PDA

View Full Version : Obama Taxes Upon Taxes Upon Taxes


Chief Faithful
07-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Here is an article I believe has it right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

"Mr. Obama is also touting spending cuts he's willing to make in entitlements in return for bigger tax increases, yet the spending increases built into ObamaCare aren't even up for discussion in the debt-limit talks. The Affordable Care Act adds more than 30 million more Americans onto Medicaid's rolls, when that program is already growing by 6.5% this year. So Mr. Obama is willing to cut current entitlements on grounds that they are unaffordable, but he's taken what may be the most expensive entitlement off the table.

We think this was the President's spend-and-tax plan from the very first. Run up spending and debt in the name of stimulus and health-care reform, then count on Wall Street bond holders and the political establishment to browbeat Republicans into paying for it all. He apparently didn't figure on the rise of the tea party, or 1.9% GDP growth and 9.2% unemployment two years after the recession ended."

mlyonsd
07-11-2011, 10:58 AM
That pretty much nails it. And what happens when you give one party such a majority.

Chief Faithful
07-11-2011, 12:37 PM
That pretty much nails it. And what happens when you give one party such a majority.

The government worked best under Clinton when the parties has true power sharing.

HonestChieffan
07-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Election day we need to send him packing and a ton of liberal dems who have no interest in repairing the wreck they have created.

Direckshun
07-11-2011, 03:52 PM
Run up spending and debt in the name of stimulus and health-care reform, then count on Wall Street bond holders and the political establishment to browbeat Republicans into paying for it all.

So his plan all along, so says the WSJ, was to assume Wall Street would prod Republicans into raising taxes.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mt013x-LBqE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BigChiefFan
07-11-2011, 10:39 PM
Election day we need to send him packing and a ton of liberal dems who have no interest in repairing the wreck they have created.
While I understand your point, I'm really getting sick of this stance, as if the majority of the politicans will take care of the taxpayers. Democrats and Republicans are the same. They are the same wolves in sheeps clothing and have had their fair share of wrecking our country. We need to smash the paradigm to pieces.

cosmo20002
07-11-2011, 11:05 PM
Election day we need to send him packing and a ton of liberal dems who have no interest in repairing the wreck they have created.

The wreck who created? 2001-2009: Pres was an R. 2001-2007 Rs controlled the House and Senate. Yeah, its a real shame how when the Dems got control of the Presidency in 2009, they ruined everything--because everything was in great shape back then.

Chiefs3158
07-11-2011, 11:56 PM
clinton kept and left the country at its best!!! till the bushwackers came back!!!

jjjayb
07-12-2011, 10:25 AM
The wreck who created? 2001-2009: Pres was an R. 2001-2007 Rs controlled the House and Senate. Yeah, its a real shame how when the Dems got control of the Presidency in 2009, they ruined everything--because everything was in great shape back then.

The economy was in this bad of a mess from 2001-2007? Really?

Direckshun
07-12-2011, 10:27 AM
The economy was in this bad of a mess from 2001-2007? Really?

A gargantuan bubble that burst to send the global economy into shockwaves?

I'd say that's not that great of an economy.

durtyrute
07-12-2011, 10:29 AM
While I understand your point, I'm really getting sick of this stance, as if the majority of the politicans will take care of the taxpayers. Democrats and Republicans are the same. They are the same wolves in sheeps clothing and have had their fair share of wrecking our country. We need to smash the paradigm to pieces.

Notice how this point gets over looked, every time.

Swanman
07-12-2011, 11:42 AM
While I understand your point, I'm really getting sick of this stance, as if the majority of the politicans will take care of the taxpayers. Democrats and Republicans are the same. They are the same wolves in sheeps clothing and have had their fair share of wrecking our country. We need to smash the paradigm to pieces.

The party politics in this situation is just sickening. They are more worried about holding the fort on their one issue (Rs not raising taxes and Dems protecting entitlements) than they are about coming up with a viable solution. The end solution will most likely involve some tax raises coupled with spending cuts (get the f out of the Middle East, that would save a chunk).

patteeu
07-12-2011, 11:52 AM
The wreck who created? 2001-2009: Pres was an R. 2001-2007 Rs controlled the House and Senate. Yeah, its a real shame how when the Dems got control of the Presidency in 2009, they ruined everything--because everything was in great shape back then.

The Republicans never had the kind of control democrats had during the first part of Obama's term. Not just between 2001 and 2009. Not EVER.

As for the Bush 43 years, democrats had the filibuster for the first 6 years and majority control of BOTH houses of Congress starting in Jan 2007, about the time the country's economy hit the skids. Coincidence? I don' know.

But at the very least, democrats had two years to work with Bush to avoid disaster and instead chose to play politics in order to take even more power. Their plan paid off handsomely for them, but unfortunately the rest of us were presented with the awful bill.

whoman69
07-12-2011, 06:30 PM
The Republicans never had the kind of control democrats had during the first part of Obama's term. Not just between 2001 and 2009. Not EVER.

As for the Bush 43 years, democrats had the filibuster for the first 6 years and majority control of BOTH houses of Congress starting in Jan 2007, about the time the country's economy hit the skids. Coincidence? I don' know.

But at the very least, democrats had two years to work with Bush to avoid disaster and instead chose to play politics in order to take even more power. Their plan paid off handsomely for them, but unfortunately the rest of us were presented with the awful bill.

The filibuster was not used nearly as much by the Democrats when they were in the minority. The Republicans used the fillibuster to block more than 80% of all legislation before the 2010 midterms, not just healthcare. The filibuster should be a thing of the past. It was never intended to use the fillibuster to demand that all legislation need a 60% supermajority to pass. The rules for using it have also been eased so now a filibuster does not have to actually take place, only an intention to filibuster.

Washington would be fixed with just two things happening, publically funded elections and the disolution of the filibuster.

patteeu
07-13-2011, 06:38 AM
The filibuster was not used nearly as much by the Democrats when they were in the minority. The Republicans used the fillibuster to block more than 80% of all legislation before the 2010 midterms, not just healthcare. The filibuster should be a thing of the past. It was never intended to use the fillibuster to demand that all legislation need a 60% supermajority to pass. The rules for using it have also been eased so now a filibuster does not have to actually take place, only an intention to filibuster.

Washington would be fixed with just two things happening, publically funded elections and the disolution of the filibuster.

The democrats had a filibuster-proof majority until Ted Kennedy died and they were only one vote short of that when Scott Brown took his place. They had plenty of time to pass whatever legislation they wanted to during that period to prevent the debt crisis we now face. They could have raised taxes then. They could have restrained their own spending then. They could have cut the defense budget to the bone then. They didn't do anything but spend, spend, spend (with the tax increases from the OP sprinkled about liberally).

And even after they lost the filibuster-proof majority, all they had to do was get one Republican on board with anything they wanted to do. With Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins available, that wouldn't have been too hard to do if they really wanted to be even the tiniest bit bipartisan.

The reason Bush-era democrats didn't use the filibuster as much as Obama-era Republicans seems pretty obvious to me. It's because Obama-era democrats have been far less willing to make bipartisan compromises to get a few votes from the other side of the aisle than Bush and his Republicans were. Duh.