Hm. Why do both sides want to keep them in place for that 98%? I feel like I could use a little more time before they go up personally but don't want to be selfish. So, I wouldn't mind them being extended for another year but others will be hurt by it. So, I thought that was why Dems and Repubs were hoping to let them go for the 98% another year. ???
I'll roll and live with whatever but it does seem that they have a push to keep them in place . . . if what they say is true. (again, does Obama REALLY want to go over the cliff but not saying it?)
If you have trouble understanding what I meant by my above post, I don't blame you. Yeesh. I made my simple thoughts difficult to understand.
It appears the gop want to keep the tax cuts for everyone, (are we surprised?). I say lose em! We need revenue remember? We cannot afford them! I still want specifics so we will she what happens next. Why wont they say what the plan entails?
Obama wants to keep them for everyone earning under 250.000 a year because if you cut taxes and all these programs and people cannot make ends meet, they will head straight to things like medicaid and unemployment and the like, only making the spending side much worse. Boomerang effect. But if they are going to hold the ones for the uppers hostage then I say let em all expire and obama can come back and give a tax cut to replace it with the middle class! And it kicks Norquist to the curb which I like.
Read the full letter from House Republican leaders here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/house-republicans-release-counterproposal-fiscal-cliff-talks-204652663--election.html
"status quo re-election"...HA!..Election 2012 was FAR from status quo Mr. Boehner....FYI, the house kept their seats because of all the gerrymandering...
"gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan or incumbent-protected districts."