Bev, you are right. I think George Soros and Teresa Kerry should pay a lot more!

If they could have passed something that said all taxes increases would have to, by law, go toward deficit reduction, I 'd be all for it. Of course that would never happen because neither part has the nads to do it.

And Ohio, I often criticize Bev for obfuscating the issue with side comments. Here is yours, too.

kirby in idaho

Bev, you are right. I think George Soros and Teresa Kerry should pay a lot more!

Well, kirby I agree with you too in regards to those you mentioned as well as the Koch Brothers, Rush, Glenn, Hannity, and Sarah; except for me obfuscating the issue.

How can you let those who have nothing suffer?

Can we stop the madness called spending?

I am a long way from being impacted by this 250,000 amount, but I still don't think its right to pass all the responsibility for getting the country out of the mess on higher income groups. I know its human nature to want to pass the tax burden onto others besides ourselves, but probably what should be done is not let the cuts expire for all of us. We should stop blaming Republicans or Democrats, they are all politicians the same. WE all need to realize we are in this together.

So Beverly help me understand. The rich have gone into your house and your bank account and stolen from you? One day you had $5,000.00 in your checking account and the next day the balance was $0.00 and yet you spent nothing! And when you inquired you found out that George Soros had plundered your checking account!!! Holy fat cat Batman. Do you not see how inane and ridiculous your argument sounds? It is the producers (rich) that hire, and provide economic stimulation. Unless of course your Chris at MSNBC then grate leader gives your thigh stimulation.

Cutting spending is not enough, Congress will have to grow a pair and raise taxes. That is the only way to reduce the deficit. How can you not pay for 2 wars, Medicaid prescription plan and tax reductions at the same time? Borrow, Borrow, Borrow. It is how we got in this mess. Saying that tax cuts will create jobs is just untrue, we have the last 10 years as proof.

I guess elections really do have consequences...

Well, Don, until the rich actually start paying at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as I pay, then what you say would be true. The problem is, the tax code is so complex and there are so many loopholes that the rich and corporations have the resources to lower their taxes to 15% or less.

Exxon/Mobile made $19 billion in profits in 2009, paid $0 in taxes and actually received $165 million in "tax refunds" from the US government (these are only remembered statistics from Sen. B. Sanders' speech, check it out on youtube, I may be slightly off on the exact amounts, except for the taxes paid figure, and time frame).

In 2009, the highest paid hedge fund manager in the country made about $5 billion and only paid 15% in taxes as it was all claimed as "capital gains".

So, Don, the argument isn't who pays the most in absolute dollars, it is more about who pays the most in percentage of income.

Beverly,

Fear not Obama STILL is a committed facist socialist out to destroy "the means of production"

Obama fully intends to HOLD ON TO OBAMACARE and STOP granting exemptions ULTIMATELY to throw 1/6th of the US economy under GOVERNMENT CONTROL

The damage already is done recognized by all except leftist idealogues this "middle ground" is a ruse

It's time to start thinking of who to endorse in the democratic primary in 2012. Obama has become an abbreviation in the bibliography of history. We as democrats need to look at who can and will stand up to corporate America and get the money flowing again. We need a DOJ that will indict Bernanke on Rico statutes and imprison him. Lots of work ahead. None of which need include obama.

Soros doesn't pay US taxes. He runs his fund out of the Antilles, where his tax burden is very small. The US isn't seeing any of his money except for when it's used as bribes to those on capitol hill. The really rich in this country have the legal clout & ability to tie their money up in shelters or overseas. When people like the Clintons & Kerrys say they want to tax the wealthy....what they really mean is tax everyone who can't afford to get away with not paying the increase......and we call them ...the middle class. Charlie Rangel didn't pay tax on realty income for decades and they"suggested" he pay it back.....but without penalties or interest. That's not what the IRS does to the middle class. Most of congresssmen & senators are MULTIMILLIONAIRES. They went to Washington to help themselves, not us. This rhetoric they are using re wealthy tax cuts is just to completely destroy what is left of the middle class & make everyone dependent & at the mercy of the evergrowing Marxist regime.

The middle ground on this topic is somewhere off in the ether. If you cut taxes for everyone, which is a good thing, you must also balance that with spending cuts across the board - period. It's a bit narrow minded to tell someone, who has had the good fortune of having inherited, or earned through hard work, any significant amount of wealth, that because of said wealth, they have to pay more in taxes. It amounts to government penalizing you for succeeding financially, and that's just not right.

Lowering taxes is a good thing, provided that you also lower government expenses, since government will be collecting less in tax revenue. Now if the tax cuts are going to trigger deficits of 400 to 650 billion dollars, then government expenditures will also have to be cut by that much, otherwise you saddle the taxpayers with interest payments on money borrowed to cover deficit spending, due to the government having to borrow more money just to balance it's own budget.

As a liberal and a Democrat I support sound governmental fiscal policy, but if this is going to be another case of political football, where you cut taxes, but not spending ... that I don't support. Now, what I hope going forward, is that the President and his administration can put the pressure on their Republican counterparts to keep their campaign promise of cutting government spending. And if Obama and the Democrats are too weak to do that, then maybe next election cycle I'll be switching party's to which ever one actually 'walks the walk' on government fiscal responsibility.

I don't believe in taxing someone more simply because "they can afford it" - that's non-sense. It's their money, same as if they worked 9 to 5 everyday - they earned it, they get to keep it. It's called fairness, but somehow I don't believe that any of this is about fairness ... meanwhile Rome continues to burn.

CUT TAXES FOR EVERY CITIZEN.

REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

It's funny to read the same old liberal half-truths. Things like "cutting spending isn't enough". Want to bet? Or to say it another way, lower the cut the government takes of everything, eliminate the "loopholes" as some have said so that Exxon and all the other profitable companies pay their share, eliminate all unnecessary (sorry, much of current federal government is either unnecessary, incompetent, irresponsible, duplicate, or rife with fraud and abuse). Shut down all foreign aid for 2 years. Bring home 90% of our military overseas at what, 200+ bases? Cut weapons programs to the bone, cut all federal salaries by 20-40% (with the 40% cuts at the top) cut benefits and retirement plans to private sector equivalents.

In other words, act like grown ups who are about to go bankrupt. Don't tell me you can't, you / they can. Cowardice is beyond tired.

The only programs you don't touch are those that pay directly to the real poor, the real handicapped, and the actual retired folks below a certain defined income level. Everyone else has to tighten their belts.

We have. Our family income has been reduced by more than 60%. You know what, we are surviving. Sold the 2008 Charger, and now drive a 2002 Focus. We limit our spending on everything, we are nearly debt free. Poor, but debt free.

Until the government stops acting like the rich spoiled children that they behave like, I am not interested in any other arguments other than shut up and stop spending.

What is wrong with everyone? I thought the big compromise would make, at least, the Republicans happy - I guess I was wrong.

Barney - The rich better use these tax cuts wisely and produce jobs, jobs, jobs. We will be watching!!! What if no jobs are created with the tax cuts? What kind of bs will you spin and who will you blame then?

Dems just fell into another repub trap. This extra knock to the deficit occurs when the dems still control both houses and the presidency. Guess what the stategy of the repubs will be next election. Someday I hope the dems will learn from their mistakes.

God but i am tired of the same old supply side nonsense. capitalism is very simple... customers first, last and always. no one buying your product? ... then you are no different than the unemployed bum on the street corner, worse off actually, now you have a bunch of widgets that no one can afford or wants. what is the simple answer? GET MORE CUSTOMERS. How? make sure the maximum number of people have more disposable income. The rich don't need more money, they need more customers who are willing to GIVE them money for their widgets!

must be nice... they need to rush so they can go home for the holidays . while so many of americans work 2-3 jobs to provide for families is it fair to watch them sit on their butts while hard working americans suffer, or better yet how about the millions out of work trying to get hired to provide for their families. how about they take a pay cut and give it to the poeple who have no jobs because they sent alot of jobs overseas. if they would put those jobs here in the united states there would be alot of people working and not on unemployment or welfare. i dont believe in politicans anymore,they dont keep their word democrats or repulbicans! they say what they need to say to stay in office. i think some stranger off the roads would do better . but hey...we're just the voting people no one listens to us,its all about whose hand has the most money

Always looking for someone else to Blame..Beverly

I love how liberals are so into penalizing those that would cast off the shackles of government dependency. But why not? If you tax the rich and the corporations into the ground, they'll take their business elsewhere, leaving even more of the masses to depend on the welfare state, thus feeding their political platform.

Flat tax, would make the system fair for everyone. The simple truth is the rich don't want it, the poor don't want it, that leaves the middle class with no represention in Washington, that is why we usually get screwed in all these "comprimises".

Gee whiz a true Obama fan from Chicago. YOU left the biggest tax cheats of all, the Democratic members of government especially the Obama's who have YET to disclose where their MILLIONS came from, unless you consider Michelle being made a HUGE salary at a hospital BIT never did any work there. Hmmm OR maybe the members of the the 40 thieves that Ali Babba Obama and HIS 40 thieves (His cabinet) sort of conveniently FORGOT to pay taxes till they were nominated.

Yes siree, nothing but the best comes out of Chicago... Obama, Rod Blagojevich, Al Capone and the Daley's. Fine examples of American Citizens one and all. Well at least Capone WAS and American.

But let's not forget the Republicans who want to appear as the saviors. KICK them both out and get a fresh crop that really DO want to represent the people of their elected areas, Institute TERM LIMITS, Have their wage set as the average wage earned of the people they represent, abolish their BOGUS retirement and health-care system. How long do you think it would take them to solve the issues of Health-Care, Medicare and Social Security? Well for a matter of fact, HOW many of these good elected officials would want to serve under these conditions? My guess is NOT MANY!!!!

But not being from such a great poltical arena as Chicago, what would the rest of the country know about anything!!!!

A flat tax would actually highly favor the rich if all were brought to the lowest taxable bracket. As a person below said, the top 1% of earners pay 50% of the individual income tax, at a rate of somewhere around 23%, while the lower tax brackets pay as low as 2%, with the middle class in the middle at around 7%.if you flat taxed to 12%, you'd crush the poor, tax hike the middle class, and drop the rich tax percentage by 11%. 12% is of course just an example.

Beverly in Chicago,

When was the last time you heard of a poor or middle class person hiring people to work at good paying, long term jobs? Let me make it easy for you, NEVER! It is the multi-million/billionaires that you are so down on that do this. YES a half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all. Easing the financial pain be it short term or not is better than creating a whole new pain by letting the tax cuts expire or increasing the payroll taxes, or letting unemployment benefits expire.

It is simple economics 101. Businesses will not hire when their cost of doing business is uncertain. People with no money spend NO money. People who spend NO money do not stimulate the economy. A little stimulation via unemployment benefits and even the payroll tax reduction is better than NOTHING. If you truly believe that the rich are going to fix our economic woes by allowing the Federal Government to tax them to death, you are nuts. The Democrats had the last 3 years and what did we get? Higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rates, and an increase in our federal deficit that Obama is blaming on Bush, yet he himself as a Jr. Senator voted for and has only increased as POTUS.

Bev,

Take one out of your "up" total, I clicked on it by accident.

BTW, taxes should not be raised on anyone until these clowns can be more responsible with the money!

First of all these are not tax cuts. Taxes will not be going any lower than they already are, this is an extension of the current rate. Second, when you create a budget you do it one of two ways, either you establish what you need then find a way to pay for it or you find out what you have and then allocate it accordingly. In either case you do not put together a wish list, spend what you have and then put the rest on credit. The latter is what the government has been doing for 40 years! The interest on the debt alone is a quarter trillion dollars a year and rising. Congress must cut spending and bring it into line with income. If all the realistic cuts are made, and we still have a short fall, then they can raise taxes. Until the cuts are made, raising taxes will only perpetuate the status quo. Welfare, Social Security, and defense all need to be scrutinized along with the other discretionary spending. The tax laws in this country need to be overhauled, it is possible to lower the rates for everyone and by closing the loop holes and removing some of the deductions, it would also allow a smaller cheaper IRS budget, less wasted paper, less money spent on tax preparation, and collection. The net effect would actually be a rise in collected taxes to reduce deficit spending. One other thing , we must stop using the term reduce and replace it with eliminate when referring to deficit spending.

Obama caved yet again, to the Republicans who held the unemployment extension hostage to get more excessive profits for their well funded Corporations. The Republicans have given these HUGE TAX CUTS to the rich for 9 years now, and WHAT JOBS have they created? None. The Greedy Corporations have taken their profits and then turn around and give themselves huge bonus's.

I am jumping ship from the Obama train. He promised that he would give tax relief to those that needed it the most, and he caved on the issue without ANY FIGHT AT ALL. Obama is weak, and he allows the Republicans to hold the working class people hostage. So, now the rich get a TWO YEAR EXTENSION ON THEIR TAX RATE and the unemployed only get a year............Ridiculous!!!!!

And, I hope all of you who voted these Republican Extortionists into office, realize that these Corporations have made RECORD PROFITS and now are set to make HISTORY BREAKING BONUS'S. And, what does the working class get??? A big fat NOTHING. Thanks to Obama for giving up the fight, without one.

Bob-513575 Last I heard Corporations ARE NOT people. Corporations, I hope you realize, pay LESS PERCENTAGE OF TAX than a person making 50k-75k. Did you realize that Bob??? Corporations pay less than the working person, so quit posting like you are the Supreme Court and stating that Corporations are people and deserve all that extra money, while the working person doesn't? How you going to feel when those bonus's come out that are RECORD BREAKING BONUS'S, because Big Business has done so well with all these tax breaks??? Did you get a bonus or a raise this year Bob? I know I didn't.

Go ahead and jump ship. Just don't cash that unemployment check. the corporations are getting rich off of you because of your demand for those cheap imported China items.

You are assuming alot there Pot. I have been employed for thirty years, own a Chev, and buy American. I also happen to be Union. Insults instead of intelligence do not make a good argument.

Beverly, if you had a flat tax of say 10% and you made $25,000 per year your tax would be $2,500 (which if you have even 1 child you will get that back + some) if you made $25,000,000 your tax would be $2,500,000. You would not get any of that back, it might get slightly reduced but no return. NOW who pays the most taxes? I personally made about $40,000 last year and ALL taxes total I paid in about $9,000 , my return? $7,950....I paid about $1,050 in taxes and most of those were city and school taxes that you can't get back. Who pays the most taxes? NOT ME....Thank you top wage earners for carrying the tax burden.

This is just disgusting. I volunteer to pay taxes at the pre-bush rate (though my husband and I are both students and will gross only about 50K this year), if it means that we can force millionaires and corporations to pay their fair share.

NO DEAL!

President Barack Obama announced the parameters of a tentative deal with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts, acknowledging that he still strongly opposes the extension of cuts for the very wealthy but saying that continuing a fight at the expense of the middle class would be "the wrong thing to do."

===============

Mr President, it sad that you do not have the backbone to stand up to the rethuglicants. They're already running rough shod over you and the new Congress isn't even seated for another 5 weeks or so. How many times are you going to sell out those you claim to stand up for? I'm a lifelong Democrat who has given you the benefit of the doubt on several matters. However, you just lost my vote in 2012. I pray Nancy Peolsi has the kahonies you lack.

============================

UnConvinced

The middle ground on this topic is somewhere off in the ether. If you cut taxes for everyone, which is a good thing, you must also balance that with spending cuts across the board - period.

UnConvinced,

You are slightly misinformed. This is not a tax cut. It strictly is a manuver to keep george bush's tax cuts from this past decade in place. The cost is enormus no matter if all the current tax rates stay in place or if they stay in place for everyone but the top 2%. The deficit will take, something like, a $500 billion hit if the top 2% is allowed to revert back to pre bush cuts to $700 billion if all the bush tax cuts stay in place. It is extremely ironic that the rethuglicants just campaigned on lower government spending yet they're willing to add $700 billion to our debt.

MadisinfromNY? Why is it every time you post on here you make yourself look like an ignoramas? It's sad to think there are some Americans really that dang stupid.

Bob-513575

Liberals have one thing on your minds at all time, covetousness and the desire to steal people's money. Ok that is two things, both immoral and discusting.

==============================

Funny Bob but where were you during the greatest period of wealth redistribution in US history? That's right, during the bush administration. No problem then, the money was flowing into your pockets so you didn't have the "immoral and discusting (sp)" problem did you? You are a perfect poster child of what is wrong with the cons and right wingnuts in this country. Your problem can be summed up in one word----hypocracy.

This discussion highlights the main difference between the Republicans who want policies that stimulate economic growth, and the Democrats who want to "redistribute wealth".

Who's policies do you think will benefit Americans the most?

All of the rest is just political rhetoric.

I find it interesting that nearly half (47%) of the people who pay NO income taxes at all want the "rich" to pay ALL of the income taxes, and not just the 70% plus that they pay right now.

That's almost as interesting as the public employee unions using taxpayer paid union contributions to fund the same politicians that make the decisions to increase their pay and benefits way beyond all reason.

Does anyone see a 'conflict of interest' here?

Look....I'm tired of Repubs whining about wealthy people anyway...

At least they can't do that for two years...

Of course they will still whine about everything Obama and Democrates do.

They think that extending unemployments benefits for 13 months is thanks enough!

It's just the way they are.

Although it sounds like a lot of money to most people, $250,000 does not make one "rich". Currently I make over $250,000. I am not a millionaire. My parents are middle class, but I worked my butt off studying to get into a good college, then into medical school. After eight years of education I became a medical doctor, then had to spend four more years in training, working 80 hour weeks for very little money. After all of this I have a significant amount of educational debt which I am finally paring down. Sure, I'm making a lot of money now, but I had to forego income during medical school and had very little income during residency training. My high salary is due to delayed gratification. I have worked hard for everything that I have and I am very frustrated to be lumped into the same category as "greedy multi-billion dolllar corporations". Why on earth should my tax rate be raised considering how much work I've put in to get where I am? I am very happy with my life, but I don't live in a mansion and I bargain shop like everyone else. If my tax rate increases I will be forced to spend less so that I can still pay off my educational debt. Spending stimulates the economy. There are many others out there in a similar situation to mine. If we are all taxed more we will all spend less, which is not good for the economy.

Did you ever think that the multi millionaires are not pilliaging but supplying jobs and resources for everyone. Many and maybe most of them worked for what they have and have donated millions to chairites and relief organizations to keep them going. They have paid back to their communities.

ROY WILSON-336103

This discussion highlights the main difference between the Republicans who want policies that stimulate economic growth, and the Democrats who want to "redistribute wealth".

=====================

Can you smell what the Rock is cooking? No but I can smell what Roy is passing.

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone earlier: where were you from 2001-2009? Hum. Under the watchful eyes of george bush and dick cheney this country experienced the largest wealth redistribution in US history. No you're crying like a little third grader because Obama, supposedly, is redistribting wealth. Grow up, pull your head out, get a life.

You cons can't even make up your mind on exactly what Obama is. Supposedly he's a communist (no he isn't),a socialist (no he isn't) and now madisinfromny is calling him a facist socialist (sorry, that's an oxymoron--different sides of the political spectrum). I have an extremely right wingnut I work with who after the company's presentation concerning our health benefits next year said "those health benefits are a good example of Obama's nazi-ism). I guess you cons think if you toss around enough words sooner or later everyone will believe you.

The Big Tax and Spend Democrats still haven't come yet.....

They are still acting Like Republicans but don't fall for it.

We need to get these lefties out of town before they take over everything.

What do you think the job creaters are going to blame unemployment on now?

Probably lazy Democrats... again.

ROY WILSON-336103.....What the hell you mean 70% PLUS that "they" pay right now?...Who "they"? The wealthy?..The rich?...GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!....they're not even paying 33% tax!...the wealthy have aal kinds of OFFSHORE tax shelters,schemes,etc....& you must be on the fix(rnc) talking points,because the 47% of the people that do not pay is PURE HOGWASH!....it's about 25% of ALL PEOPLE THAT DON''T PAY,because of being on ssi,ssdi,unemployment benefits...etc. YOU SIR,ARE A MOUTH PIECE FOR THE RICH!!..Are you getting paid to say this b.s.?Probably,with tax-free money.How ironic,YOU ARE A SELLOUT!...Why don't you go shine their shoes too!....greed,greed,greed......THE RICH BETTER WALK SOFTLY!..WE GOT THE BIG STICK FOR THEM.....WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS STICK OUT IN THE FUTURE....WATCH!

So we extend all tax breaks for everyone especially for the top 2% of which the GOP wouldn't sign a bill without them included.

Doing this it increases the national debt, no surprise there, of which the GOP agree to by including the top 2%.

GOP Pledge to America included "stop the spending and reduce the deficit".

Wait what................

I totally disagree to those who are making stupid comments. U need to think twice before posting a comment. With my clear mind, I strongly believe that NOBODY SHOULD BE BLAME AT THIS POINT. We are at the tough times which needs extraordinary thinking and extraordinary time. Many would have wish the Bush era tax cut to end, while others wish the progressive tax cut on the billionaires in this country which I don't think neither of the sides is fair. And if both of this are not good, should we increase the deficit by borrowing more money to take care of our problems?

Tea-bag, just for my own edification, can you provide a definition of the wealthy? What does it mean to be wealthy? How much annual income defines wealthy? Does the source of that income have anything to do with what defines wealth? Just curious because even though I'm not wealthy by my standards I want to avoid that big stick in the future.

tea-bag-not writes:

THE RICH BETTER WALK SOFTLY!..WE GOT THE BIG STICK FOR THEM.....WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS STICK OUT IN THE FUTURE....WATCH!

Who, the dems? Good luck waiting on that to happen.

Beverly in Chicago,

How about a little cheese with that wine?

Question, when was the last time someone, without a fair amt of disposable cash, offered you a job that didn't involve mowing their lawn or raking their leaves??

Try to get a life, or an opinion, that doesn't involve sticking your hand into someone elses purse / wallet!!

heres an idea....how about 100K and under pay a certain % in taxes, 200K and under pay a %, 300K and under pay a % and so on.....and companies like exxon, pay up your share and stop stealing from the rest of us.

UnConvinced....."As a liberal and a Democrat I support sound governmental fiscal policy, but if this is going to be another case of political football, where you cut taxes, but not spending ... that I don't support."

Good grief.....Mr. Obama's intention on what he was going to do with ALL THAT MONEY received by the Government if folks making over $250,000/year were taxed WAS GOING TO GO "TOWARDS HIS REMAINING SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS" and NOT PAY DOWN THE DEBT. That IS NOT SOUND FISCAL POLICY.....TAX and SPEND.

So, our elite Congressional Representatives should be CUTTING TAXES and CUTTING the dad gum SPENDING.

If you support sound governmental fiscal policy, then I would suggest you camp out in front of the White House and the Capital with signs stating your objection TO ANY SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS (Dream Act, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens [Immigrants], Free Housing, Free Education, et al) which are going to be embedded into legislation even though our National Deficit is approaching $ 14,000,000,000,000. What was it that Pelosi mentioned last year? Oh, Yeah....PAY AS YOU GO.

It would be nice if any media outlet reported on what is really EMBEDDED INTO LEGISLATION that is going to be passed within the next two years.

tea-bag-not ROY WILSON-336103.....What the hell you mean 70% PLUS that "they" pay right now?...Who "they"? The wealthy?..The rich?...GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!....they're not even paying 33% tax!..."

Read my comment again. I didn't say they were paying at the 70% tax rate, I said they were paying 70% of the income taxes, which is true. the lower 47% of taxpayers pay nothing (many actually get credits back, meaning they get money back that they don't pay in). Another 43% are considered 'middle class', and they pay about 30% of the income taxes, and the top 10% of so-called 'rich' pay about 70% of the individual income taxes - largely as a result of the 'graduated income tax' scale.

Here is the link to verify;

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Remember also that the 'rich' pay the vast majority of the corporate income taxes as well, because they own most of the corporate stocks. By no stretch do they get a 'free ride' when it comes to paying taxes.

Now didn't we all know that Obama would cave on one of his big campaign promises. And that's right blame the Republicans for the tax cuts that everyone will get.

If Obama didn't push through a healthcare plan that most didn't waant he would not have cost all the Dems those seats they got voted out of. So blame Obama-he's already apoligized to the losers in the mid-terms for his narrow mindedness.

At the end of President clinton's term, our tax rate was exactly where it needed to be. We had finally got into a position to pay off our National debt. If we had ten years with those conditions, we would have had not debt. We would have been a strong nation.

Unfortunately the Superior court stole the election and put Bush in charge. Bush decided we needed to have a huge party with that money. Why pay off the debt when we could party? Because today we could be holding a zero balance on our national debt. But what is our debt today? 14 trillion dollars.

As I recall in 2000, there were a lot of happy business people making lots of money. Over 22 million jobs were created. I have been paying taxes the last 35 years and I wish I made enough to pay 40% income tax. Every person alive knows that the more you earn, the higher your tax bracket will go. If you don't want to pay the higher tax rate, make less money.

I earned 40,000 a year and payed about 6,000 in taxes. My daughter and her husband made about $440,000 three years ago and paid $154,000. They complained about how much they had to pay. I explained to them that I have $34,000 to live on. They have $286,000 to live on. Count your blessings. Since the housing market crashed, they are now making nothing. They now wish they could be paying those taxes this year.

Anybody out there that is paying 35% right now and not happy, I will gladly change jobs with you.

so did he pass the unemployment extension?

What you knuckleheads still don't get is the simple fact that 96.3% of those people who actually work, (excluding those people who are the government payroll) work FOR the 2% of Americans who make over $250,00.00 annually. So....if we penalize that 2% who actually winds up getting hurt? Are you able to see through this? If on the other hand we assist that 2% then jobs actually go up! It has been proven time and again that when the wealthy get tax breaks the actual revenue from taxes goes up due to the increase in working citizens. I'm sorry that you whiners are jealous of those of us who make 250k+. I happen to be in that 2% and I personally employ 14 American citizens, pay them a decent wage, provide SS, health care, etc. If the Bush era tax breaks had not been extended....I have plans to lay off 6 people. Now that is the simple reality of economics. The liberal dems will tell you blah, blah, oh those evil rich people. Well when you get rid of those evil rich people, how long do you think you will have a job!

The Republicans did not place in you in office, Mr. President, Democracts did. Big business and self interest groups did not vote for you, the people did. What happened to your promises and memory, Mr. President? What happened to your backbone? Where's the beef? Where's the "Change"?

Roy, keep in mind that when they price their products they include the taxes that they pay. So in actuality you pay for their taxes, not them. As for this president, he's done with me. A weak president is a worthless president. I voted for him, I won't again. As I previously wrote I'm looking for a new progressive candidate that has the courage of his convictions.

Extremely disappointed and disgusted in the Dems if they pass this big spending republican tax capitulation. This is why we're in a deficit. Spending just to spend and guaranteed to get nothing for it. As the story lead says this tax deal costs more than the much denigrated reinvestment act ("stimulus"). Thus, its inefficient spending just because the President doesn't want to explain his actions. Pres. Obama just wants to get it "off the table" so he can do what? Capitulate to a larger republican majority in both houses, and they are going to ask for more cuts to safety net spending and ask for more tax cuts.

This is data taken DIRECTLY for the IRS website and compiled here in data tables.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

As you can see, the top 1% of the earners in this country pay 50% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The rich pay upwards of 23% on their earnings, while the lowest tax brackets, through MANY exemptions I would assume, pay 2-3%, and the middle class only pays around 7%. So is this not enough for you tax and spend democrats? It's not okay to be successful in this country anymore? You have to penalize those that worked the hardest to get where they are? Here's the thing. There are PLENTY of millionaire democrats. Nothing is stopping them from writing a big check at tax season and sending it to the government as a surplus to the taxes they pay. Until they do, the Democrats are just using empty rhetoric to demonize the wealthy as the enemy of the proletariat.

PS - Last I checked, this wasn't a tax cut, it was a bill to keep the tax rate where it is, meaning not passing it is raising taxes on the people who already pay the most. Does that seem fair to you? To work the hardest yet foot most of the bill for the rest of the country? Maybe to a liberal zombie.

Not much to add from me, just read these-

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/01/the-2003-jobs-and-growth-plan-tax-cuts-didnt-work.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/

Most big money is made on the stock market and that tax is only 15% before any dodges. The Saudi royal family made 250 billion off our rigged stock market in one year. I don't know if they paid the full 15%. Why do we pay for troops to defend these monarchs? Also, why do we always hear about income tax and not about capital gains which is so low? Could it be because many of our esteemed leaders make big money at 15%. Surely that wasn't the reason they rushed to bail out wall street so fast when their stocks were sinking. Did you ever see these two parties come together so well? We need a government. This one is owned by banks, wall street and big corporations. Do the really big rich pay a reasonable share. Hell no! Our leaders know it and go with it.

Total sell out!!!! I can't believe there wasn't more of a fight to be right. All we got was a dog and pony show over the weekend that they all knew would lead to this. The Dems should have held their ground even though it would have meant the tax cuts expiring and not extending unemployment benefits. In two years he will probably lose the presidency and both the senate and the house will be in Republican hands giving them the ability to make the tax cuts permanent putting us deeper in debt as a country.

I am a long way from being impacted by this 250,000 amount, but I still don't think its right to pass all the responsibility for getting the country out of the mess on higher income groups. I know its human nature to want to pass the tax burden onto others besides ourselves, but probably what should be done is not let the cuts expire for all

The people making 250K+ benefit from tax policy in ways that the rest of us do not. For example, their payroll tax contribution caps at 106K and their long term capital gains rate is 15%. In other words, the work that you do is taxed at a higher rate than the income they earn from having more money than you. Why fret over these guys? It's not like they spend much time worrying about you.

Ohio Voter and Proud:

While I empathize with your quest to make writers more conscious of their language skills, it's g-r-a-m-m-A-r, not E-r. Practice what you preach.

As for the state of the economy, this tug-of-war in D.C. has a curious predetermined quality about it, almost as if these proposals and votes were being carried out as a passion play for the voters. People making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 do not need a continuation of the temporary tax break which was due to expire. Not extending it would not constitute a tax hike, but a return to regular rates. I suspect that the economy is in worse shape than most of our "leaders" admit, but I shudder to think about the depth of debt that will follow this move. Most of the middle-class citizens I know are willing to forego any further tax break in order to lower government debt. Surely the rich could do this as well. The only good part of this bill is the extension of unemployment benefits. Remember, the unemployed will not benefit from a tax break or a lowering of payroll taxes, since they have no earned income. They are the ones in real trouble here. I am 64, and several people I know who are 50 and above have well-founded concerns that they will never hold a full-time position in their profession again.

What we have here is a congress that should not be making a decision on this as 40-50% of them are millionaires. Those that are should recuse themselves from all voting on taxes for the wealthy.

Obama as President felt he had to compromise with the right in order to take care of people who are out of work and desperate. Fortunately or unfortunately this is the nature of our system. He could have been a hard ass and unemployment extension would have been deadlocked. The very thing he had been complaining about the Republicans. He put his money where his mouth is and got her done to feed the out of work folks.

Why anyone who is not rich votes for Republicans is beyond me. Fear and brainwashing and lack of education perhaps.

WAKE UP

Sometimes you frikkin politicians need to think of and do something for the

CITIZENS YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT.

Paul F #1.15.........

Although I don't agree with 100% of your post I DO appreciate your honesty as far as ACROSS THE BOARD spending cuts INCLUDING the DOD. If we don't start cutting the defense budget then it will BURY us in the scrap heap of history. You would think we would learn from what happened to the Soviet Union. Hell we don't even have the excuse of being in the middle of an arms race we just have to keep feeding the beast so we can pretend we are secure from the rest of the evil world. I don't think we have been LESS secure in my lifetime.

Now as for the Republicans getting tax breaks for the top 2% where did all the outspoken Tea Party people go? Why aren't you SCREAMING about the deficit like you were during the election?

Regarding the MYTH that these tax breaks for the ultra wealthy create jobs.....If the tax breaks were going to create jobs then WTF are they?

Regarding the MYTH that tax cuts INCREASE revenue......Even the most extreme right wing conservatives have admited that that is a LIE! The Laffer (laughable) curve is a CURVE and there is a point where tax cuts mean LESS revenue and we are CLEARLY on the less revenue side of that equation. The FACT is virtually EVERY economist (even the conservative ones) say that we will recoup only 28% of the tax cuts for the top 2%. On the other hand the gov't will get MORE than it spends on unemployment benefits back in tax revenue because the money is SPENT and it is SPENT over and over and over due to the money multiplier effect. Look it up!

ENOUGH of the LIES! Make no mistake the American people are begining to wake up and the days of repeating a lie until people believe it are OVER. Continue to insult the intelignce of the people and you WILL pay for it.

I guess you cons think if you toss around enough words sooner or later everyone will believe you.

Roy, as I'm sure you know that's exactly how progressives work.

You folks are amazing, first of all corporations like Exxon and such don't pay taxes anyway, they are passed on to consumers in higher prices for goods. If the price structure does not cover it, they cut payroll, plain and simple. So, going after these companies only hurts the people you are trying to protect, the middle class. Sure, go tax Exxon at 90%, then when that person working a job making $50k a year is paying $6 or $7 a gallon for gas, tell him its ok, we are sticking it to the corporation. No, you are sticking it to the middle class. You can demonize these companies all you want, but if it wasn't for these companies we would not have an economy. The left seems to think we can tax these corporations at any percentage we want and they will just say ok, you got me, here is the check. How ridiculous and naive.

The fact is the wealthy in this county pay the majority of the total tax burden, they always have. A flat tax system, no deductions or loop-holes, everybody pays the same percentage on all income, would be a better system, it would be fair, and would increase government revenue. It would also cut spending as we could probably eliminate 90% the IRS.

What is Obama referring to when he talks about a fight? This was a fight without a punch thrown. Where one of the camps simply threw in the towel at the start and the so-called "fighter" skulked back to his corner without engaging. I am embarrased as a Democrat this morning. I have worked for this party for 30 years and have seen all sorts of gaffes and misjudgements over that period but today is a new low. And I truly have to laugh at those who see this as some sort of new beginning for the party or see this as some sort of worthy compromise. Capitulation is not compromise.

When are people going to wake up and realize that trickle down economics is a failure and does not stimulate the economy? We've played this game for 10 years now. I'm no expert but it seems to me that if you concentrate tax cuts on the 95% of working class Americans they have more buying power and create more demand than the other 5% of Americans. The Bush tax cuts are nothing but an illusion that everyone is getting a tax cut when really only millionaires and billionaires see a significant portion of that cut. The rest of us don't even notice it. I also don't understand how fighting against tax cuts for the rich is a losing argument? If the republicans want to block tax cuts for the middle class let them do it. Call their bluff. If Democrats cave on this they've lost my support.

Extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone AND extension of unemployment benefits? Think the deficit is high now?? I'm ready to sit back and watch this country implode financially. Why not sit back....I can't do one blooming thing about the decision-making in DC. I'm waiting for the Republicans to start the double-talk rhetoric next year, when it becomes apparent to even the most optimistic of conservatives that all their talk about "extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy WILL create jobs" will suddenly change to "well....er...ummm....we...ummm...<cough>....we need MORE corporate tax incentives....hurruummpphhhh" when the national jobless rate hovers around 9.5 to 10% the entire year. When greed takes hold on people, it's an ever-building need that never can be satisfied.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of human nature knows that it's "human" to want to keep the spoils to themselves, rather than do the right thing and give a hand UP (not a hand OUT!!) to those in desperate need of an income that will sustain them in the current standard of living. Creating jobs that pay minimum wage does little to get people out of poverty. All we ask is that the jobs that ARE created with the tax cut extension be jobs that pay people what they are worth, and not what the "market" will allow. Don't let your own greed cloud this "golden opportunity" to show all those skeptics out there (like me) that your claims of increased job creation with the corporate and wealthy tax cuts are valid and WILL happen.

Who knows, if what you Cons say should happen actually does happen, you'll be praised as heroes! But Lord help you all in 2012 if what you promise never materializes in 2011!!

Barney-617669

So Beverly help me understand. The rich have gone into your house and your bank account and stolen from you? One day you had $5,000.00 in your checking account and the next day the balance was $0.00 and yet you spent nothing! And when you inquired you found out that George Soros had plundered your checking account!!! Holy fat cat Batman. Do you not see how inane and ridiculous your argument sounds? It is the producers (rich) that hire, and provide economic stimulation. Unless of course your Chris at MSNBC then grate leader gives your thigh stimulation.

**********************************************************
**********************************************************

First of all, your last line was really gratuitous and in general offensive to most people. Give it a break, man.

Now, regarding the alleged substance of your post:

Let's get point one out of the way - George Soros actually pays a substantial sum to the government in voluntary taxes every year. He's not only a wise and savvy investor whose wealth partly was offered to help get a struggling Russia out of desperate trouble after the USSR fell, but he has lived up to his principles in his choices of political support and massive charitable gifts. He's the last guy who would have raided Beverly's bank account, but you chose him for the analogy just to slide in a bit of snark. Didn't really aid in the credibility of your post.

The analogy in a way actually works, if you look at the steady transfer of wealth from the middle- and lower-class earners since 1981. In fact, preferential tax rates since Reagan took office - and even though adjusted somewhat during Clinton's terms, were still preferential - laid off much more of a relative tax burden on the middle and lower income levels than on the upper. That is, in fact, a redistribution of wealth and can fairly be called "class war" by the wealthy upon the lower-income brackets. It worked - since 1981, middel- and lower-bracket taxpayers have lost ground in net worth and annual earnings while the upper-income brackets have steadily gained.

And thus your analogy works because it is an ultimate transfer of wealth upwards, a kind of raid on the national bank account for the 98% who do not enjoy the preferential rates.

What many here write about is a boo-hoo-hoo for upper-income taxpayers paying more than everyone else in absolute terms relative to income-tax receipts of the Treasury, rather than total Federal taxes relative to all wealth-producing revenues received by people in upper-income brackets. Several have pointed out that capital gains, and now estate taxes, are subject to relatively low levies, and are certainly not regarded as "income" for some tax definition purposes.

A few have commented on such items as excessive bonuses - and let's throw in as well the value of executive perquisites, free or very low-priced stock options, employment contracts for family members, and many other side deals that fatten the execuutive bank accounts at preferential tax rates. The top six people at the small business where I work all take home in a month more than I earn in a year, and for many of the people with whom I work, the monthly executive earnings are two or three times those colleagues' annual salaries. In this specific case, while those top officials do indeed produce results to justify very good compensation, they are in fact plundering the firm and the shareholders, and overall business performance does not justify their outright greed and self-aggrandizement.

Further, their compensation packages absolutely prevent my company from being able to hire more - and needed - staff. Giving these people tax cuts will never result in "trickle down" employment, and even in earlier years of this firm, never would have.

Now, this anecdote is not as unusual as it seems. In fact, for a long time, direct experience with the use of tax cuts for the wealthy as a means of job creation has shown repeatedly that it simply is a myth. Repeatedly, other countries - such as Germany - tried the method and found out that the recipients acted exactly as the people at my company.

Others here have already made good and factual arguments about "trickle down" as a belief that is misplaced. I think that a lot of the argument from the right on this matter - and especially from flat-tax advocates - reflects an essential philosophical point of view about equality. "Treat everyone the same," is what it boils down to. If that were really true in our tax system, then the tax load on the upper 2% would be much, much heavier, so that it in fact reflected the same proportional burden as that borne by the middle- and lower-class taxpayers. Because that's the very point of the progressive tax system - to spread the wieght of the burden equally relative to living costs and pesonal wealth.

This is going on long enough. I'll wrap up with a comment about tax policy in general - the reason for so many kinds of exemptions on various forms of income and use of that income is to usually promote a long-term public goal. Those goals range from encouraging real estate investment and home ownership to support for the arts and charitable programs. Most of us tend to agree with those goals, even if sometimes the tax benefits cause grumbling.

What we should realize now with especially capital gains exemptions is that they promote the wrong objectives - short-term profits at the expense of long-term investment and business stability. That's one area of tax policy that changed under Reagan, and has a lot to do with mess the world is in today.

None of this will matter --if there are NO JOBS and THE BANKS THE REPUBS BAILOUT CONTINUE TO HOLD ON TO THE CASH!

Despicable slime bucket repubs and their blackmail and disreguard for the American People and the Nation..I wish them all permanent bull pucky on their gucci loafers! and disgust from those that encounter them! Call them in rage ---1.866.311.3405 or 1.866.220 0044!

How about treating people equally for a change? Even the rich. I have no need to punish the rich for being successful. I've had a enough of the class warfare that's split this country and destroyed any sense of unity we used to have. Even Soros and Kerry can keep their money. They have property rights too.

BS detector - see my post 1.78, above. You just validated what had been up to now just an informed guess about the source of some contention on this topic. I did address this idea, and basically dealt with the fairness and equality argument.

Overall, actually (my post explains more), I see the tax cuts for the upper brackets as a kind of "class warfare," targeting the lower-income taxpyers. The results since 1981 show it has been a form of state transfer of wealth upward without any offsetting benefits to the country.

save my mortgage deduction that's worth more than the small tax cut we middle class get!

Keep SS age the same....... at age 70...... less jobs each year become available...... $$$ lost not collecting at the lower age!

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THESE ISSUES

yagoddabkidden - Retirement age now actually starts at age 67 for full benefits, not 70.

In a shirnking employment market, setting the full benefits age LOWER will open more jobs than moving it back to age 70. So, if people could retire with full benefits at age 62, we'd see lots more job openings.

Of course, the real problem with that is that SS benefits are really too low for many people to afford to retire, and the economic crisis detroyed many people's investments and savings. So taking retirement in the year full benefits obtain is not always an option - waiting a year or three more increases eventual SS benefits enough to make up the difference.

As for mortgage interest exemtpions, the best measure might be to set a cap on either the total value of exemption allowed, or a limit on the value of the original mortgage (along with any second- or thir-mortgage value). So, either you get up to $10,000 a year interest deductions, or you get say, up to $300,000 mortgage value deductions. Could be adjustable for market differentials - a $300,000 value in San Francisco or New York isn't really so much, while in Tampa that's a mansion.

Matt Houston did some investigating as to your Exxon Mobile data. While I agree with the 19 billion profit but was unable to verify the tax paid. I do know that they made that profit on 300 plus billion in sales. Which amounts to 6.3% profit margin hardly huge by any standard. They collect billions of dollars in tax revenue for both the state and the federal government which allegedly is for infrastructure. Odd how that seems to disappear with no one questioning where it goes. Also they have 80,700 employees. Now let us assume that they pay an average of $50,000.00 per employee which is rather modest considering that they have a rather large union influence in the refining end as well as engineering and skilled labor. This put 4,035,000,000.00 into the economy that year. They withheld 1,008,750,000.00 in taxes and MATCHED that amount to the federal government. And we have not even begun to examine the satellite businesses that evolved to support the various needs of Exxon Mobil. So while you may find some sort of problem with what the corporation paid in income taxes you would be ill advised to cast them as some sort of demon. I mean come on the federal government should not even be collecting tax from anyone especially at the levels they are now. And the fact they paid no tax in your small mind is somewhat inane as the taxes paid and generated by them are completely overwhelming. By the way if they pay taxes it will simply be passed on to all who purchase their products. Of course you probably ride a bicycle to work and a two seater on dates to save the planet.

And John while you present a well spoken post it is for the most part fraught with inaccuracies. And I did not say that grate leader caused a tingle in my thigh that was a verbatim quote from Chris Mathews. The real solution to the situation is to make sure EVERYONE has skin in the game. That along with spending at levels that are affordable, as I am certain you do, would take care of the problem. Term limits with a two term maximum for either party. After all if it was good for Reagan, Clinton, Bush then it is as good for Congress. And while we are at correcting the perks of evil big business let us also remove the perks of Congress. After serving the people they leave office never to return except for vacation. They receive the same Social Security, medical, retirement opportunities, and job opportunities as you or I. Would you care to venture how long it would take to amend the problem? When we have Congress people serving 50-60 years, so old they are wearing depends, and after they go to the other side their spouse continues to receive payment it will always be a problem. Take away the perks and everyone pays a consumption tax IE equal burden the poor purchase less thus pay less the rich buy more thus pay more. It will solve the problems WITHOUT redistribution of any kind.

Smityy the not wise -

You have no idea what you are talking about. You need to turn off Fox

Smitty the Dumb wrote:

he decided to cram OBAMACARE and other Democratic agendas down the throats of the American people.

He didn't cram it down my throat or anyone else's for that matter. Democrats spent an entire summer talking with Republicans who negotiated in bad faith and flat out lied about the bill. You don't seriously believe that the ACA calls for death panels, do you? Not even Smitty the Dumb could be that dumb.

Poor fellow with the useless right wing rant that is meaningless. Obamacare? The health care bill was in the works for over 20 years and is about 40% Republican imput. Hardly a bill that can be attributed to one man.

UnConvinced, I must say though we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum it is good to see we agree on sane economics.

I am for an across the board flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. No loop holes, zero wiggle room. no excuses.Your tax form would be the size of a post card.

Line 1 .... total income $xxxxx

Line 2 .... subtract xx% from line one.

Line 3 ..... Total reported tax paid through automatic income tax deduction $xxxxxx

. Line 4..... Take line two and subtract line three. This your TOTAL tax bill.

Payment must be received by 4/15/20xx. After this date add 25% monthly to amount owed.

Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner both who claim they couldn't figure out Turbo Tax as to why they improperly filed their taxes could do this tax form. ( A message for both of them: using a professional tax preparer is currently TAX DEDUCTIBLE).

FLAT TAX QUESTION:

The only concern I have with a flat tax involves "tax free municipal bonds".

With a flat tax, will the incentive for buying these bonds disappear? Cost of borrowing for infrastructure will go up?......... I know pay as u go...... but all agencies use "tax anticipation notes" to operate

Sometimes there a little slow, Hopefully I will be able to cancel my SELL Orders that are set for this Friday.

Did they explain to the republicans where the dollar is going?

Screw the market. No tax cuts for nobody. Work on the national debt including 50% cut in defense spending.

Did they explain to Republicans that tax cuts dont really create jobs? The way Republicans deregulated banking industry just turned tax cuts into a big pot for the wall street casino.

Alykatma - I'm skeptical, but a payroll tax holiday might work because it provides benefit over an extended period.

And it wasn't just the Republicans that deregulated the banking industry.

Tax hikes don't stimulate the economy either, thus letting any tax cuts expire would be considered so. You really should take an economics class before you try to wax all intellectual about it.

Alykatma- Who was calling for no money down loans to people who couldn't pay them? Who rejected recommendations by auditors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

Boo

You do know that about 75% of defense spending goes for pay, basic equipment, housing, and health care for personnel. Only 25% is committed to weapons, ammunition, and weapons development/procurement. So if you cut defense by 50%, you are cutting our forces by 1/3 and dumping another two to three hundred thousand people into a job market that is already at 10% unemployment. Yes that is a great solution to our financial problems not to mention decreasing the security of our nation. Defense can be cut, maybe by 50% over time but not immediately. We need to build down slowly or risk the same mistakes that Carter and Ford made during their presidency's. Taking the so called peace dividend to extremes only to end up with the corruption and exuberant costs of out sourcing to private contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater. Prior to the cuts under Ford, Carter and then again Clinton, the work these contractors do was all done in house by the armed services. In case you didn't realize it, our men and women in uniform make a lot less than the contractors being used to replace them. So while it may save some money when were at peace, as soon as we send troops anywhere for any reason, the contractors need to be hired to provide support and logistics. Some savings huh!

Gharms - many experts don't believe that the disputed tax cuts (for the "rich") would cause much in the way of economic turbulence if they were left to expire. While people are reluctant to raise taxes at all while in a downturn, I think the revenue from the expiration of the tax cuts might be be better spent in other ways to stimulate the economy than on those tax cuts.

Anon Monster!

And it wasn't just the Republicans that deregulated the banking industry.

=========================

You are correct. However, the rethuglicants seem to have forgotten their part in it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

archangel 3:16

So if you cut defense by 50%, you are cutting our forces by 1/3 and dumping another two to three hundred thousand people into a job market that is already at 10% unemployment.

archangel----maybe if we stopped being the world's policemen and brought all our troopers home we would need an armed forces the size we have today. Sooner or later our military will face budget cuts.

BTW---the unemployment rate is around 18%. It was only during the Reagan administration that the government started dropping people out of the labor force when calculating the unemployment rate. Another 300,000 people on it isn't going to make any difference when you already have 25 million unemployed/under employed/dropped from the rolls.

No they did not the President tried to get the Republicans to compromise a techniques they have no clue on. The Democrats are not on board as of yet.

And it wasn't just the Republicans that deregulated the banking industry.

The bad parts were in ther from the Republican side and it was passed by a Republican controlled Senate and congress. Many Democrats and a few republicans warned against the bill. Republicans are all for deregulation while most Democrats want meaningful regulations.

logdump, what were the bad parts. Do you mean the no docs loans, no income verification? Bush tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, but Barney Frank, Dodd and Schumer would not hear of it.

Barney-617669, they did not go into Bev's account and stole $5000. That would be silly. The corporations have been stilling from Americans by outsourcing jobs for higher profit while they escaped paying taxes on that profit by moving their addresses to countries that do not have tax laws. They've been stealing from Americans by fully enjoying loopholes given to them on a silver platter by the Dick. They increase their profits by ignoring safety of employees and the communities around them (Halliburton, BP). They stole from people's 401K by profiting from selling toxic mortgages to the next sucker. They stole from American's investments by skyrocketing the prices of homes and then deflating the balloon and leaving people with homes that are worth far less than when they bought them. They profited from shady financial practices like Enron and many other companies like Enron.

You are very naïve to think that stealing is only going into someone’s bank account and taking the money. We allow these companies to steal from us and then we reward them with tax breaks!

And it wasn't just the Republicans that deregulated the banking industry.

The bad parts were in ther from the Republican side and it was passed by a Republican controlled Senate and congress. Many Democrats and a few republicans warned against the bill. Republicans are all for deregulation while most Democrats want meaningful regulations.

Where do you learn your history? The Democrats pushed for the bill! It was written BY Democrats! What kind of drugs are you taking? Acorn was a major player in pushing it and helping people file for the loans they couldn't afford! I love how when the crap hits the fan they run and blame others.... nice.... Responsibility for failures as well as successes... something the Democrats need to learn.

Jobs were outsourced cuz you cant justify $20+/hr to turn a wrench. Its not that valuable a skill. The low-end workers unioned themselves out of their job. High value-added workers arent having any problems staying employed.

you are not a very good bs detector then

Most estimates of U.S. jobs lost come from consulting companies or industry groups directly involved in outsourcing (irony). Boston-based consultancy Forrester estimates that 400,000 service jobs have been lost to offshoring since 2000, with jobs leaving at a rate of 12,000 to 15,000 per month. Other estimates say up to 20,000 jobs a month may be moving overseas. This is in addition to the 2 million manufacturing jobs that are estimated to have moved offshore. These numbers are predicted to rise. The white-collar offshoring will increase at a rate of 30 percent to 40 percent over the next five years. By 2015, 3.3 million service jobs will have moved offshore, including 1.7 million "back office" jobs such as payroll processing and accounting, and 473,000 jobs in the information technology industry.

So it's not just jobs that turn wrenches.

Dateless you are clueless. Those with the top 1% of incomes pay almost 50% of all individual federal income tax. The top 10% pay 70% of federal income tax while the bottom 75% pays ONLY 14%. Perhaps you should stop whining and just say "thank you" to those who are funding the running of our federal government, and it isn't the middle class.

Peter 17 is sull of fhit..... They defer all of their taxes until they die..... Then the taxes go away...

Actually, Peter17 may be correct but his reasoning is a red herring. They may be paying most of the revenue, but as a percentage of their income, they are paying MUCH less than the middle class. The average rate for those in the top 2% is around 15% of their income.

The top 10% also have far more than 70% of the wealth. So if you want to be fair about who shoulders the cost of running a government they should actually be paying far more, they should pay at a rate commiserate with their wealth

Actually, Matthew, data from the IRS says you are incorrect. Those in the top 1% of incomes in 2008 paid an average tax rate on all there income of just over 23%. Those in the bottom 50% paid an average rate of just 2.6%, and the 25%-50% group, which many would call the middle class, paid an average rate of only 6.75%. Isn't it amazing what you can find out when you look at actual IRS data! There is so much misinformation around.

15% of a million is $150,000 added to $15,000 or so for social security and who knows what for property tax as these folks tend to have expensive houses.

More importantly these people tend to live well. Living well means spending money usually on employees and people that are less well off. The more they spend on taxes the less they have to fly airplanes, play with boats etc.

Stop the class warfare.

Observer, we don't tax wealth, we tax income. You can have billions in wealth and not pay a dime of income tax. That is why they call it INCOME TAX.

Did they explain to Republicans that tax cuts dont really create jobs? The way Republicans deregulated banking industry just turned tax cuts into a big pot for the wall street casino.

Not "the democrats", just Obama. I had such faith in him as a fighter for the middle class and now it seems he's been purchased by the Koch brothers too. I would gladly have let my taxes go up to keep from handing more money to millionnaires. My president has sold me out. It's a sad day. The rich have won and the rest of us better learn to use our "entreprenurial spirit" to figure out how to make food from air.

Post a link, Peter, I do not believe you.

Dateless, (I wonder why), the "rich" you want to pay for all this are already doing so. The majority of taxes collected in this country are collected from 7% of the taxpayers... the "rich". How about the nearly 50% of the people in this nation who pay NO taxes.

What we have is half the people have "representation" and pay NO taxes... kinda screws the rest of us who work each day to pay the bills and get to support them!

I guess those who could afford to date you are busy working.... hmmmm. Their gain!

Dan - there's a difference between paying no taxes and having one's income (not all) taxes refunded to them.

Having said that, despite the rich footing a significant portion of the bill, their percentage of the wealth in this nation continues to rise.

I guess you are one of the people that believes everything the dems tell you to believe. Facts are only 51% of citizens actually pay taxes, and over 80% are paid by those making over $100,000.00 check the facts, before you start bad mouthing people.

Mathew - here is the link. I like this particular website which puts IRS data in a series of data tables. If you have ever tried to navigate the IRS site, it is very time consuming and not user friendly.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

The tables do make for very interesting reading.

Hey all you whiners go out and be successful and you too can be one of the rich guys! Why should someone who pays for a good education and works 100 hours a week, sacrifices time from family support all the fat lazy people who think everyone owes them something.! This is the land of opportunity and if you don't like your life make some changes and quit frickin blaming everyone for your sorry life. Too penalize someone because they are successful is not what this Country was about. Now it is a crime to be wealthy? What is to motivate my grandchildren to be successful?

Thank you for the link, Peter.

Now, you do understand that the definition of 'income' by the IRS and actual income are two very different things, right? As I pointed out in another string, the highest paid hedge fund manager paid only 15% on his real income. Why? Because Capital gains is not 'income' under the definition of income by the IRS. The 'effective tax rate' that the highest 2% pays on all of their actual income is about 15%.

How do I know this? Well, I read a lot and my sister's family is over the $250,000 per year of actual income but pay a much lower percentage of their actual income in taxes than I pay. Plus I have friends who do the same. Both of them take advantage of loopholes and advantages that are available to those who have the money to take advantage of them.

So, those tables may show what you say (no time to check them out, right now) but they may be misleading if they do not take into account the loopholes, etc. that affect these data points. Besides, how much do you trust this site? What was their methodology? I would only trust the IRS site, or at least check out your link against the IRS.

Sooooo....basically what I'm hearing from the liberal zombies is it doesn't matter that the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes. They make more, so they should pay even more. Let's keep penalizing those that actually made something of themselves. Penalize the ones who made strides to better their own lives, you know, the American Dream. What's the worst that could happen there? Oh yeah. The rich will pack up and leave for countries that won't gouge them for being successful, and then you'll all bitch about how the Republicans didn't fight hard enough to keep your jobs on American soil.

Lets see 15% of 10 million is 1.5 million. WHO in the middle class pays that? Name ONE middle class that pays that. Thats not a fair share thats a penelty for working hard. PERIOD. So all you whinning libs that keep complaining and boohoo'ing do the math. That number is INSANE!!!!

If they cut spending it doesn't increase the deficit.

dateless

our problem is not one of too little taxes -- it is one of too much spending.

i, would dearly love to see your household budgets. your all probably so far under water, you should be using gills, not lungs!

Dan,

The link shown below might help clarify the 47% statement often given in posts regarding taxes-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Dateless you are clueless. Those with the top 1% of incomes pay almost 50% of all individual federal income tax. The top 10% pay 70% of federal income tax while the bottom 75% pays ONLY 14%. Perhaps you should stop whining and just say "thank you" to those who are funding the running of our federal government, and it isn't the middle class.

Ok now explain to the people how a class of people who control 85% of the wealth in a country yet (some) only pay up to 70% of the taxes are not making out like .....

The rich will pack up and leave for countries that won't gouge them for being successful, and then you'll all bitch about how the Republicans didn't fight hard enough to keep your jobs on American soil.

If they leave as they already have we may be better off. Then we can build a better country here. If you think these people are smart you should watch that dating show for millionaires. back in the old days you never heard a peep out of rich people about taxes until most of them became heirs not people who worked their way up the ladder as the right claims. We have now a bunch of idiots who probably could not run a mcDonalds who inherited their money trying not to pay taxes. ITS AN INCOME TAX! Stop posting that BS that 50% of the people do not pay any taxes! 5-% of the workers in America do not make a dime ove 32k a year and are trying to survive in a world of ever increasing costs. Since 1979 average wages for workers have risin 11% over 30 years for people making less than 60K a year. In the top bracket wages have gone up 236% in the same period. We are being hosed

watt75

Hey all you whiners go out and be successful and you too can be one of the rich guys! Why should someone who pays for a good education and works 100 hours a week,

Works 100 hours a week!!!??? BULLSH*T!!! I am sure there are some examples of people who DO work that much but it sure as HELL isn't the norm. I would say there are a HELL of a lot more wealthy that don't work a 100 hours in their LIVES let alone 100 hours a WEEK. We are becoming a country where we have a wealthy ruling class that pass on their massive fortunes to their spoiled POS children who NEVER had to earn a single thing in their lives. Some billionaires like Warren Buffet understand how backwards it is for his aires to profit from HIS hard work so he is giving his fortune away when he dies. His aires won't be left pennyless but they AREN'T going to inherit BILLIONS. Gates and Buffet are the REAL Americans because they understand that they have a MORAL obligation to their country and their fellow citizens. The millionaires/billionaires who are fighting TOOTH and NAIL to reduce their taxes are Psuedo Americans who ask "What can the country, and their fellow citizens, do for ME" rather than "what can I do to improve the strength of the country that has done so much for me."

The budget is calculated in dollars, not percentage. If we used percentages, we wouldnt have a debt. So its apples/apples to say the rich are paying 70% as measured in dollars.

They did manage to find the combination that spends those most money that we dont have.

Since the democrats are such wusses, maybe you should vote republican, oh right, they are like the anti-christ to genuine liberals.

I'd like to see a real change in our government too, I just do not believe in legislation and freebie give away programs managed by the national government paid for by redistribution of hard working peoples well deserved labor.

DADT is a reasonable approach, I don't have a problem with homosexuals serving in the military, but some things should always be a "private" matter and this is one of them. Personally, I also feel that no one in the military should be married either, especially anyone under the age of 30 with 10 years or less of service.

As for the DREAM act, I am truly sorry for those illegal immigrants brought here by illegal immigrant parents. That doesn't mean that my tax dollars should fund their education by any means.

In both of these cases, they should be voted on as stand-alone actions and not be tied to a "Defesense Authorization Bill" that is intended to fund defense not legislate it.

While I understand the argument of the child shouldn't be penalized for what the parents did, the sins of the father are often visited upon his children. Just look at drug addicts whose children are taken away and put in foster care for their parent's misdeeds.

RCM

The problem was that you listened to them in the first place. They are the ones that will sit back and say they got through their signature piece of legislation after 60 years and consider the last two years a success. That is the real lie being told. Their hope and change turned out to be hope that they could fool America long enough to push through their agenda until they were caught tearing the country apart.

All the talk of racism is BS, nobody hoped Obama would fail because he was Black, only because of his policies. I am actually hopeful that he will continue to work with Republicans on compromises so that something beneficial will come of his presidency. I would love nothing better than for him to be successful and get America working again, it is Pelosi, Reid, and Company that is the real problem and part of that will be going away in January. If he can be reasonable and work with all the legislators on Capitol hill, the next two years might actually save is legacy.

mrDucks, instead of wanting more change, maybe we should be more specific about which direction of change we want. Considering what happened last time we voted for "change,'

b/c the GOP is setting up Obama to face the end of the tax cuts again, only this time in a Presidential election year. Then, they'll blackmail him into another extension. And if they win back the WhiteHouse, they'll be in perfect position to extend them permanently.

The GOP has a game plan, and they're playing Obama for the overly optimistic fool that he is quickly becoming.

All employed people pay into unemployment insurance so they can collect when they lose their job. You act as if there's thousands of people satisfied to collect unemployment and not look for a job. I'm not sure if this statement could be any more ignorant of reality.

RCM22... you call George's statement ignorant and then use a completely false statement to try and prove your point. I think it's your statement that is ignorant of the facts. Unemployment insurance is paid for by employers, not employees. The amount that employers pay in, ususally covers enough for 6 months of unemployement benefits. Anything more is is paid for by the federal government out everyone elses normal taxes. In this case, you're income tax is now paying for someone to collect unemployment for up to almost 3 years. (2 1/2 of those years paid for by the federal government rather than the employers).

99 weeks is the maximum 73 paid for by the Feds and 26 paid by the state.

The extension does NOT extend the maximum past 99 weeks, only the time frame that would allow the unemployed to get Federal benefits thru the end of 2011.

Once you are past 99 weeks you are out of luck and money, this extension will not change that.

and you are wrong...if employers were not obligated to pay unemployment insurance, they could pay the employee more per hour...more money into the pocket of the worker....so it works both ways...I was laid off some 1 year ago as a welder and haven't found anything....I worked 33 years at a trade and got unempoyment that I now get no more...this deals doesn't help me what so ever...screw them...let them all expire like the bill reads...obama is being played like a fiddle and I sure hope that someone challenges him in 2012 or I won't vote at all...

I sit here and read the spin on unemployment, this was insurance!!! people. Never meant to replace your income for the job but to supplement your savings while you GO OUT AND GET A JOB!!! I have personal experience with people who are not willing to sell their new car or trade down their big home just because they don't have a job. They are also not willing to take a job or work 2 or 3 jobs if that is what it takes that does not meet their so-called standards. Unemployment should not be another means of income but some treat it that way! I have been down this road and worked 2 jobs in order to support my family until a better job came along and didn't whine about it GET REAL, DO WHAT IT TAKES, I have never taken 3 YEARS to find a job and have had many. I am now self employed and more than pay my share in taxes

My question to all of you what about the children of the families these cuts will affect? Are all the rich willing take on that responsibility of providing just the basic needs to these children here in the USA? Unemployment runs out, there are just more than the adults to think about.

stlouismike

How about the amount of years paid in for an employees vs the amount an employee takes out? Employers have paid in unemployment insurance for me for 30 years so that means 15 years of benefits by your standard. If I collect for two years at less than half pay what happened to the other 13 years worth of benefits? No I don't really feel bad for being off so long while I am trying to find a job in my field for a pay check near to what I was making. With the jobs available I would need to work over 80 hours a week just to break even with where I was last year working 40. The problem all along has been jobs, with people working they pay taxes and employers pay taxes to fund the government, with no one working there is no tax money, no revenue. You could raise taxes to 100% but if your not working it doesn't matter cause your not making anything to tax. Not to mention those vaunted unemployment checks get even smaller when you consider your benefit is taxed as income just as if you were working.

"Taxes must go up to have any hope of closing the budget gap over time?"

Grand Moff Joseph, here is a novel idea for you instead. HOW ABOUT STOP SPENDING?!! Cut out all these ridiculous freebie hand out programs and all the other pork that this administration wants to spend OUR money on and we might be able to start paying some bills. Unfortunately that is not going to happen if the libs in Washington have any say in it. They can't help it, it's an addiction. They remind of my 18 year old daughter with credit card in hand and she heads to the mall.

How did we BLOW a hole in the budget? If the taxes did go up they would find other ways to BLOW the money that should be kept in MY pocket. I am much better at deciding what I want to spend my money on than the government. Also I am pretty tired of carrying the 47 percent that sit on their butts and get government handouts and expect even more. This was not meant to be the land of entitlements and a nanny state. Enjoy your holidays!

I agree with Grand Moff. At some point we have to take our medicine. There will always be a reason not to raise taxes. This is the GOP version of a Stimulus package. I do agree with limiting unemployment benefits at some point or find a way to pay for it that does not involve adding to the debt or on the backs of everyone still working.

Actually, the government needs to both STOP SPENDING and RAISE TAXES in order to close the budget hole, you could cut 100% of government spending and it still won't be enough to cover the existing deficit + future increases in debt thanks to Medicare. No, a combination of spending cuts and tax raises will be required to close that fiscal gap. Just a side note - you can only cut taxes for a certain amount of times - because taxes will eventually be so low that you can't cut them any more, and be forced to raise them - which is what's happened here, Republicans can no longer make tax cuts, and instead decide not to raise them instead.

The hacks in DC, and frankly most of America needs to wake up to the reality: Taxes must go up to have any hope of closing the budget gap over time.

This is not entirely true either. Haven't you ever been in debt before? You can increase your income but unless you reduce your outgoing money, you never get out of debt.

In fact, usually when your income goes up so does your spending because now you have more to spend. You never get above water unless you STOP over spending.

They say Obama's trying to play this "neutral" role to win over the independents in the next election but I think he's just alienating his liberal core. I've been liberal and proud my whole life but 2012 is when I'll be looking for a good independent candidate or vote for no one at all. Obama has sold out the people or maybe been bought by the wealthy who now control everything. He's no longer the president I voted for and I won't make the same mistake twice. Had I only known he was a spineless jellyfish...

I'm with you hellinahandbasket...............He wimped out on us

You voted for a guy that had little if any experience. He is an incredible orator but now that you expect him to lead you're surprised that he's incapable?!? Promises made on the campaign trail are pretty hard to deliver with the crap that goes on in DC. He showed no track record of being a leader and is in over his head.

Tony while I agree the politicians need term limits, democrats have always been and will always be for more goverment and less private sector that is the primary difference between them and the GOP who believes you should reap what you soe, and not be giving to because you don't, or as your president put it "spread the wealth" if you didn't earn it you should reap the rewards from it. Hellinahandbasket he is doing what he's been doing his entire political career, do not know why you seem surprised by it now

Since when is it the job of the federal government to increase the savings rate by any income group?? Those with the upper 10% of incomes already pay 70% of all individual federal income tax. If you want to live a better lifestyle, go out and work for it and stop looking for the government to hold your hand.

Greg that should tell you something maybe you should save 25% and watch your wealth grow, Peter some will never get it their blinders will only let them see one-sided with no objectivity.

Greg

Last time I checked 75% of a million was 750,000 dollars which is ten times more than 95% of of 75000. So who is benefiting the economy more? You can't in one breath they aren't paying their fair share when in the next you saying they pump ten times more into the economy than the average wage earner. Fair is fair and charging someone more because he makes more is regressive and wrong. If you want to level the playing field, then close the loop holes that are exploited by tax lawyers for the rich that can afford to pay their ridiculous fees.

The rich earned their money, they can do whatever they want with it. You have no justification to tell others what to do with THEIR money. This is the main evil of liberalism. Liberals cant produce surplus assets so they tell everybody else what to do with theirs. And you dont create assets by doing what liberals so. The ideology simply isnt sustainable.

Heck, what else is New, Winker? Democrats got 90& of Our agenda passed the last 2 years & what did President Obama get for it from Democrats.

Democrats stayed Home in November & Lost the House!

Want some CheezeWiz with your WHINE ?

We should all give up our tax cuts they will add another 4 trillion to the debt.

We could not afford tax cuts and also wage 2 wars in 2003, and we certainly cannot in 2011.

I think someone was passed out and missed that 8:00 A.M. Yale Eco 101 class.

Get off the gravy train

sound to me like it's coming to be what can my country do for me instead of what can I do for my country, and that's a shame

biggertrucker

Though a little rough around the edges, a truer statement has never been uttered. The funniest part of this whole saga is watching all the worshipers turn away from their messiah over one compromise. He decides to try Bipartisan law making once and his followers abandon him. This is a statement of just how greedy liberals really can be, and how wishy washy they really are.

Wish people could understand the difference between taxes and revenue. Increasing taxes do not raise revenue. History has proven just that. Reduce rates and tax revenue increases. On another note, FDR was the one to say public service workers should not be unionized, there is no control over benefits paid.

but the vast amount of the cost is for other than the extension of the tax rates for earners over $250K so those costs belong to Obama

Exactly why all of the tax cuts should be allowed to expire as intended.

I'm sorry but the last time I checked 250,000 did not make you a millionaire, get your head out of the sand

Joe Mota

That is a little to premature to say Joe. They haven't yet taken over in congress. Let's see if they hold true to their promise of making spending cuts before we pass judgement. If they don't then they can all be voted out same as they came in. The pressure they put on Obama was because the cuts were set to expire at the end of the month along with the payroll tax cuts in the stimulus and would have constituted one of the largest increases in taxes in history. Worse it would have come at a time when our economy is in the worst shape it has been in since the depression. it certainly was more beneficial to deal with this now and funding the government then it was to vote on a treaty that has sat around with little urgency since April. I would think Russia would understand that our fiscal responsibility comes first. If they don't we could remind them of the hundreds of billions we pumped into saving their economy to help keep them afloat when communism fell.

trucker, if you make $250K per year and your net assets are still less than a million, you have no clue how to manage money. get your head out of the mud.

archangel, Kyl is demanding $4 billion in additional spending as ransom for signing New Start, republicans are demanding adding $70 billion to the deficit to extend tax cuts to millionaires. the republican leadership opposes the deficit reduction panel's recomendations because it wants to balance spending cuts with tax increases. republicans want more money for the military so we can invade other countries as we like. No need to wait to pass judgement. this new group of republicans is no different from the 2001 to 2007 group. Borrow and spend. that's all they know. And handing tax breaks to millionaires.

If your mentality cant turn $250k/yr into $1MM of net worth, I doubt you're going to be able to reach $250k income in the first place. There are "ways of thinking" that get you to $250k income and accumulate assets. If you got it, its hard to avoid being rich; if you dont, the lottery is pretty much your only shot.

I would bet that you are getting unemployment checks along with all the other phonies.

Marcia

What economics theory are you quoting, because historically your theory doesn't hold water. In fact it is just the opposite that is true in history. Unemployment was on the rise in 2000 to 2003 when these final cuts were passed, unemployment went down for the next four and a half years until the housing bubble burst. Then it sky rocketed. Do you know why? Because the largest employer in the US is construction. Not only that but 60% of the construction industry is in housing, which happened to be the hardest hit sector of the economy. When Manufacturing left this country in the 70's and 80's it left construction as the largest industry for employing people. Now all the democrats can do is scream for higher corporate taxes that will chase the remaining manufacturing jobs away. Yes that includes the oil industry. They can refine oil just as cheap in Mexico as they can hear and I'll bet the labor cost savings would even cover the cost of shipping the finished product here as well. So let's by all means raise taxes and put the final choke hold on our economy. Time to start boning up on Mandarin I guess!

Just food for thought, the large corporations for the most part utilize small businesses to get most of their products and/or labor. I work for a corporation that utilizes SB for 71% of their sub-contracts and vendor base. Increasing taxes on the large corporations hurts the SB base as well.

I also don't think that extending the tax cuts cost a dime, it's not the governments money today so how can it be counted as an expense tomorrow. That's like me playing the lottery and not winning but claiming I lost the $25M because I should have won.

Oh wow..the elderly starving after eating cat food argument again!!! Sheesh, when will you Dems wake up??? Cut the government back to the size of its Constitutional mandate and we'll have more than enough money coming in. Medicare and Social Security and the interest on the national debt are costing us more than we can afford, and the only way this spending is going is up... WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING AND THESE ARE THE THREE EXPENDITURES THAT ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

But, I don't expect you to ever understand that. It just feels good to put it in print in front of you one more time.

you forgot the defense budget. defense is still our number one expenditure.

you forgot the defense budget. defense is still our number one expenditure.

Um... In 2009 Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security made up almost 40% while Defense is hovering around 23%. I suppose if you break those three apart then it would be the number one expenditure, but then you need to add whatever the new health care bill will add to those.

Remember that our Constitution describes the defense of our nation as one of the jobs of the federal government... it does not, however, say that we should be propping up the poor. This is the land of opportunity. If you choose not to take that opportunity, that is not the fault of the Government. While I agree that the DoD can find places to trim the fat, it should not be at the expense of defense of the nation.

wrong. clinton benefited from g.h. bush's decimation of the military, followed by part 2, clinton's own military draw down.. it had nothing to do with his budgetary discipline.

Dan that makes no sense WHAT SO EVER! Clinton created MILLIONS of jobs because GHB cut the military? Your comment is so out of touch with reality that I fear for your sanity.

Clinton didnt create any jobs. He just didnt get in the way of those who do.

No, we borrowed from ourselves. 70% of the debt is owned, in one form or another, by the American people.

The debt is nothing but treasury notes that are held by... wait for it... the rich. And YES, we pay them interest!!!

Taking out debt is redistribution of wealth. We take the money out of our children's pockets and use it to pay for rich people today.

Actually all we really need to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire and our deficit would problems would be solved.

What the hell are you talking about?

I agree that playing the blame game is not solving anything. Doing so, we are lowering ourselves to the level of politicians that we love to criticize. I would love to see more rational discussion.

All my opinion, of course.. I am not a tax guru..

First, let me tell you that I am an Independent that leans conservative. I am not happy about extending the tax cuts for anyone who makes over a million. And I am sympathetic to the plight of the unemployed, but I am totally against extending UI for another year. This is the first time since UI's inception that it has ever been extended for this amount of time. I would rather support anyone and their family through the Department of Social Services providing they can prove that they need it (example); you have a couple, one is employed and is making the same amount of money that they have been making for the last 10 years, the other spouse has been laid-off from their job and has been drawing for 1 year. At least with DSS they would have to prove that they are in desperate need. I would also feel better about my tax dollars being spent on people who truly need it instead of extensions (over the usual 26 weeks) for people to maintain their pre-recession lifestyle..

Go ahead give the million and over crowd their tax cut. Let's spend the next 6 months revising the tax laws, closing down some of their loopholes.

Let's also work on making amendments to NAFTA, lower the corporate tax rate for any company that brings their jobs back on American soil. And if they don't comply, raise taxes on their products that they import back to this country. That will surely hit them in their wallets, after all we are their biggest consumers (for now)....

Just my ideas, like I said "I am no tax guru"..

How about 1 flat tax, across the board...no deductions, no exemptions...1 flat tax across the board for all. I'm sure there's a reason it can't be that simple....or can it be?

This compromise gives the Dems a reason to vote no and also and makes the President look reasonable. The best long term outcome is gridlock on the tax cut extention and spending cuts next year. Then a new tax cut when the budget gets balanced and the deficit is getting reduced. As I told my second wife,"If you save some money you can always spend it later". The country has too much debt and could be in serious trouble if there is another calamity.

..Ellie Mae.........I agree entirely ........This is not a compromise that will reduce National debt, create jobs or fuel economic growth.........It is blackmail, horse trading and sell-out politics that will exasperate the problem........The responsible thing to do is let all tax cuts which have done nothing to create jobs or fuel economic growth over the past ten years expire, and make outsourcing of jobs and services more expensive to allow stay at home businesses to better compete in the largest consumer market (American) in the world.........It is not benificial to the American working class, or our standard of living to build factories in foreign lands that undermine American made because of the ability to build products or provide services cheaper...........All the trade agreements since Nafta had nothing whatsoever to do with free trade, but everything to do with growing the world market share and profit margins for multi-national corporations...........While most of these agreements call for limits on tariffs on trading partner products, there is no mention of limiting tariffs on registered American trade mark products like Nike and GE that are manufactured abroad and imported to undercut American made.....and that is where we should start to bring jobs back home.

Not long ago, I was willing to give Obama the benifit of the doubt as a new man on the job, but am now of the opinion that Obama represents no change from politicians past........too bad

How about sending most of this power to the states so WHEN something goes wrong, you only trash 1 state instead of the whole country. If I dont like what a state is doing, its reasonable to move to another. Its not reasonable to have to leave the country.