The president wasted billions of dollars on his stimulus.  Now that the public has rendered it as useless or not big enough he has decided that tax cuts are the way to go but once again he holds on to the timeless strategy of class warfare.

Rich people have more money.  If you tax them you take more money out of the economy.  We can all pretend this isn't so and that only taxing the rich will fix all our worries but the time to try it has passed.  The president had his chance and now that he blew it he's only got the old democratic handbook of class envy to work from.  It won't work.

It comes down to a simple question of whether or not you think a group of rich people or the government know how to spend money better.

BTD trusts government.  I trust fellow "rich" people.

The country is on the side of "rich" people now after watching big government spend lots of money very badly over the last 18 months.  

Here, Obama adopts the classic Democratic position on taxes and a partisan tone and good messaging.  Your response?  Gee, he is not being honest but too partisan.

Cloaking venum in a plethora of words still leaves venom.

Perhaps your most honest comment was that you could not stand the sound of Obama's voice.

Every comment since has been a variation on that theme.

It is an over-simplification but in the world of politics Democrats often get tripped up because we try to explain all of the nuances (and people tune out) rather than going for the jugular (while we still have people's attention).

My favorite prez, one Mr. Clinton, could have explained the nuance in plain English in a way that everyone would have understood. (He could easily explain the concept of marginal taxation and that everyone benefits on all income below a certain level, and look at those greedy !@#$s over in the GOP who want even more benefits for rich people who are already quite well off.) Our current President has different rhetorical skills. To my ear, he's not always a great explainer of policy. And given his limitations in this area (IMO) and the public's limitations, I'm happy he's not getting tripped up here and has decided to frame it in a combative, if over-simplified way.

That they are willing to call the Dems' bluff and say that they won't go along with an extension unless it is across the board - well, that's just the GOP demonstrating that they've got the Dems' number - since whining and foot-stamping has worked in the past, it will probably work again.

I get what everyone is saying, I do.  It absolutely would be wrong to to ask the 98% of people who have sacrificed the most to start paying more - even if it doesn't do jack-squat for the economy.

How would I frame it, if it were up to me?  

There's a bullet heading straight for the middle class; that bullet is the end of the lower tax rates that were enacted in the Bush Administration, and unless we do something before the end of the year, that bullet is going to find its mark, and it's going to hurt a lot of people who are already hurting.  I want to stop that bullet, and that's why I'm asking the Congress to extend the tax rates.

The Republicans will tell you that we need to stop the top 2% from being hit by that same bullet.  Well, here's the thing: extending the middle-class portion of the rates will act like Kevlar for the wealthy, because they will still be getting the benefit of lower rates up to $200K.  And, I'm asking Congress to make permanent the 20$ tax rate on dividend income, which will also benefit the wealthy.

I can't guarantee that you will pay less than you are paying now, but I know you won't be paying more; if Republicans block the effort to extend the lower rates unless we extend it to the top 2%, they will be responsible for the largest tax increase we've seen in a long, long time.

All those people with mortgage reset increases...do you think they'd feel relief if it didn't reset but stayed the same?

If you worked for GM but was going to be laid off in a bankruptcy, but instead got to keep your job due to gov't action, would you be upset that it was "only" the status quo?

I have explained to you why, AS A FACTUAL MATTER, new legislation cutting taxes for the middle class starting in 2011 is a tax cut. IF such legislation was not passed, then the rates will remain as contemplated by the GOP legislation of 2001 and 2003.

You seem intent on being dishonest on this point, instead of making the reasonable argument that it will not "feel" like a tax cut because the rates will be the same as though that are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. I disagree with that argument, but it is a reasonable one.

Instead, you have chosen to be dishonest. Why you have done so is not clear to me, as I have pointed these facts to you now a number of times.

If my take-home pay is more (and I didn't get a raise) then there is a cut. Simple as that.