Perhaps. But neither side has proposed anything to be cut, except the new health plan which ironically would cost our country more money, so not really a cut.

The other fact is, whether it is from spending or a lack of income, just the two items listed are going to, right now as things stand, put us an additional 700 billion in debt to China and oil producing Middle Eastern nations.

You can try to explain to them that 700 billion doesn't count because it's income and not spending if you like, but I doubt they will be interested.

The only President since the before WWII to balance the budget was Clinton. Not by coincidence I think during the time our budget was balanced, our economy was the strongest in history - for rich and poor alike.

I originally was all for a filibuster, and was ready to write Obama off as a poet president instead of a progressive, but then Clinton endorsed the deal, so perhaps it is not as bad as it seems on the surface.

However your reasoning seems to be typical of your ideals, and off.

Since this tax cut took effect, almost immediately after in fact, those above the watermark of 250k / year have seen their wealth increase almost exponentially, while the middle and lower class have actually seen a decrease in yearly income.

It seems the tax cut acted as a shift of wealth from the have nots to the haves - which is typical of every Republican presidency since Nixon.

Wealth has been increasing for this group by quite a bit every year for a decade, yet it has not "trickled down" just as it did not in the 80's.

The theory of top down economics has been proven bunk now twice, so the argument really isn't about wether giving cuts to the top 1-2% is good for the economy, we know through trial and error and 10 years of trying that it is not.

The argument is, we know Republicans will try to get an even sweeter deal for the very rich when they are in control of the House, so should Democrats filibuster and let Obama practice his Veto Pen later at the expense of the Middle Class tax cuts? Or should Democrats (and other 98% of the U.S. who have become poorer instead of richer over the last decade) swallow this pill to preserve the small cut for the middle class?

You're description of what liberals believe again shows how little you understand of the two sides of the subject, and how incredibly poor your sources are.

1. as I've explained, liberals don't march lock-in-step like the other side, so you get a variety of views.

2. most view deficit as a combination of incomome and spending... because it is.

And "class warfare" is a right wing talking point.

The tax increase would be 3% if the bush cuts were to expire for this group, which is the same rate they had in the 90's.

And over the last decade the top 2% in the income bracket have seen an increase of income of several percent, while the other 98% have actually seen a fall in income.

If getting the rich richer via lower taxes = more jobs, it would have already happened, and it would have happened in the 80's with Reaganomics.

It does not work as we've seen.

So the belief on the liberal side is that, returning to pre-bush jr tax rates would save 700billion, and not affect the economy.

I agree with this, as does nearly every economist.

I'm just not sure if it is a winnable fight for dems, knowing republicans will all vote "no" in unison to anything Obama proposes - even when he compromises.

I'm going to trust the president's judgment on this one. He knows what he's doing.

Sheep

Which judgement, the two dozen times he said he would not favor the extention because we will not slip into a double-dip recession because of the actions he took or now when he says we must extend Bush's tax rates or we will slip into a double-dip recession?