pBills

No I did miss the point. Anyone who thinks rationally would think the economy would be strong by now? Are you serious? Even though he has given a stimulus to certain companies / wall street does that mean that those companies will instantly start hiring? No. As you have said yourself, it all depends on how they feel about the economy and the future. Something he can't control. There is nothing out there that will state the worst recession since the Great Depression would turn around in two years. Give me a break!!

yes the economy sank when Obama was elected and will rise again when he is out of office. HAHAHAHA!! You truly believe it didn't take years to cause all of this?

why now oh enlightened one?

yeah, MANY MANY years created this economy and this problem... it will get wiped away in two-three years. Ok.

Oh I am sorry... in response to the question "And to play devils advocate, you said HOPEFULLY. What if it doesn't? What would Obama deserve then?" If the ECONOMY doesn't turn around. I am not against having a challenger in the democratic primary AGAINST OBAMA. Hoping it would be Hillary since she would have a better chance than OBAMA beating Sarah Palin. In other words, Obama would deserve to have a challenger, something that normally NEVER happens. How was that? In simpler terms... if the economy doesn't turn around that means it still sucks and Obama could/should take blame since no recovery happened under his Presidency. Got it now?

Why... hello Commander in Chief? If success is happening under his administration then he should receive praise. I seriously doubt it would happened under Palin. McCain, Hillary, etc... sure. To answer your question... if it doesn't turn around. I am not against having a challenger in the democratic primary. Hoping it would be Hillary vs. Palin. That would be outstanding. Side note: Indiana Jones.... AWESOME!!

As compared to fear tactics? A President who stumbles and bumbles through a speech and loses respect around the world? HAHAHA!!! Seriously if GW's people had half a brain they would have put a teleprompter in front of him too. Unless he has trouble reading. And you want to talk about about bad pronunciation... how about "fool me again"? HAHAHAHA!! I will admit Obama may not have the balls democrats wish he had when governing... which of course leads to falling right into a great strategy by the Republicans. Lets say NO to everything, do one man fillibusters and then scare the crap of the general public. Death Panels!! They want government to control your healthcare... oh wait they already do, hello medicare. hahaha!!

And when everything HOPEFULLY turns around in the next two years. Barack Obama should receive praise!!!

I would be HAPPY to vote for him again. Hell I would even campaign for him if he faces Palin. I know you will hate to hear this, but look what Democrats had to listen to for EIGHT FREAKIN' YEARS prior to him. A man who could barely speak, had a hard time bumbling and stumbling through every speech.

Of course I would like to see spending cuts, hell I would love to see the government actually keep projects on time and under budget. And thank you for the moron comment, way to keep a post on the classy side. Something that normally doesn't happen here.

I used to live in Niagara County, NY. One of the highest taxed areas in the state. I understand your feelings on this. Even Forbes magazine states that they are getting a great deal. This is makes me mad... Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

I am open to logic and reason, however there is more than one option. Sad thing is that this whole situation is coming down to the wire. As we know tax rates are on a scale based on earned income. If they are adjusting this right now... having this fight... they should be adjusting it in a fair way across the board. I find it funny that most millionaires say they would actually pay more in taxes. Yet there is this huge fight over lowering their rates by as much as 10%, lowering estate taxes, etc. Go back to a model that worked... the model that was under the Clinton administration and 22 million jobs were created.

Fine. Let's remove the taxation of everyone. That does not mean they should receive extra breaks over other people.

Oh good, I am SOOOOO happy you have been patient with we. Big f'ing deal if that is about to change? What are you going to do? Oh that's right, nothing. Ok, how about this... why do they deserve to have the government take LESS from them? By GIVING them extra tax breaks?

From Forbes: Second, the estate tax proposed as part of the deal is far better than what is scheduled to occur at the end of the year–and what the president originally wanted. Without congressional approval of the compromise, the estate tax, now expired, returns in 2011 at a 55% rate and a $1 million exemption from the tax. Obama wanted a return to the 2009 estate tax level–a 45% rate and a $3.5 million exemption. For the ultra-rich, the exemption amount is relatively trivial, but a reduction in the in the rate from the scheduled 55% to the proposed 35% level is a big win for the wealthy. Third, as I’ve written before, getting rid of the Making Work Pay tax credit and replacing it with a reduction in Social Security payroll taxes provides a benefit to the wealthy where they didn’t enjoy one before. The Making Work Pay credit doesn’t give anything to an individual taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of more than $95,000 per year or a to a couple earning $190,000 or more annually. But the the payroll tax cut would give the maximum $2,136 tax break to workers who earn $106,800 or more. (The Social Security tax applies to all earned income up to this amount.) On a related note, the working poor would suffer under the Making Work Pay/payroll tax swap, as Roberton Williams at the Tax Policy Center (and a Forbes.com contributor) has noted: If Congress and the president accept the compromise in its current form, a single worker earning $10,000 will see her taxes jump by $200 from this year to next—her $200 payroll tax cut replaces her $400 MWP. And a couple earning $25,000 would lose $300 as its $800 MWP morphs into $500 in payroll tax savings. Nothing else in the compromise tax agreement compensates for those losses.

That wasn't my question.. why give these roughly 3,000 people more? I like how under Clinton people chastised him for wanting to raise taxes, yet there were 22 million new jobs created under his term as President. People talk about removing unemployment benefits to give those without jobs incentives to hire. Why not do the same to those would be hiring and maybe aren't now. Let's give them some incentive. Simply lowering their rates does not do that. I have also said it a thousand times. Give those companies who hire are against outsourcing, etc extra tax breaks. Those companies who do outsource either leave their rates the same or raise them.

Umm of course they will benefit more from a cut based on their income. Can you tell me why they would receive the extra help with the estate tax? I would like for them to go back to the levels under Clinton.

Granted some people can if need be take a job as a fry cook or something lower than what they had previously. However, those jobs don't always pay the mortgage.. and sometimes even having two or three of those jobs doesn't help keeping one family afloat. Another thing to think about it that the job market at ALL levels is extremely tight. I just talk to a person I know that let me know that her company received upwards of 300 resumes for ONE position. ONE. What about Job Fairs? THOUSANDS of people lining the streets for a few jobs. Sooo let's not act as though it so easy to just grab a job.

The Obama Nanny State formerly known as America? And you wonder why people don't listen to you or take your opinions seriously. Palin would not beat Obama. Now on to unemployment benefits. Not a bad idea to cut them in half. Better than taking them away from people all together. I think it's sad that unemployment benefits is a huge fight. Yet... as the New York Times observed, "... the tax benefits will flow most heavily to the highest earners, just as the original cuts did when they were passed in 2001 and 2003. At least a quarter of the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population." The Times opined: "The Republicans gave up very little except for their unconscionable stance of holding up all other Congressional action until they ensured that the richest Americans keep their tax cuts."

Rush is an ass... that is a fact.

How about they fix the system instead of just saying well 7% is better than 12%. $60 Billion: The approximate amount that extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year — which Congress seems on the verge of doing — will cost a year, in inflation-adjusted terms. On average, the affluent households that benefit from these cuts will save $25,000 annually. What else might that $60 billion a year buy? Nice article...

Republicans gloating and acting holier than thou... got to love it. Especially when you talk values and ethics. HAHAHAHA!!!

That's what the Tea Party and Republican Party has sold us though right? Sure repeal it... and yet again have nothing done to help people out with an industry that has gone crazy. I guess you LOVE having your rates go up year after year after year. And THAT was before anything was voted on.

Follow the Will of the People.... The new poll, conducted by CBS News, found that 53% of adults surveyed prefer the cuts to be extended only for those making less than $250,000, while 26% believe they should be extended for everyone and only 14% want all of the cuts to expire. Extending the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 was the most popular option for Democrats (70%) and independents (47%), while Republicans were more likely to support continuing cuts for all Americans, but by only a 46% to 41% margin over allowing them to expire for those earning more than $250,000. The CBS News poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 1 among 808 adults, and had a margin of error of four percentage points. Other recent polling allowing respondents to choose between extending the cuts for all Americans, extending them for those meeting an income threshold, and extending none of the tax cuts has shown levels of support for extending only some of the tax cuts at or near 50% -- one poll by Gallup showed support slightly lower at 44%, but that poll did not specify at what level of income taxes would be allowed to expire.

Sounds like it... also goes along with when Nix signed that other OL. Stating that he now had three of the best OL from that draft. The man does have a plan.