Bush tax cuts were only for the RICH

I agree and what we are doing now is what President Roosevelt (FDR) did and caused the depression to linger on and only WWII pulled us out but we did not see real economic growth until the 1950. The way to spur economic growth is to lower taxes and give the people more money to spend and purchase consumer goods and services. Let me see if I get what your are saying. Lower taxes does not help the economy. 1920 we face high unemployment a recession - President Coolidge reduces taxes and government spending the nation recovers and a few months. 1929 Stock market crash, high unemployment recession. President Hoover does nothing and President Roosevelt takes office. Massive Government spending, expands the role and size of government. Unemployment increases, recession becomes a depression. WWII starts and the President removes some of the restrictions and taxes on business. nation starts to recover. 1960 An economic down turn. President Kennedy lowers taxes and the country recovers 1970 Inflation increasing President Nixon starts wage and price controls. President Carter elected Inflation increases, unemployment increase, government control over gas prices - long gas lines limited supply. Inflation goes to double digit. Government expands with new Departments. 1980 President Reagan elected. Supply side economics tried. Lowe taxes, reduce government spending. Inflation is reduced, employment increases Government tax revenue increases. Long period of economic growth. 2001 economic slow down President Bush is elected. 9-11 happens economic down turn and we head toward a recession. Bush Tax cut take place. Economic growth with almost full employment, Home ownership increases for the next 6 years. Housing bubble burst, bank failures loom. Massive Government spending. President Obama elected massive stimulus bill passed to hold unemployment below 8%. unemployment goes to 9%. US Debt grows to record levels. largest government budget ever passed. Government hires more people than the private sector. Unemployment nears 10%. Another stimulus bill passes to save or create millions of public sector jobs. How does cutting taxes hurt?????

Don't you know Einstein was just one of those evil, elite scientists...lol? Annie

I have heard reports from reliable, dependable sources, that he belonged to secret progressive society........He also believed in electriciy.

"The question now is should all of the tax cuts be extended or even made permanent without having to be 'paid for'?" I don't like the term "paid for" when referring to tax cuts. Taxes are revenue. They are what "pays for" other things. You don't pay for tax cuts as they are simply a decrease in revenue from specific sources. If you get a paycut at work, and many of us have, do you say "this paycut isn't 'paid for'? "If the Republicans wanted these tax cuts to last forever, why didn't they pass the bill stating that when they had the majority?" Frankly I think they made the tax cuts last too long to end them now. They were originally intended to stimulate the economy. That worked and we got out of the Clinton recession. Extending them beyond that was purely political to score points with the public. Now that they've been in effect for nearly 10 years, rescinding them is effectively a tax hike and at the worst possible time. Right now, NOTHING is really paid for. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit. Democrats have already shown what a joke their "pay as you go" is by continuing to pass bills with new spending and nothing to pay for it. Then they've made sure to demonize any republican who refuses to sign off on things like extending unemployment benefits without paying for it.

First lets remember that the US taxes INCOME not WEALTH. If you were taxed on $10,000 or $1,000,000, you did something to earn that money. You produced a good or service. If the government taxes you the more you make the more they take then you are tax on being productive. To avoid paying taxes you simply become less productive. Annie you said that your few hundred dollars did not compare to the 6 figures a millionaire got. In 2010 if you look at a person who earned $10,000 (in taxable income) he paid $1,018 or 10.81% of their income. So in a normal week he would work 4 hours to pay their taxes. In 2000 if you look at a person who earned $10,000 (in taxable income) he paid $1,500 or 15% of their income. So in a normal week he would work 6 hours to pay their taxes. The Bush tax cut gave this man $481 or 4.81% pay increase. In 2010 if you look at a person who earned $1,000,000 (in taxable income) he paid $327,644 or 37.37% of his income. In a typical week he would work just over 13 hours to pay his taxes. In 2000 if you look at a person who earned $1,000,000 (in taxable income) he paid $373,670 or 37.37% of his income. In a typical week he would work just over 15 hours to pay his taxes. The Bush tax cuts gave this man $42,026 or a 4.2% pay increase. In both cases the people received a similar %age increase in pay and both worked about 2 hours a week less to pay their taxes. To me this seems fair. What is not fair is that one man worked 3 times longer to pay his taxes and paid 322 times more taxes yet he only got back $1 for every $12 in taxes paid. While the other man who earned $10,000 got back $1 for every $2 paid in taxes. Why is it fair for one person to work 13 hours for the government while another only works 4 hours when they are both being served by the same government which stresses that all should be treated equally. I used the tax calculator at http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm for my tax data.

Someone making $50,000 a year shouldn't lose the tax cut. They're the ones that actually put their money back into the economy. Annie