Republicans can't add

I agree with you that Obama's initiative to create jobs by creating more public spending was a bad idea. I can see saving some police, fire protection, and teaching jobs, however.

Investment should have been made in the from of loans to private sector manufacturers that produce consumer products made in the USA.

I agree, Republicans same old same old is older than dirt.

Many, many small businesses that people speak about are government contractors (subcontractors). They are nothing more than welfare because 1) their only customer is the government, and 2) they produce nothing of commercial value and fail to add to the GDP.

Small business talk is more spin unless you get very specific.

Its individual income. As a child thereof, thats a good deal bit of money. You tell me—250k+ versus maybe 55k is a quite a disparity in living quality. 

I sadly can say I have felt no effects of what I see on the streets. Am I grateful yes, unequivocally yes. But I'm sickened when I walking three blocks to campus see people my age lying in the street. Keep your damn mansions, but don't leave the carcasses in the field.

Its not extending them. Its the fact that many rich (and don't kid yourself everyone in Congress is rich considering Senators pay themselves nearly 250k) Congressman do not want to lose their tax breaks. And they're willing to screw everyone so that they don't.

There's something wrong with that.

Karl—the NY Times today mentioned he was heckled etc. Do not remember the exact wording or where it is. So did Jon Stewart. That may not be traditional journalism but its more news than the biased constructs you'll find on TV.

Karl, Where did you read, or hear about Obama getting an earful? It was all over the national news channels here in the states. Huffington Post, NY Times, and other "mainstream" media outlets covered it. So did FOX with a fair and balanced "approach."

It depends on how you define a small business. Before becoming a bank holding company, Goldman Sachs was considered a small business. Many large corporations set up LLC's that are considered small businesses. And remember, taxes are not paid at the top marginal rate on every dollar in the 250K. It is paid in graduated increments throughout the income levels of each bracket.

Extending the tax cuts for two years would put them in line to expire just in time for the 2012 election cycle. See a political problem here? Furthermore; the taxes were passed, and the only way they were passed, was with the expectation that they would EXPIRE. The tax cuts were not paid for, have cost the Treasury 1.2Trillion over the past 10 years, and we're being told that middle class "entitlements" will have to be cut. Continuing to increase the gap in income disparity is a sure recipe for real civil and political upheaval. If you are interested may I suggest you take a look at this: 

58% of Real Income Growth Since 1976 Went to Top 1% (and Why That Matters)

True, it makes one wonder who can't add. Luckily the Unemployment rate can still be counted on ten fingers. 

The tax breaks do not exclude those earning more than 250,000. It is being proposed to exclude this group. The cost of extending the cuts to this group and above, will cost between 700 billion and 1.2 Trillion over ten years. Add this to the cost of the the cuts of the past ten years since the cuts were enacted for all taxpayers and you can add another 1.2Trillion to the cost. (Which weren't paid for the first time around.)

"It's just rude to be worrying in public about whether you have to fire the maid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Are you referring to the tax rates, or the percentage of people in the income level above 250,000?

Well, if it's about creating jobs, where are they? Tax cuts to the tune of 1.2 Trillion in the past ten years, (WITHOUT paying for them),  and unemployment is at an "official" 10%. Higher by Jim's count. Let's just continue with the same policies and ideology that told everyone that cutting taxes increase federal revenue, and create jobs. The last time the government had a surplus, was AFTER Clinton raised taxes, and the economy was producing and unemployment rate of around 5-6%. Oh, and what happened to the "deficits don't matter" mantra?

The 'not proven in practice', wishful thinking, commentary that letting the rich keep their money will somehow give them the incentive to re-invest to create more jobs for American workers and America is a fairy tale, thirty-aught-six (not verified).

The last few decades have proven when the rich get more money, they re-invest in themselves, buying cheap labor overseas, even betting against American prosperity through those 'exotic' stock market creations, or hide the dough offshore. 

Been meaning to ask for sometime now, what's with the gun nom de plume?

You keep telling us that you are a Democrat, but you sound like Newt Gingrich with the food stamp vs. paycheck rhetoric. Please tell me  how you define yourself  as a "New Democrat."  And you can, and have, convinced yourself that Bush didn't forget to pay for the tax cuts. The tax cuts were not revenue neutral. The argument was the same then as it was in every other case where Republicans argue that cutting taxes will raise revenue by stimulating growth in the economy. It's called supply side theory, and it is a theory that has been proved wrong. And when that proves true, the rhetoric is then "deficits don't matter." It didn't work with Reagan, and it certainly hasn't worked in the case of the Bush experiment either. Now that a Democrat is running the show, we hear that spending is out of control and we've got to stop all this deficit spending. If you think it is a good idea to widen the gap in income disparity and continue to shift a larger amount of wealth and prosperity to a smaller percentage of the population without compensating the working class for creating the wealth through increased productivity just say so.