>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Tracy, you can URL me all you like but I am not agreeing to change the subject. We have had a seismic redistribution of wealth to the richest Americans. That was my point and remains so. We have a bigger gap between rich and poor now than the so-called banana republics. 50K per year is not the point.
>
>Change the subject? I started this thread and the subject is the effect of the tax policy being reversed - not just the effect on those making over 250,000/yr or the wealth redistribution over the past few years. The discussion was the effect of reversing the policy. You chose to change the subject. Ok, obviously you get nasty when the discussion doesn't suit your purpose, so I'll bow out of my own thread to avoid any further discussions with you. You can hijack it all you want now. :o)

I am not feeling nasty at all. Nor is it productive for us to spit at each other. See you in other threads, then.