NO FUSSING OR CUSSING IS GONNA HELP. THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS WHAT THEY DOING AWAY WITH OUR RELIGION,EVERYTHING WE GOT IS THE GREAT LORDS UP ABOVE. IF YOU DONT HAVE JOBS PEOPLE STARVES,IF YOU HAVE JOBS NO MONEY COMING IN NO WHERE. GOD IS GONNA TAKE SO MUCH AND WILL HAVE THE LAST SAY. NO GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT, CONGRESS,IS GONNA STOP HIM . UPPING TAXES AND TAXING PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE IT YOU CANT GET BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP,,,,

Fred Thompson is kind of bucking the tide. Americans want more taxes. Americans put the Obama in office because they want more taxes and social spending. That’s why we have a Democratic Congress !

I hope Fred Thompson succeeds ! But he is just one man going against the crowd.

Don’t blame me for higher taxes, I voted for Chuck Baldwin !

You people commenting on this website, you should hire a financial adviser so you can keep your assets ! They talk about Gold and investing at this website, good place to start !

The majority of Americans want to get their hands into your wallet, If you rearrange your finances, when they reach into your wallet, they won’t find any money !

WE ARE PAYING FOR BUSHS MISTAKES NOT OBAMAS

IT’S A DAM SHAME WE HAVE A 2 PARTY SYSTEM IN THE US WE SHOULD HAVE JUST A 1 PARTY DEMOCRATE THEY CARE FOR ALL NOT ONLY THE RICH.

REPS DON’T WANT TP PASS LOANS ETC FOR SMALL BUSINESS WHAT DO THEY AGREE WITH WHAT IS REP PARTY ABOUT NO FOR EVERY GOOD THING TO HELP THIS ECOMNY OUT THEY WANT OBAMA TO FAIL BUT HE WON’T HE’S TO SMART FOR THE REPUKES IF HE GOT A SURPLUS LIKE CLINTON LEFT FOR BUSH WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSTATION WOULD WE ???

BUSH TAX CUTS WERE FOR RICH ONLY WHAT DID YOU PEONS GET ??? SO HE CALLED ALL PEAONS THATS BUSH BRAIN DEAD HIS STUPID INVASION IS COSTING US TRILLIONS FOR WHAT ?? AND KILING OUR KIDS FOR WHAT ???

Even Ronald Reagan’s budget director argued against the tax breaks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&ref=contributors

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

Rich guy petitions for tax cuts only for other guys. Boy, that is so out of touch! No wonder we keep getting are asses kicked in the elections!

If you want to see what your projected tax increases will be if the Bush tax cuts are not extended visit this website http://www.mytaxburden.org/ and fill in your information from your 2009 returns. 2010 will not change, where you will see the change is in the amount you start paying in 2011 and when you file in 2012. Visit this site and see the difference http://www.mytaxburden.org/ between 2011 and 2012 my taxes increased 1,850 dollars, that’s with my salary and military retired pay, married, 2 kids, mortgage, education loans so on and so forth.

I think it is safe to say without redundacy, his country is under siege from within and without, we are in a period that is becoming so intolerable we are bound to rise up and remake this government to restore our own freedoms, the time draws near.

Many see the parallel of our founding and the way our government has now allowed the treasury to be raped and pillaged by a those who are less than stellar as representatives of a Republic based on judeo-christian morality. These elected officials have given over to power and control instead of serving as guardians of the principals upon which this nation was founded, we now have to restore our nations heart and soul, we have to find our own roots and practice the vow to maintain the freedoms which we were asked to pass on to future generations….May God find it in his heart to hold us in the palm of his hand.

The league is wrong.The tax cut will end for anyone making over $250,000 and not affect the middle class taxpayers.This is the truth the whole truthand nothing but the truth.

THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA NEEDS, FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT !

So is Fred bored, or does he really think he can change things? He’s from Tennessee as I recall, so that makes him at least one notch better than Tennessee’s #1 useful idiot, Gore. But, it doesn’t mean Thompson has any chance to make a difference.
Fred would do better to tell America what really goes on in Washington.
For example, Fred probably knows what it takes for a criminal to move into the White House and rip America apart and do it with impunity (ala Herr Obummer). It sounds like Obummer has a team of ‘experts’ who know which strings to pull, so retards like Reid, Dodd, Fwank, Schumer, Rangel and Waters will howl and perform like Pavlov’s dogs on cue.
Like they say, “dogs of a feather jump into bed and sniff, scratch and infect together” (quite a fitting way to describe Congress, actually).

I was doing a crossword puzzle on my lunch break yesterday,and lo and behold,a clue asking for “first non citizen elected American President”? Of course Obama fit all the squares. It’s a pretty well established fact that this one man destruction derby is a fraud and if the congress would listen to the people,they’ve plenty of grounds to impeach. They,however,won’t because he’s already had his goons do background checks on all 535 members and has found so much corruption and dirty back porches to squeal on that he has ‘em right where he wants ‘em. That’s why come November we clean house and elect ordinary butchers,bakers,candlestick makers,ranchers,and small business people,
and people like Sharron Angle. It’s important for Sharron to get elected because she doesn’t have near Dirty Harry’s money chest and it takes more than money to qualify for the job of U.S. Senator as far as the people are concerned. The laws lawmakers enact affect all of us so it behooves us to be politically savvy and elect people of principle and character. If you’ve been out of work for quite awhile don’t you think it’s time to wake up and vote correctly for the best qualified
who believes in the Constitution so there’s less government and more free enterprise which opens up job markets whereby you’re earning a paycheck again? Or would you prefer your former firm remain so overburdened with government intrusion and regulations that their human resources doors are closed for years to come?

Well, the President want’s to blame President Bush for everything that has gone wrong. He can’t accept the fact that the democ “RAT” controlled congress since Carter has been to blasme for what’s happening today. Watch this video from the today show and you’ll get a better under standing of the message the rats have for this November, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=38534925&#38534925 The democ “RATS” can’t even accept responsibility for the mess they have helped put us into, it’s always the blame game, finger pointing, it wasn’t me, it’s time to change congress this November. People just remember 435 representatives and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election, we can make change happen, elect responsible representation to congress, get the rhino’s out!

Those damn Bush tax cuts keep rearing their ugly head. Good God, this drives the libs crazy! Now how the hell will they pay for all that spending?

its a great idea except its going to fall on deaf ears as all the dick-tater wants is to destroy our great country. look at the gulf of mexico where all the oil rigs have been to shut down. with help of E.P.A.[environmental pricks assoc]

CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit

By Ruth Carlitz and Richard Kogan

Revised January 31, 2005

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

The Administration has repeatedly defended its tax cuts as a needed stimulus during the recent economic downturn. But the downturn is behind us, and the cost of the tax cuts is scheduled to increase in the years ahead. Indeed, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 that benefit only high-income households have not even started to take effect yet. The repeal of the “personal exemption phase-out” for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, do not start to phase in until 2006 and do not take full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also does not take effect until 2010.

A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out — and quite possibly to outweigh — any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]

Another way to evaluate the recent trends that have caused the shift from sizeable surpluses to large deficits is to look at how spending and revenues each have changed as a share of the economy over the 2000-2005 period. Such an analysis looks at all changes in revenues and spending, not just those that resulted from legislation. It shows that while there has been growth in spending as a share of the economy, the lion’s share of the swing from surpluses to deficits stems from a major drop in revenues.

In 2000, federal revenues equaled 20.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, the basic measure of the size of the economy. CBO projects that in 2005, revenues will amount to just 16.8 percent of GDP. This decline in revenues, equal to 4.0 percent of GDP, reflects the effects of the tax cuts, as well as an erosion in revenues caused by the bursting of the stock market bubble and a less robust economy overall. As Table 1 shows, the increase in program spending is less than two-thirds the decline in revenues.

Furthermore, under the new CBO projections, total federal spending will remain lower in 2005, as a share of the economy, than in any year from 1975-1996. As this indicates, federal spending is not at an unusually high level, even with the large increases in spending for Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts. The deficits that the nation now faces reflect not an unusually high level of spending, but rather an unusually low level of revenue. Indeed, CBO projects that federal revenues will be lower as a share of the economy in 2005 than in all years of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s