Nancy Pelosi is no Blue Dog Democrat; that much is true. However, you are not taking into account that this liberal Democrat is good at compromise, something the Republicans would do well to learn if they are going to get any legislation through the Congress.
You have to be kidding. This clown locked out Republicans in the healthcare debate. The BILL was created behind closed doors and then you expect compromise
– all in one direction for the most part?
You tend to paint people in a black/white, either/or fashion, but humans just don't come that way. There are dimensions to Nancy Pelosi, and I appreciate her even though she doesn't think the way I do about all the issues.
No I don’t but Nancy is a known partisan on the left who jammed through Obamacare even after getting the clear signal from my state’s election of Scott Brown that lots of people were not in favor of it.
Under Obama, more tax cuts have been instituted for the middle class than under Bush's administration. Noteworthy is the fact that George W. Bush did not intend for the tax cuts for the very wealthiest to last beyond 2010. Why don't you ask him why he figured it should only be until midway through another President's term?
Show me. Because I don’t believe you. And where did Bush say that any of his Tax cuts should expire. He wanted to make them all permanent.
Bush gave Americans a “fair” tax cut. And I believe we should wait until we are out of this mess before we shaft anyone with higher taxes….
“There is no economic model out there of whatever flavor — Keynesian or otherwise — that says that a tax increase is stimulative,’’ Poitras said. “In the long run, they have to do something about the deficit because the deficits they are running are totally unsustainable. The problem with the budget is more of spending (problem) than taxing. It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.’’http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/nat...re--646402.html
The Dems did not call ALL the Bush tax cuts "for the rich," but the fact that the wealthiest got preference did not escape us.
Clearly you have no idea what you are saying here. The wealthiest did not get “preference” they got their fair share – the same % discount as all of us got. And in a fair tax reduction most people feel it is ok if the person who pays 5-10 times more taxes gets more back. Obviously some like you PE
do not. As Howard Dean has said the key for this “rob the rich” philosophy is to keep shafting them until they show signs of giving up and then back off - a little.
Where are the jobs it was going to stimulate because the wealthiest were going to loosen their purse strings and create jobs? It is estimated that it will cost several billions of dollars to the rest of us and the deficit will be even greater if the tax cuts are continued, and people like Michigan's new governor-elect Rick Snyder shipped Gateway jobs to Asia and finally sold the company to China, eliminating American jobs.
The Jobs will come when we all know what our tax rates will be and start buying again. The stupidity of the “stimulus” was that it was directed more at Big business than small business. Small businessmen don’t hire until they need more people. It starting to happen but too slowly. Many of the owners are in the “top 2%” category and that is why most economists don’t think raising taxes on them now is a good idea. We can do that in a year or so.
If this were not the United States, a legislature which had elected representatives from three political parties might have to form a coalition government before a Prime Minister or its equivalent could be selected by a majority. What might happen if a Tea Party Caucus decides that a balanced budget is more important than a tax cut for the richest 2% of the nation, and the corporations that they control?
Well in effect we do have effectively “different parties” that need to work together. As we saw in the last 2 years. Democrats who controlled everything could not pass their whole agenda because of disagreement in their own Party. And I don’t the Tea Party would want to raise taxes on anyone now but we will see.
And yes some of the 2% CONTROL “corporations” – i.e. small businesses we would like to see hiring – so let’s just take money out of their coffers – that will help…..