>>>The pro-extending comments come from those who have the most to gain. The fact remains that there has been a historically unprecedented transfer of wealth to the rich. The upper 1% have gained enormously and all the rest of us have lost ground. That's fact.
>>
>>The anti-extending comments come from those who have the most to gain. The left wants to redistribute the wealth of others earned by hard work and a lifetime of dedication to those who get welfare checks...
>
>You are not dealing with facts and I am out of this conversation. You are spouting blind ideology. I had more respect for you than this. The redistribution has not been from all of us working people to welfare recipients. It has been to the top 1% from all the rest of us. That's the exact opposite of what you are stubbornly asserting.
>
>I still do respect you but this was not your finest hour.

I still haven't heard any response to the facts on what the tax increase will be for those making 50,000/yr and more. Did you look at the tax chart?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm
The taxt chart only:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/11/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/chart_bush_tax_cuts.top.gif

I don't mean to argue politically (right versus left) on this. My question is economic - do you think the tax increases for those in the lower income groups is worth the cost? for example, a family making 50,000/yr with two kids will see a tax increase of $2,900.00

If they only rollback the sections dealing with incomes above 250,000/yr then those tax increases won't happen. However, if nothing is done and the entire package rolls back, that's exactly what will happen.

So far, I have only seen this issue addressed online and on CNN which surprises me.