Mr. Big Dog

You don't agree with the statistic that less than 2% of small business income tax returns fall into the category of income for which the Bush era tax breaks shouldn't be extended? That's not as much an opinion as it's data. What's there to agree or disagree with? We can talk about whether this is 2% or 3% or 5% but nowhere is there any evidence that most small bsinesses would have their taxes raised back to 2000 levels. The GOP making it a talking point that the top 2% of income earners are mostly small businesses does not make it so in the real world.
Dems don't like business? Then why is it that thus far only business has actually recovered making record profits while John and Jane America are still strucggling to come back from this recession? All this while Dems are in charge. Odd...

There's no evidence to support this statement. There's little to no stimulus to be had from tax cuts for the uber wealthy. Estimates are something to the tune of $0.20 worth of economic activity for every tax dollar cut. It's essentially pissing away money you don't have. There's more stimulus to be had from tax cuts for lower and middle class incomes - it's still less than a dollar worth of activity out of every dollar spent but the ration is more favorable.
With that in mind, you could do the following at a comparatively reasonable cost: Forget any Bush tax cut extension - trim 300 billion p.a. off the deficit. To lighten the blow (espectcially to lower and middle income families), cut a stimulus check of $1,000.00 to each and every one of the 130 million taxpayers. The cost of that would be 130 billion dollars - less than what the Bush tax cut extension would cost just over the next two years for just the top 2% of income earners.

Corporations are and have been sitting on trillions of dollars for some time now. They continue to rake in record profits. If doubt is impeding growth, remove the doubt. Let the unproductive tax cuts expire. Taxes ain't killing growth or impede job creation - they haven't done that in the early 80's and they won't do it now. Fact is that growth and job creation were far better prior to Bush tax cuts than they were since. Setting a signal that we're serious about addressing the defict and debt problem, on the other hand, would set a climate that's conducive to economic growth.

The recovery was barely underway when Reagan signed TEFRA. Remember that the unemployment rate back in late 1982 was almost 11% and the tax hikes happened all the same. Miraculously, the economy picked up steam afterwards (not necessicarily because of it) with corporate earnings jumping some 30% in the 3rd quarter of 1983 vs. the same in 1982. The unemployment rate was reduced to just over 7% two years after TEFRA.
There's little evidence to suggest that tax hikes killed the recovery. It would the same letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. After all, that's not a tax hike but merely the scheduled roll-back of earlier tax cuts. That this can be done at the onset of a recovery without hurtung it has been demonstrated by the Gipper. It would, once again, be the responsible thing to do.

Oh Lord. Where to start?
In 2005 Dollars, tax revenues were 2.025 trillion dollars in 2000. In 2001, those revenues were down to 1.991 trillion. They then slid down to 1.853 trillion in 2002 and further declined to 1.782 trillion (2003) before climbing up to 1.880 trillion in 2004. Only in 2005 did reveneues actually go up to exceed the 2000 level. Measured on GDP, tax revenues remained below their historic average throughout the period. Which makes sense as otherwise you couldn't claim that tax cuts leave the money in the people's pockets rather than giving it to the government. If the people keep it, naturally, the government won't have it - i.e. the government loses revenues.
Of course, the argument is that tax cuts spur economic growth leading to both higher receipts by the government and more money in the pockets of the people. That would be great if it actually worked time and again. But it doesn't. Otherwise, we'd have a tax rate of zero which would maximize economic growth and tax revenues. Only it can't work on the revenue side since 0% of anything still is zero. Hence, there must be a tax rate that optimizes revenue. And there is. It's what the Reagan tax policy was built on under the then correct assumption that tax rates were above the optimal point - which at the time they likely were. Not sure that that is the case anymore.
Then there is the little problem with the economic growth argument - you know, that tax cuts spur economic growth which is the basis for the "tax cuts pay for themselves" argument. Looking at the actuals, on all but one indicator - corporate profits - the Bush tax cuts failed to deliver. And when I say failed, I mean they failed huge.

Clinton's tax hikes killed the Reagan expansion? Maybe the Reagan tax hikes killed the Reagan expansion? He sure raised taxes enough during his 8 years in office - 11 times to be exact. Among those tax increases was TEFRA which was the largest peacetime tax increase in history. George H. W. Bush raised taxes as well during his tenure. But sure, it must have been Slick Willie's tax increases that killed the economy since obviously Republican tax increases are good for the economy while Democrat tax increases are the bad stuff. What a joke that argument is.
The Gipper's Tax Increases in Billions of Dollars

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

What kept the states from coming up with health insurance schemes that worked for the citizenry prior to the passage of the health care reform legislation? What keeps them from doing so after it passed? The answer to both questions is: Nothing.

I do not entertain any door-to-door salespeople no matter what product they're selling. And yes, I know that the religious crowd doesn't consider itself a salesforce but to me that's exactly what they are.

Who says that there has to be a beginning? In fact, I'd reject that idea altogether since I'd otherwise have to ask the question what preceded the "beginning". It's the same with the infinity of the universe. Maybe the universe isn't infinite but just a marble in some giant being's pocket. Who knows? And, more importantly, who cares? What difference does it really make?

But it doesn't take any faith to assume that something that has not and cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. That would be a reasonable assumption. Nothing more and nothing less. To believe that a God exists despite the overwhelming - scratch that - exclusive empirical evidence to the contrary takes faith, indeed. To deduct from that exclusive empirical evidence that no God exists doesn't take any faith at all.
Look at it this way: To say that gravity doesn't exist would take faith of some sort seeing that all the empirical evidence clearly points to the fact that it does indeed exist. Am I now suddenly considered religious because I believe that gravity exists even though I have at the very least an exclusive set of empirical evidence on my side?

Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that atheists are necessisarily religious. I'd venture to say that most of them aren't.

When and where did I say that believing in the existence of a God requires any set of beliefs? What I said is that the mere belief in a God doesn't make a religion. That stands. By the same token, the mere rejection of the idea that there is a God doesn't make a religion either.

Nope. The mere belief in a deity does not make a religion. It takes, as you say, a set of beliefs to get from believing in a deity to actually have a religion. Otherwise, there'd be a single religion out there and we know that there are many. Atheists don't have any set of beliefs - they merely reject the idea thata deity exists. That is way short of what constitutes a religion.

I'd say that the web vote suggests that this couple belongs to the stupid population.

This isn't about bashing anyone. It's about members of Congress being offered seats at the table where the crucial and tough decisions are to be made. If they want to be true to their rhetoric, they'd jump at it. After all, they say that America is fully behind them and their agenda. If that was true or if at least they would believe this to be true, then this is the time to make your mark. Whether the Senate or the President supports it is another issue altogether. If you believe that what you say you want to do is the right thing to do and has the support of the American people, then you push those issues best you can knowing that you'll be facing a more accommodating Senate and President come 2013. Turning down the seat at the table where those decisions are to be made makes you look weak at best or dishonest at worst.

And because the fiscal situation is so dire, we actually made sure it's funded. Unlike Medicare Part D which the GOP and Bush passed in times of rising deficits and debt w/o ever spending a single thought on where the funding will come from. The former was done w/o adding a penny to the deficit. The latter added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. As well as those tax cuts that added trillions to the deficit because those were passed w/o any consideration that passing them would require offsetting reductions in expenditures - for fiscally responsible folk that is. See, Danno, that's what differentiates the GOP from the Dems. The GOP just whips out Uncle Sam's credit card while the Dems tend to make an effort to ensure that programs have funding - emergency measures to address the economic collapse notwithstanding.

This isn't about bashing anyone. It's about members of Congress being offered seats at the table where the crucial and tough decisions are to be made. If they want to be true to their rhetoric, they'd jump at it. After all, they say that America is fully behind them and their agenda. If that was true or if at least they would believe this to be true, then this is the time to make your mark. Whether the Senate or the President supports it is another issue altogether. If you believe that what you say you want to do is the right thing to do and has the support of the American people, then you push those issues best you can knowing that you'll be facing a more accommodating Senate and President come 2013. Turning down the seat at the table where those decisions are to be made makes you look weak at best or dishonest at worst.

Not surprised at all. Rhetoric is easy, action is tough. Just confirms that these folks are nothing but loudmouths - all hat and no cattle.

The question remains how this upstanding American will be able to look at himself in the mirror every morning without hating himself for allowing himself to become a dependent of the oh so evil federal government he so vehemently opposes. Principles only go so far, I guess...

The Blue Dogs don't see it that way. They lost their friends not because they were indistinguishable from the GOP but because they were somehow associated with Nancy. You know that conservatives have a troubled relationship with personal accountability. It's good for rhetorical purposes only.

Anyone surprised here? It's really the same as the GOPers that opposed the stimulus bill to then tout the projects and jobs in their districts that the bill funded.

Good Lord. It's this operating on snippets, the tearing statements out of their context that really limits our collective ability to engage in productive debates.
OMG, Krugman said death panels. OMG, Sarah was right!
Bullshite!

No, Paul Palin, is isn't. Effectiveness research and coverage and funding of procedures based on that takes place in all other industrialized nations today and the health care systems there provide for longer, healthier lives of the populations at a significantly lower cost. It's hard to argue that these are "death panels" seeing that nations that them actually end up living longer and healthier than those that don't have them. But hey, you're Paul Palin so you are forgiven for not knowing any better.

Really?

Krugman is right. You cannot demand bringing down the cost of medicare (and any other medical insurance scheme, for that matter) while not endorsing the idea that the coverage will go towards effective and necessary treatments only. All industrialized countries do that and their populations live longer, healthier lives than we do. Their health care system is more effective than ours and cost less than half of we shell out.
You can get all excited about these propaganda terms but that doesn't really help the debate. As long as we demand that there will be no diversion from the fatal course we're on in terms of effectiveness research and funding guided based on that, we're going to drown in our debt. And leave tens of thousands of people dying year after year as a result of this insanity.

Don't hold your breath on this one. I have filed this under "not gonna happen" already. There's a lot of good stuff in there but the bottom line is that measured on GDP, the fed have never collected so little and spent so much. Both sides of the equation will have to give - i.e. more revenues and less spending. GOP will fight tooth and nail on the former - they're already doing that - and the Dems will fight tooth and nail on the latter - that's already happening as well. Gridlock is guaranteed and the country will continue to slide. On the account of both major political parties.