Tonight, cuts totaled 38.5B.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

Cost of extending Bush tax cuts to the richest 2% over the next 10 years: 690B

ThinkProgress.org

Yep, we are really addressing our economic problems.

[Ramulux]

1. Its actually 78.5 billion

Obama originally conceded 40 billion in addition to all these new cuts.

[KeepItReal]

7. +1

Word.

[Pryderi]

12. Obama's original budget submission in February cut $100 billion.

[Hannah Bell]

17. plus $4B in the two week extension deal. plus the fact that the first half of 2010

was funded at 2009 levels because the dems, even with a majority, couldn't pass a single budget bill.

though they managed to join with pubs to extend the tax cuts for billionaires that were supposed to sunset.

[jaxx]

2. 10 years?

Exaggerate much?

[Skip_In_Boulder]

3. How so?

[jaxx]

4. Tax cuts were extended for 2 years.

You might remember.....2 not 10.

[Hannah Bell]

6. they'll be extended again.

[jaxx]

8. They were extended 2 years.

That is a fact.

[Hannah Bell]

11. and they'll be extended again.

[jaxx]

13. That prediction is noted and filed.

[Hannah Bell]

14. you do that little thing.

[girl gone mad]

16. This government has shown nothing but aversion to raising taxes on the rich.

Our dollar is collapsing and they still can't fucking do what needs to be done.

Wake up.

[Trajan]

5. What was the value of the Bush Tax cuts projected over 10 years ?

Please offer a value

[jaxx]

10. Why would anyone want to project 10 years on a 2 year cut?

Accept the reality of 2 vs. 10.

[Lasher]

15. Because they'll be extended again.

Wake up.

[davidthegnome]

19. Most of us are aware, Jaxx

That the present reality is a 2 year extension. I think the issue is that very few people have faith they will end at the end of those two years. They will (IMO) once again be extended... at least that's how I see it going. Republican congress, even with a democratic Senate and Presidency... too many democrats are simply on the same side as the republicans when it comes to this particular issue.

[Trajan]

21. Let's look at an obvious fact

They care called BUSH tax cuts, not OBAMA tax cuts, for a reason .... NOT because they were only enacted AFTER Bush left office, but because they have been in effect since Bush enacted them early in his first term .... So why do you insist we only could from this day forward ? .... The TOTALITY of revenues, combined over the entire term that these tax cuts have been effective is approximately TEN YEARS ... not two ... They were EXTENDED for two years .... So stop trying to shove that TWO YEARS number up our collective ass ...

Furthermore: If someone wishes to project such tax cuts over a ten years span simply to present a 'what if' scenario, for the purposes of revealing a set of values that human beings can readily grasp onto because it is 'a decade' ... Then they have a right to do so, for the purposes of argument .... This goes above and beyond the fact that 8 years of Bush tax cuts have already bankrupted our system long before before Obama ever arrived at the White House ....

Some DUers ... I swear .... Perfect tools ....

[Hannah Bell]

18. about $700 billion just for the top 1%. for everyone, 2.1 trillion.

counting interest cost, about 2.5 trillion.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

but the cost for the top 1% for the next 10 years will actually be higher, since they didn't kick in fully at the beginning. cost of fully implemented cuts for the top 1% is about $100B a year. so a trillion-plus for 10 years.

[Obamanaut]

9. Same as this one ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x849758

[_ed_]

20. Dems surrender again

The Washington Generals to the Republicans' Harlem Globetrotters. At some point you have to accept the fact that one side pretends to lose and other side pretends to win, but they all go back to the same locker room.