Last word. RetiredAirForce, thanks for the laughs.

Red would that be the world where you don't use plastic because oil is evil yet you still type on a plastic keyboard?

Seeing you can't grasp your own hypocrisy on that subject it is not a far stretch that you don't understand the truth behind taxes.

Keep posting RAF because the more you write the more ridiculous your responses. I can always use a good laugh. Maybe someday you will join us all in the real world.

One good thing we will have is WILLIAM TRUMAN in the STATE ASSEMBLY. He is the best choice for Janesville!!

" the Reagan and Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy based on the how the tax codes are written and applied."
-
Trying again with the false liberal mantra?

Money was not put into pockets, it was left in pockets. Let's try this simple analogy again, though it might still go over your head.

If I don't take your apple away it doesn't mean I gave you an apple. The apple was yours all along, nothing was given to you.

Red, your comprehension skills are very poor. The “partial truth” is as I stated, taxes were reduced. The segment you left out was all received it not just the rich. The false liberal mantra is also as I described, the money is not the governments until they receive it; hence a tax cut is not the governments so it stays with the source…I understand this is a difficult topic for you.

To your lunacy of the inheritance tax doesn’t cost the heirs anything because it was not their money to begin with. Whose money was it then? Right, it was the person who GAVE it to the heirs, which was not the government. After the gift is made then a fee is charged by the government…taking it away from the owner; only a liberal can think this doesn’t cost the heirs anything.

"The Reagan & Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy"
RAF -False liberal mantra.
"The Reagan and Bush tax cuts either reduced or eliminated taxes on income earned from trading in various forms of financial instruments."
RAF -Partial truth is hardly the truth.

Which is it RAF, false mantra or partial truth. Regardless of how you slice the percentages or numbers RAF, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy based on the how the tax codes are written and applied.
The estate tax is applied only to funds in which ownership is transferred. The value of an estate belongs to an individual or entity, not to the heirs. Taxes are applied to most forms of financial transactions upon transfer of property.
According to you RAF, "Tax cuts don't COST the government any money!" So technically the taxes collected from an inheritance does not cost the heirs anything because it was not their money to begin with.

Any zero rate was held to those in the 15% and under income tax bracket, interestingly enough from 2008-now; when the dems controlled both houses of congress.

"The Bush tax cuts had the capital gains tax between 0 and 15% depending on income level."
-
Wow, no wonder you want to be a futurerich, you have no CLUE what tax rates really are.

The real rates ranged from 8-39% under bush. The only one paying a zero rate would be a timmy gietner (tax cheat), or the item(s) were not capital GAINS.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publication...

"Another lie, capital gains rules apply here."

Umm, that's the point RAF. The Bush tax cuts had the capital gains tax between 0 and 15% depending on income level. The dividend tax fiasco Bush created is even more ridiculous. Of course tax accountants loved him.

"someone buying-selling 50,000 shares of WalMart stock could earn thousands and pay nothing in taxes. Of course, life isn't fair but this is ridiculous."
-
Another lie, capital gains rules apply here.

"The Reagan and Bush tax cuts either reduced or eliminated taxes on income earned from trading in various forms of financial instruments."
-
Partial truth is hardly the truth. Taxes were cut across the income rate tables in addition to capital gains rates. Pretending this did not happen is disingenuous...

To your LAME innuendo of my benefits. Try to be factual. I am nowhere near the age limit for SS. I also pay more in federal taxes ever year than I receive in a pension. My medical coverage is a purchased plan through my place of employment, as required by current existing federal law all my medical benefits must first be paid my private insurance before any government plan kicks in. I also CHOOSE not to use the VA.

Unlike others who post on these boards I stand behind my principles.

"The Reagan & Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy". I guess you need to know something about the tax code RAF, to understand the concept. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts either reduced or eliminated taxes on income earned from trading in various forms of financial instruments. The fact is only the very wealthy hold large quantities of financial instruments which have the potential of generating large gains. Nothing is actually produced or manufactured to generate this income yet little or no taxes are assessed. To the average person the tax savings on this type of transaction amounts to very little but for wealthy investors the tax savings could equal a single years income for a person working at minimum wage. Favorable tax rates should be provided ONLY to those investments which add jobs, increase production or add to non-salary worker benefits. The US is fast becoming a plutocracy where the wealthy control the political process which enables them to pass policies and laws which benefit their financial positions, not the general population. A person earning 40K a year with thousands in medical expenses can only deduct a fraction of the expense, yet someone buying-selling 50,000 shares of WalMart stock could earn thousands and pay nothing in taxes. Of course, life isn't fair but this is ridiculous.
Revenue is only irrelevant if you have no need to spend. Are you willing to give up the government benefits you enjoy?

Do you spend more than you currently have expecting a raise, or do you wait until you have it?

The issue with the deficit and the national debt has never been because they didn't collect enough money. It has always been because they spent more money than was received. Political ponzi schemes like SS funding and statements like reductions in future WANTED spending as a cut in funding has kept people from seeing the truth behind all the babble. You can "try" to state a reduction in receipts as a reason, when simple accounting shows your error. Expenditures beyond collections is always a deficit.

Math is not that complicated. Trying to blame too much spending on not enough receipts is providing an EXCUSE, not holding those accountable for their error. The money is not theirs until the receive it.

RetiredAirForce, although I don't believe the analogy to be completely accurate, in personal finance, if you have a spending deficit, a raise could reverse that deficit. I don't understand how the revenue side is irrelevant. How do you explain the sudden budget reversal during Bush's first year in office?

"The Reagan & Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy"
-
False liberal mantra. Leaving money at the source does not give it to them...it was already theirs. If I don't take your apple away do you then say I gave you an apple?

"Only through spending cuts and tax increases will we be able to reduce the deficit."
-
False logic. The revenue side is irrelevant. If spending is greater than revenue there will always be a deficit. SPENDING is the reason for the deficit and reduced spending is the ONLY way to fix it. When you are in debt, do you hope for raise to get out of it or do you lower your spending?

Stupid reason #1 for keeping tax cuts.
“Taxes redistribute the wealth.”
The top 1% of the US population hold 95% of this countries wealth. They also are major shareholders (owners) of many large wealthy corporations. Wealthy corporations and individuals pay lobbyists to petition our government to enact laws and policies which benefit them. Since 1990 CEO pay has risen 298.2% on average, Corporate profits are up 106.7% and Production worker pay is up 4.3%. So, what’s trickling down? The Reagan & Bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of the wealthy yet did little to improve the economy. Corporations increase profit by moving jobs overseas, pay large bonuses to executives who then get tax breaks on their investments. The top 1% own 50% of investments. Normalized to 1979, the top 1% has seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% has seen their portion shrink. Lots of entrepreneurs made big money in the 19th century and even in the period from 1934-1970, but income at the lower end went up too. Middle-class income was not deliberately suppressed by the financial elite, who then loaned them the money to buy foreign goods. Rather the rules were changed so that the elite could make enormous fortunes rapidly by financial manipulation and by shifting production out of the country. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of redistributing wealth – back to the wealthy. Only through spending cuts and tax increases will we be able to reduce the deficit.

There is no equating going on, just using your logic and applying it to other areas.

"put more faith in the people who [acquire] ... with their hard earned money, than [those] ...who... [get] ... [things] at no cost."

RAF, you equate welfare and unemployment to inheriting fortunes greater than $1M? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Your "faith" is something I'm not interested in.

To this point your only argument has been people that inherit something, you didn't get, isn't fair; hardly a logical position to take. It is interesting how you take the argument that "something for nothing" is a bad thing, like unemployment, welfare, zero taxes based on income...or are you not being consistent again?

RAF, I would put more faith in the people who buy these assets with their hard earned money, than the kids who would inherit these assets at no cost. If you want to destroy a business, simply give it away to one of these kids. I think the estate tax offers a little natural selection in the business world.

Hardly, I offered ways people try to save their business in spite of the taxation. The ones that are sold "might" not want to continue with the original owner gone. Unlike you I can see more than one side of an issue and how people/business might handle the burden; like I previously said by estate planning.

How does selling off assets to pay a burden mean nothing was destroyed???????

RAF, well at least we've come to the agreement that businesses do not fail because of the estate tax. Instead, as you say, " farm families sell off acreage to pay the estate tax when the owner passes...private companies don't publish their reason for selling... besides the tax, perhaps the family no longer wants to run the business. "

"Besides, my paultry tax cuts were nothing compared to the tax cuts enjoyed by those receiving a significant amount of their income from..."
-
And the jealousy bug continues....all about fairness and what someone else has that you don't.

There are many examples of farm families that sell off acreage to pay the estate tax when the owner passes, as there are many business' that are sold after the owner dies. Since these are private companies many don't publish their reason for selling, besides the tax perhaps the family no longer wants to run the business. Either way taking previously-taxed wealth because a person dies is wrong.

As far as you enjoying your bush tax cuts...you can pay them back anytime now.

RAF, so all this talk about businesses failing or being lost to the estate tax and you can't even give me one example. Did I enjoy GW's tax cuts? Those tax cuts went right into my savings. Those tax cuts were nothing but an increase in our credit limit. Bottom line is we'll have to pay them back someday anyway. Besides, my paultry tax cuts were nothing compared to the tax cuts enjoyed by those receiving a significant amount of their income from investments and inheritance. Sad part is, we're all on the hook for that lost tax revenue.

futurerichguy, add up all your possessions then pay 55% of that value to the government this year then say it doesn't "destroy" anything. I am sure you will do what you have proven to do so far, only pay what is required by law and then complain others should pay more. BTW have you enjoyed your bush tax cuts you like to whine about?

justsomeguy, I'm looking for an example of a business that has failed because of the estate tax as I have not been able to find one.

futurerichguy - "NoLeftist said, "If you present such an argument here though, you are required to provide proof." Typically if you present an argument, you should have some proof to back it up. Am I the only one that doesn't see a problem with that?"
-
You conveniently forgot what led into that argument - that "as you increase taxes on something, you get less of it."
-
Do you really need proof of that? If you tax my income I get less money. Do I need to provide you proof of that? Really?

futurerichguy, you have no idea what portions of any estate tax these private companies paid. With estate planning and formulas for determining value you are only listing names.

After paying a typical 50% combined federal and state tax on revenue if you really think ANY company can sustain another 55% hit on value you are indeed more clueless than I thought.

NoLeftist said, "If you present such an argument here though, you are required to provide proof." Typically if you present an argument, you should have some proof to back it up. Am I the only one that doesn't see a problem with that?

The foolishness the lefties keep spewing is never-ending. They just keep throwing out more and more, hoping something sticks. Inferences just in the last couple of posts:

The estate tax has never destroyed a job: proof is that some businesses have been subject to the tax and it didn't affect them.

I don't support a wealth tax but I do support estate taxes.

Tax increases next year don't impact investment decisions this year.

My children don't deserve the money I earned and happen to leave to them, but the government does.

The government can't predict how much money it will collect through estate taxes.

The fact that they believe such nonsense, let alone proclaim it, shows how close-minded they are, only hanging out in seedy left-wing blogs/echo chambers.

Demanding proof that the estate tax has destroyed one job is like asking for documentation that the sun rises in the east. It's like a previous demand for proof that increased taxes on investments decrease investments or increased taxes on employment decrease employment.

Being a liberal requires a "willing suspension of disbelief" (ht Hillary), as everyone who hasn't entered the trancelike state of liberal ignorance knows that as you increase taxes on something, you get less of it.

If you present such an argument here though, you are required to provide proof.

The non-liberals here should not bother responding to their questions and instead ask for proof of their stupid inferences.

RetiredAirForce, there's a long list of family run businesses right here in Wisconsin that have passed from father to son over the past 80 years with the estate tax very much in play: JP Cullen, Bassett Mechanical, J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc, Chase Lumber and Fuel Company, Inc, Metcalfe Sentry Foods, etc...

donnaw, in 2011 the threshold will revert back to $1 million, as of now.

"Give me one example of a business destroyed "
-
Give me an example of a business that can sustain an additional tax burden up to 55% and not be destroyed.

futurerichguy--I was under the impression that the threshold for estate tax was $1 million per person, not $3.5 as you stated. Does anyone know the correct amount?

RAF, I don't youtube like you young turks. Give me one example of a business destroyed or lost because of the estate tax.

http://www.youtube.com/v/9ssIhiD8kKM?fs=...

"The beneficiaries never earned a dime of what they inherit except for being lucky sperm."
-
Your jealousy over what others might have that you don't clouds any logical position.

What about the children of a business owner that are have worked their whole life, devoted to the family business? Why should they have to pay the government money to keep the family business going?

Of course the legal world, the beneficiaries of all legislation and the largest campaign donors of all, have made a fortune off these people too trying to protect their possessions from getting into the governments hands. So either way, the lawyers get theirs or the government gets theirs...sad reality caused by liberal jealousy.

"That accounts for less than 2% "
-
If it's no big deal why don't you pay more? As I said, typical liberal always willing to have others give up theirs, just not willing to lead by example and give up yours.

"I would never support a wealth tax."
-
LOL, that is exactly what the estate tax you like is.

RetiredAirForce, why does asking for data make me a typical liberal? I would never support a wealth tax. If you want to hoard all your cash, never sell a stock, since you earned it,you can keep it. Estate tax is much different. The beneficiaries never earned a dime of what they inherit except for being lucky sperm. Besides, there is a huge threshold of $3.5 million before the estate tax even kicks in. That accounts for less than 2% of all deaths per year: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc1084...

Here is a question for you. If the estate tax is such a good idea why wait until people die before taking it? Why not confiscate wealth when a certain plateau of wealth is reached? Why not take 50% of everyones wealth when they reach 50 years old, then again at 60, and 70?

After all, if its okay to perform this action as soon as they die why wait at all?

"Do you have any data to show that this tax is some how harming the economy?"
-
You don't get it. It is not the government to take, that is the problem.

Typical liberal, always willing to have others give up their possessions/money just not willing to step forward and give up their own.

"believe it or not, when you have 300 million people and a fairly consistent death rate, it is predictable."
-
The death rate is predictable to some extent yes. Predicting the wealth of those that will die is hardly predictable.

"I'm still not clear why you'd want to eliminate the estate tax."
-
Simple. Our current federal tax system is based on transactions; income payments, sales tax, business tax. Essentially a "cut" from a transaction between parties.

The estate tax is taxing property that was already taxed. Money previously made, goods previously purchased, etc... The government has already received their cut.

This is no different than someone walking into your home and saying I think you have too much stuff, either pay me a fee to keep what is already yours or we will take it from you...that is robbery.

RAF said, "My comment on removing wealth was directed towards the estate tax and yes, I think this tax needs to eliminated; obviously for reasons you can't grasp." Try me. I'm still not clear why you'd want to eliminate the estate tax. Do you have any data to show that this tax is some how harming the economy? I have history on my side as the estate tax was in place during the most prosperous years in the history of our country. Also, it does contribute around 2% of our federal receipts, and believe it or not, when you have 300 million people and a fairly consistent death rate, it is predictable.

" Estate taxes also have other benefits, such as ensuring the Paris Hilton’s of our country will not inherit quite as much. I have a problem with idiots who are rich because of “lucky sperm”. The estate tax has always been there, right up until this year, and our country is better off because of it."
-
Never could understand WHY people think others keeping their own possessions is a bad thing...liberals are a jealous bunch.

"According to your argument, we should just eliminate taxes altogether, because taxes "remove wealth from the governed"."
-
Your ignorance grows daily. My comment on removing wealth was directed towards the estate tax and yes, I think this tax needs to eliminated; obviously for reasons you can't grasp.

To somehow assume this means all taxes need to be eliminated proves the ignorance of your logic-less thought process.

"It doesn't stimulate the economy, but it's a responsible means to begin reducing our deficit."
-
No it doesn't. The only way to reduce the deficit is spend less then receipts. How in any logical math equation can you budget predicted receipts from estates when you have no idea when people with wealth will die?

This is, and continues to be, a redistribution scheme based on people upset over others have something they don't.

RetiredAirForce asks, "How does removing wealth (that is what estate tax is), from the governed and given to the government stimulate the economy?" It doesn't stimulate the economy, but it's a responsible means to begin reducing our deficit. I seem to remember Paul Ryan saying that deficit spending is irresponsible, so I’m assuming most Republicans agree. According to your argument, we should just eliminate taxes altogether, because taxes "remove wealth from the governed". It was that mentality that returned the federal budget to deficit spending under GW and the Republican controlled house and senate. Remember how the economy was smoking hot before GW? Estate taxes also have other benefits, such as ensuring the Paris Hilton’s of our country will not inherit quite as much. I have a problem with idiots who are rich because of “lucky sperm”. The estate tax has always been there, right up until this year, and our country is better off because of it.

I only have one comment and that is towards the governments control of GM stock. Remember it was GM who failed and asked for the help, the goverment made a deal and GM signed on the line.

" there is a timing problem with your argument explaining why no one is investing. We are still, right now, living in the GW tax rate universe. So you can't blame higher marginal tax-rates for the current investment environment. "
-
Wow, the clueless reasoning continues. In order to have investment there needs to be a potential for return. Lower tax rates only offer increased funds for investing.

Right now, there is a waffling posture on what "future" policies and taxes that will come from the current admin and congress. With those unknowns many people and business are withholding investments (risk) until a clearer prediction can be made on what will happen.

Keep trying to blame bush policies...btw how is the view with your head in the sand?

", I'd like them to defend the expiration of the estate tax, or as they call it the "death tax". How is eliminating that tax, like GW and Paul Ryan want to, going to stimulate the economy?"
-
Take about failed logic. How does removing wealth (that is what estate tax is), from the governed and given to the government stimulate the economy?

More liberal speak...

futerrichguy " I'd be happy to give up all of our middle-class tax credits to pay off the deficit. "
-
LOL, just like you would be happy to pay more taxes while you complained of the bush tax cuts you benefited from?

Typical liberal, saying I would be happy too do..., only after it is made a requirement. If you think your position is just, stand behind it and start now...but we all know you are hypocrites.

" If the tax cut for the rich is extended, the deficit would balloon even more, and Republicans will then simply blame Obama for that too."
-
Wow, more liberal spin and lies.

Tax cuts don't COST the government any money! Spending is the only thing that costs money!

You have bought into this political spin so much that you are echoing it.

" I didn't use a seat belt until it was the law, but I supported the law. Was I a hypocrite then?"
-
Yes, a typical liberal position too.

NoLeftist, is that all you got?

People with money who invest and create jobs do so on timelines that go beyond 6 months.

NoLeftist, there is a timing problem with your argument explaining why no one is investing. We are still, right now, living in the GW tax rate universe. So you can't blame higher marginal tax-rates for the current investment environment. The higher taxes won't kick in until next year.
Your assessment that Europe's "Socialist" countries have lower marginal tax rates than us is also wrong. Look it up. Austria, Norway, Sweden, UK, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, etc. all have have high end marginal rates of 50% or greater. Corporate income taxes are lower there as you say, but typically range between 25 and 30%, whereas the US is around 35%. The countries that really have us beat would include Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other OPEC countries. Also, the only place there is talk about a Democratic proposal for a VAT tax is on Fox News. I'm assuming you're referencing the interview with Paul Volker on Fox Business News, unless you have more insight.

futurerichguy - Even a democrat knew better than to vote for John Kerry.

Investment comes before employment growth. No one is investing, which is why there's no what you call "market demand" for jobs (known as employment by us stoopid righties), and why there's no near-term prospects for job growth.

Why is no one investing? Lots of reasons, but one of them certainly is that higher marginal tax rates decrease investment returns. Lower returns equal lower investments.

Here are some more facts: the more money government takes from employers, the less they have to invest, and the less employment growth there is. This is a universal truth: governments that spend more of their GDP than other countries have lower growth.

The higher marginal tax rates are, the higher pre-tax returns have to be to justify new investments. High tax rates won't discourage ALL investment, just the most marginal (i.e. least likely to provide a return.) All returns are reduced with higher tax rates, but those investments that had lower probable returns in the first place are the ones that are dropped.

Growth is at the margins (new, small businesses), right where higher marginal tax rates do the most damage.

Democrats know this: that's why they are talking about the VAT instead of further income tax increases to fund Obama-sized government. Even Socialist Europe and Japan know this, which is why they have lower marginal tax rates (and corporate tax rates) than we do.

The Democrats who don't believe this are the knowledgeable Democrats' useful idiots to get them elected, increase spending, and then cry about the "tough choices" they're being 'forced' to make (i.e. massive regressive tax increases on everyone through the VAT.)

spark, Walmart customer base politics can be found at zogby.com, a polling site.
"More than three out of four - 76% - of weekly WalMart shoppers voted for Bush over Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, earlier Zogby polling showed." Not that it really matters anyway.

futurerichguy - You'd be the first to deny it.

Spark, you'd be the first person to claim the Walmart crowd is primarily Democrat.

Zoom, I'd like them to defend the expiration of the estate tax, or as they call it the "death tax". How is eliminating that tax, like GW and Paul Ryan want to, going to stimulate the economy?

futurerichguy - Let me ask you something, how is it working for all the people that lost their high paying union jobs that had a huge house, motorcycles, and we're living beyond their means? You need to check your facts if you think they weren't racking up debt.

NoLeftist, Republicans "told other people what to do with their money, and "required it through the government" during the Bush administration. They did it through massive borrowing and deficit spending to fund the trillion+ dollar war in Iraq, an unfunded Medicare prescription plan, and on and on.

Everyone agrees the budget will have to be balanced eventually. There is no evidence that the expiration of the 3% tax cut on the top tax bracket will hurt the economy, and clear evidence that it will help reduce the deficit. Spending also will have to be cut. The tax cut discussion is happeneing now because the tax cuts are set to expire.

futurerichguy - You have to be kidding me! You just described the democratic crowd with you last post, not the republican crowd. Nice try.

"We just aren't smart enough to understand how increasing taxes on investments and employment will get more of both..."

Besides being nonspecific, you are arguing a logical fallacy. I am arguing that the expiration of the 3% tax cut on the top tax bracket will not HURT employment (or prevent investment), because there isn't enough MARKET DEMAND to hire people in the first place. Supply-side, tinkle-down economics don't work.

I would still like to see one of you wing-nuts actually talk about the expiration of the top-bracket 3% tax cut directly, and how it effects the economy. Not "taxes are bad", or, "this is a socialist redistribution of wealth". Talk about hard numbers. You know, facts.

spark, I'd be happy to give up all of our middle-class tax credits to pay off the deficit. Most right-wing middle classers though are counting on those tax credits to pay off their credit bills rung up at Walmart for all the 52" plasma screen China made TVs they bought.

We stupid right-wing nuts really don't deserve to participate on threads like this. We just aren't smart enough to understand how increasing taxes on investments and employment will get more of both, and we never will be that smart. It's a mental deficiency we have to live with.

Luckily, there are Democrats who are much smarter than we are and know it. Not only that, they are predisposed to telling other people what to do and how to live their lives and requiring it through the government, which is why you find bunches of them there. What luck!

Zoom - The wealthy have plenty of money, and they aren't spending it. There is no reason for them to hire people if there is no demand from the middle and lower classes to buy their products or services.
-
So according to you, without the rich, this country would really be screwed. After all, it's up to them to control everything even though they are just a miniscule portion of the population.

I've just always found it ironic that everyone is happy as all get up when they receive their tax break, especially the child tax credit. Yet I've caught numerous bush bashers complain it never better be taken away. These aren't the rich either. Hmmmm. Who imposed this again?

"Continued taxes translates into more fed welfare and more money for the fed to spend irresponsibly on social programs."

And yet a tax cut by Bush resulted in INCREASED deficit spending. How is that tax cut working out for ya?

"The people (private citizens/investors) making a lot of money in this country Zoom usually hold most of the financial power to employ millions of people."

The current economic problem isn't with the supply of money. When will you understand that? The wealthy have plenty of money, and they aren't spending it. There is no reason for them to hire people if there is no demand from the middle and lower classes to buy their products or services. Tinkle-down economics has already been proven wrong. Even before the recession, there was almost NO personal income growth in this country as a result of the Bush tax cuts...unless you were rich, of course.

spark, both Democrat and Republican politicians want the tax cuts to be extended for the middle and lower tax brackets. Only the Democrats want the 3% tax cut at the top bracket to expire. If nothing is done, all the Bush tax cuts will expire. Of course, that will increase the deficit even more, and will be Obama's fault.

Try lmgtfy.com.

You realize it's not just the rich that get the tax credit.

I know, futurerichguy. Note that folks like vatoloco and andre NEVER talk about the economic impact of the tax cuts, or what it means to extend them. They don't know that cutting taxes for the rich is the least effective way to stimulate the economy. If the tax cut for the rich is extended, the deficit would balloon even more, and Republicans will then simply blame Obama for that too.

A rich democrat. That's funny.

andre_linoge, this feels like deja vu. Same argument over and over. I'm going to get rich regardless if the marginal income tax above 250K is 36% or 39%. If I make $300K per year, my income taxes increase by $1500 per year when GW's tax breaks expire. That's the difference between a 300 HP motor and a 275 HP motor for my new speed boat.

RAF, I didn't use a seat belt until it was the law, but I supported the law. Was I a hypocrite then? For obvious reasons you can't use that argument. Just suck it up and support the additional 3% marginal income tax you'll be paying on your income over $250K per year.

I will try this again...

futurerichguy, if you are opposed to tax cuts why have you not paid all your taxes at higher rate, you know like the ones pre-bush? Are you a hypocrite or just a whiner?

I see Zoom is being attacked from the peanut gallery. Zoom, you're never going to win an argument with these folks defending Obama's policies. Even when Obama cuts taxes, like he recently did with import tariffs, he's criticized from the right. People forget that it was the right that tried to make Sarah Palin one heart beat away from being president.

Zoom you are so out of touch with reality...

"1. Only half of the stimulus has even been spent."
-
Why? What is the purpose of delaying the spending if it works so well? Could it be to fund pet projects and other things just prior to the Pres election? If that is the case it was never set up to fix the economy after all.

"2. The health care changes won't have any negative effect before the 2010 or even 2012 elections."
-
Well you are at least admitting there will be negative effects, interesting you haven't recognized the increasing rates already faced by companies that re-do medical policies every year for the best prices---theirs have increased.

"3. Yeah, keeping teachers on the job REALLY pisses off all the parents out there. Besides, unions represent a small and shrinking percentage of the working population. Their importance in policy making is overblown by the right."
-
You SKIPPED right over the language in the bill that says, if states accept and use this money they MUST then increase their funding again every year by this same amount or pay it back. SO it is not a One-time help for jobs this year. It is an increase every year after that. Who does this help if next year it's not needed and the states are then required to over staff to keep from paying back last years money?

"4. Yes, the economy is not growing nearly as fast as was predicted. However, look at the rate jobs were being lost before and after January 2009. Completely different picture."
-
Simple math is tough. Losing aggregate jobs was not part of the plan...it failed.

"5. The government will have divested itself of a controlling interest in GM by election time, and will only hold the rest of the stock in order to make even more profit..."
-
There is NO reason for the government to hold stock in a private company.

Thanks vataloco, you crack me up.
RAmen

1. Only half of the stimulus has even been spent.

2. The health care changes won't have any negative effect before the 2010 or even 2012 elections. Your prediction of epic failure is purely wishful thinking on your part.

3. Yeah, keeping teachers on the job REALLY pisses off all the parents out there. Besides, unions represent a small and shrinking percentage of the working population. Their importance in policy making is overblown by the right.

4. Yes, the economy is not growing nearly as fast as was predicted. However, look at the rate jobs were being lost before and after January 2009. Completely different picture.

5. The government will have divested itself of a controlling interest in GM by election time, and will only hold the rest of the stock in order to make even more profit when the rest is sold over time. Ford is repaying their government loans ahead of schedule. Chrysler has a new owner, and some promise, but I don't hold out much hope for them. The government holds only 10% of Chrysler stock.

The bailout of the auto industry has actually been a great success. If you read some of my old posts, you'll see that I was actually against it in the beginning. Glad I was wrong.

The massive bank bailout happened on Bush's watch, no matter how much you wing-nuts try to rerwite history.

Now that more primaries are over, it's interesting to see that the more conservative/far-right candidates are winning the Republican primaries. The Republican backed candidates are losing. Once the middle-of-the-road populace gets a chance to vote in the general election, I think the results will be different than what this article implies.

NoLeftist, the recession started in December 2007. Poor try at rewriting history.

As usual, when called out on his hypocrisy futurerichguy falls silent.

All trends on Intrade are now trending heavily to the Republicans taking back the house.
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/clo...
Something I called out as a strong wager back in February, when you were able to get better then even money. At worse you can hedge, and lock in sure profit, now. However; I expect the trend to be your friend on this one, and no reversal, barring something very unexpected.

futurerichguy, if you are opposed to tax cuts why have you not paid all your taxes at higher rate, you know like the ones pre-bush? Are you a hypocrite or just a whiner?

I see futurerichguy is still basing comments on his ignorant assumptions.

Those sneaky Republicans - destroying the economy in 2010 from the last time they held Congress in 2006. Kind of like Russ Feingold's contention that he helped employ a woman who died in 1877 with the stimulus bill.

Here's an idea for you Republicans, do away with your insane tax cut agenda. People are starting to see through your tax and spend propaganda, and are beginning to realize your tax cuts benefit only those who receive a significant portion of their income from investments and inheritance.

Janesvillian -- isnt that what the Obama adminitstration is doing......

rofl this funny thread.. omg

Sorry about that RAF. Given your generous use of "lol" I'll have to reevaluate my assumptions. Now I'm assuming you're a teenage girl.

lol, at ignorant people who assume age based on information from a name in a blog.

lol, retired old guys use the acronym "lol".

lol, love it when the loons make comments that are so factually inaccurate.

Or vice versa, if parties were reversed.

Brilliant plan! Wreck the economy, blame the Democrats, get elected. Works every time.

Speaking of Governor Crist. He won't say if elected which party he will caucus with. That means he probably will caucus with the Democrats, If elected.

The Republicans are ahead 10 points on the generic ballot: in 1994, they were even. It will be a blowout of historic proportions if they do nothing.

Hopefully, the Democrats believe otherwise.