Second, these not only aren't "Obama's" they aren't even cuts, for heaven's sake.  Not having your taxes raised is not a cut.  That's like saying that if I don't gain weight, I've actually lost it.  Or that if I don't get a pay cut, I actually got a raise.  Admit it - this is just political kabuki.

It will be popular, until the moment when people realize they aren't getting anything they didn't have before; it remains to be seen whether that can translate to actual "help" for people who need it.  It won't mean anything to people whose only income is an unemployment check, and if it doesn't put one more penny into the economy, then how is it going to increase demand and creates jobs?  

Here's some examples from the article of why (bold is mine):

A fact generally overlooked in the debate over whether Congress should extend the high-income Bush tax cuts -- i.e. those targeted exclusively at couples making over $250,000 and single individuals making over $200,000 -- is that these households will still receive substantial tax cuts if Congress extends the so-called "middle-class" Bush tax cuts while letting the high-income tax cuts expire as scheduled.

This is because the 2001 tax law's reductions in the lower tax brackets benefit not only people whose incomes fall within the lower brackets but also those whose incomes exceed those brackets. In fact, high-income people actually receive much larger benefits in dollar terms from the so-called "middle-class tax cuts" than middle-class people do.[1]

[snip]

The middle-class tax-cut package the Joint Tax Committee analyzed does not extend the reduction in the tax rate on dividends for couples with incomes over $250,000 (and singles over $200,000). President Obama has proposed, however, that the dividend top rate for high-income people be permanently set at 20 percent, rather than being allowed to return to its pre-2001 level of 39.6 percent. If Congress follows that approach and incorporates this proposal into a middle-class tax-cut package, the average tax cut that high-income households will receive from enactment of such a package will be considerably larger than the figures just cited, and the dollar amount by which the average tax cut going to high-income households exceeds the average tax cut for middle-income households will be significantly larger, as well.

And this, I had to quote in full:

It is perhaps best explained through a metaphor: the income tax operates as a staircase, not an elevator. This means that people who make $1 million a year do not go directly to the top "floor" (i.e., to the top tax rate, currently 35 percent) but instead take the "stairs," paying tax on the first increment of taxable income at 10 percent, paying tax on the next increment at 15 percent, and so on until reaching the top rate.

Because of this, the 10 percent bracket -- which the 2001 tax law carved out from within the old 15 percent bracket -- reduces taxes not only for people whose incomes fall within that bracket, but for every taxpayer whose income exceeds the 10 percent bracket, as well. In fact, taxpayers in higher brackets receive the maximum possible benefit from the 10 percent bracket.

The 2001 tax law also created a new 25 percent bracket to replace part of the 28 percent bracket. For married couples, taxable income between $69,700 and $140,600 will be taxed at this 25 percent rate in 2011, assuming the middle-class tax cuts are extended. Let's consider how this bracket affects three illustrative households, all married couples with two children. (See the appendix for a discussion of the methodology used in computing tax cuts for the illustrative households.)

The Smith household has a joint income of $75,000. After taking all of its deductions and exemptions, it is left with a taxable income of $48,300. Because the household's taxable income is below the $69,700 threshold for the 25 percent bracket, it makes no difference to the family whether the 25 percent rate returns to 28 percent.

The Jones household has a joint income of $125,000. Its taxable income after deductions and exemptions is $97,500, putting it in the middle of the 25 percent tax bracket. Specifically, the household has $27,800 of its income ($97,500 minus $69,700) taxed at the 25 percent rate. Because the rate is 25 percent instead of 28 percent, the household pays $834 less in taxes on this portion of its income (3 percent times $27,800 equals $834).

The Todd household has a joint income of $600,000 and taxable income of $550,000, far above the $140,600 ceiling for the 25 percent bracket. It currently pays the 25 percent rate on $70,900 of its income (the full amount of income that falls into the 25 percent tax bracket, since the bracket starts at $69,700 of income and ends at $140,600 of income). Because the rate is 25 percent instead of 28 percent, the household pays $2,127 less in taxes on this portion of its income.

In other words, this "middle-class" tax cut -- the reduction of the tax rate in this bracket from 28 percent to 25 percent -- provides no benefit at all to the household with gross income of $75,000, a household whose income places it in the heart of the middle class, while giving the household with income in excess of $500,000 a tax reduction of $2,127.

Extending High-Income Tax Cuts is the Wrong Answer for the Recovery

Posted by Christina Romer on July 28, 2010 at 03:20 PM EDT

President Obama has made it clear that he favors extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for middle-income families, but letting those for high-income earners expire as called for in current law.  Recently, some have argued that extending the high-income cuts is necessary for the economy.  This is simply wrong.

A new poll shows that 53% of Americans support the  ending of tax cuts  for the Wealthy 1% while maintaining them for the  Middle Class.  John Boehner , however, comes out today saying it is not time to increase taxes on anyone (so I assume he's in that 1%... or is dominated by it.) At the same time, the US  poverty  rating has now increased by 43%... more of us are impoverished by this economy and the lack of jobs is seen as the major cause.

S0 let's look at that Wealthy 1%. As the major business investors (in terms of money, if not in the creation of new businesses), these folks have NOT created new jobs... at least not in the US. While China and the far east have gotten more employees (for pennies!) and Mexico has received new factories that used to be in Indiana and Illinois and Ohio, the Wealthy 1% have held onto their dough and have not used it to, as the trickle-downers maintain they would, "save America."

By ending the "temporary" (as originally limited to 10 years... the decade that destroyed our economy) tax cut for the rich, enough money could come back into the American investment sphere through employment subsidies, highway development and bridge repair (much more necessary than anyone is admitting... just wait until our major routes fall apart and truckers are out of business), among other things, to bring us back on a positive track. It may NOT be what does happen. Congress has not shown itself to be on the side of Working America as much as it has been on the side of Money America .
We should at least realize what COULD happen and use all the influence we can expend on our Representatives and Future Representatives. If we don't, then we deserve what we get.