Pew Charitable Trusts said in 2010 that the tax cuts broke down like this:

2.2 trillion (over 10 years) - Those making under $250K (effectively 2/3)
1.1 trillion (over 10 years) - Those making over $250K

If the democrats in Washington want to keep the 2.2 trillion in cuts for working Americans, they are going to have to extend the 1.1 for the rest of the tax brackets. Republicans will be perfectly pleased to allow the 2/3 that benefit the working class to expire in "fairness" to the "job creators" and the media will spin it in their favor.

The only way possible to keep the 2/3 at the expense of the 1/3 is to elect progressive democrats to a majority in the house and senate.

I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I find it more likely that the entire package will be extended or made permanent.

why are we NOT LOOKING AT THE ECONOMY DURING CLINTON???

I will answer it because it's a valid and important question.

Clinton's policies would be an absolute disaster today, and Obama's policies would have been an absolute disaster in 1993.

All economic policy must exist in the context of economic reality and the world today is very different than in 1993.

(An example of a policy that ignores economic context is the Republicans saying tax cuts for the rich are a universal cure in goods times and bad.)

The question is, is the downside of higher taxes worth the upside of a lower deficit? There is no universal right answer to that question. It depends on the economic environment.

Bill Clinton was very concerned about the bond market. The fear was that US deficits were keeping interest rates higher than they ought to be by competing with private borrowing for a limited supply of credit.

Also, the US economy was pretty strong back then. The Bush I recession was minor and short and Clinton's policies would manifest themselves in a growing economy.

In the world today, Obama would have to be insane to be worried about the bond market. The prices paid for US bonds are the highest they have ever been. Ever. (Meaning the interest rate paid on them is the lowest ever.)

On the other hand, growth in our economy is tenuous at best. We do not have any spare GDP to give up... and especially not as a trade off for lower interest rates because interest rates cannot get any lower than they already are.

Two completely different economic realities call for different economic policies. (And if Clinton and Obama traded places in history then each would be doing what the other guy did.)

to pour dump their money into thousands of business that have no plan to ever be profitable... and gas under $2.00 a gallon.

Including those under 250k. The payroll 2% cut should be ended too.

(Unless all of that tax revenue was rolled into new spending, of course.)

What economic benefit would follow from doing what you propose?

It is not a rhetorical question. In 1981 Paul Volker calculated that there was economic benefit in the US entering recession because it was calculated that inflation and high interest rates were even worse than recession, in that specific environment.

But what is there about today that would make contracting the economy a good idea?

And we do have inflation despite what government numbers say. Just ask anyone who has to buy ordinary things - food, clothing, utilities, etc. Prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down. Also we steal from our children because pushing the deficit on to them will force them to have a lower standard of living. Both of these are unfair. We can't solve this by just raising taxes on the "rich". First of all there are not enough of them. Second there is an eternal battle to define "rich". Either taxes are good or they are bad. If they are good then they are good for all not just the "rich".

Do nothing, and this Congress has set a record for indolence. Let the artificially low tax rates enacted under the Bush administration expire. The circumstances today are nothing like the circumstances prevailing at the time Dick Cheney voted himself an extra $175,000 a year at everyone else's expense.

If Congress doesn't do anything, the tax rates go back to a more sustainable rate, and maybe we can start paying for the two excellent wars/occupations we started when revenues were down.

What economic benefit do you see in starting to pay for those wars? It is a serious question that is seldom asked. We assume a benefit, but it is not identified.

What actual good thing would happen in the economy of today if we did that?

If I remember right, the expiration timetable is set up so that even if Republicans win control of Congress and somehow pass a quick extension as the first order of business, the President can simply pocket veto it while they're in winter recess--even if he's already lost his own election.

But long before that, we get to toy with the Republicans in the Senate as a cat toys with a wounded mouse. All we have to do is report out of committee two bills which split the tax cuts into one cut for the wealthy, and one for everyone else.

The one for the rich can't pass in the Senate, and the GOP is bought and paid for on this issue. So the only thing they can do is block the tax cut extension for everyone else in an attempt to get rich peoples' cuts added as an amendment.

Then Democrats will promise to float the extension for the middle class if they win control of Congress, and many Republican voters will realize that they can actually pay themselves by staying home and not voting.

That vote will poison all three classes of Republican Senators, so they'll still be losing elections over this maneuver in 2018.

Republicans have tried on numerous occasions to avoid this eventuality--the debt ceiling fight was largely about this--but we have the legislative and executive advantage over them and they cannot stop it now. It was their own short-sighted greed--and a little bit of rope-a-dope--which allowed them to be drawn into this trap.

How does enacting 220 billion in new taxes on the middle and lower classes sustain anything?

You think we are in a recession now? Tell everyone in America that their tax bill for 2012 is going to go up $1000 and see what happens to consumer spending.

Even with ending the tax cuts, the revenue to the treasury will increase only $330 billion with a projected deficit of $ 1.33 trillion.

So what exactly will be gained by ending the majority of the tax cuts (those making less than $250k)?

the breaks to expire since they had a time limit