GOP starting to rebel against 'no tax hike' pledge

[Incorruptible]

Umm it's called reality....

No, once you attack obama then I can take you seriously but right now your a partisan hack

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah but it's the Republicants who are holding this Nation hostage over the deficit while acting like spending all of a sudden went out of control on President Obama's watch lmao....

Spending and debt have greatly accelerated since 2008....some of it is Obama's fault...the vast majority is not. It's a problem...a very real problem and our representatives in Congress need to compromise in order to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity. Yet you want to make this into a purely partisan issue. Why am I not surprised? Sigh.

 

[Ausm]

No, once you attack obama then I can take you seriously but right now your a partisan hack

You can judge a person on ONE issue? LMAO

 

[Ausm]

Spending and debt have greatly accelerated since 2008....some of it is Obama's fault...the vast majority is not. It's a problem...a very real problem and our representatives in Congress need to compromise in order to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity. Yet you want to make this into a purely partisan issue. Why am I not surprised? Sigh.

That's not what the empirical evidence shows....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Color me surprised that you wouldn't know these facts....

 

[Phokus]

That's not what the empirical evidence shows....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Color me surprised that you wouldn't know these facts....

Facts are like kryptonite to a conservative

 

[Genx87]

That's not what the empirical evidence shows....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Color me surprised that you wouldn't know these facts....

Oh this is fun. Tell me in that inflation of Bush's deficit spending of 09 to cut off an economic depression did Obama oppose? So we like to play with point in time games and claim Obama is the lowest spender in recent memory. So he got a gift from Bush by raising the budget by 18% right before he took office. Except instead of cutting that budget he has added onto it. If Obama thought it was so horrible he would have reduced spending from an inflated budget from Bush.

These types of games grow old. They dont represent the situation on the ground at all.

And even if we take your argument at face value and applaud Obama for being the slowest grower of govt spending. Who cares? His administration has accumulated debt at the fastest rate ever.

That is why congress is trying to figure out a way to close deficit spending instead of passing thanks to Obama for growing govt at the slowest rate in decades.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's not what the empirical evidence shows....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Color me surprised that you wouldn't know these facts....

I know the facts and I know that TARP's one time expense was used as the Bush baseline which gives you nice little graphs like yours above. But this isn't about Bush...that never was my point...it's about our need for sane fiscal policy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency."

 

[Incorruptible]

Facts are like kryptonite to a LIBERAL

Fixed that for you

 

[Genx87]

If we need more proof of the debt issue in this country look no further than here.

Who cares if he raised govt spending 1.9% over Bush. That debt is accumulating at alarming rates.

 

[ichy]

If we need more proof of the debt issue in this country look no further than here.

Who cares if he raised govt spending 1.9% over Bush. That debt is accumulating at alarming rates.

Showing our national debt in dollar amounts is pointless. What matters is debt as a percentage of GDP.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Showing our national debt in dollar amounts is pointless. What matters is debt as a percentage of GDP.

 

[Kadarin]

I think it's a good thing the GOP is starting to back away from this pledge. I don't recall Grover Nordquist ever being elected to public office, nor even seeing him on the ballot anywhere, so the fact that the GOP is apparently beholden to his will is ridiculous.

 

[Genx87]

Showing our national debt in dollar amounts is pointless. What matters is debt as a percentage of GDP.

I don't think so. That graph illustrates perfectly that debt in this country is going in one direction.

 

[blankslate]

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

Cutting taxes during wars in two separate countries has had detrimental effects to the deficit, the national debt, and the economy even to this day.

Essentially the U.S. has almost never raised taxes during wartime in the 100 years previous to the Bush Tax cuts.

When you consider that those tax cuts were extended with a bit of arm-twisting by the republicans rather than being allowed to expire on schedule, it is a quite valid point.

If they had been allowed to expire then your "And what does 10 years ago have to do with today?" argument would have much more traction rather than being a distraction from a valid discussion about the national budget.

The administration is even open to allowing the tax cuts for certain incomes to be extended.

 

[Fern]

And remember this: "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit." At least so said the Republican Jesus, Ronald Reagan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI&feature=player_embedded

SS has nothing to do with the deficit or the debt.

It's previous excess has been used to help fund the deficit, and now that employment is down and annual receipts are insufficient to cover obligations the Treasury must refinance it's earlier borrowing to repay the S fund, but that's about it.

SS is accounted for in a fund separate from General funds - it's kept off the budget etc.

Now, if employment doesn't measurably improve soon, when the surplus has been exhausted we may have to use General Funds to pay benefits, or else reduce them. But that hasn't happened yet.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Leave and go where exactly?

Be specific. It might require you to look at a map.

They don't need to leave. (Not that it would help anyway, we tax world-wide income if you are a citizen. However, foreign citizens with a Green Card or dual citizenship are dumping us.)

All they need do is defer recognition of income. Non-taxable investments will become more attractive too.

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

Uneducated response ----

And remember this: "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit." At least so said the Republican Jesus, Ronald Reagan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI&feature=player_embedded

Educated response --

SS has nothing to do with the deficit or the debt.

It's previous excess has been used to fund to help fund the deficit, and now that employment is down and annual receipts are insufficient to cover obligations the Treasury must refinance it's earlier borrowing to repay the S fund, but that's about it.

SS is accounted for in a fund separate from General funds - it's kept off the budget etc.

Now, if employment doesn't measurably improve soon, when the surplus has been exhausted we may have to use General Funds to pay benefits, or else reduce them. But that hasn't happened yet.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Eliminating the tax cuts for the rich isn't about 'fiscal reform' or fixing the deficit etc., folks. It's about ideology. The amount of revenue raised won't even cover the increase in spending from our baseline budgeting method.

Fern

 

[Screech]

Democrats response to the idea of cutting big bird -- "it is such a small amount of money, it wouldn't do anything, we shouldn't make that cut."

Republicans response to the idea of tax increases on the rich -- "it is such a small amount of money, it wouldn't do anything, we shouldn't have that tax increase."

Oh the ironing.

 

[Matt1970]

That's not what the empirical evidence shows....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Color me surprised that you wouldn't know these facts....

Sure Obama hasn't increased much over Bush's last emergency spending budget. Problem is that was supposed to be a one time budget, Obama and friends made it the status quo.

 

[Tom]

Oh this is fun. Tell me in that inflation of Bush's deficit spending of 09 to cut off an economic depression did Obama oppose? So we like to play with point in time games and claim Obama is the lowest spender in recent memory. So he got a gift from Bush by raising the budget by 18% right before he took office. Except instead of cutting that budget he has added onto it. If Obama thought it was so horrible he would have reduced spending from an inflated budget from Bush.

These types of games grow old. They dont represent the situation on the ground at all.

And even if we take your argument at face value and applaud Obama for being the slowest grower of govt spending. Who cares? His administration has accumulated debt at the fastest rate ever.

That is why congress is trying to figure out a way to close deficit spending instead of passing thanks to Obama for growing govt at the slowest rate in decades.

LOL if you think Republicans in Congress have tried to do anything but stay in power..

You miss the point about what Bush did wrong with regards to the deficit..

1. He lowered taxes for no reason other than political gain, therebye making it impossible to be even remotely fiscally responsible.

2. he got us into two expensive wars without paying for them.

3. he passed an expansion of Medicare without paying for it.

4. he failed to monitor and regulate the financial, insurance, and oil industries.

his spending increase at the end of his Presidency wasn't a mistake.

 

[Lanyap]

The so called Obama phone is a lie.

The program started in 1996 to subsidize land lines for low income people. Mobile phones began to be added in 2008, while George W Bush was President.

So, its fine to be against the program, its not right to pretend its Obama's program.

As to the merits of cutting it, I'm sure its not going to balance the budget to beat down on the poor and the elderly, but maybe you'll feel better for having done so.

http://obamaphone.net/

 

[LegendKiller]

http://obamaphone.net/

So who, exactly, registered that site? It isn't a government entity from what I can tell.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

 

[jpeyton]

All they need do is defer recognition of income.

If it's that easy, why haven't they done it for the last decade?

Bush Tax Cuts or not, if there's an easy accounting solution for these individuals, I would think it has been implemented already.

 

[Lemon law]

Please explain this to me, even if somehow someone believes in Mom, apple pie, and the Grover Norquist pledge, how is raising tax rates on only those making over $250.000/yr. a violation of the Grover Norquest pledge?

When we look at the alternative. Simply because ALL Bush era tax cuts expire and sunset come 12/31/2012, and then roll back to Clinton era tax rates. And the GOP can grouse and complain until they are blue in the face, filibuster, or play all the GOP grid locks games in their playbook arsenal, and the tax increases will happen automatically as scheduled on 12/31/2012. That plus some draconian spending cuts will also happen, that is likely to adversely effect any recovery.

Yet the Grover pledge somehow becomes, its a tax increase unless an extension of GWB tax includes tax cuts for those making over $250,000/yr too.

The point is and remains, its politically possible to retain GWB era tax cuts for those of more moderate means, but its beyond the politically possible reality, to retain those cuts for the very Rich.

As the new GOP Grover Norquest tax pledge becomes, raise tax rates for everyone regardless, because Grover and the GOP have zero Political chance to get those tax cuts extended for the very Rich.

And then the GOP strategy will become, blame the democrats, when its far more likely the American voter will blame the GOP. As the same GOP strategy did not exactly work out well for the GOP in 11/2012.

But if Grover gets his way, and 100% of American taxpayers have to file a their taxes by 4/15/2013, about 98% of American taxpayers ate going to be very angry at ole Grover. And Noquist is likely to become as popular as Bernie Madoff and Leona Hemsely. Maybe a long foreign vacation might be advisable. As the same advice may apply to weeping John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.