It's really hard for me to parse who or what you're complaining about here.

In your first reply to Drew, you said:

and so let them expire, it will only effect the rich people...right???

According to an analysis of different tax scenarios by Deloitte Development LLC, if the Bush-era tax cuts were to expire as scheduled, a married couple (with two kids) earning a combined $70,350 would see its tax liability increase by 113%–from $2,300 to $4,900.

[linky]

That damned George Bush. Only gave money to the rich. Feh.

"Only"? There's your binary thinking raising its head again... :-/

Now you say, "those aren't his cuts" which is changing the subject. The "Bush cuts" will expire at the end of this calendar year. Full stop. Congress must enact new legislation to have a different result. Calling them the "Bush cuts" is shorthand.

And you say, "and there is a real threat that they will do NOTHING. Which means all Bush cuts expire..which means exactly what my quote detailed is correct." You cite a "threat" that something may happen as proof that your incomplete summation is a "fact"? Interesting logic, there. Not. First, the cuts sunset because the Republicans used Reconciliation to force them through Congress in the first place. Second, you're aware, I'm sure, that under Obama's policy the only reason why the middle-class cuts wouldn't remain in place after December 31 would be due to obstruction and poison pills from your Republican friends. Oh, but I forgot, it's the nebulous "they" and "they're all the same"... :-/

You say, "Yes, Virginia, that means that EVERYBODY got a tax break under Bush..but if you listen to the press now..its only the rich that got one." So you're arguing with "the press" now? Did Drew say that only the rich got a tax break under Bush? Did the AJC piece say only the rich got a tax break under Bush? Who exactly are you arguing with? It sure looks like a strawman.

You say, "So when you say "Obama isn't proposing that his cuts for those making less be recinded"...I'm not quite sure you get it. Those were not Obama's cuts." What is your beef - who gets the credit? The Bush administration isn't writing tax legislation these days. Obama's making the proposals now.

Obama's actual tax proposals are in the Greenbook - http://www.treas.gov...brary/grnbk09.pdf (135 page .pdf) Pages 73-74 cover Obama's proposals for the top 2 marginal brackets, and page 125 covers the AMT, estate and gift taxes, and lower brackets.

But, as Drew points out, all of this is a distraction from the initial topic...

Cheers,
Scott.

http://en.wikipedia....ted_States_Senate Under the current Senate rules, and their application by the Republicans, 60 votes are needed. The Democrats have 59. Without the Senate, the tax changes proposed by Obama are not going to become law.

The House has already passed a lot of legislation that the Senate refuses to take up. It's not surprising they're reticent to spend time on something that will die in the Senate given the GOP's statements and actions to date.

http://www.nytimes.c...l?ref=paulkrugman

Cheers,
Scott.