GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

Catawba said:

Nope, both times the middle class tax cuts came up, it was the GOP that held the middle class tax cuts hostage to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy. If the GOP continues to sacrifice the middle class to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, they will lose the House in addition to the White House they lost. The middle class is tired of being ****ed with. Just sayin'......

Click to expand...

Yes you have figured out the strategy of the democrats, blame the Republicans. But this does not mean the democrats are for the middle class... It's a chess game as I have said... The republicans did the same thing when they put up Obama's budget and 0 democrats voted for it... Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

You can play politics and try to get very technical saying the republicans didn't do this because they are against the middle class, and it is a strategy that has worked thus far... But don't try to claim the democrats are trying to come up with a compromise here... They aren't, it's their way or screw the middle class... That's the official liberal position.

RLWSNOOK said:

Yes you have figured out the strategy of the democrats, blame the Republicans. But this does not mean the democrats are for the middle class... It's a chess game as I have said... The republicans did the same thing when they put up Obama's budget and 0 democrats voted for it... Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

You can play politics and try to get very technical saying the republicans didn't do this because they are against the middle class, and it is a strategy that has worked thus far... But don't try to claim the democrats are trying to come up with a compromise here... They aren't, it's their way or screw the middle class... That's the official liberal position.

Click to expand...

Its no game. Myself and much of the rest of the country just don't buy the trickle down policies of the Republicans anymore. Pain has a way of sharpening the senses. But knock yourself out and try to convince us that we can suffer a little more so that the wealthy can continue to get their tax cuts.

Good luck with that!

Catawba said:

Its no game. Myself and much of the rest of the country just don't buy the trickle down policies of the Republicans anymore. Pain has a way of sharpening the senses. But knock yourself out and try to convince us that we can suffer a little more so that the wealthy can continue to get their tax cuts.

Good luck with that!

Click to expand...

If you don't buy trickle down economics why do you support the President? He appointed Ben Bernanke to the Fed, who has done quantitative easing in hopes the markets will go up, and banks will loan, and that wealth from the markets trickles down, and the loans trickle down.

If you aren't for the trickle down economics, why would you support the president? Who's record has been one where the rich have gotten richer (due to the fact they own the most stocks and thanks to Quantitative easing the markets have gone up) and the middle class have gotten poorer. We've seen the average incomes decline over this period.

It's one thing to say you are for the middle class, it is another to put forth policies that support the middle class... To date President Obama's policies have not helped but hurt the middle class and only led to Trickle down economics, which I thought you said you didn't like...

But maybe I'm confused, and you do like trickle down economics.

Jack Fabulous said:

I don't recall any Republican fighting to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy but not for the middle class. Their position has been very clear all along in that they wanted ALL of the rates to remain as they are currently.

It's kind of funny when you think back to when these rates were enacted in the first place. The left immediately packaged them in the narrative of "tax cuts for the rich", ignoring the fact that lower and middle class Americans also got a tax break. Now that those rates are set to expire unless a deal can be struck the left's narrative has shifted and all they seem to want to talk about is how letting these rates expire will be catastrophic to the middle class, costing the average family 2-3 grand a year. Well, the same bill that was passed under G.W.B. is the same bill that set the current rates for the middle class in the first place. Sure, the wealthy got a nice piece of the pie, too, but if you add it all up, BY FAR the bulk of the actual money not collected due to the lower rates stayed in the pockets of the middle class. If this were purely about generating more revenue then letting all of the tax rates expire would be the way to go. Hell, there's far more bang for the buck by preserving the upper class tax rates and letting the middle class rates expire than the other way around.

But it isn't only about generating more revenue. It's about generating more revenue that will not hurt you at the ballot box. If I were the Republicans, I'd let all of the rates expire. At least then both parties would suffer an equal wrath.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The narrative has always been that the Bush tax cuts benefit the wealthy FAR more than the middle class. We simply can't afford to keep giving these gifts to people who simply don't need the extra money and don't spend it anyway.. Raising rates on those that spend all they earn is self-defeating as all the money will come right out of GDP, slowing growth and jeopardizing the recovery.

Raised the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households by 6.7 percent (or $66,618);
Raised the average after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households by 4.6 percent (or $7,860); but
Raised the average after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by 2.8 percent (or $1,039), and
Raised the average after-tax income of the bottom 20 percent of households by just 1.0 percent (or $99).

Polls show that it is Republicans who will be blamed if the middle class tax cuts are not renewed because they care more about the top 2%.

RLWSNOOK said:

If you don't buy trickle down economics why do you support the President? He appointed Ben Bernanke to the Fed, who has done quantitative easing in hopes the markets will go up, and banks will loan, and that wealth from the markets trickles down, and the loans trickle down.

If you aren't for the trickle down economics, why would you support the president? Who's record has been one where the rich have gotten richer (due to the fact they own the most stocks and thanks to Quantitative easing the markets have gone up) and the middle class have gotten poorer. We've seen the average incomes decline over this period.

It's one thing to say you are for the middle class, it is another to put forth policies that support the middle class... To date President Obama's policies have not helped but hurt the middle class and only led to Trickle down economics, which I thought you said you didn't like...

But maybe I'm confused, and you do like trickle down economics.

Click to expand...

Which party has held the middle class tax cuts hostage to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? In which party did almost every single member vote for the very costly and unnecesary war in Iraq? Which party has been willing to sacrifice the environment to keep their taxes a little lower? Which party has proposed policy to cut social programs in order to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? And you are still confused as to why America picked Obama?

Catawba said:

Which party has held the middle class tax cuts hostage to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? In which party did almost every single member vote for the very costly and unnecesary war in Iraq? Which party has been willing to sacrifice the environment to keep their taxes a little lower? Which party has proposed policy to cut social programs in order to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? And you are still confused as to why America picked Obama?

Click to expand...

Are you responding to my post? Go read what I said in response to your claim, " Myself and much of the rest of the country just don't buy the trickle down policies of the Republicans anymore. " I showed you how Obama is no different than bush. You want to talk about the wars, Obama is for the wars, his difference is not the time frame, but if we announce the time frame or not.. As for cutting social programs, lets talk about this, as Obama too has cut social programs, medicare... He "paid for it" as he said we can reduce the amount they pay to doctors, but go ask a doctor if they plan on seeing medicare patients if they cut the amount they pay them. The answer is they won't... So yes we can go back and forth about who is for cutting what, but the fact of the matter is Social security was a program set up to pay out benefits for 2 years, now it pays out for 20 years yet no changes in funding for the program have really taken place. Medicare, we pay in 30 dollars and get out 100 dollars in benefits. Clearly we can argue back and forth how the other guy is evil for wanting to try and fix this, but it doesn't speak towards reality, we promised more than we have money to afford, we can kick the can down the road and hope someone else will deal with it, or we can deal with it sooner when it is less of an issue and easier to fix.

RLWSNOOK said:

If you don't buy trickle down economics why do you support the President? He appointed Ben Bernanke to the Fed, who has done quantitative easing in hopes the markets will go up, and banks will loan, and that wealth from the markets trickles down, and the loans trickle down.

If you aren't for the trickle down economics, why would you support the president? Who's record has been one where the rich have gotten richer (due to the fact they own the most stocks and thanks to Quantitative easing the markets have gone up) and the middle class have gotten poorer. We've seen the average incomes decline over this period.

It's one thing to say you are for the middle class, it is another to put forth policies that support the middle class... To date President Obama's policies have not helped but hurt the middle class and only led to Trickle down economics, which I thought you said you didn't like...

But maybe I'm confused, and you do like trickle down economics.

Click to expand...

Re inflating a depressed currency market is not "trickle down" economics it is saving us from a depression. Most middle class people's 401K's are invested in the stock market so how does it only benefit the rich?

Trickle down economics is a failed theory that claimed lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations would bring prosperity for all. The Republicans have not got the message yet that the American people are sick of hearing "whats good for the rich is good for all" when they have seen for themselves that the opposite is more accurate. What's good for the rich is what is destroying our middle class. We need about 35 years of a NEW plan, where the rich pay their share and the middle class will rise agian.

iguanaman said:

Re inflating a depressed currency market is not "trickle down" economics it is saving us from a depression. Most middle class people's 401K's are invested in the stock market so how does it only benefit the rich?

Trickle down economics is a failed theory that claimed lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations would bring prosperity for all. The Republicans have not got the message yet that the American people are sick of hearing "whats good for the rich is good for all" when they have seen for themselves that the opposite is more accurate. What's good for the rich is what is destroying our middle class. We need about 35 years of a NEW plan, where the rich pay their share and the middle class will rise agian.

Click to expand...

I thought we wanted to deflate the currency market?... the dollar was too strong and we want to make it weaker... As then that can lead to further exports... Since when was it liberal policy to re inflate a depressed currency market?

Further, the wealthy own more stocks than the middle class do, so what is good for the markets is good for the wealthy. We continue to see bailouts to markets the most recent one starting a few months back to the tune of $40 billion per month (when the market was at all time highs). Yes I understand republicans said that what is good for the wealthy is good for everyone as it would trickle down, but fed policy (through liberals appointing them) and quantitative easing is good for the wealthy... but it hasn't trickled down, in fact it has caused inflation, which hurts the middle class.

Now yes the middle class has benifited from their 401k's going up, but that's only their retirement not today. The middle class who are of retirement age have been screwed by this policy of QE, which has depressed interest rates. The elderly who rely on safe investments such as CD's have seen their yields get crushed and are forced to live on less or take much more risk than they should to keep their life style...

Further the middle class has seen prices rise, as QE forces investment out of safe assets, and into assets that protect them if inflation takes place due to the printing of money that goes along with QE... So things such as food, oil, commodities if you will have jumped. Which has led to the cost of living the prices of goods if you will to rise...

All while, this recovery has been uncertain because our government is not about solutions and working together they are about getting their way and blaming the other party when nothing gets done (cough democrats cough). So there has been uncertainty, so rather than hire people like a company would in a normal recovery they hold onto cash and don't expand... More and more people are unemployed with fewer job openings leading to wages falling... Remember cost of living has gone up...

Needless to say the policy of the democrats has hurt the middle class, and benefited the wealthy... Call it trickle down call it whatever you want, it's not the "middle out" the president has claimed... It's a trickle down at best...

RLWSNOOK said:

I thought we wanted to deflate the currency market?... the dollar was too strong and we want to make it weaker... As then that can lead to further exports... Since when was it liberal policy to re inflate a depressed currency market? ...

Click to expand...

RIGHTWING FRAUD ALERT!

QE had a single purpose: to counteract the deflationary pressure of the Bush Meltdown. It had nothing to do with inflating the currency market. And of course, we have little or no inflation -- despite increasing the money supply enormously through QE. And that telss us how serious the deflationary pressure of the Bush failure was.

jonny5 said:

Well that seems like a good strategy for the congress to employ. Shut Obama out, call meetings with Senate leaders and come up with something.

Click to expand...

Sure...but do you really think Reid and his Senate buddies will go along with that?

RLWSNOOK said:

Are you responding to my post? Go read what I said in response to your claim, " Myself and much of the rest of the country just don't buy the trickle down policies of the Republicans anymore. " I showed you how Obama is no different than bush. You want to talk about the wars, Obama is for the wars, his difference is not the time frame, but if we announce the time frame or not.. As for cutting social programs, lets talk about this, as Obama too has cut social programs, medicare... He "paid for it" as he said we can reduce the amount they pay to doctors, but go ask a doctor if they plan on seeing medicare patients if they cut the amount they pay them. The answer is they won't... So yes we can go back and forth about who is for cutting what, but the fact of the matter is Social security was a program set up to pay out benefits for 2 years, now it pays out for 20 years yet no changes in funding for the program have really taken place. Medicare, we pay in 30 dollars and get out 100 dollars in benefits. Clearly we can argue back and forth how the other guy is evil for wanting to try and fix this, but it doesn't speak towards reality, we promised more than we have money to afford, we can kick the can down the road and hope someone else will deal with it, or we can deal with it sooner when it is less of an issue and easier to fix.

Click to expand...

The unnecessary war in Iraq is where a big chunk of our debt came from. Debt that has to be paid through taxpayer dollars, not to mention all the blood of civilians on both sides. Obama ended the GOP war in Iraq, despite protests from Romney, McCain and other from the right. That unnecessary war very negatively affected our debt

I agree that spending cuts need to be made, especially after our economy fully recovers from the recession. As the CBO has stated however, drastically cutting back on spending and letting the middle class tax cuts expire could throw us back into another recession.

What I am confused about is why, since the majority of Americans support it, and it is so critical to our economy, that the GOP won't join the Democrats in passing the extension of the Middle class tax cuts while they work out the rest?

Catawba said:

Let me refresh your memory: "Mitt Romney has proposed huge tax cuts that principally benefit the wealthy, while refusing to say how he would pay for them by closing unspecified loopholes."
What Is Romney's Tax Plan? - NYTimes.com

One side has fought to preserve the middle class tax cuts and one side has fought to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrat controlled Senate has passed a bill extending the middle class tax cuts. The GOP controlled House refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. If they maintain this attitude towards the middle class they will have the House taken from them as well in 2014.

Click to expand...

Romney proposed tax rate cuts with elimination of deductions to keep it revenue neutral. Thus, no promise to increase tax cuts for the wealthy.

One side has fought to preserve tax cuts for the middle class, and the other side has fought to preserve tax cuts for EVERYONE. Youre just spinning now.

Catawba said:

Which party has held the middle class tax cuts hostage to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? In which party did almost every single member vote for the very costly and unnecesary war in Iraq? Which party has been willing to sacrifice the environment to keep their taxes a little lower? Which party has proposed policy to cut social programs in order to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy? And you are still confused as to why America picked Obama?

Click to expand...

The democrats have held the middle class tax cuts hostage to punish the wealthy. The Iraq war was not costly. Republicans. No one. Yes.

Do we need to keep having the same debate over and over? People voted Republicans in to control taxes and spending since those are the power of the House. When it comes to commanding the military, making treaties, nominating judges, then you can pull the election card.

Catawba said:

The unnecessary war in Iraq is where a big chunk of our debt came from. Debt that has to be paid through taxpayer dollars, not to mention all the blood of civilians on both sides. Obama ended the GOP war in Iraq, despite protests from Romney, McCain and other from the right. That unnecessary war very negatively affected our debt

I agree that spending cuts need to be made, especially after our economy fully recovers from the recession. As the CBO has stated however, drastically cutting back on spending and letting the middle class tax cuts expire could throw us back into another recession.

What I am confused about is why, since the majority of Americans support it, and it is so critical to our economy, that the GOP won't join the Democrats in passing the extension of the Middle class tax cuts while they work out the rest?

Click to expand...

Because the rest would never come. Why not permanently extend all the tax cuts and then figure out the rest?

jonny5 said:

Because the rest would never come. Why not permanently extend all the tax cuts and then figure out the rest?

Click to expand...

Because then they couldn't do you know what.....

jonny5 said:

Because the rest would never come. Why not permanently extend all the tax cuts and then figure out the rest?

Click to expand...

Because we had an election and the people have said they don't give a rat's ass about protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy.

head of joaquin said:

RIGHTWING FRAUD ALERT!

QE had a single purpose: to counteract the deflationary pressure of the Bush Meltdown. It had nothing to do with inflating the currency market. And of course, we have little or no inflation -- despite increasing the money supply enormously through QE. And that telss us how serious the deflationary pressure of the Bush failure was.

Click to expand...

So we are still under going deflation? Why did QE3 which was put into place around September of 2012 go forward then...

Federal Reserve launches QE3 - Sep. 13, 2012

Ps CNN isn't a right wing website...

And note there were more QE's than just the first one, QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, QE3... They keep on coming out with more and more..

Catawba said:

The unnecessary war in Iraq is where a big chunk of our debt came from. Debt that has to be paid through taxpayer dollars, not to mention all the blood of civilians on both sides. Obama ended the GOP war in Iraq, despite protests from Romney, McCain and other from the right. That unnecessary war very negatively affected our debt

I agree that spending cuts need to be made, especially after our economy fully recovers from the recession. As the CBO has stated however, drastically cutting back on spending and letting the middle class tax cuts expire could throw us back into another recession.

What I am confused about is why, since the majority of Americans support it, and it is so critical to our economy, that the GOP won't join the Democrats in passing the extension of the Middle class tax cuts while they work out the rest?

Click to expand...

First of all, the wars + tarp+ stimulus spending under obama's time frame of being in office = approx $2 trillion The national debt under Obama has gone from $10.5 T to $16.3 T...

As for how you are confused why the republicans won't support the middle class tax cut, I will ask you to ponder this, why did the democrats not vote for Obama's budget proposal in the senate? These things are theoretical... And we know, that people in Washington are very hard to get to do anything. By only passing tax cuts for the middle class it is saying you will not keep tax cuts for anyone who makes over $250,000 some of which should have tax cuts, because of many reasons, one they are small businesses, two $250k is not that much money and they are likely still paying off debt to get to where they are (in the case of a doctor or lawyer)... Needless to say you only see the theoretical part of the problem, Democrats know if they just pass the middle class tax cuts nothing else will ever come, and the "wealthy" will get hit... Further it doesn't solve the problem..> The problem is we need to make up for our deficit... middle class tax cuts are great and we should have them, but that means we need to cut further and deeper into things such as medicare, social security, which democrats never will do.. SO why the republicans won't support this is more than just giving the middle class a break, it is what will be needed to do if we only give the middle class a break, it's the whole big picture.

iguanaman said:

Wrong. The narrative has always been that the Bush tax cuts benefit the wealthy FAR more than the middle class. We simply can't afford to keep giving these gifts to people who simply don't need the extra money and don't spend it anyway.. Raising rates on those that spend all they earn is self-defeating as all the money will come right out of GDP, slowing growth and jeopardizing the recovery.

Click to expand...

Then why is it that if those tax cuts benefited the wealthy so much more than the middle class when they were enacted they will now HURT the middle class so much more than the wealthy if they expire? You can't have it both ways.

iguanaman said:

Raised the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households by 6.7 percent (or $66,618);
Raised the average after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households by 4.6 percent (or $7,860); but
Raised the average after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by 2.8 percent (or $1,039), and
Raised the average after-tax income of the bottom 20 percent of households by just 1.0 percent (or $99).

Polls show that it is Republicans who will be blamed if the middle class tax cuts are not renewed because they care more about the top 2%.

Click to expand...

You've listed the top 1%, the top 20%(of which the top 1% is included), the "middle" 20% and the "lower" 20%. That's a total of 60%. You're analysis is missing 40% somewhere. Oversight, or are you cherry picking data?

The real comparison is pretty simple when talking about the middle class. Prior to the Bush tax cuts rates on people filing single were: 27K/yr to 65K/yr were taxed at 27.5%. 65K/yr to 135K/yr were taxed at 30.5% Today those making 35K/yr to 85K/yr are taxed at 25% and those making 85K/yr to 178K/yr are taxed at 28%. So basically, the "middle class" is looking at a 2.5% increase should the rates expire. Look, I'm not advocating letting the "rich" slide by here. All's I want is a fair discussion about this stuff without all of the spin.

The real motive behind this is how it effects the "effective rate" a person pays. Lets use someone who is classified as "rich" who makes 500K/yr. Under the current system, the top rate of 35% is applied to any amount of income over $388,350. In this case the person would have $111,650 exposed to the top rate. If the Democrats get what they want, the tax rates on all money earned above 250K/yr would be subject to rates of 35.5% from 250K to 388K(if the tables are left intact) and 39.1% for everything over 388K. Under the new scenario this same person would have $138,000 of his income exposed to a rate .5% higher than it is currently and $112,000 exposed to a rate 4.1% higher than it is currently. Fully one half, or $250,000 will now be exposed to a tax rate higher than it is currently whereas, today, only $112,000 has exposure to rates this high. So there is definitely a "slight of hand" going on here and I'm sick and tired of these very legitimate concerns being downed out by a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.(not directed at you personally)

RLWSNOOK said:

First of all, the wars + tarp+ stimulus spending under obama's time frame of being in office = approx $2 trillion The national debt under Obama has gone from $10.5 T to $16.3 T...

As for how you are confused why the republicans won't support the middle class tax cut, I will ask you to ponder this, why did the democrats not vote for Obama's budget proposal in the senate? These things are theatrical... And we know, that people in Washington are very hard to get to do anything. By only passing tax cuts for the middle class it is saying you will not keep tax cuts for anyone who makes over $250,000 some of which should have tax cuts, because of many reasons, one they are small businesses, two $250k is not that much money and they are likely still paying off debt to get to where they are (in the case of a doctor or lawyer)... Needless to say you only see the theatrical part of the problem, Democrats know if they just pass the middle class tax cuts nothing else will ever come, and the "wealthy" will get hit... Further it doesn't solve the problem..> The problem is we need to make up for our deficit... middle class tax cuts are great and we should have them, but that means we need to cut further and deeper into things such as medicare, social security, which democrats never will do.. SO why the republicans won't support this is more than just giving the middle class a break, it is what will be needed to do if we only give the middle class a break, it's the whole big picture.

Click to expand...

I see, you hold Obama responsible for a war that he opposed and a majority of Democrats voted against, as well as the other spending bills and worst Recession since the Great Depression created under Bush. That helps explain your delusion that the Republicans are on the side of the working man.

0 Democrats voted for the budget because they found out it was going to be filibustered. And 98% of small businesses are not affected by the tax proposal from the Democrats. As a matter of fact, Obama has given additional tax cuts and credits to small businesses.

You have failed at convincing the middle class they should accept higher taxes and less benefits from the programs they have paid into in order for the wealthy to continue getting tax cuts that haven't created jobs. The tax cuts we gave them to create jobs were used to move jobs overseas. So, like we said during the election........

Thanks but no thanks!

jonny5 said:

Romney proposed tax rate cuts with elimination of deductions to keep it revenue neutral. Thus, no promise to increase tax cuts for the wealthy.

One side has fought to preserve tax cuts for the middle class, and the other side has fought to preserve tax cuts for EVERYONE. Youre just spinning now.

Click to expand...

Since AMT already phases out all top bracket deductions (except the charitable deduction and few minor ones), Romney's proposal was a sham. It reduced to giving rich people ANOTHER tax cut, and pretending to take away nonsexistent deductions.

Catawba said:

I see, you hold Obama responsible for a war that he opposed and a majority of Democrats voted against, as well as the other spending bills and worst Recession since the Great Depression created under Bush. That helps explain your delusion that the Republicans are on the side of the working man.

0 Democrats voted for the budget because they found out it was going to be filibustered. And 98% of small businesses are not affected by the tax proposal from the Democrats. As a matter of fact, Obama has given additional tax cuts and credits to small businesses.

You have failed at convincing the middle class they should accept higher taxes and less benefits from the programs they have paid into in order for the wealthy to continue getting tax cuts that haven't created jobs. The tax cuts we gave them to create jobs were used to move jobs overseas. So, like we said during the election........

Thanks but no thanks!

Click to expand...

Umm I said clearly that these things you attribute to bush add up to $2 trillion and the national debt went up from 10.5 trillion to 16.3 trillion... I thought you could do the math and figure out that 16.3-10.5 = 5.8T.. and Guess what 5.8T is bigger than 2 Trillion... meaning bush can only be blamed at most for 35% of the debt added under obama.

As for the democrats not voting for the budget, do you know what a filibuster is? Republicans put this up and tried to get democrats to vote on it, because Obama's budget as he sent to congress was absurd... And they wanted to prove that democrats wouldn't even vote for the crap obama was sending them... And they didn't...

This is a 0 sum game... If you give tax cuts to one side you have to pay for it with something else. The problem is the democrat's plan, the math doesn't add up, and they say well we will figure it out some day down the road... Yeah right, and I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.. We can give everyone and their mother a tax cut, but it has to be paid for... The democrats have not described ever how they plan on paying for the middle class tax cut, they just say lets get it done and we will figure it out later..> And then blame republicans for not wanting to help middle class...

Edit: I missed the talking point about 98% of small businesses, yes I too can use talking points and tell you that of that 2% over 40% of Americans are employed by those companies... But these are just talking points, using statistics to better explain your point...

Catawba said:

Because we had an election and the people have said they don't give a rat's ass about protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Click to expand...

Then why did they elect Republicans?

jonny5 said:

Then why did they elect Republicans?

Click to expand...

Only some states voted in Republicans. And if the Republicans don't go along with extending the middle class tax cuts, I bet they will lose the House as well in 2014.

cpwill said:

Worth noting - that $800 Bn is the amount that the CBO said we would get from repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper income earners.

Click to expand...

which would matter if revenue increases actually motivated the parasites known as democratic politicians Since class warfare and pandering to envy is what actually motivates Obama and his toadies in the Congress, this plan will never be supported since it doesn't slake the hatred of the industrious by the failures