GOP starting to rebel against 'no tax hike' pledge

[soulcougher73]

About time they wake up. Helps to tackle a problem when you are willing to at least look at all possible scenarios.

With the fiscal cliff looming for the United States, some Republican members of Congress said Sunday they are ready to break a long standing pledge not to raise taxes.
"The only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece. And Republicans should put revenue on the table," South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said on ABC's "This Week."
Read more of the discussion of the fiscal on "This Week" today.
Graham's comments followed those by another Republican senator, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said last week he'll no longer abide by the pledge.
"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," he said in a local interview.
He got support today from House member Peter King, another Republican from New York.
"I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss -- a pledge he signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago is for that Congress," King said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He added, "The world is changed and the economic situation is different."
Read Matthew Dowd's analysis of the efforts to avoid the fiscal cliff.
This growing chorus is about the pledge that Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist has gotten hundreds of Republicans to sign. But in an interview with ABC News, Norquist says it's just a few deserters.
"The people who have made a commitment to their constituents are largely keeping it," he said. "The fact is there is more support for both protecting the rates, you saw the Republican leader in the house say rates are non-negotiable, and he also talked about revenue coming from growth."
But President Obama has said rates will go up for the wealthy. There could be some political cover for Republicans if the country actually goes over the cliff. All the Bush era tax cuts would expire, including those for the wealthy. Congress could then vote to actually reduce taxes for everyone expect the rich. Therefore, they wouldn't technically raise taxes and violate Norquist's pledge.
But Nordquist said he doesn't think the public would buy those political moves, and he also doesn't think the country will actually go over the cliff.
"I think we'll continue the tax cuts. Not raise taxes $500 billion. Obama made the correct decision (by extending the Bush tax cuts) two years ago," Norquist told us.
Leading Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin also said he believes a deal is possible now that the Thanksgiving holiday break is over.
"We can solve this problem," he said on "This Week," adding: "There's no excuse. We're back in town."

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-starting-rebel-against-no-tax-hikes-pledge-012623817.html

 

[GTaudiophile]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

I agree on spending cuts. I think most people do. Hell i think we should have real guarenteed spending cuts before raising taxes is considered. But i do think both need to happen overall.

But agree on spending cuts and ill agree on raising taxes (especially on the rich)

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

Conservatives didn't say that when Bush wanted to cut taxes, did they?

Oh, wait... that was "different" somehow...

 

[Genx87]

Conservatives didn't say that when Bush wanted to cut taxes, did they?

Oh, wait... that was "different" somehow...

And what does 10 years ago have to do with today? The answer is nothing
So what? Are you saying cuts shouldnt be considered?

 

[Incorruptible]

And what does 10 years ago have to do with today? The answer is nothing.

What else do you expect from him? Its always Bush's fault never obama

 

[NTMBK]

And what does 10 years ago have to do with today? The answer is nothing.

Because they have contributed massively to your deficit? And because Obama wanted to repeal them, but was blocked by an obstructionist Republican party?

 

[Genx87]

Because they have contributed massively to your deficit? And because Obama wanted to repeal them, but was blocked by an obstructionist Republican party?

They havent contributed massively to the deficit. Obama wasnt interested in repealing them eithe due to economic ramifications. He even passed his own tax cuts. And he could had let them expire. There was nothing the republican house of reps could had done.

That said what jhhnn said has little to do with the debate today. Who cares if people's views on it were different 10 years ago? We are dealing with the issue today. Republicans are softening up on tax cuts.

 

[IronWing]

They havent contributed massively to the deficit.

Yes, they did and continue to do so. The Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, and Bush big pharma giveaway were the primary drivers of the deficit. Failure to address the failures of the Bush policies still in place will leave us with continuing crippling deficits. That Obama turned out to be Bush Lite nad hasn't worked to reverse these ridiculous policies doesn't change the fact that it is the policies implemented by Bush and his ilk that led us into the mess we're in now.

 

[NTMBK]

They havent contributed massively to the deficit. Obama wasnt interested in repealing them eithe due to economic ramifications. He even passed his own tax cuts. And he could had let them expire. There was nothing the republican house of reps could had done.

Wrong, and wrong. Obama wanted to extend the cuts only for those who earn less than $250,000 a year, but the Republicans wanted to extend them for everyone.

The issue was the Republican Senators. They threatened en masse to filibuster every single damn piece of legislation that passed through the Senate, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling (pushing the USA into default), unless Obama extended the cuts for all.

 

[Genx87]

Wrong, and wrong. Obama wanted to extend the cuts only for those who earn less than $250,000 a year, but the Republicans wanted to extend them for everyone.

The issue was the Republican Senators. They threatened en masse to filibuster every single damn piece of legislation that passed through the Senate, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling (pushing the USA into default), unless Obama extended the cuts for all.

Sure he did but so what? If he didnt want to extend the cuts he didnt need congressional approval to do so. He could let them expire. Obama got what he wanted which was a reprieve on the debt ceiling until after the election. The republicans got what they wanted. That debt ceiling showdown 16 months ago was a political show for us to watch. It allowed both to define the lines of the election and motivate their base. Now both sides will compromise in some fashion to finish the process. I suspect it will be a combination of tax reform(closing loopholes, reducing deduction for higher income earners) and raising taxes on higher income earners for the revenue side. And some kind of reform\cuts in entitlements on the spending side.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, they did and continue to do so. The Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, and Bush big pharma giveaway were the primary drivers of the deficit. Failure to address the failures of the Bush policies still in place will leave us with continuing crippling deficits. That Obama turned out to be Bush Lite nad hasn't worked to reverse these ridiculous policies doesn't change the fact that it is the policies implemented by Bush and his ilk that led us into the mess we're in now.

What is the top revenue expected from repealing Bush tax cuts? 150 billion\year? Where do we come up with the other 900 billion? Yes it contributed, but our deficit problem is largely driven on the spending side of the ledger.

 

[ichy]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

While I'd like to see some handout programs cut the unfortunate reality is that welfare isn't what's bleeding the country dry. For long term fiscal stability there are going to have to be some cuts to Social Security as well as some sort of caps on Medicare spending (i.e. rationing.) We need to move away from the Grover Norquist no new taxes insanity, but we can't just tax our way out of this situation.

 

[NTMBK]

Sure he did but so what? If he didnt want to extend the cuts he didnt need congressional approval to do so. He could let them expire. Obama got what he wanted which was a reprieve on the debt ceiling until after the election. The republicans got what they wanted. That debt ceiling showdown 16 months ago was a political show for us to watch. It allowed both to define the lines of the election and motivate their base. Now both sides will compromise in some fashion to finish the process. I suspect it will be a combination of tax reform(closing loopholes, reducing deduction for higher income earners) and raising taxes on higher income earners for the revenue side. And some kind of reform\cuts in entitlements on the spending side.

If he had let them expire, Republicans would have filibustered every other piece of legislation to go through the Senate. They would have refused to raise the debt ceiling, and completely crashed the US economy- hell, the GLOBAL economy. (They already caused a US credit rating downgrade by taking it to the brink.)

 

[nehalem256]

What is the top revenue expected from repealing Bush tax cuts? 150 billion\year? Where do we come up with the other 900 billion? Yes it contributed, but our deficit problem is largely driven on the spending side of the ledger.

I thought it was more like 70B for the tax cuts on the rich.

And 280B for tax cuts on the poor/middle class.

 

[Genx87]

If he had let them expire, Republicans would have filibustered every other piece of legislation to go through the Senate. They would have refused to raise the debt ceiling, and completely crashed the US economy- hell, the GLOBAL economy. (They already caused a US credit rating downgrade by taking it to the brink.)

Nobody knows that the republicans would refuse to raise the debt ceiling if the bush tax cuts expires. But you are saying to keep leverage on the republicans he extended the bush tax cuts?

Here is something you should start to observe about our political process. They are all a bunch of whining fucking maggots that like to make a political soap opera for us to fret over while the expand their own power. That debt ceiling debacle 16 months ago I called earlier in that Spring. They got a plan together at the 12th hour(surprised, no really I wasnt) and patted themselves on the back by kicking the can until after the 2012 elections. Neither side had any intention of tossing us over the cliff. They wanted to define the battle lines for the 2012 election cycle. They got what they wanted, now they should actually get something done.

 

[Thump553]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

Spending cuts were always part of Obama's deficit reduction proposals-to the tune of $8 or $9 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. This wasn't sufficient for the GOP idealogues, who refused to consider ANY plan that had ANY tax increases at all. Now the voters have spoken and a tiny fraction of the GOP legislators has at least indicated a willingness to listen. Time will tell if it is too little, too late-I suspect the majority GOP will run the clock out then try to blame Obama.

BTW naming them Obamaphones is a cute GOP trick but it (once again) ignores the factual reality that these phones were around for more than a decade before the Obama Presidency. I suspect the same people that freely fling terms like Obamaphones around go ballistic when others talk about Bush's Wars (and the costs thereof) despite that fact that the GOP did start those wars.

 

[ichy]

Only cutting discretionary spending is a joke. Entitlements need to be trimmed.

 

[soulcougher73]

I thought it was more like 70B for the tax cuts on the rich.

And 280B for tax cuts on the poor/middle class.

Id rather 70B from the rich who wont blink an eye at it, than 280B from the middle/poor class who need their money more than ever.

But spending cuts need to happen first all around on every front.

 

[nehalem256]

Id rather 70B from the rich who wont blink an eye at it, than 280B from the middle/poor class who need their money more than ever.

But spending cuts need to happen first all around on every front.

I don't disagree at all.

Package the 70B in increases on the rich to get say 5x as much in spending cuts. Something Republicans could have probably easily got before.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Only cutting discretionary spending is a joke. Entitlements need to be trimmed.

Obama previously said that he'd be open to discussing entitlements. But I'm not sure if Dems in general feel the same way. This will be interesting.

 

[ichy]

Obama previously said that he'd be open to discussing entitlements. But I'm not sure if Dems in general feel the same way. This will be interesting.

I heard the leader of one of the larger unions (I'm thinking SEIU but I'm not certain, it was a week or two ago) on NPR saying that she was opposed to any entitlement cuts. If Obama is serious about fiscal sanity then he's going to have to be willing to pick a fight with people like her.

 

[Ausm]

Let's see some spending cuts first.

No more Obamaphones, etc. Conditions on welfare. Some defense cuts too, especially related to Afghanistan.

 

[Ausm]

Obama previously said that he'd be open to discussing entitlements. But I'm not sure if Dems in general feel the same way. This will be interesting.

I don't consider Medicare and S.S. that I have been paying for the last 35+ years as an "entitlement".

 

[ichy]

I don't consider Medicare and S.S. that I have been paying for the last 35+ years as an "entitlement".

Stop playing semantic games. They're what people are talking about when they talk about entitlement programs vs. discretionary spending.