The dude asked what would happen if the cuts were allowed to expire. I said exactly what would happen if the cuts were allowed to expire. Politicians rhetoric is of little importance to me. Until a compromise is reached, or one side caves, ALL cuts are going to expire. That is ALL as in > $250,000 <. It isn't hard to understand. Neither you nor I know what will happen with the cuts or when it will happen. I would plan on your first couple checks in 2011 to be smaller than what they were in December. It might get fixed. It might not. So you are pro raising taxes? You think that is a good idea in the middle of a weak recovery? What is more important the health of the economy or the deficit? All of this whining is not relevant to the OP, and makes me wonder how well you understand algebra. There are two sides of the eqaution. I could cut the deficit to nothing and cut taxes.
How convenient. You can just invent a scenario. Only no one is advocating for that. The GOP is for none of them and the Dems are for some of them. All isn't going to be an option for either of them. I am pro spend-as-we-go and quit borrowing money. The rich have gotten a 10-year break, it's time for them to go back to their fair rates. People did not have hard times during the Clinton 90's, neither rich, nor poor people. The middle class flourished. The problem has to be attacked from both ends. Cut spending and raise income. The numbers are significant. The country needs the dollars more than the rich do right now. It doesn't have to stay that way forever. They are intertwined. It is most important to find the right balance. Let the OP speak for himself. Naught times naught equals naught. Naught times one equals naught . . . Geez, your algebraic wizardry is just too amazing for me to understand. Is there some point that you are trying to make?
Man. You are dense. What your Democrats or Sabanfan's Republicans are advocating is not relevant to any of the points I have made. I spoke about what would happen tomorrow if 1/1/2011 were tomorrow and we are still where we are today. And that is everyone would be paying alot more taxes. No it doesn't. Budget deficits can be adequately addressed from only the spending side. They are not. OK. I did. You are the dude saying the exact answer to his question is spin. It's at the top of your head ese.
MNo. That's not what I'm suggesting which is why I cut off the quote where I did. But, since you brought it up, if he had any cajones he'd stand firm on HIS big issue of no more tax cuts for "the wealthy". But he's a political eunuch.
Sure I can and you know it. You are the one claiming percentages are not fair and you have argued nothing. Spell it out. How is it fair that the middle class gets to pay 35% for their salary and business-based income, but the idle rich get to pay 15% for their investment-based income? Good luck with that.
I'm dense? You make up a scenario that nobody is proposing and say that it is somehow relevant to reality? Get a grip. Obviously false. You couldn't back this up if your life depended on it. Budgets can be balanced in two ways--add income or cut expenditure. I advocate both. Then explain why not. Good luck with that. Anyone who thinks that measures to address the economy or the debt doesn't affect the other hasn't paid much attention to current affairs. Like I said, you have no point. Your algebraic wizardry brilliance to astound.
