Didn't Obama sign the tax cuts we are operating under now? He deserves some credit for that
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 15/07/2011 07:16:14 PM
Changing the subject is not a rebuttal.
OK I will address your argument that they can not reduce the deficit without raising taxes. Sorry that argument makes no logical sense. Reducing spending will reduce the deficit and I am not sure how you can argue otherwise. Now can we balance the budget without increasing taxes? That depends on how much the economy grows. The "Clinton" surplus was as much economic growth from the internet bubble as it was about the spending cuts the republicans forced him to take credit for.
The Bush/Obama tax cuts are set to expire on their own so why do they need to be part of this particular negation?
Oh, they're the "Bush/Obama tax cuts" now, eh? I can't decide if that's better or worse than the GOP talking heads telling anyone who'll listen Obama raised taxes (and never mind those troublesome facts).
Obama has raised taxes but the democratic controlled congress passed and he signed the very same tax cuts for the rich he spends so much time crying about. Personally if I thought they were as bad as he and the dems seem to think they are I wouldn't have done that but hey that is just me and my crazy not supporting things I think are bad ways.
If the dems so against these loop holes and tax cuts why didn't they do something about during the two years they held more political power than any party has in decades?
Because Obama has all the leadership ability of a damp sponge, delegates important policy negotiations to incompetents like Reid and Biden, then undercuts any leverage they have. Sometimes I wonder if there's any point in keeping the Dems around--then I remember the alternative; the biggest reason they didn't remove the loopholes is the same reason they didn't create a public healthcare program: Because the Republican minority fought them tooth and nail, and even with all that brief power and popularity Dem leaders still lost.
Sorry but that is a piss poor argument. the dems had a filibuster proof majority for almost two years so the Old "it was the mean republicans" argument is a steaming pile of crap.
Why are the dems willing to crash the economy because they believe they have the right to demand tax increases if they are going to allow modest spending reductions?
They're not, they're trying to get a REAL deficit reduction of $4 trillion through tax hikes AND spending cuts, instead of a $2 trillion spending cut bandaid that won't save the economy anyway, just put us right back in this same argument next year--when both parties will be distracted by a general election fight. The spending cuts are a temporary stopgap; they don't FIX anything, they just let us raise the debt ceiling one more year before confronting the problem we continue to ignore.
If we follow it up with more spending cuts it will accomplish something. I personally think there should some revenue increases but I don't believe they need to be tied to spending cuts. Cut the spending now and worry about increasing the revenue later.
Cut the spending then if the revenue doesn't increase raise taxes.
There's no "if" to it; cutting spending does NOT increase revenue; increasing revenue increases revenue. What's so hard to get there? We have to increase revenue AND cut spending, and anyone claiming we can magically solve the deficit problems with one and not the other is just a snakeoil salesman telling you what you want to hear.
No one is saying to not increase revenue just arguing about how to do it. Growth is the preferred method of increasing revenue, unless of course your a socialist who hates personal wealth and thinks the government should be everyone's mommy and daddy.
I think most republicans will accept closing some of the loop holes the dems failed close when they were on their spending spree but I think most of them are willing to let things blow up if they think they can pin the blame one the republicans and I guess one of the advantages of having the media be an active part of your political party is it is easier to pass the buck.
You may think what you like, but Republicans have repeatedly and consistently walked away from debt ceiling negotiations every time Dems proposed closing those loopholes. The lone exception was Boehner saying he was open to it then rescinding that offer when his House colleagues said no because they're more committed to the Tea Party than to the country. His second in command effectively terminated the Biden deficit negotiations last month when he walked out over precisely that issue, and is stonewalling negotiations with Obama over it now. Republican leaders insisted last fall that they keep all their tax breaks at any price, and are demonstrating now that when they said, "ANY price, " they meant it. Trying to make those "Bush/Obama tax cuts Dems extended" is just denying the facts.
Think what you want but in the end I bet they pass something with some tax increases for some groups in it. All the republicans may not vote for it but enough will to get it to pass.
You can try to turn this around any way you like, but the only ones threatening to crash the economy are the Republicans refusing any deal that doesn't give them EVERYTHING they demand in exchange for NOTHING. Times are tough and we all have to make sacrifices--unless we're independently wealthy; then elderly and sick people will make our sacrifices for us. Everyone's tightening their belt; why should those with the widest belts be exempt? Because the tax breaks Bush handed out to "stimulate" the Clinton era longest period of economic growth in our history worked so well they caused a ten year recession? Because after Clintons balanced budget set us up for a $2.5 trillion 2011 SURPLUS economy stimulating tax breaks turned it into a DEFICIT six times that? Between the Depression, the '80s recession and the 2000 recession I don't see how the "starve the beast" party has any credibility left on federal finances.
Sorry but "it is all the republicans" argument is BS. The house could pass a bill today it is the dems that would refuse it. How is that all republican? And please stop the silly nonsense about the Clinton surplus, that may work on kool-aiding slurping sheep but let acknowledge that we are smarter than that. Bush inherited an economy that had already crashed and was already in rescission before he passed his first budget.
Debt Ceiling Debacle: Are Republican Leaders Spinelessly Selfish, or Cluelessly Selfish?
- 14/07/2011 04:57:30 PM
909 Views
funny how people only believe polls that say what they want to hear
- 14/07/2011 06:08:21 PM
451 Views
Actually, I believe the polls regularly showing Romney ahead of Obama now.
- 14/07/2011 09:30:01 PM
634 Views
watch out you almost made rational argument there
- 15/07/2011 02:47:02 PM
498 Views
Watch out, you completely ignored my arguments there.
- 15/07/2011 04:20:44 PM
613 Views
Didn't Obama sign the tax cuts we are operating under now? He deserves some credit for that
- 15/07/2011 07:16:14 PM
596 Views
Actually, I agree; granting the Republicans demands does make him partly culpable.
- 15/07/2011 09:33:50 PM
513 Views
I have yet to hear anything about any actual proposal
- 14/07/2011 06:23:16 PM
459 Views
I think you have to be there to get a detailed spreadsheet, but the general terms are known.
- 14/07/2011 08:36:39 PM
691 Views
Your entire response is lacking actual answers.
- 15/07/2011 03:42:04 AM
646 Views
There were answers, just very general ones; the specifics aren't being publicly released.
- 15/07/2011 04:19:47 AM
586 Views
That kind of headline doesn't really help, you know?
- 14/07/2011 06:33:43 PM
547 Views
I second this. Definitely need less antagonism *NM*
- 14/07/2011 07:36:54 PM
195 Views
I admit I too readily meet antagonism with antagonism these days.
- 14/07/2011 09:56:45 PM
401 Views
"I have no idea what we're talking about, but my opinion is important anyway!"
- 14/07/2011 09:03:10 PM
555 Views
just because you believe the silly rhetoric doens't mean it isn't rhetoric *NM*
- 14/07/2011 09:27:08 PM
168 Views
I can't think of anything else to call it.
- 14/07/2011 09:17:42 PM
591 Views
I just think that you could have said all that in a much more less antagonistic way.
- 14/07/2011 10:16:49 PM
567 Views
I do see your point, but it often takes a shock for people to question reflexive views.
- 14/07/2011 10:53:07 PM
537 Views
it is selfish to demand tax increases to allow needed spending reductions *NM*
- 15/07/2011 02:48:11 PM
319 Views
It's shamefully selfish to demand others sacrifice their existence for your luxury.
- 15/07/2011 04:14:04 PM
425 Views
that woulkd be shameful thank god it isnothing but rhetoric *NM*
- 15/07/2011 07:17:44 PM
200 Views
It's the simple sad truth.
- 15/07/2011 09:36:34 PM
360 Views
so if it was your family you'd only cut expenses and not find a way to make extra income?
- 15/07/2011 07:45:21 PM
461 Views
if you think silly comparison to family budget are valid then you need to ask yourself that question *NM*
- 17/07/2011 06:51:06 PM
183 Views
And you haven't even gotten into the cries for a "balanced budget amendment."
- 14/07/2011 09:17:04 PM
403 Views
I think they're doing exactly what the people who paid to put them into office are expecting them to
- 14/07/2011 09:23:45 PM
440 Views
Sadly, that's so, I just keep expecting them to put the countrys survival ahead of greed.
- 14/07/2011 09:38:14 PM
631 Views
You know, if I pretended like I didn't have a family to support, I'd say, "Fuck it. Default."
- 15/07/2011 03:50:30 AM
413 Views
Maybe you can't be that cavalier, but the House majority clearly can.
- 15/07/2011 04:56:03 AM
610 Views
these are the same tax increases that were extended by the dems
- 15/07/2011 02:49:35 PM
453 Views
EDIT: Wait, I get it now; you're just trolling me. 
- 15/07/2011 04:14:00 PM
695 Views
- 15/07/2011 04:14:00 PM
695 Views
no I am just pointing out simple facts but your partisan blinders refuse to allow you to see them
- 15/07/2011 07:22:03 PM
491 Views
Republicans didn't just "support" tax cuts: They demanded them then and won't relinquish them now.
- 15/07/2011 09:58:37 PM
626 Views
Did the Mitch McConnel thing remind anyone else of Jar Jar Binks appearing before the Senate...
- 15/07/2011 07:38:52 AM
510 Views
It probably would have if I didn't do everything I could to avoid thinking of Jar Jar Binks *NM*
- 15/07/2011 11:20:09 AM
212 Views
*NM*
Clueless only in the sense that they aren't heeding the signals of their owners.
- 17/07/2011 06:46:42 AM
659 Views
Coaches have to do things fans dislike to win games, or get fired anyway when they lose.
- 17/07/2011 04:11:38 PM
655 Views