Meaningful Legislation on the Bush-era Tax Cuts?.......

.......Don't hold your breath while this group of Bozos is running things in Washington.

On one hand, the Republicans are willing to sacrifice trillions in income by shielding the wealthy from tax cut repeals, but they insist that unemployment benefits be "paid for" before being extended. Ya can't have it both ways, people. They make me want to retch. Add to that, the Republicans, if they had their own way, would only give tax cuts to millionaires. Which would continue their agenda of transferring wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. I refer you to:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15923.htm

".....The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise.

Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth -- and they know it......"


Meanwhile, the Dems just forced a vote on keeping tax cuts in place for ONLY the middle class. Even though they knew it wouldn't work. Nothing but posturing. All they're thinking about is how they'll frame issues to the voters in the next election cycle; they want to be able to say they voted for middle class tax cuts and not tax cuts for the wealthy. I have a hard time believing they really give a crap either. All they care about is their own re-election.

And, of course, there's much made of the fact that this is all taking place during a "rare" Saturday session. My heart bleeds for them. As a nurse, I've worked plenty of evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays. Those shifts weren't at all "rare." Am I supposed to feel sorry for our poor Senators for having to work on a Saturday? Cut the fuss people. I'm not impressed.

Can the USA as we know it survive this kind of government? The answer may be no:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/when-the-people-find-they-can-vote-themselves-money-that-will-herald-the-end-of-the-republic-benjamin-franklin/

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Might just be time to go get a little piece of land in the middle of nowhere, dig a moat and pull up the drawbridge.