Oh This is RICH... Obama "Blackmailed" Into Extended Tax Cuts For All..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lack of taxes DO NOT add to the defecit... Only spending does.

Stop acting like taxes matter. They do not.

The only thing that matters is actual spending.

If the government lived within its means like it's supposed to, then this would be a non-issue.

The only ignorance here is the willful ignorance of the class envy types who refuse to admit that the bottom 50% of the population do not pay income taxes, and then want to blame the "wealthy" Americans for getting a tax break. It's hilarious and only liberal stupidity could think like this.

Yes - we can stop all tax revenue and it won't have any bearing on the deficit. Have you tried that with your own checking account?

[mawilson 2,133]

The extension of the current tax rates adds nothing to the deficit, it merely adds nothing to the revenue, either.

Excellent point.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Yes - we can stop all tax revenue and it won't have any bearing on the deficit. Have you tried that with your own checking account?

Technically, it will only have an effect if spending isn't cut by at least equal measure. But then, that's too obvious, right?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes - we can stop all tax revenue and it won't have any bearing on the deficit. Have you tried that with your own checking account?

My checking account is only effected if I try and spend that of which I do not have.

If I make a deposit in that account, then I have money to spend.

However, my checking account has overdraft protection that pulls from my savings account if necessary.

If I don't have a savings though and if my checking account is empty, then I have nothing to spend.

That is, unless I borrow it from elsewhere with a promise to pay it back later. However, it's not up to my employer to pay me more so I can repay my debts. It's up to me to figure out how I can pay back those debts.

So in other words Steven, as usual, your logic fails.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So, when Obama won in 2008, people were asked to give him time before criticising him and his policies. Yet those same people are now having a go at the incoming non-Democrat Congressmen and Senators before they are even seated? Same old do as we say, not as we do. Still, it will still be a Democrat-majority Congress (both houses) that passes this measure.

Meanwhile, the GOP will claim until 2012 that, if they had held both houses, they'd have passed a stand-alone tax measure. And the electorate is likely to believe them. Because the GOP got their tax cuts, which prevents more overspending, while the Democrats still got to spend money they don't have. Spin it any way you want, it is the Democrat-supported measures that spend the money and increase the deficit.

All the while, the Tea Party is sitting back, letting the two main parties make each other look like the fools they are.

Your thinking too partisan here. I'm an independent. I did not support Obama. I did not vote for him because he I knew he was to naive, especially regarding transparency. I figured he would accomplish very little. I wasn't completely wrong about him, but he has exceeded my expectations. He hasn't actively gone against his platform.

The GOP have. If they were true to their platform they would have waited until January.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Excellent point.

The deficit is by definition the gap between revenues and expenditures where the former are lower than the latter. If you move the revenue side of the equation down, then you are left with adding to the gap (read: deficit). If you move the expenditure side up, you're left with adding to the defict. It makes no difference whether you reduce revenues or increase expenditures - or both. The result of any such action is making the deficit larger (read: add to the deficit).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Technically, it will only have an effect if spending isn't cut by at least equal measure. But then, that's too obvious, right?

Right. So when you cut revenues w/o simultaneously cutting expenses, depending on your starting point, you either shrink a surplus, create a deficit or add to a deficit. What expenses are being cut to offset the revenue lost due to the tax cuts? Right, none.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Right. So when you cut revenues w/o simultaneously cutting expenses, depending on your starting point, you either shrink a surplus, create a deficit or add to a deficit. What expenses are being cut to offset the revenue lost due to the tax cuts? Right, none.

The problem is the spending though, NOT the taxes....

See all arguments fail when you look at what happened when the tax cuts came into play.. Government revenue increased as the economy grew because more people were working, more people were spending, etc...

When the economy went down though, the receipts went down.

Spending was out of control by the Republican congress and has continued under the Democrat congress.... Had we not increased spending out the #######, we'd be sitting damn pretty right now. Both parties are equally to blame for this fiasco and we are the ones to suffer.

It's not the taxes, nor has it ever been the taxes, nor could it ever be about the taxes. It's always about the spending itself and living within the means of government receipts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Technically, it will only have an effect if spending isn't cut by at least equal measure. But then, that's too obvious, right?

Exactly. Revenue projections have to be accounted for in order to balance a budget. Fiscal responsibility fundamentals.

The idea that if we cut revenue, the spending will magically decrease is not being rational or realistic.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The problem is the spending though, NOT the taxes....

See all arguments fail when you look at what happened when the tax cuts came into play.. Government revenue increased as the economy grew because more people were working, more people were spending, etc...

When the economy went down though, the receipts went down.

Spending was out of control by the Republican congress and has continued under the Democrat congress.... Had we not increased spending out the #######, we'd be sitting damn pretty right now. Both parties are equally to blame for this fiasco and we are the ones to suffer.

It's not the taxes, nor has it ever been the taxes, nor could it ever be about the taxes. It's always about the spending itself and living within the means of government receipts.

uh....taxes = government receipts.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

uh....taxes = government receipts.

you miss the point.

raising/lowering taxes from their current rates is not the problem. It's the current spending levels that are the problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

you miss the point.

raising/lowering taxes from their current rates is not the problem. It's the current spending levels that are the problem.

And the answer from the Right is to simply cut revenue and the spending will magically go down. Something you seem keen on ignoring.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

you miss the point.

raising/lowering taxes from their current rates is not the problem. It's the current spending levels that are the problem.

If you were running a business and you gave your customers 5% off for one year would continue the discount if you were losing money on it?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you were running a business and you gave your customers 5% off for one year would continue the discount if you were losing money on it?

Well, you wouldn't offer that discount in the first place unless you thought it'd increase your revenue elsewhere as well.

If government were run like a business, we would have been out of business a LONG time ago.

A business downsizes in its expenses/what it buys/sells/etc. when the revenue stream goes down. With government we don't do that. We continue to add more expenses, buy more, and then push the bill onto someone else for our irresponsibility.

And the answer from the Right is to simply cut revenue and the spending will magically go down. Something you seem keen on ignoring.

The Left wants to raise taxes without cutting spending as well, you seem keen to ignore this...

I mention in every other post that spending is the problem, yet I guess you are picking what you want out of my posts....

[Captain Oates 910]

Just written to my REPUBLICAN Congressman asking him not to support the deal

The only way to reduce the deficit is to cut unnecessary expenses AND raise taxes on those who can pay easily (People like me).

Military spending, which is greater than all the countries of the world put together is a sacred cow that needs to be tethered.

I would do this before I chopped medical care and pensions for the old and poor. I know there are many on here who don't care about anyone else and also support extra-judicial kidnapping/torture/murder even for a guy who leaks that the US ambassador thought that that Hillary had a fat batty. I reject those people in their entirety because they have the values of sociopaths.

I think many Republicans are looking at the future for the country and are worried that with these Republican measures, the country will be harmed. Ever increasing carrier battle groups and Military Bases and low tax for the fabulously rich 1% and strip the poor and sick of America of their basic help ? What a policy ! Yes, even extreme right wingers are regretting what they wished for and realise as I do, that we the rich and comparatively rich, will suffer in the long term as the country, and the currency, and society collapses.

Talk about death panels - taking it out out of pensions and social security is the biggest death panel of all.

I am talking as an independent too - I have written a semi- abusive letter to the Democrats and there is no way I will vote for Obama

First because of his abuse of the Police Officer over Gatesgate

Then his anti - British unfair stance over BP (related to his terrorist grandfather's treatment by the British)

Then this - he is pro war, pro the Military Industrial complex and pro - Billionaire and uncaring about the future of deficits or the well being of the country in the long term.

Both Republicans and Democrats and Independents should ditch this guy and he should not be nominated in 2012

I would trust Bill Clinton with my daughter before I would trust this guy with my vote