What has changed between then and now?

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
December 17, 2010
President Obama's remarks at the signing of the Bush Tax Cut extension:

This bipartisan effort was prompted by the fact that tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st. If that had come to pass, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year. That wouldn’t have just been a blow to them -- it would have been a blow to our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession.

I refused to let that happen. And because we acted, it’s not going to. In fact, not only will middle-class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the New Year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it’s actually larger than the one they get right now. Over the course of 2011, 155 million workers will receive tax relief from the new payroll tax cut included in this bill -– about $1,000 for the average family.

This is real money that’s going to make a real difference in people’s lives. And I would not have signed this bill if it didn’t include other extensions of relief that were also set to expire -– relief that’s going to help families cover the bills, parents raise their children, students pay for college, and business owners to take the reins of the recovery and propel this economy forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Now.... Nothing has changed with regard to the economy, if anything, the situation has gotten worse. So why is it, suddenly, we are again talking about tax increases? We just went over this in December, the president himself admitted, that a tax increase would be "a blow to our economy" ....what has changed between then and now? Why is it, democrats think they can squeeze in a tax hike with deficit reduction legislation, and no one will pick up on this?
 
The concept of spending cuts is completely foreign to them; their fix for everything is to raise taxes. But even if everyone was taxed at 90%, they still wouldn't have enough money for their government programs. Liberalism is insatiable.

Sooner or later, they will have to face reality. While I don't think modest tax increases should be off the table, that wouldn't make drastic, painful cuts any less necessary.
 
Volt said:
The concept of spending cuts is completely foreign to them; their fix for everything is to raise taxes. But even if everyone was taxed at 90%, they still wouldn't have enough money for their government programs. Liberalism is insatiable. Sooner or later, they will have to face reality. While I don't think modest tax increases should be off the table, that wouldn't make drastic, painful cuts any less necessary.
Click to expand...

What a liar you are, Dolt.


The budget proposed by Obama contained lots of cuts, and more are on the table. The table Eric "Can't" Cantor walked away from, remember?


http://www.npr.org/2011/02/13/133735688/Previewing-Obamas-Budget-Cuts


http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/gop-quits-budget-talks-obama-step


Do you need to be reminded of the GOP's refusal to even consider letting the Bush tax cuts expire?


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_trump_card_on_taxes030539.php
 
Do you need to be reminded of the GOP's refusal to even consider letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...axes030539.php
Click to expand...

I posted the statement made by the President on the day he signed the Bush Tax Cut extension into law. He doesn't sound like Republicans forced him to do it... sounds like he thought it was a good compromise, and he said it would be a mistake to raise taxes with a struggling economy. "it would have been a blow to our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession...I refused to let that happen... And because we acted, it’s not going to." Does it sound like Obama was FORCED to do this, or does it sound like Obama saved the day?

What I am trying to find out, is what has changed since December 2010, when it would have been disastrous to raise taxes in the midst of a bad economic period? Seems to me, things aren't much better than they were in December 2010... Unemployment is higher, inflation has risen, gas prices are higher, no jobs to speak of... so what is different? If the philosophy and thinking was, it is a bad idea to raise taxes in bad economic times, why did the philosophy change?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_trump_card_on_taxes030539.php
 
Volt said:
The concept of spending cuts is completely foreign to them; their fix for everything is to raise taxes. But even if everyone was taxed at 90%, they still wouldn't have enough money for their government programs. Liberalism is insatiable.

Sooner or later, they will have to face reality. While I don't think modest tax increases should be off the table, that wouldn't make drastic, painful cuts any less necessary.
Click to expand...

This is what is wrong with the Republican party in a nutshell. Let me clue you in.... Once you've conceded to "modest tax increases" by leaving them anywhere NEAR the goddamn table, you will get MASSIVE tax increases from Democrats! Bank on it! Once you've given in to the idea that...yeah, maybe we could raise taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy.... no harm in that.... well, you can count on Democrats to raise taxes across the board on everyone, especially the so-called "rich" who are actually the jobs producers. Volt, you are an idiot.... I say that will all due respect. You believe there is some way to rationally negotiate with these Socialist Commies, and that simply can't be done.... they aren't interested in compromise. Stop trying to be LIKED by the left, to be seen as some "voice of reason" who can "see their point" and pontificating rationalizations for putting tax increases on the table... they shouldn't be anywhere near the table... no way.. no how! CUT SPENDING! Then CUT SPENDING some more! Raising taxes is STUPID! .....Even President Obama said so in December 2010.
 
Remember any of this?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that all 42 current Republican Party Senate members signed a pledge to block any legislation coming before their respective chamber of Congress until the Bush tax cuts have been considered.

The unemployed, due to no fault of their own, are denied benefits and extensions of unemployment benefits because Congress (mostly Republicans) wish to pay for benefits as they are expended. Republicans will refuse to even consider legislation coming before them (like the aforementioned House unemployment extensions measure or the unemployment extensions proposal introduced by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) that would enable millions of unemployed Americans to simply pay a few household bills.

Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved - CNN

Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

Republicans contend that a failure to extend all of the tax cuts would hamper an already-sluggish economy. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders argue that the roughly $700 billion price tag attached to an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be fiscally irresponsible.

GOP Blocks Unemployment Extension; a Deal Before Christmas?

COMMENTARY | Do you feel like you were being set up? After watching Congress bicker and posture over the unemployment extension issue for the past few weeks (because it apparently wasn't important enough to work on until the benefits actually expired), it has come to this: millions of America's unemployed (read: the formerly employed who lost their jobs through no fault of their own) began losing their benefits on December 1. Those benefits included the extensions and emergency extensions that needed reauthorization in order for the jobless to hold on to a lifeline that in many cases was all or a large portion of household incomes that were keeping the unemployed solvent. Senate Republicans refuse to talk about anything other than the Bush tax cuts until that issue is resolved while the Democrats continue to introduce bills that the Republicans block due to no provisions being made for offsetting the expenditures. Now, although it would seem that the two parties are at an impasse, they're not. They are now ready to make a deal.

With Unemployment Extension Set to Pass, Republicans Do the Unthinkable and Stall

Republicans, according to Reuters, are doing something at present that no one thought they would -- stalling for the duration of a 30-hour holding period on a bill that contains unemployment benefits extensions even though the bill is assured to pass. Although they are by Senate rule allowed the 30 hours, the time is usually never used, a final up-or-down vote is taken within minutes or a few hours of the final cloture vote, and the bill is sent on. But not this time, not with this hotly contested bill, a bill that took six weeks and five cloture votes before reaching its present position in the Senate -- one step away from formal passage. Still, in so doing, it looks as if Republicans are purposely toying with the 2.5 million unemployed that are waiting on those emergency benefits extensions -- and have been waiting since the first week of June.
 
Here's what I remember, crewcut... Obama and the Dems yammered on and on about tax increases, said it was "patriotic" and stuff... until November 2010, when Republicans ate their lunch in the midterms. After holding their position on this until it cost them the midterms, Obama was forced to come to us with hat in hand, and admit that tax increases during a recession was a stupid idea. Thus, the Bush Tax Cuts were extended, and we had the rare opportunity to witness both the President and Vice President, praising the Bush Tax Cuts they had previously opposed. This was 6 months ago... not sure what has embolden Democrats to trot this one out again, but I predict the same thing will happen again as a result. The people don't want a tax hike, they didn't vote for a tax hike in Nov. 2010, or else Obama would have never extended the Bush Tax Cuts. But for some bizarre reason, even though the economy is still in the toilet, and even though Obama himself said it would be stupid to do, here the Democrats are with the same idiotic message once again, going into the 2012 campaign season. ....Okay, we'll see how well it works THIS time!
 
What has changed between then and now? Deficit hysteria.

Back them the concern was keeping the economy going. Now, no one apparently cares about that and instead care only about cutting the deficit. Well, if you want to cut the deficit you have to increase revenues and to increase revenues you have to increase taxes.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
What has changed between then and now? Deficit hysteria.

Back them the concern was keeping the economy going. Now, no one apparently cares about that and instead care only about cutting the deficit. Well, if you want to cut the deficit you have to increase revenues and to increase revenues you have to increase taxes.
Click to expand...

No, to INCREASE revenues, you have to lower top marginal rates, so investors and entrepreneurs are encouraged to practice capitalism, which in turn, provides more tax revenue. Increasing tax rates has the opposite effect, and will actually LOWER the revenues. But aside from this... Obama said in December, it would be "a devastating blow to our economy" to raise taxes in a time when the economy was weak.... what changed????
 
Deficit hysteria...
Click to expand...

Let's also get a grasp on reality here... If you taxed the top 2% at a rate of 100%... it would fund the current budget for about 3 months. If you completely dismantled our military, you could add another 6 months of funding for the current budget. So...No military and take ALL the wealth from the so-called "rich" and you still couldn't come up with the money needed to fund the current budget, you would still fall 3 months short for JUST this year alone. What are you going to cut then? Better yet, what will you cut next year?

Entitlements are the problem, not too little taxation of the rich, not too much military spending... ENTITLEMENTS!
 
You want to hear what the liberals should be saying?

The gains by the wealthy show that taxes are needed. If they (recievers of tax cuts) had created opportunities for citizens, we would have seen improvement by now so it's clear we need to take the tax cut revenue back and use government to create the opportunities.

The trouble comes when the government tries to create opportunities. We spend far too much on the system that is supposed to create than we get created. It takes too many resources to pay the the people to administer the plan.

If the government were equipped to handle the additional administration required every time it makes new policy there wouldn't be a problem. But government always seems to need another layer of red tape for every little thing it does.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
What has changed between then and now? Deficit hysteria.

Back them the concern was keeping the economy going. Now, no one apparently cares about that and instead care only about cutting the deficit. Well, if you want to cut the deficit you have to increase revenues and to increase revenues you have to increase taxes.
Click to expand...

This is like pointing a gun at someone and then accusing them of having lead toxicity hysteria.
 
Republicans have been working diligently to whip up public hysteria about growing deficits and the debt.






Conservative commentators have been pushing this issue hard in their daily tirades against overspending “socialist” government.




These ideologues maintain that deficits hurt economic growth and that the national debt is putting an unfair burden on the future generations.




The only answer, they argue, is to reduce government, rein in public spending, and to move toward balanced budgets.






In reality, most conservative politicians don’t care nearly as much about deficits as they claim.








Consider the evidence: most Republicans in Congress did not become “deficit hawks” until after President Obama was elected.




During the previous administration they were busy helping President Bush turn the budget surpluses of the Clinton era into large deficits.






Most conservatives did not see this rapid increase in the national debt as a problem at all.






Vice-President Cheney blithely dismissed those issues at the time by saying, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”






Republicans think deficits are just fine when they are spending the public’s money on their own political priorities.






It didn’t bother them to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by massive deficit spending. And they were all too glad to add hundreds of billions to the national debt by passing several enormous tax cuts – money that went largely to the wealthy.






The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that those wars and tax cuts will eventually contribute a whopping $7 trillion to federal deficits.




The Republicans want to use fear-mongering over these alleged financial problems to advance their political vision of the minimal state.






They promise Americans a future of balanced budgets, reduced spending, and lower taxes.




But what they don’t tell us is that this would also be a future in which most people would be on their own to try to deal with serious economic, social, medical, and environmental problems that face our country.




The jobless and the economy would be left to fend for themselves during serious recessions.






Basic safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare would be cut back and/or privatized, and scores of other unmet human needs would be neglected due to lack of sufficient taxes and public funds.






It would be a world where infrastructure would continue to crumble and we could not afford to make the necessary investments in education and growth-producing technologies.






http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=4
 
Again... the thread question... what has changed between December and June? In December, according to your own President Obama, it would have been "a devastating blow to our economy" to raise taxes during an economic recession. What has changed that we are now having to debate this again, just 6 months later? Explain why it WOULDN'T be the same devastating blow to the economy now? You may want to also explain how an overwhelming majority of republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Congress, REJECTED any tax increase before the midterms, where Democrats lost a ton of seats to the TEA Party... but now, suddenly, the dynamics have changed?
 
Dixie said:
Again... the thread question... what has changed between December and June? In December, according to your own President Obama, it would have been "a devastating blow to our economy" to raise taxes during an economic recession. What has changed that we are now having to debate this again, just 6 months later? Explain why it WOULDN'T be the same devastating blow to the economy now? You may want to also explain how an overwhelming majority of republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Congress, REJECTED any tax increase before the midterms, where Democrats lost a ton of seats to the TEA Party... but now, suddenly, the dynamics have changed?
Click to expand...



I guess the explanation that St Hubbins and I gave you was invisible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top