When the Bush tax cuts expire, the people you sold homes to will have $2200 (on average) in tax increases. And it will be the govt. taking properties if the people can't afford to pay the taxes and the mortgage.
Obama proposes to end only the 90% of Bush tax cuts which were for the wealthiest 1%, not the few middle class tax cuts like the one you mentioned.
But they're all going to expire. Obama proposed to cut the deficit in half by 2011 and close Guantanamo. What he says he wants and what he fails to achieve are very different things.
That is a rather interesting situation going on. What will happen when everyone knows if they are or are not going to get re-elected. I don't think they will be able to make a change in time about the tax cuts expiring.
They do have a lame duck session after the election where they can pass an extension. They're pretty well dug in on their positions, though (both sides). I'm dubious they'll do anything. Democrats want to punish the top 1% and Republicans won't consider raising tax rates.
It's always interesting to see who can outspin the other side about blame. Democrats didn't want to extend tax cuts for everyone, or republicans let taxes go up for everyone.
My guess is they'll pass a short term extension, as-is, and let the newly elected congress deal with it.
As I wrote about earlier, in my post about GDP growth... With GDP growing at just 1.5%, the tax cuts expiring would be a ~4% hit to the economy, and would certainly cause an immediate recession. They do have to act in some form.
Wow talk about Socialist. What's funny is that these lefties used to whine about Bush's deficit spending, hah how things have changed.
We live in a Keynesian society, and a statist society. So your pyramid chart there is whining about things that are completely irrelevant to the world's problems. Liberty is uncommon, socialism is more common. It is incredible to me that you could complain about people who want less state control, not more. You don't have a run on banks btw, unless there's a unison governmental credit expansion that artificially lowers interest rates.
http://rt.com/usa/news/social-security-request-bullets-968/ I just realized that they are hollow point. Unnecessary.
...you must be confused with the premise of my illustrations. There is a false right-left paradigm, it does not matter what side of the political/proverbial aisle you are on, policy is influenced/controlled by the same powers at the top...for their own objectives/profits, not for the American people/pawns. I have never once complained about people wanting less state/government control so I'm confused as to where you are getting this impression?! I am certain that bank runs can happen under many other scenarios than the fictitious one you described. The "government" does not control interest rates
The real question is who is running against Barack Obama,... Romney or Ryan? The Romney campaign has made Ryan the face of the ticket. So I will ask the question again, if we decide on that ticket. Are we electing Romney as the President of the United States or Paul Ryan? Seems to be Ryan's ideas and not Romneys.
Incorrect, since some of the ideologies you posted had nothing to do with the "right" at all. The Republican party is Keynesian, not Ricardian etc. The Federal Reserve does set the interest rate, and the board of governors is appointed and controlled by the government. At any point the government could make them cease operations, but they do not. The Central Bank phenomena started in Sweden then London, and now we have one as well. Also it takes a unison credit expansion for their to be a large run on banks, because the interest rate is being artificially lowered at all banks, at the same time.
Oh and I'll take this time to point out you think the Earthquake in Haiti was caused by the US government. ;]
Oops. We have our first gaffe of the DNC (i.e., a gaffe is when a party tells you exactly what they believe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw
