Sounds like there may be a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html

And reaction to the initial story.

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/aides-comments-cause-stir-as-white-house-discusses-tax-strategy/

If they're smart, they'll extend them.

Not a good time to let them expire, especially on the middle class. I would think a temporary extension on the "wealthy" would be alright, because much of this is small business. But I would be extremely hesitant to make the cuts permanent for the "wealthy."

I wouldn't have a major problem on redefining the wealthy at over $1 million dollars per year. $250,000 includes way too many small businesses and an easy way to protect the wealthy.

 

You put it in terms of MILLIONS and it becomes a harder sell of protection for a polititican.

 

$250,000 and we all know people that are in that realm that is a small business and provides a lot for our communities.

I have a cousin who is a nurse and her husband is a doctor. They would be at the $250,000 level and they are normal, everyday human beings. Not the Paris Hilton type of rich people. They have bills, kids playing sports, etc, etc and the eliminating the tax cut for the wealthy at $250,000 would put them in a real bad situation.

 

I don't think that penalizing the small businesses of this country is smart economic policy.

So how does a Tea Party disciple handle the quandry of lowering taxes for all , including the wealthy, AND having the "cost" of extending the cuts to the wealthy being $700B?

 

It would seem that such a person would have to compromise on their beliefs. I never had the impression that was an option.

If it cramps Uncle Sam's wallet to extend the cuts then have the Fed print some more money. That seems to be the theme of this administration. Or do an across the board cut of 2-3 % of the entire Federal budget. How about making unemployeement available for 6 months , not 3 years , that ought to free up a few hundred billion. Whose money is it anyway ? The guy that worked for it or Uncle Sam's ?

So how does a Tea Party disciple handle the quandry of lowering taxes for all , including the wealthy, AND having the "cost" of extending the cuts to the wealthy being $700B?

 

It would seem that such a person would have to compromise on their beliefs. I never had the impression that was an option.

 

You will not find an answer to this question. You can not reduce the federal deficit by cutting taxes especially when you won't seriously cut spending. The spending that they want to cut makes up about 2 percent of the budget and would have people homeless and starving to death. In other words it wouldn't help the deficit and would only increase the pain of people down on their luck.

Why is cutting a bloated, outdated and frankly fraudulent defense budget so off limits?

Why is cutting a bloated, outdated and frankly fraudulent defense budget so off limits?

 

Why is our defense budget bloated, outdated, or fraudulent?

I was wondering the same thing . I'd rather be over budgeted on the security of our nation than any other item in our budget.

Why is our defense budget bloated, outdated, or fraudulent?

 

No bid contracts, airplanes/helicopters being built despite the fact that the pentagon doesn't want or need them, and have you seen what companies like haliburton charge for items like toilet paper?

So how does a Tea Party disciple handle the quandry of lowering taxes for all , including the wealthy, AND having the "cost" of extending the cuts to the wealthy being $700B?

 

It would seem that such a person would have to compromise on their beliefs. I never had the impression that was an option.

 

Because it's not a cost.

 

I can't hit a 100mph fastball 500 feet so I'm not making 25 million a year. Is that 25 million a cost to me?

 

I don't know much about their philosophy but I would expect a Tea Party disciple to advocate both cutting taxes and cutting spending enough to offset the lost revenue. Of course, I haven't seen much consistency in Washington in a long, long time, if ever.

There can't be an extension of the tax cuts for the middle class, remember? For years, Democrats have harangued us that the Bush tax cuts only affected the top 1% of earners. "The wealthiest 1%" I believe was the mantra. To extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, as Obama stated was his "priority" yesterday, he must of course concede that the Bush tax cuts were, in fact, beneficial to the middle class, which just illustrates another bald-faced lie by him during his campaign.

 

"Wake up America."