Holding like a brick wall on tax cuts for the wealthy is the GOP idea. The estate tax at 5 million (rather than 3) and at 35% (rather than 55%) was GOP. Yeah - the rest of the stuff for business was Obama.

Do you literally simply never pay attention to the news at all? :D

It's not the Govt.'s money. The $25,000 they say they are losing isn't theirs in the first place!

No. The 13 month extension refers to how much longer the government will keep going up to 99 weeks.

Lazy people are lazy, and you won't change them. But I would hardly classify the vast majority of the currently unemployed that way.

I would imagine, considering that there are 5-8 unemployed for every job position, that few are coasting on that generous "below minimum wage equivalent" rather than working.

If you were making minimum wage, you don't get $300 a week. You get less than half that - and they take taxes out of it. If you were making $60,000 a year, you will get $250 or $300 a week. That's not very attractive when you used to make that in a day.

I'm sure some lazy people that only had a minimum wage job might be willing to try and live on $100 a week rather than work. But those folks are not getting $300 a week.

Unemployment only pays a small percentage of your income, as reported to the state for tax purposes in the previous year's time.

And unemployment doesn't require a CPA to take a job at McDonalds just to work.

I doubt many of the current huge crop are. First off, the former employer gets a say on if a fired employee gets unemployment.

Well, we can be sure you and your hero Glenn Beck hold the line at the rampant Marxism spreading throughout the country ;)

You want us to be China, huh?

People who already ran out aren't going to get anything, only people who are drawing now.

People need to get a grip. Bush gave a temporary decrease in the tax rate. It had a sunset date. Anything anybody gets beyond that is a brand new deal. The difference between 2001 and 2003 (when this unfunded change occurred) is that now we've spent those years borrowing from China and the Saudis to pay for it, and we are trillions in debt.

This whole thing isn't a done deal by any means. Tax bills come out of the House. John Boehner has already publicly admitted he's not even whipping his caucus to vote for this (the GOP is still completely obstructing anything Obama wants - un effing believable). The Dem progressive caucus is still furious at Obama and threatening no.

Right now the votes are not there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_793540.html

It could go that nothing happens, all the tax cuts, unemployment, etc. just expire. 218 is the magic number.

Yes the new business friendly President.

Your "twist" on the news is always interesting.

There you go again connecting things that arent really related. The US deficit is primarily from spending too much, not from not collecting enough. Bush spent like a Democrat which was his primary downfall.

You want to make us France.

Next time
 

Riot acts like "every economist" agrees with her version of the world, remember this article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion

More anti-Riot opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...416429402.html

Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wsreel_opinion

Another WSJ piece that finds fault with a republican!

Too bad you dont find such even handed, fair analysis in Riot's typically leftist links

The President has always been for business and job stimulus. You miss that? :D

There you go again, misstating what I said. Giving massive tax cuts isn't spending. It's income reduction. Two wars and the largest Medicare entitlement program ever is spending.

BTW, the Dems of the past 60 years are not the party of spending. You might do a reality check on some of your assumptions.

:zz: :D Seriously, do you even have a clue about politics? Or do you just pull random stuff out of the air?

http://is.gd/iiw3u

list of waivers.....many of Zero's buddies on here.....gravy train!

You have it backwards. It's because virtually every economist tells us that giving tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't create jobs, that I support that economic policy. It's not my version of the world, it's theirs.

Actually what the economists say is that giving tax cuts to the very wealthy creates on average about 0.30 of economic stimulus per dollar invested. Giving unemployment benefits produces about 1.61 (average) of economic stimulus. I know where I prefer our government to spend the money.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion[/quote]

Good for you! This whole thread I've been asking you to find one economist that says trickle-down, as disastrous as it was during Reagan and since, is still some kind of a valid economic model, and you finally come up with two. Dated today. But at least there is one counter-view to the majority.

I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters :D

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?