor will they. It's simply not a big enough increase ON PROFITS to matter.

Obama can't pass laws by himself as someone pointed out already. So, apparently you either do not know this simple fact about how our government operates or you are intentionally choosing to ignore it and misrepresent the situation. Which is it?

As this NY Times article points are few businesses will pay more in taxes what it doesn't mention is a good many of the ones that would pay more is maybe a few hundred more hardly crippling. The increase doesn't apply to all income for those making 250K but only a small increase on amounts over that. The people that will really pay more are people like Romney.

Despite that emotional appeal, Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate that only 3 percent of small businesses would be subject to the higher tax, and many studies of previous tax increases suggest that it would have minimal impact on hiring.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.

Even among the 750,000 businesses that would be subjected to the higher rates in 2011, many are sole proprietors — a classification so amorphous it can include everyone from corporate executives who earn income on rental property to entertainers, hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Because 80 percent of America’s 32 million businesses are sole proprietorships, 90 percent of the tax cut would be derived from businesses without employees.

So Obama passes a minor tax increase on the number one leading cause of cancer in our country and you think that he has it out for all small businesses as a result? You understand that these @!$%#s we're basically EXPLOITING a large tax loophole to make more money then they should have been able to by rolling and selling packs of their self created cigarettes as opposed to selling the name brand packs you find at every gas station? You think taxes on tobacco didn't increase under George Bush and every other president in the last 30 years? You really think increasing taxation on one of the deadliest legalized substances on the planet is a bad thing? moron alert

Don't understand the reply button any more than you understand reality, I see.

You are right, a lot of these ideas sound better then the billions that we waste every year supporting all you slacker libs.

That's funny, Chas... considering blue states are a net provider of welfare to red states. Get your head out of Rush's ass and help us fix the country, k?

Too funny....Chas thinks he is a billionaire or someone who has a yearly income of over a million.......God that is soooo funny...Chas...you are voting against yourself......ahahahahahahaha voting to pay more taxes for the rich...ahahahahaha

You really ought to watch something besides Fox News, fella.

Spin it how every you want; employment was negative trending when Obama took office and in spite of Republicans trying to make things even worse the employment trend is moving in the right direction. Die hard Republicans like you talk as if the years before Obama and all the job losses would turn on a dime; like on January 20th things get better; well, it took years for Bush to run the economy into the gutter and it takes time to turn it around.

Hey, isn't it time for you to be listening to the Rush Show!

No, it actually only took 2 years for the democratically controlled congress when Bush was in office to destroy our economy.

ChasSD,

No, I think you are wrong. The Iraqi war started when? Never funded just put on the books. The prescription drug program was passed when? Never funded, again put on the books. Afghanistan war started when? What, never funded again! Just put on the books. Who was in control of Congress when all this happened? You got it, Republican Party!

2001-2006 all these things occurred including the tax breaks for the wealthy and it was a Republican controlled Congress. You really should get your facts together before spouting your parties talking points.

So who destroyed our economy? Mostly Republicans. Now, it's the TeaBaggers that are helping to drag us down. The last observation is my opinion but just the way I see it as they were to create jobs, not put their religious ideas into law!

After reading a few of Chases posts I can confirm that he is terminally Republican and so far disconnected from reality as to be unworth the effort to explain anything to.

Net job loss?.... yeah maybe due to inability of Congress to provide work or jobs creation legislation....but still a far cry from the million jobs a year those temporary Tax Cuts from Bush cost us for his 8 years. Try Again when placing blame.... TYPICAL.

You are 98% wrong. It would affect only 2% of small business owners who seem to be doing very well. The tax increase would not be enough to pay for a full time worker in almost all of those 2%. It's a silly position to be taking especially after we heard the SAME thing last time. Not really seeing many jobs being created by those so-called 'job creators.' Now, if you had a 98% chance of losing, would you place your bet? duh.

You really believe the talking heads at Fox are worried about small business owners making 300K or so. The tax increase on the amount between 250K and 300K would be a few hundred. They're worried about people like Romney and bring in the sheep talking about small business.

From NY Times article:

Even among the 750,000 businesses that would be subjected to the higher rates in 2011, many are sole proprietors — a classification so amorphous it can include everyone from corporate executives who earn income on rental property to entertainers, hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Because 80 percent of America’s 32 million businesses are sole proprietorships, 90 percent of the tax cut would be derived from businesses without employees.

The bill goes into a black pit called the house where it will die. Like all other good bills.

righty? Oh ya you mean those "Feel "good bills that don't do a thing for this country? What about the Bill last week the REPTEAS killed...you know the one...that makes it Hard for Co. to Out-source Jobs. The one that gave incentives to bring jobs Here? But the Un American party of NO...said just that...NO.

Throw all the GOP Slime...out. Sick Puppy's all.

Righty does not know how to read posts............typical righty..

why does everyone say ....Tea Party? It is NOT a political party...it is under control of the REPUBLICAN party and run like it's seperate but we all know it is just the RACIST PARTY.

Logical.....well first repubs took the oath of office to protect the nation constitution, blah blah, then they threw it out the window when 95% of all repub politicians signed the Norquist pledge, like traitors pledging to their king Norquist. Then 14 of those pledged to each other to obstruct every bill that would make the president look good. They pledged to act like the Taliba, like insurgents to take the economy down to make President Obama a one term president. The same thing Bin Laden pledged to do. Take the economy down. repubs are traitors to our Constitution!

Logical.....well first repubs took the oath of office to protect the nation constitution, blah blah, then they threw it out the window when 95% of all repub politicians signed the Norquist pledge, like traitors pledging to their king Norquist. Then 14 of those pledged to each other to obstruct every bill that would make the president look good. They pledged to act like the Taliba, like insurgents to take the economy down to make President Obama a one term president. The same thing Bin Laden pledged to do. Take the economy down. repubs are traitors to our Constitution!

Exactly! Like that silly National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that removes due process that Bush signed...oh wait, that was Obama. Or, signing the Patriot Act Extensions allowing roving wiretaps, or H.R. 1981: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, the Enemy Expatriate Act, illegal Drone killings --and the authorized use of 10's of thousands of drones in the U.S. for domestic surveillance. You want to talk about someone destroying civil liberties and the Constitution? He's already in office. Obama lambasted Bush in 2008 elections for using "Executive Orders to get what he wants," yet is abusing them and on pace to break Bush's 29X signed. Then, he goes on record in October 2011 speech saying "...let's do what we can without Congress." Is that the mark of a leader trying to get things done? There's a reason we have checks & balances to prevent these abuses of power.

Then of course, we have the wars. Yes,. of course Bush started that Iraq situation, in a matter of speaking. But, Obama hasn't exactly made things better -- from from it. How about unconstitutional wars in Libya? Or, what about this statement from Leon Panetta in May 2012:

In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.

Let me also add the following:

Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits.”

The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.

also try looking up the Trans-Atlantic Partnership.

But, right it's all the stupid "repubs" or "teapublicans." Obama is the shining savior of civil liberties, and has done nothing to accrue additional debt that with further destroy our currency. Whatever helps you sleep at night.....well, that is until the government starts dragging us away in our sleep at night "because they can." This sort of thing has happened to countries all over the world. Don't think we're immune. It's no longer Dem vs. Rep...it's much more far reaching than that.

"Recovering Democrat"; I think NOT!

The Senate didn't extend a tax cut that was supposed to expire years ago; it was TEMPORARY! Why do Republicans (yes, I have no doubt of your affiliation from your comments) think a TEMPORARY tab cut, allowed to expire is a vote for a tax increase? Contrary to your thinking temporary means NOT forever.

recovering....poor dear, I am sure you have been visiting the snake doctors (Fox news) again. You know all they do is fill you with gas and hot air...from all the Tea

they force feed you. Stay away from that nasty Hannity boy...and above all that Sick, twisted little RUSH boy. It is twisting your brain.

So let them all expire, they were all temporary anyways. No one will consider that a tax increase. Hell everyone will gladly give those in the Government more money to invest in our futures. They have been so spend thrift with our funds up until now, right?

the press are now caught in you're own web . . . and can never be trusted or believed again.

I see you have done your research well, righty. Fox Noos is the only trustworthy source of information on politics! Oh, and Rush Limbaugh, of course.

righty...We need to go back to the Tax rate...of..Reagon. How would that set with you little buckeroo? Works for me. Hummm?

danger Will Robinson!....Reagan raised taxes 11 times trying to cover his ass for lowering taxes on rich too much. He can no longer be a republican per King Norquist. Abort any reference to reagan..Danger Will Robinson. Reagan was pissed rich could use tax loopholes and not pay taxes...he is no republican anymore. No compromise....party of no says no compromise......

Obama/Biden 2012...........saving repubs from themselves.

You do realize, don't you, that the VAST majority of the tax was cut for the top tier. Google it.

Since 80% of the money from the Bush tax cuts went to the rich what don't you understand?

Since the current bill would only benefit the middle class, again what don't you understand? Tax cuts for the middle class help the economy almost immediately. Tax cuts for the wealthy do little except increase bank account totals. Seems pretty obvious to me. Since 80% of the tax cuts went to the wealthy eliminating it for those who won't spend it makes more sense and cost a lot less.

WOW read the TAX code

Did you really read the tax code, righty, or did Fox Noos just tell you what it says? (be honest, God is listening)

judy, businesses are no different than individuals when it comes to tax rates. I own a business and pay the same amount of taxes as I would if I worked for someone else. hope that helps.

S corps and LLCs are run as personal taxes. The business has income and expenses - the rest is income to the owner and taxed. A new employee is an expense. But the money to pay for expansion and pay that employee the first year comes from the owners pay. So, growing the business from the profits is difficult with higher and progressive taxes which take a lot of the money.

Borrowing the money (repulsive as that has you pay interest) is more than difficult for small businesses. Expanding on money left over after you pay yourseld and feed your family is highly taxed. It is better to hold your business to easily achievable goals and keep expenses, expansion, and taxes to a minimum -and wait for better times.

You see why business is holding its cash and remaining as strong as possible? Go ahead and raise those taxes which do nothing but punish those who could make a difference to this economy. I will just drop another knotch and wait for you to kill yourselves off.

If I was a sole proprietor or small business owner who was on the cusp of paying the additional taxes, I would take off the whole month of December.

We just join the rest. Nothing gets done in the six weeks from Thanksgiving thru the first week in Jan. Just a little fact of American business.