Do we not have a president? Why doesn't the democratic party stand with their president?

That means EVERYONE'S taxes go up in January. So much for cutting off one's nose.

More taxes means less jobs and the middle class will be spending less. whoopee! Why are we rejoicing?

Sky, I think House Democrats (and others) are "not supporting the President"
because they have been jolted by Obama's tax cut deal for several reasons:

First he did not really consult with them, and actually negotiated the deal without them

Second, he gave up his own big tax issue... eliminate taxes on middle income families and businesses,
and return to all of the "pre-Bush tax rates" on the wealthy

Third, out of the blue he gave away generous taxes breaks on wealthy estates

Fourth, he abandoned working-poor families by eliminating the "Making Work Pay" tax credit.

And we still don't know what's going to happen with government subsidies of
alternative fuels (alcohol, wind, solar, etc)

I think there is also anger directed at the hypocrisy of the Republicans
for their complaining about the federal budget deficit and then
putting the tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of all other legislation.

Simply put... it's about a loss of fair play and good-faith negotiation.

The only way House Dem's can now show their objections is to do the same as the Repubs did... threaten filibuster

Here is the PBS TV news report

I was being sarcastic Lamp.

The democrats want add-ons to the bill. The democrats want to add pork. The dems don't care about the tax breaks for the wealthy. They don't care about promises. They only care about their own constituents and I think we made it clear we want to be fiscally conservative. I think most Americans do?

This bill WAS about the economy and to keep taxes low. It looked as though this bill was going to be as streamlined as possible, but the democrats seem to just want to spend,spend,spend.



Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.




Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101211/...ge/us_tax_cuts

Do you have any evidence of this? As I recall, taxes were higher, unemployment was lower, and the deficit was being reduced during the Clinton years.

From what I understand he wants to use the Deficit Reduction Committee recommendations as a starting place. Not a bad idea.

And on a lighter note..... :D

No, in order to prevent the unemployed from starving and losing their houses, etc, the President had to pay off the repubicans.

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?

And he did a great job of it. Well done Obama. ;)

spex

Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.

http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-h...an-fewer-jobs/

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...owth-jobs.html
Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.

As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.

In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.

What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.

And that frigging says it all... A minority pay it all. And when people don't contribute they instantly become Zero Liability Voters, because they don't care how much it costs someone else. Well done sky...

Merc, as I was typing my post I actually had the thought that you would enjoy it ! ;)

I think it was a great balance. He may not have negotiated it directly himself, but his minions did. He obviously took some clues from Clinton, since he let Clinton represent him for a 30 min press conference where he said next to nothing. I would rather see something happen, rather than 1)Having things Rhamed down the peoples throat by some group of pompous liberals who think they know better what is good for people than the people themselves and, 2)Negotiation over gridlock. It is a win-win.

My G-son just posted on FaceBook:
"Maybe Obama just isn't that into us..."

BTW, his car is still has the "Kitzhaber" sticker on the back.
His political sense of humor is developing nicely. ;)

Sounds like an inside joke. Is that an important statement of some kind? I don't get it....

Yes, it was for Sky's benefit. ;)