the tax cuts should not be extended for the wealthiest americans only f0r the middle class and small business. It would cost 700 billion and giving tax breaks to wealthy americans is the poorest way to stimulate the economy. They would either invest it for thei own personal fortune or take another vacation whereas small busines is the creator of most new jobs. Large corporation are sitting on large amounts of cash and not creating new jobs only sqeueezing more out of their present workers. The republicans objected to extending unemployment insursance for 33 billion but do not obect to losing 700 billion in revenue. John Boehmer worked against the middle class when the credit card bill was up for vote. He worked with the banks to try and defeat the bill. It was the same for the financial regulation bill when he tried to work with investment houses to defeat the bill. The gang that could not shoot straight wants to be reelected so they can once more try to screw the middle class. There proposals for the new congress will be the same failed proposals that caused the depresssion of 2008 and a debt of 12 trillion dollars when they left office. If they get reelected they will try to get trade agreements with chile so more jobs can be sent overseas. The they will issued subpeonas to try and discredit Obama so he will not get reelected to a new term. These neo cons are not out to preserve the middle class It will take more than 2 years to straighten out the mess the republicans left. The tea party are well meaning folks but with the wrong people. The think tanks like the cato institute anf fox news are just using them. I hope the american public wakes up to their plans.

Permit me to restate the question. Should we continue taxes at the present rate for those with the greatest propensity to save and invest, to create jobs, and provide capital?

The only way that we can pay our debt to our children is to dramatically increase productivity. That will require capital. If instead we tax money away from that class, that is, give it to the government, we can be sure that it will simply be consumed.

Actually, our children have a debt to us for their education. At the turn of the last century, children received, on average about six years of schooling. At the end of the century, we guarantee everyone twelve years. Elite children get 16, 20, and even 24. In return, in their productive years, they are expected to take care of the elderly, the infirmed, and the education of the young.

We call Peter's argument "populist." It is a political, not an economic, argument.

Peter's argument is about how to most equitably divide the pie. However, wisdom suggests that we first focus on making the pie as large as possible before we start cutting it up.

No. But, the threshold number for taxing individuals should be raised and limited to "salaries" above a ceiling of $750,000.
most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by deceiving the public- therefore not only should they their taxbreaks removed by they alone should be made to payback our entire national debt.

Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English
THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT!
It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, their fault. For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing.
NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY FOR "THEIR" FREEDOM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing deciding the rate and the terms.
BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37% OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. IT IS "THEIR" DEBT.
Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income.

No. But, the threshold number for taxing individuals should be raised and limited to "salaries" above a ceiling of $750,000.
most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by hoodwinking and deceiving the public- therefore not only should their taxbreaks be removed 100% but, those who were party to, negligent in their office or institutional procedures, or complicit in any of the schemes- should be made to payback our entire national debt.

Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English...
THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT!
It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, "their" gameplan equals "their" fault.
For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing for spending American capital and trust.
NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR CONTINUED PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY, AND MOST OF ALL FOR "THEIR FREEDOM" FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing decides is most prudent. Meaning adjusting the rate and the terms so that we all can live with the burden.

BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37%GDP OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. THEY DID SO WITHOUT CONSULTING US OR ASKING FOR OUR SIGNED APPROVAL, THEREFORE IT IS "THEIR" DEBT.
Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income.

Some background:

Tax Policy Under President Bush
by Chris Edwards


Chris Edwards is tax director at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government.

Added to cato.org on August 15, 2006

This article appeared in the Fraser Forum on August 14, 2006.

PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:

ShareThis
Tax cutting has been a key policy of the administration of George Bush since coming to power in 2001. Under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, only one modest tax cut bill was signed into law. Thus, when Bush came to power there was a pent-up demand for tax cuts, and the administration soon delivered. Here is a year-by-year summary.

2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:


If we don't know the answer by now,when will we know?

If the bush tax cuts were so great why haven!t they created any jobs? It looks like they were a failure. Under president clinton no tax cuts were given but they created 22 million jobs. There are better ways to create jobs than give welfare to the rich

This is all politics. The real issue that Obama and congress is not mentioning on purpose is they are SPENDING TOO MUCH. What good is a tax-cut on anybody if it does not stimulate growth or jobs? On the other hand, what good is taxing more if our money is going to be wasted by irresponsible policies by this government? First get our house in order, cut waste in government. Then raise or lower taxes in order to bring down the deficit for our children. The leaders driving the bus want us to pay for the fuel to keep the bus going but where are they headed? They have no ideas and no direction. Lets put somebody behind the wheel that can lead us out of this mess and not just continually ask for more tax money.

No tax cuts for anyone,..Obama needs to push through our communist agenda now!

We got the man in the white house and America will be turning socialist so get used to it. Power to the people!!

Forget tax cuts fix the freaking tax code. Make everyone pay the same percentage. Why should John Kerry's wife pay taxes at the 15% rate when people who have a lot less pay at 28% and 35% rates? Idiot Bush had the Congress and the Presidency and he could have fixed it then,but didn't. Get rid of the IRS and make the tax code fair by having a straight percentage. Say 12% Make one dollar pay 12 cents, make 1000 dollars pay 120 dollars...Or even have a floor. Make under $35000 pay no tax...but at $35001 start paying the percentage. The tax code is so convoluted that regular people and accountants make mistakes on it.

Washington (CNN) -- Despite President Obama's accusation Wednesday that Republicans are holding middle class income tax cuts "hostage" by tying them to an extension of tax cuts for wealthier Americans, the reality is several Democratic senators also oppose allowing President Bush's tax cuts for higher earners to expire.

Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska[BILDERBERGER WANNABEE], *Evan Bayh of Indiana[BILDERBERGER], Kent Conrad of North Dakota[BILDERBERGER], and Independent Joe Lieberman[REPUBLICAN IN DEMS CLOTHING] of Connecticut have each publicly expressed concern about the impact of raising taxes, even on the well-to-do, during an economic downturn."
GEE, LET'S PONDER WHAT THE BILDERBERG AGENDA ENTAILS? Hmmmmmmmm!
WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED?

Do you see how easy it is for the NWO shadow figures to monitor and control their double dealing hand picked flunkies to keep you dependent by hook or crooked politics- mainlined on their dope and dopes?
WARNING: QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID AND TOSS THE BUMS OUT ON THEIR EARS COME THEIR ELECTION TIME!

Washington (CNN) -- Despite President Obama's accusation Wednesday that Republicans are holding middle class income tax cuts "hostage" by tying them to an extension of tax cuts for wealthier Americans, the reality is several Democratic senators also oppose allowing President Bush's tax cuts for higher earners to expire.

Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska[BILDERBERGER WANNABEE], *Evan Bayh of Indiana[BILDERBERGER], Kent Conrad of North Dakota[BILDERBERGER], and Independent Joe Lieberman[REPUBLICAN IN DEMS CLOTHING] of Connecticut have each publicly expressed concern about the impact of raising taxes, even on the well-to-do, during an economic downturn."
GEE, LET'S PONDER WHAT THE BILDERBERG AGENDA ENTAILS? Hmmmmmmmm!
WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED?
_______________________
Do you see how easy it is for the NWO shadow figures to monitor and control their double dealing hand picked flunkies to keep you dependent by hook or crooked politics- mainlined on their dope and dopes?
WARNING: QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID AND TOSS THE BUMS OUT ON THEIR EARS- COME THEIR ELECTION TIME!

Will the three monkey wrenches Nelson has thrown into every Dem plan earn him the TRIPLE "FROWN" and be enough for him to gain membership as a full fledged, boot licking, flying monkey in Rocky's Little Shop of Horrors?

Tell me again, how many people or what percentage of our nations total population does the dullard Ben Nelson represent, that he should be able to hold the entire nation hostage to paying the taxes for DR and his non lending corrupt institutions of extortion. Better yet, what percentage of our nations taxes comes from his thinly populated state?
-------------
WIN ONE FOR "THE CHIPPER"?
At last check the blood sucking druid had full ownership of Chase, Exxon Mobil, is and always has been the shadow siphon behind the Fed and its tentacle the IRS, now his extentions can also turn off the spigot of your unemployment just as easily as he denied US taxpayers the return through lending of STIMULUS moneys.

Ah, What the heck, go back to sleep and await NWO. Many of you wouldn't know it, if NWO's communo/neo fascist military/police state jumped up, allowed the tax repo man to ransack your houses, kicked you in the groin, hit you right in the face and landed you and your families in debtors prison later to be hauled off to Siberia or a Chinese work farm.

Hmmmmmmm! That can't happen here, you say. Think again. See some of the new precedents being laid down by the higher courts right in front of your very eyes. Today it only applies to terrorists. Tomorrow?
UNCLE ROCKY- WANTS YOU!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html

SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU- AND HOW NON PAYMENT BY THE "UBER RICH" INCREASES YOUR TAX BURDENS FROM YOUR EARNINGS. ...and how "COST OF LIVING" far exceeds interest on any savings you might accrue. Simply stated you're assets and what will remain from your wages are being burned and melted away faster than global warming by Rocky & his Fiends, ... and it is being done on and with purpose. ---> "chipping"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/business/economy/09rates.html

This belongs with the last post. Rocky and hisfriends just love- "you" paying their tax load.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/08/obama.tax.cuts.dems/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

It is simple arithmetic.

Deficits, Deficits, and more Deficits with Republicans in charge.

12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Bush/Cheney increased and bloated the size of government with the largest tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

-----------------------

HEADLINES THAT YOU NEVER READ IN THE REPUBLICAN/FOREIGN-OWNED U.S. MEDIA: / http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $100 Billion in one year!

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $200 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $300 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $400 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $500 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion AGAIN! Almost hits $600 Billion!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a THIRD time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FOURTH time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FIFTH time!

"Our National Debt is up Three Trillion Dollars under George W. Bush!" / http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

One of my favorite songs!

LOL

Bush Fuzzy Math Cartoon Video
http://www.thebots.net/

RNN STAFF, CASPIAN, WILLIAM, MAGS & MIKEG:

What's all the complaining about from these people in the top 2% who have been the only ones to profit wholesale from their tax cuts while the rest opf America suffered.
All that is being asked is for them to pay their fair share of the deficit burden. A return to the clinton tax rates that increased 22,000,000 jobs and which provided the greatest increase in overall per capita income ever established during his 8yr term of office.

READ THIS FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL AMERICA'S FINANCIAL AUTHORITY.

January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET.BUSH ON JOBS: THE WORST TRACK RECORD ON RECORD By WSJ Staff
"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. –Sudeep Reddy

The chart can be sorted by any of the following categories.
THOSE FIGURES READ ACROSS THE LINES ARE TO TO READ AS FOLLOWS- AND THEY DON'T LIE.
1-JOBS CREATED
2-JOBS AT THE END OF TERM
3-JOBS AT START OF TERM
4-PAYROLL EXPANSION
5-JOBS CREATED PER YEAR IN OFFICE
*6-POPULATION INCREASE- CHECK THE BUSH FIGURE INCLUDED IN THIS FIGURE ARE THE MORE THAN *10MILLION ILLEGALS WHO BUSH & CO LET INVADE OUR SHORES THAT TOOK THE MAJORITY OF OUR JOBS.



George W. Bush 3.0 million 135.5 million 132.5 million 2.3% 375,000 22.0 million 7.7%
Bill Clinton 23.1 million 132.5 million 109.4 million 21.1% 2,900,000 25.2 million 8.9%
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million 109.4 million 106.9 million 2.3% 625,000 12.5 million 4.8%

Ronald Reagan 16.0 million 106.9 million 90.9 million 17.6% 2,000,000 17.3 million 7%
Jimmy Carter 10.5 million 90.9 million 80.4 million 13.1% 2,600,000 9.8 million 4.3%
Gerald Ford 1.8 million 80.4 million 78.6 million 2.3% 745,000 5.1 million 2.3%
Richard Nixon 9.4 million 78.6 million 69.2 million 13.6% 1,700,000 12.3 million 5.7%
Lyndon Johnson 11.9 million 69.2 million 57.3 million 20.8% 2,300,000 11.3 million 5.6

WILLIAM: INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY AND BETTER TECHNOLOGIES DOES NOT NECESSARILY INCREASE JOBS, NOR DOES IT TRANSLATE INTO HIGHER INCOME FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TAKING ON THE HIGHER WORK LOAD.
PRIVATE SECTOR:See secretaries, and office personnel replaced by i-phones, and voice recognition technologies. Manual laborers replaced by robotics. DOWNSIZING to increase profits. DECREASING BENEFITS, REDUCED PROFIT SHARING ETC. all the way across the board.

Nice try, better luck next time. America needs "jobs, jobs, jobs" whether it be in infrastructure- or what have you, to offset this monumental landslide of WELFARE ENTITLEMENTS to the "ultra rich"[top .01%], the "outsourcing corporates", and even the cashing in unemployment payouts by former workers who have more than paid their fair share into the coffers that should have been more than adequate if the Fed and its blood suckers kept those gross earnings income takeouts in reserve.

Mags is right. If you do the math for any worker with 10yrs or more of continuous employment 99wks doesn't begin to approach the moneys taken out of their salaries.
AUDIT THE FED! FIND OUT WHERE AND TO WHOM ALL THE MONEY WENT AND WHERE IT IS STILL GOING, THEN END IT!
END IRS TAXATIONS ON EARNINGS THAT TOO IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL!

THIS OUGHT TO PUT AN END "THE MYTH OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS".
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

BillF: keep a permanent copy of this article in your files as a constant reminder for your dysfunctional memory will help with your cognitive skills and prevent those inexcusable lapses that are your signature trait.
Perhaps you might want to add this portion of THE BUSH LEGACY to your case for PTSD syndrome treatment and benefits.

A Tax-Cutting Democrat :
Rep. Gerry E. Connolly challenges his fellow Democrats on the Bush tax cuts.

September 9, 2010

It’s not often that Democratic congressmen turn to the Wall Street Journal to defend their stance on taxes. But as one of the first, and certainly the most outspoken, members of his party to come out in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthiest Americans, freshman Rep. Gerry E. Connolly (D., Va.) is not a typical Democrat.

Connolly began to voice his concern as early as January 2010, when White House officials were preparing the ten-year budget plan. Now, with a number of Democratic candidates in tough races coming out in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, Connolly appears something of a trendsetter. Senate candidates Jack Conway in Kentucky and Robin Carnahan in Missouri, as well as Rep. Bobby Bright (D., Ala.), are among the Democrats echoing Connolly’s line on taxes.

.saac Wood, House-race editor for Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball newsletter, says the Bush tax cuts will continue to be an issue heading into November, especially for Democrats looking to paint themselves as moderate candidates. “Democrats who support extending [the tax cuts] will tout that as a concrete example of independence from the national party line,” Wood says.

Connolly was a reliable vote for Democrats in his first term, supporting all of the Obama administration’s key policy initiatives, such as the federal stimulus package, health-care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, and financial reform.

However, this is not the first time he has bucked the party establishment on economic issues. In December 2009, Connolly and 13 other first-term Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that called for using a “substantial portion” of unspent TARP funds to reduce the federal deficit.

The growing unease among Democrats about the economy could undermine President Obama’s ability to push for any kind of tax increase after the midterms, even if the results aren’t as bad as many Democrats fear.

Connolly’s Republican opponent, Keith Fimian, a business owner who ran against Connolly is 2008, isn’t buying Connolly’s line on taxes. Fimian’s campaign manager, Tim Edson, says it is little more than an election-year ploy.


However, Connolly has indicated that his position on tax cuts goes beyond simply looking out for his wealthy constituents.

Connolly told the Richmond Times-Dispatch he’s making “purely an economic argument” that raising taxes, especially on high-income earners, would be harmful in a weak economy.

“The top 5 percent income-earners in this country generate 30 percent of consumer spending. If you let the top bracket expire right now, you could shave as much as half a point off GDP growth. We can’t afford to do that right now,” Connolly said.

It is certainly a message the Obama administration can’t afford to ignore.

“This is a clear case of Gerry Connolly looking at the polls, knowing he’s in trouble with voters in this district, and knowing that if he votes for tax increases it’s going to seriously jeopardize his chances of reelection,” Edson says. “Anyone who think he’s not going to flip after the election and suddenly be against extending [the tax cuts], does so at their own peril,” he added.

Fimian’s campaign released the results of a poll by McLaughin & Associates in March 2010 that showed Fimian leading Connolly 40–35 percent with 25 percent undecided. Among independent voters, Fimian led 43–28 percent, according to the poll. Connolly beat Fimian by 12 points in 2008, a year when Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry Virginia since 1964.

Wood says that without Obama on the ticket, or even a Senate or governor’s race to drive turnout in the state, Connolly’s seat is definitely up for grabs in 2010.

Connolly represents the wealthiest congressional district in the country; VA-11 has a median household income of more than $100,000. So his position on taxes may not seem all that surprising.

“[Connolly] is not shooting for Democratic votes, he knows he has to win over independents and even some Republicans who might be turned off by Fimian, and that’s what this policy stance could do for him,” Wood says.

Inherited from Whom?

September 7, 2010

Setting the record straight on “the policies that created this mess in the first place.”

Pres. Barack Obama boldly proclaims, “The buck stops here!” But whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama “inherited” the big federal budget deficits and that he has to “clean up the mess” left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called “the Clinton surplus.” But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger fraction of the annual national output than it has been in more than half a century. And that fraction is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, “Don’t give in to fear. Let’s reach for hope.” The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office.

“The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place,” he said recently. “In November, you’re going to have that choice.”

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage-lending standards were Democrats — notably Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd — though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers that were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about “the policies that created this mess in the first place,” let’s at least get the facts straight and the names right.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems — all in the name of “change.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

Tax Cuts For All, Not Just For Some:

September 5, 2010

There’s a phrase that never crosses President Obama’s lips, even as he prepares to propose new tax cuts for small business. The phrase: permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

Such cuts were championed by Presidents Reagan, Kennedy, and Coolidge. But Obama prefers – indeed, he insists on – temporary, targeted cuts that don’t reduce actual tax rates. Why is he sticking with this policy? I’ll get to that after breaking down the parts of the Reagan-JFK-Coolidge type cuts.

Start with the wealthy. As a group, they’re the most economically productive people in the country. That’s why they’re rich. They’re the biggest investors in the economy – in companies, in startups, in entrepreneurs – because they’ve got the discretionary funds to do so. It’s their investments that produce private sector jobs.

Despite this, Obama would punish them by raising taxes on income, capital gains, dividends, and estates as of January 1, 2011, for individuals earning more than $200,00 a year and couples making more than $250,000. If his goal is to stir economic growth and create jobs, his policy is counterproductive.

Next, marginal tax rates. These are the ones that affect potential investors the most. (The top rate is critical to wealthy investors.) Cutting them reduces the rate on the next dollar earned. This, in turn, creates a strong incentive to invest because the investor will earn more than he would have if rates were higher. Higher marginal rates, which Obama would impose, are a disincentive to invest.

But why must the cuts be across-the-board? First, these are the cuts that historically have had the greatest economic impact. Second, they incentivize everyone. Third, they’re the least complicated and easiest to apply. Fourth, they eliminate uncertainty – a strong disincentive all by itself – about who is eligible for lower tax rates and who isn’t. Fifth, they’re more effective than targeted cuts and less subject to the biases and fads of the political class.

Lastly, tax cuts that are permanent. They’re a no-brainer. They have the most powerful incentive effect. Investors are leery, and quite naturally so, of cuts that vanish in a year or two. But if the cuts are permanent, investors can envision long-term gains. Short-term profits are not to be sneered at. But the prospect of lasting gains – which investors crave most of all – is unparalleled as a catalyst for investment.

So what is Obama’s problem? His grounds for opposing permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates are three-fold: ideology, economic inexperience, and political control. He wants growth and jobs, but he’s fearful, as many liberals are, of the rich becoming richer. He’s not inclined to rely on them to boost the economy. That would be “trickle down economics.” And he’s especially against cutting the tax rate on capital gains, even if tax revenues rise as a result. That would violate “fairness.”

While the president has lived many places, he’s yet to work in the profit-making sector. He loves non-profits and in his commencement address at Arizona State University last year urged graduates to work for them. One could argue he doesn’t like the profit motive. He lacks any personal experience with it, at any rate. Nor with incentives, though he once advocated an incentive in health insurance to promote weight loss.

In tax policy, political control matters to Obama and his allies. If tax cuts are targeted and temporary, they can decide who gets them and for how long. They feel most comfortable with spending masquerading as a tax cut. That was the case when checks were dispatched to the non-rich last year. But with tax cuts of the Reagan-JFK-Coolidge variety, control slips away. They have a decentralizing effect. The private sector nationwide – individuals, investors, stockholders -- would decide how to respond to tax cuts. Washington would lose control. To Obama, that appears to be unacceptable.

“AUDIT THE FED! FIND OUT WHERE AND TO WHOM ALL THE MONEY WENT AND WHERE IT IS STILL GOING, THEN END IT! “ -John

John, doesn’t anybody see the political smoke and mirrors going on here? A tax-cut or hike for the rich is meaningless unless we get our house in order. It’s like having a 50% off sale. 50% off what? The problem is WITH government expansion and too much spending but they want you to focus on “who” gets the cuts. If we cut the waste we could ALL have lower taxes.

What would you rather, that government decide that you should be allowed to give a little less money then others while they still intend to overspend it and waste it? Rather then make sure that all the money you give them is well spent. Perhaps, you feel it's better to give most of your money to government and let them determine what you should get back in the form of stimulus / rebate or maybe you should be able to decide on your own?

The problem with Bush was he spent too much in a bad economy. This is the same problem I have with Obama, EXCEPT it is obvious he wants to increase the size of government and make it so government decides how to spend your money and not you. Limited government with conservative principles is what is best for this country overall. Throw out these big government wasters who are hurting the economy.

Mag had a good idea about fixing the tax code but this will never happen or we would wind up with a plan worse tha n the present code. Can you imagine if congress tried to fix the tax code the legion of lobbyists crawling like cockroaches in congress to influence the new bill and protecting their interests. The system is so corrupt that nothing good could come out of doing over the tax code

The issue is not about cutting taxes for the wealthiest, this amounts to nothing but dishonest semantics on the part of the president. If Obama does what he says he will do he would be raising taxes on the wealthiest which includes many small businesses, not just individuals. Hiring from these companies would definitely be retarded, if not stopped altogether. Talk about self destruction!

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, unbridled spending does. This administration run by Democrats, has amassed more public debt in less than 2 years than the first through the fortieth presidents (Washington to Reagan) combined. And now they want to add another stimulus package for jobs. I thought the first, second and third stimulus packages were for jobs.

At one time I thought there were two "William"s writing on this site. One of them I admire more with every post as the wisest spokesman for reasonable and, dare I say, humanistic behavior. "Listen to this man!" I want to say, most of the time, acceding to his expression of wholesome sensibleness and succinct wording and remaining myself silent.

The other William, as I thought he must be someone else, cleaved to far forms of capitalistic narrative that I, apparently a political populist, found unconvincing, even alien. Money spent on business buys productivity and benefit for everyone, we're told, while money spent on people is lost forever, wasted. Hmmm, I'm with those unclever populists on this.

Well, William, I still feel often like saying "Listen to this man!" But I withhold this full-throated adulation when you opine on finance.

It's 9/12 Again:
Rallies Expected Across the Country

Sep 10 2010

It's September 12th again this Sunday, and that means one thing: 9/12 rallies.

Last year, Glenn Beck launched a movement that, for months, organized and prepared for a big march on Washington, pulling off an event that drew a big crowd of Tea Partiers and disgruntled anti-spending crusaders to the National Mall. Media outlets estimated tens of thousands in attendance; supporters of the rally estimated closer to 1.5 or 2 million.


Dubbed "The 9.12 Project," Beck's stated goal for the rally was to "bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States, or political parties. We were united as Americans..." In the months leading up to September 12, 2009, local "9/12" groups sprung up across the nation; in the vast national network of small anti-Obama political groups, "9/12" groups pepper the broader Tea Party coalition.


This Sunday, the'll be at it again. FreedomWorks has been organizing, and The 9.12 Project has been promoting, another massive rally in Washington, DC. Permits for a 300,000-attendee event have reportedly been obtained, and a lineup of speakers--from Andrew Breitbart to Indiana Congressman Mike Pence--has been secured for Sunday afternoon outside the Capitol.


Other big rallies, which will likely draw thousands, are slated for St. Louis and Sacramento.


On top of that, countless smaller rallies are being planned elsewhere.


"These things are taking place all over the country," said Mark Meckler, a national co-coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, the largest Tea Party membership group in the country, which hosts a weekly conference call where local activists discuss and coordinate plans.

Haley Barbour reminisced recently about his youth in a post-racial 1960 Mississippi. Yeah, that’s what he wants people to believe, that it must be today’s Democrats who can’t get past race. He’s hoping no one remembers or knows how to look up the actual history of Mississippi in 1960. He said he went to an integrated high school and that “nobody thought anything about it,” when high schools there were forcibly integrated later than this and everybody there thought a lot about it. Or at least that’s how it looks on the miles of newsreel footage from the time.

The right has been saying since Reagan that they’re not racists, yet the old tried and true southern strategy has not become ineffective, this vote-getter that RELIES on, is BASED on white resentment of non-white minorities. If racism were truly dead, the southern strategy would have been abandoned. It hasn’t, though, been given up, meaning it still gets votes for Republicans, meaning there may be more Republicans resentful of non-whites than there are Republicans disgusted with the use of this strategy. If the left were the real racists, as the right formulaically insists, the left would be affected by the narrative of this strategy, and would be voting heavily Republican, leaving essentially no Democratic party. This doesn’t appear to be the case.

Assertions such as Barbour’s do not create fact, no matter how many people who want to believe something contrary to recorded fact accept and embrace and pass on in a thousand e-mails imaginary assertions that are easily disproven. I don’t have the latest numbers, but before this last round of primaries, 317 of 324 incumbents beat their challengers even though Fox News kept repeating to the end tales of an anti-incumbent tidal wave. This is pure hokum to rally Fox’s base; since Democrats are outnumbering Republicans in office, anti-incumbent means anti-Democratic. Just make up any story and try to make it real by sheer repetition.

It won’t take long for people to see that the tales of anti-incumbency are false, so this is a good time for Republicans to change the subject by putting on those backward-looking rose-colored glasses again and bloviate about those pre-politically-correct days so dreamily recalled by old white men, those halcyon days when non-whites, non-Christians, non-men knew their place. Enter the aging sons of grandpa Reagan,- Haley Barbour and Glen Beck,-who will again try to create by sheer wish-power a kind of Potemkin reality. If Democrats can learn one thing from Republicans, it’s this,-the power of narrative to bamboozle people. It doesn’t seem to matter terribly that these story-tellers aren’t admired and respected for integrity or intellectual honesty. It only seems to matter that they can bamboozle just enough people to give today’s Republicans a false appearance of being equivalent in respectability to Democrats, differing from them only in political philosophy.

Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?

September 12, 2010

From an immigration law in Arizona to a planned mosque near Ground Zero to Glenn Beck emoting at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, the controversies roiling American politics in recent weeks and months have featured an ugly undertone, suggesting meanness, prejudice and, in the eyes of some, outright racism. And it is conservatives -- whether Republican politicians, Fox News commentators or members of the "tea party" movement -- who are invariably painted with that brush.

There is power in the accusation of racism against conservatives, one that liberals understand well. In an April 2008 post on Journolist, a private online community for liberal journalists, academics and activists, one writer proposed a way to distract conservatives from the campaign controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor. "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us," Spencer Ackerman wrote. "Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists."

No doubt, such accusations stick to conservatives more than to liberals. It was then-Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, after all, who described presidential candidate Obama as "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." If a conservative politician had offered such an opinion, his or her career might have ended; Biden was rewarded with a spot on Obama's ticket. Liberal missteps on race and ethnicity are explained away, forgiven and often forgotten; conservative ones are cast as part of a sinister, decades-long story of intolerance and political calculation, in which conservative ideology and strategy are conflated with bigotry.

That larger story is well-known and oft-repeated -- and, I would argue, vastly oversimplified and simply wrong in its key underlying assumptions. But its endurance explains why the party of Lincoln is so easily dubbed the party of Strom Thurmond or Jefferson Davis, and why many critics believe that an identity politics of white America now tilts conservatives against not just blacks but also Hispanics, Muslims and anyone else outside a nostalgic and monochromatic description of the American way of life.

The narrative usually begins with Barry Goldwater opposing provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and with Richard Nixon scheming to win the presidency through a "Southern strategy" -- appealing to the racial prejudice of working-class whites in the South to pry them away from the Democratic coalition assembled by Franklin Roosevelt. In this telling, bigoted Southerners were the electoral mountain to which the Republican Moses had to come, the key to the GOP winning the White House. Wooing them entailed much more than shifting the party slightly away from Democrats on racial issues; in return for political power, Republicans had to move their politics and policies to where bigots wanted them to be. This alliance supposedly laid the foundation for a new American politics.

As Dan Carter, George Wallace's biographer, put it, "The Wallace music played on" in "Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers." More recently, it continues through inflammatory campaign ads ("Harold, call me!"), offensive tea party signs, Rand Paul's unusual-because-explicit skepticism about the Civil Rights Act -- all the way to calls to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and to keep Muslim worship well away from the nation's hallowed ground in Lower Manhattan. In this interpretation, core conservative principles -- limited government, tax cuts, welfare reform and toughness on crime -- actually have race at their heart.

This reading of the conservative movement presents problems of logic and history, relying on assumptions that fall apart on close examination. First, it assumes that Republicans depended on white Southerners to become politically competitive in the 1960s. Second, it assumes that Republican presidents from Nixon forward swayed these voters by giving them the policies they wanted. Third, it assumes that the modern conservative policy agenda is best seen as racially motivated. Finally, it assumes that conservative positions on recent controversies are just new forms of that same white-heartland bigotry.

These assumptions are badly flawed.

First, Republicans did not decisively depend on white Southerners to create their modern presidential majorities when the race issue was at its most polarizing. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP had little choice in the 1960s but to seek out Southern white voters and tacked hard to the right on civil rights to do it. But Republican presidential candidates pried apart the New Deal coalition in the 1950s, with the performance of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Nixon in 1960. This chronology has big implications. From 1952 through the 1980s, GOP presidential candidates consistently beat or nearly matched their Democratic opponents, with the clear exceptions only of 1964 and 1976. Republicans did this mostly by crafting majority coalitions in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states, in the industrial Midwest and mid-Atlantic, and ultimately in California -- and only partially by realigning several Southern states. Moreover, these were the least "Southern" states, such as Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

This means that the GOP presidential majority and much of the party's modern policy agenda were forged not in the racial heat of the 1960s South, but first in the 1950s and across the country.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) recently argued that race did not play a central role in the partisan shift in the South, saying the transformation was led by a younger generation of Southerners in the post-segregation 1970s. But the best evidence that things other than race mattered most in the shift was that it was an even older generation that moved to the GOP in the peripheral South. By the time Lyndon Johnson reportedly remarked that the Civil Rights Act would deliver the South to the Republicans for a generation, the GOP had already won nearly half the region's Electoral College votes three times in a row.

The remainder of the region -- the race-obsessed Deep South -- repeatedly tried to be a presidential kingmaker in the 1960s but failed. Instead of reforming the GOP in its image, the Deep South's white electorate was among the last to join an already-winning Republican presidential coalition in the early 1970s. Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around.

This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Not surprisingly, white Southern leaders such as Strom Thurmond grew bitterly frustrated with Nixon. This explains what Gallup polls detected in 1971-72: A large number of white Southern voters preferred Wallace to Nixon. Only when the Alabaman was shot in May 1972 did Nixon inherit Wallace's voters -- not because of Nixon's policies on race but despite them.

After the mid-1970s, school desegregation and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act faded as the most decisive -- or divisive -- racial issues in the country. In the decades that followed, the conservative policy platform became the new focus of liberal cries of racism. Critics such as Thomas and Mary Edsall interpreted the Reagan agenda's major elements as indirect attempts to maintain white privilege: Tax cuts denied resources to a government that could be an agent of social change and lift up the underprivileged. Calls to limit government, especially federal power, stood to do the same. Reagan's attacks on "welfare queens" emphasized negative images of minorities and ultimately helped end an entitlement for the neediest. Campaigns against crime refreshed stereotypes of threatening African Americans and imprisoned millions along the way. Criticism of affirmative action assaulted a major mechanism of workplace advancement for minorities and women.

These policy positions remain central to the conservative domestic agenda, but calling them racist, the third assumption, presumes something very strange: that conservatives do not mean what they say about them. Welfare reform is deliberately anti-black (or anti-minority or anti-poor) only if conservatives secretly believe that welfare actually does help its beneficiaries and are being deceitful when they argue that long-term dependency devastates inner-city communities. Tax cuts are part of a racist agenda only if conservatives do not believe that lower taxes will enhance economic growth and social mobility for all. Conservative opposition to raising the minimum wage is anti-poor only if free-marketeers are feigning concern that increases will price less-skilled people out of the workforce (as when Milton Friedman called the minimum wage "one of the most . . . anti-black laws on the statute books") and secretly agree with liberals that increases will benefit the working poor over the long term.

By such reasoning, conservatives should oppose all government programs that they believe help minority groups. But at least one expansive policy area defies this expectation: education. Most conservatives, even as they turned against busing and welfare, continued to support large public education budgets. Many conservatives may support issuing school vouchers and shutting down the federal Education Department, but those positions concern which level of government should control schools -- not whether government should pay for education for all. Overwhelming majorities of Republicans joined Democrats in 2007 to reauthorize Head Start, the early-education program in which well over half the students are from minority groups. And substantial majorities of whites (conservatives as well as liberals) have voiced support for what sociologist William Julius Wilson calls "opportunity-enhancing affirmative action," policies that would unofficially but inevitably direct disproportionate benefits to minorities.

All these programs aim to give beneficiaries not guaranteed incomes but better chances to succeed by boosting their skills. (It was George W. Bush, after all, who insisted that academic achievement by minority students had to factor into measures of school performance.)

Finally, there is reason to be skeptical of the latest assumptions of conservative prejudice. Conservatives have taken the lead in two major recent controversies: opposition to a planned Islamic center near Ground Zero and support for Arizona's law requiring immigrants to carry their papers and requiring police to question those they suspect of being here illegally. Liberal critics swiftly labeled both positions bigotry: Islamophobia and prejudice against immigrants from Latin America. To these critics, the racial resentment of past decades has simply been expanded into a more generalized prejudice against racial and religious minorities.

Of course, conservatives don't see it that way. A long-held conservative belief holds that a minimal amount of shared cultural content is required for a healthy American society. This content includes an understanding of the nation's history and virtues, including the opportunity and social mobility it has offered so many. This helps explain, for instance, why conservatives were long skeptical of bilingual education, suspecting that it slowed assimilation. They have logically been concerned about large numbers of immigrants whose presence in the United States is often transitory and whose relationship with the country is purely economic. And they have been cautious about high levels of even legal immigration when it involves people who arrive in large enough numbers and in a concentrated enough time and place to create zones in which pressures to assimilate are mitigated.

Most conservatives do not understand how Arizona's move to enforce federal immigration laws can be deemed bigoted -- especially considering that they have long supported crackdowns on lawbreakers of all types. The planned Islamic center near Ground Zero raises alarms, in part, because the insensitivity of its architects to 9/11's emotional legacy suggests their deeper distance from American sensibilities. Lest that position seem anti-Muslim, conservatives of every stripe, including those who have led the charge against the center, roundly condemned the planned burning of the Koran by a Florida pastor. They did so on the same grounds: Just because someone has a legal right to do something (build a center, burn a book) does not mean it is a wise, desirable or respectful thing to do.

There is no doubt that the contemporary Republican electorate contains some out-and-out bigots, just as the Democratic electorate contains people who hate others on the basis of class. These very real prejudices occasionally erupt into public expression, whether in remarks about Jews over the years by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or in shocking signs at tea party rallies.

But most conservatives have been less concerned with the "hardware" of people's race or ethnicity and more concerned with the "software" of their values or culture. This is why the white Protestant core of the modern conservative movement has not merely integrated Catholic "ethnics" but also rallied behind the Irish American William F. Buckley and the Italian American Antonin Scalia. Jews, women and Hispanics have been similarly integrated into both its ranks and leadership; indeed, many white conservatives swoon when members of minority groups proudly share their values. This explains why, in the 2008 campaign, conservatives were at least as roused by Obama's ties to the white former radical William Ayers as the black Jeremiah Wright, both of whom seemed to make a living out of damning America.

Liberal interpretations that portray modern conservatism as standing athwart the "rights revolution" of the 1960s are hard pressed to explain the growing number of minority and female candidates favored by the conservative rank and file. Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, Ryan Frazier, Raul Labrador and Jaime Herrera are GOP nominees for the Senate, governorships and the House because Republican voters preferred them over their white opponents. Allen West in Florida and Jon Barela in New Mexico were the consensus GOP choices to run for competitive House seats. Many of these candidates are well-positioned to win their races and help change the public face of modern conservatism.

The old conservatism-as-racism story has outlived all usefulness and accuracy. November might be a good time to start a rethink.

“If the left were the real racists, as the right formulaically insists, the left would be affected by the narrative of this strategy, and would be voting heavily Republican, leaving essentially no Democratic party.”- Mike Q

Or perhaps, neither political party left or right really cares about racism or the true welfare of the individual but tries to use it as a means to gain power and control. We could and should look back in history to learn from our mistakes but it does not always equate to the realities of today and those realities can be seen plainly without the need for news reel footage to prove our point.

The left continues to try to label groups of people in order to control their agenda. Their favorite label seems to be “racist”. Oh yes, Fred reminded me there are groups that should bear this label, such as, KKK, Skinheads, Black Panthers, etc. but they don’t represent a majority. When a majority of people are called “racist” then in order for it to be true, we have to believe the majority of people in this country are. If we call the tea party or the Glenn Beck rally racist, without knowing the hearts and minds of those individuals is that not a lie? If we call those who disagree with the presidents policies racists, without considering all the true reasons, how could that possibly be accurate? The majority of Americans who disagree with Arizona also called racists, a statement made across the board with no facts, no racists comments but for the sole reason that people disagree.

The ironic thing about this is there are racists in every case mentioned but because the left tries to falsely label those that are not racists, then the name itself looses its meaning and the real racists are not taken to task. When we use words like racist, bigots and haters it should be directed at individuals with sound reasons as to why this is the case, otherwise, we hurt the actual cause of defending the civil rights of others. If the Democrats or the left really cared about race and race relations, then they would make sure their accusations are true but its obvious their agenda is more important.

A War Within
Robert Gates has one last, crucial mission before he leaves office, and it’s not in Afghanistan or Iraq. It’s in Washington—within the hallowed halls of the Pentagon.

Holding the Line :

September 10, 2010

President Obama has suddenly discovered the virtues of deficit reduction: Having spent all the money, he now thinks it would be downright irresponsible of taxpayers not to pick up some of his tab. His defenders would have us believe that every form of fiscal austerity would sink us deeper into the quicksand — except for tax increases on the most productive individuals and profitable small businesses in the country. The rich don’t spend the money, they argue, so why let them keep it if they’re just going to put it in the bank? Apparently, putting your money into banks is Timothy Geithner’s job, not yours.

This kind of incoherence deserves to be met with a forceful response from Republicans, and House minority leader John Boehner has provided one: a proposal to freeze all tax rates where they are for two years and reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels to offset the forgone revenue. From a policy standpoint, we would have preferred making the Bush tax cuts “normal law” (another way of saying “make them permanent”) and a more comprehensive package of spending cuts, but Boehner’s package is simple, achievable, and superior to the administration’s alternative on both politics and substance.

First, on the politics: Republicans should be happy to let this be the defining debate of the fall, notwithstanding those polls that suggest that the public favors extending the middle-class tax cuts and rescinding the rest. The polls don’t really test the argument that raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea. Polls that put the question in that context, such as the latest from Ipsos-Reuters, indicate that about half of the country is behind the idea of extending the tax cuts for all Americans.

Have that fight, and let Democrats defend higher taxes — but not all of them will: With the Democrats already suffering from pre-election disarray and panic, many of them will peel off. Several Senate Democrats have already indicated that they do not support raising anyone’s rates in the current economy, and representatives such as Gerry Connolly, a Northern Virginia Democrat, have tried to point out that class-war politics doesn’t play in affluent, purple, suburban districts such as his.

The central Republican economic message right now is that Obama-created uncertainty is holding the economy back. That unease is inspired in no small part by uncertainty about taxes. The Democrats could have passed something to deal with looming middle-class tax increases more than a year ago but preferred to spend their time socializing medicine and trying to ration energy. Having expended so much political capital in those efforts, they now lack a coherent vision when it comes to taxes. Republicans should remind voters at every turn that holding down middle-class taxes has been low on the Democrats’ agenda, to the extent that it has been there at all.

Second, on the substance: Boehner’s tax proposal is imperfect in that it would build in another expiration date, making it more difficult for businesses to make long-term plans. But it would at least reassure them that the big debate over tax policy has been postponed to a time when liberals who wish to raise their taxes will most likely have less power in Washington than they do now, and when election-year politics will again work against the Democrats’ attempts to raise rates. That kind of uncertainty is preferable to certain tax hikes.

As far as spending is concerned, we would rather see deeper cuts and more specific proposals for them. But Boehner’s cut-and-cap approach would still yield substantial savings and serve as a useful counterweight against the president’s claims that Republicans want to cut taxes without offsetting the impact of cuts on the deficit. Even more than most liberals, Obama has the annoying habit of talking about tax cuts in terms of how much they “cost” the government, as though it were the government’s money to begin with. He has gone so far as to say that Republicans “would have us borrow” the money to “give” taxpayers their money back. Very well then: Boehner’s freeze would obviate the need to borrow a dime.

Obama knows he is losing this fight, which is why he has refused to commit to vetoing an extension of all the Bush tax cuts should such a bill land on his desk; Boehner’s proposals have offered moderate Democrats a way to oppose the president, thus paving the way for precisely that outcome. A temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts is not the best policy, and we still have a long way to go toward addressing the real sources of our deficit woes. But given the actual viable options on the table, our best bet is to extend the tax cuts while awaiting a sounder government that can reform our tax code and entitlements more broadly.

EXCLUSIVE: Outlook Gloomy at Secret Billionaire Meeting

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39097299

BE AFRAID! BE VERY VERY AFRAID! (Lying Democrats - Just as Predicted)
----------------------------------------
YAHOO NEWS

Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level:

Thu Sep 16, 7:09

WASHINGTON – Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $52,300.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate just before congressional elections in November. If Congress fails to act, families at every income level will see more taxes being withheld from their paychecks come January.

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only for this year.

President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That's income from wages, capital gains and dividends, before standard deductions and exemptions are subtracted.

Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wants an up-or-down vote on extending all the tax cuts before congressional elections in November.

"Raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy," Boehner said. "On the issue of job killing tax hikes the American people are not going to accept anything less than the vote that they deserve."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't commit to vote on any tax proposals before the election. She did, however, pledge to address them by the end of the year.

"The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.

In a breakdown of the numbers, 39 percent agree with Obama, while 15 percent favor raising taxes on everyone by allowing the cuts to expire at year's end. Still, 44 percent say the existing tax cuts should remain in place for everyone, including the wealthy.

While Obama's plan would spare about 97 percent of tax filers, it would mean big tax increases for the wealthy.

Under Obama's plan, a family of four making $325,000 a year would get a tax increase of $5,400, while the same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $56,300, according to the analysis by Deloitte Tax.

A family of four making $5 million a year would get a tax increase of $325,600.

Pelosi said the nation cannot afford to extend tax cuts for top earners.

"I see no justification for going into debt to foreign countries to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America," Pelosi said.

Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the same period.

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here. Too many activities before and after school, shift time for normal activities to an extent that sleep time undergoes drastic cuts.

Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article. And what happens if there is a dispute? There are hundreds of thousands of disputes every year involving health insurance companies that deny claims for perfectly valid treatment options.

Valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up

You got some great ideas there. I did a search on the issue and learnt most peoples will agree with your blog. He plays with action figure toys these days, and I will hear the things he says for them and how he plays with them, and it reminds me a lot of myself when I was his age.

Nice Article

Great post

This a little bit funny. I found your site via search engine a few moment ago, and luckily, this is the only information I was looking for the last hours. The Red Hot Chili Peppers were one of the huge breakout bands of 90s alternative rock and their smash hit album “Blood Sugar Sex Magik” went on to sell over 7 million copies in the U.S. alone.

I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.Great stuff as usual

This post was very nicely written, and it also contains a lot of useful facts. I enjoyed your professional way of writing this post. Thanks, you have made it very easy for me to understand. Because of the vast array of vital organs located in your abdomen, it's important to note the exact location of your abdominal pain.

In some instances, it is so effective as a diuretic, it may even cause slight dehydration. But when you go on a huge diet and change everything you're doing, it's not likely to stick and you'll probably just give up in a few weeks.

You have observed very interesting details ! ps decent website .