House Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over the extension of the Bush tax cuts that they had excoriated for so long as only benefiting the wealthy. But their rhetoric is running smack dab into reality with the coming expiration. When that happens, the middle class is going to be creamed in a way that they will understand what the real effect is of those tax cuts.
But the Looney Left would rather see the rates rise on the Middle Class than to extend them to the so called "wealthy," Think about that for a minute. The Democrats would deny an extension of unemployment benefits to people out of work in order to punish their nemesis "the rich." Hatred of this sort is honestly refreshing, in that they are no longer even pretending to be on the side of the "little guy," Nope, this is all about social engineering..
But I do have one question that I just have not seen answered, and I really wish someone could explain it to me. Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not? Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class? Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?
The absolute dishonesty of the Democrats is only matched by the Republicans who think that the agreement with the President is a good deal. What in the world do wind subsidies or money for ethanol or Nascar have to do with tax cuts? The fact that they couldn't keep those out show the Republicans are either not serious, or they are easily rolled.