W.H. to House GOP: We're not moving

[kwc57]

Forget all the ideological soap box speeches, Marc...if you look at this whole thing logically? President Obama's tax increase pulls in enough revenue (using the most optimistic estimates) to run the government for about 8 days. At the same time his refusal to address spending with any meaningful cuts dooms us to more trillion dollar deficits.

The fact is, Barack Obama is putting a win in the polls ahead of what's best for the country. He's once again ignoring the millions of Americans who are currently out of work for a political win. That's not fighting for the American people...that's turning your back on them.

Forget all the ideological rhetoric OldStyle...if you believe that Obama ISN'T willing and ready to cut spending then you've been inhaling Dick Morris' toe fungus for too long.

Could you post the comprehensive list of detailed cuts he has proposed for negotiating? Thanks!

Marc, still waiting.

 

[Oldstyle]

Marc CAN'T answer that question because he knows as well as I do that cuts to entitlements have been taken off the table by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. President Obama isn't offering those in return for increases in taxes. He makes the odd remark about being willing to compromise on spending cuts but when pressed on that notion WHAT he's willing to cut becomes very vague and those cuts are ALWAYS done somewhere down the road AFTER he's gotten his tax increase. It's the political equivalent of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!"

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama campaigned for over a year on getting rid of the reckless Bush tax-cuts, every. single. place. he wen't he repeated it over and over, and over, and over.

America has heard his message time and time again. Last November they responded...they agree with him. The GOP radical policies lost. They have no leg to stand on.

We've tried their way for the last 12 years. It. Doesn't. Work.

Time to do away with the wreckless Bush tax cuts now. It's over.

W.H. to House GOP: We're not moving on fiscal cliff - POLITICO.com

Obama is right not to budge an inch.

The polls are with Obama on this, if we go over the so-called-fiscal-cliff, the RepubliCON$ will be to blame. As they should be.

That's right Obama...keep fighting for The American People!!

If we use that logic, then the Republicans shouldn't budge an inch either. They camapaigned and won their seats on not raising taxes and cutting spending.

Im sorry, but there is no way in hell you are going to blame Republicans for this when there has been a very clear failure of leadership on both sides. And mostly from the President. This is Obama and your problems. You want to blame everyone else for your own failures.

 

[Dragonlady]

They cannot hide from the facts that the government has been controlled for 60+ years in part or whole by the democrats.

Republicans have controlled the economy of the United States since Reaganomics replaced Roosevelt's New Deal economics of the 1930's. Under the New Deal, the stock market was stable, and there were no crashes, it was the most stable and productive economy in history.

Since the economy has been run under Republican policies, we've had multiple stock market crashes, and the entire economy of the US has gone into freefall, and was only saved from total collapse by the Democrats.

But no, it's not bad conservative policies that crashed the economy. It's those damn Democrats. Conservative fiscal policies have lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's and a total economic collapse in 2008. What part of this is not working, do you not understand?

 

[Avatar4321]

They cannot hide from the facts that the government has been controlled for 60+ years in part or whole by the democrats.

Republicans have controlled the economy of the United States since Reaganomics replaced Roosevelt's New Deal economics of the 1930's. Under the New Deal, the stock market was stable, and there were no crashes, it was the most stable and productive economy in history.

Since the economy has been run under Republican policies, we've had multiple stock market crashes, and the entire economy of the US has gone into freefall, and was only saved from total collapse by the Democrats.

But no, it's not bad conservative policies that crashed the economy. It's those damn Democrats. Conservative fiscal policies have lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's and a total economic collapse in 2008. What part of this is not working, do you not understand?

Are you seriously trying to claim that there was no adverse economic problems because of the New Deal? If you haven't noticed, we are still under the New Deal economic plan. Government spends money on programs to create jobs. When has that stopped? Unfortunately, it hasn't. So now we have nearly 80 years of policy building up to a head.

 

[Oldstyle]

The debt that is currently crushing us isn't the result of Republican fiscal policies...it's due to the gradual expansion of entitlements over the past 70 years. The amounts that we're receiving in tax revenues hasn't changed dramatically but the amounts that we are paying out has skyrocketed. Our Federal Government spent 3.6 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars in 2010 compared to only 926 billion in 1970 and the bulk of that spending increase comes in the form of entitlements. I'm sorry, Dragonlady but if as a progressive you WANT all those entitlement programs then you're going to have to take responsibility for their costs. Pretending that it's a Republican problem borders on farce.

 

[The Rabbi]

They cannot hide from the facts that the government has been controlled for 60+ years in part or whole by the democrats.

Republicans have controlled the economy of the United States since Reaganomics replaced Roosevelt's New Deal economics of the 1930's. Under the New Deal, the stock market was stable, and there were no crashes, it was the most stable and productive economy in history.

Since the economy has been run under Republican policies, we've had multiple stock market crashes, and the entire economy of the US has gone into freefall, and was only saved from total collapse by the Democrats.

But no, it's not bad conservative policies that crashed the economy. It's those damn Democrats. Conservative fiscal policies have lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's and a total economic collapse in 2008. What part of this is not working, do you not understand?

Wow. The ignorant stupidity on display here is just too much. I wouldnt even know where to begin.

 

[Dragonlady]

Reaganomics ended the New Deal. The principles of using taxes to pay for social programs was abandoned by the Republican Party and replaced with the principle that cutting taxes for the wealthy would create jobs for the middle class and taxes paid by the new workers would pay for social programs - trickle down economics. Reagan changed the entire structure of how social programs were to be funded, except it didn't work. It just created deficits, flat wages, and stock market instability.

As an added bonus, Reagan and Bush both laddled new, unfunded social programs to the federal budgets while cutting the very taxes that paid for them. Instead of "tax and spend Democrats" you had "cut and spend Republicans". Both government and social spending grew under all of the Republicans Presidents since 1980, but it grew the most under Bush because he gifted the nation with Medicare Part D without setting up a tax to pay for it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if set up an unfunded program, that program will be a drain on the public purse. At least the Democrats are smart enough to fund their programs and not leave the funding to the "voodoo economics" which the Republicans have been relying upon for more than 30 years.

 

[Shelzin]

Well... I won't go so far as to say I agree with what the Lady is saying... But thus far from a debate PoV she's kicking your ass Rabbi.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you seriously trying to claim that there was no adverse economic problems because of the New Deal? If you haven't noticed, we are still under the New Deal economic plan. Government spends money on programs to create jobs. When has that stopped? Unfortunately, it hasn't. So now we have nearly 80 years of policy building up to a head.

The New Deal ushered in period of economic growth and prosperity which lasted until the late 1980's. But it would be difficult to assess it's economic impact on the American economy in isolation without considering the impact World War II and the Baby Boom.

For example food stamps became a National program in 1984 under Richard Nixon. In 1979, when Reagan was elected, there were 20 million people receiving food stamps. In spite of increases in the eligibility requirements and reductions in the benefits paid, under Reagan, food stamp useage exploded under Reagan, more than 8 million people were added to the rolls by the end of Reagan's first term. That explosion of useage comes in spite of the lower employment rates during Reagan's first time and the massive tax cuts given to the wealthy. That's also more than a 33% increase in the number of people receiving assistance under Reagan than under Carter.

During the Clinton Administration, costs under the program plummetted, party because the Clinton Administration produced a lot of new jobs, and party because of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which capped benfits over a three year period and increased the eligible income level. In other words, after 14 years of the Republican putting more and more people on food stamps, Clinton kicked them off.

From 2002 to 2005, the cost of the SNAP program grew by 37% per year. That's more than double what the program was costing when W took office. The use and cost of social programs has exploded under Republican administrations.

Now that low wage corporations like Walmart have started using food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize record profits, and the entire big box industry is instructing their workers to apply for food stamps and other government programs, rather than pay them a living wage, use of the SNAP program and other social programs are continuing to increase under Obama.

Bush created the fiscal problem with Medicare Part D because it was a pre-election give-away to the elderly to get them to vote for him. A typical Republican cut taxes and spend program, that lack of funding comes home to roost next year.

Whatever you want to say about Obamacare, and the new taxes to pay for it, it least it has taxes to pay for it.

 

[Mustang]

Obama campaigned for over a year on getting rid of the reckless Bush tax-cuts, every. single. place. he wen't he repeated it over and over, and over, and over.

America has heard his message time and time again. Last November they responded...they agree with him. The GOP radical policies lost. They have no leg to stand on.

We've tried their way for the last 12 years. It. Doesn't. Work.

Time to do away with the wreckless Bush tax cuts now. It's over.

W.H. to House GOP: We're not moving on fiscal cliff - POLITICO.com

Obama is right not to budge an inch.

The polls are with Obama on this, if we go over the so-called-fiscal-cliff, the RepubliCON$ will be to blame. As they should be.

That's right Obama...keep fighting for The American People!!

The GOP just LOVES cliffs. After this one, they're going to rev up the engine of gov't and take another run at the next debt ceiling cliff.

I think GOP should be an acronym for Going Over the Precipice.

 

[MarcATL]

Reaganomics ended the New Deal. The principles of using taxes to pay for social programs was abandoned by the Republican Party and replaced with the principle that cutting taxes for the wealthy would create jobs for the middle class and taxes paid by the new workers would pay for social programs - trickle down economics. Reagan changed the entire structure of how social programs were to be funded, except it didn't work. It just created deficits, flat wages, and stock market instability.

As an added bonus, Reagan and Bush both laddled new, unfunded social programs to the federal budgets while cutting the very taxes that paid for them. Instead of "tax and spend Democrats" you had "cut and spend Republicans". Both government and social spending grew under all of the Republicans Presidents since 1980, but it grew the most under Bush because he gifted the nation with Medicare Part D without setting up a tax to pay for it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if set up an unfunded program, that program will be a drain on the public purse. At least the Democrats are smart enough to fund their programs and not leave the funding to the "voodoo economics" which the Republicans have been relying upon for more than 30 years.

Raygunn was one of the BIGGEST FLOPS for Presidents we've had in the last century.

The only thing that RW palooka was successful at doing was in making RWers FEEL good about themselves.

His policies ushered in total and complete mayhem and chaos, followed by Bush II's nonsense and we had damn near TOTAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

Enough is enough, we've tried it the RW way and it. does. not. work.

 

[Rozman]

Reaganomics ended the New Deal. The principles of using taxes to pay for social programs was abandoned by the Republican Party and replaced with the principle that cutting taxes for the wealthy would create jobs for the middle class and taxes paid by the new workers would pay for social programs - trickle down economics. Reagan changed the entire structure of how social programs were to be funded, except it didn't work. It just created deficits, flat wages, and stock market instability.

As an added bonus, Reagan and Bush both laddled new, unfunded social programs to the federal budgets while cutting the very taxes that paid for them. Instead of "tax and spend Democrats" you had "cut and spend Republicans". Both government and social spending grew under all of the Republicans Presidents since 1980, but it grew the most under Bush because he gifted the nation with Medicare Part D without setting up a tax to pay for it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if set up an unfunded program, that program will be a drain on the public purse. At least the Democrats are smart enough to fund their programs and not leave the funding to the "voodoo economics" which the Republicans have been relying upon for more than 30 years.

Raygunn was one of the BIGGEST FLOPS for Presidents we've had in the last century.

The only thing that RW palooka was successful at doing was in making RWers FEEL good about themselves.

His policies ushered in total and complete mayhem and chaos, followed by Bush II's nonsense and we had damn near TOTAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

Enough is enough, we've tried it the RW way and it. does. not. work.

Just wait until this guy that we have now is done....
There is no telling if this country will be able to recover from the massive debt
that is gonna wipe us out...

And where is our fearless leader....
Still out on the campaign trail...
Getting his ass kissed.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you look at some of the causes of the 1929 Stock Market Crash, please note that from Lincoln's election in 1860, Republicans controlled the White House and the US economy. This was the era of Rockefeller, Astor, Carnegie, and other great industrialists of the late 1800's who were demonized as "Robber Barons" during the Great Depression because they amassed personal fortunes by killing competition by cutting prices to the point where they lost money, until the competition went out of business. Then they cut wages, to their employees, and raised prices to their customers. They had all of the jobs so people had no choice about the wage cuts. With wages surpressed, there was a significant drop in the demand for products, leading to widespread unemployment while industrialists increased their wealth. This lead to a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthiest Americans and then you have unregulated banking and easy credit causing people to borrow money to invest in an increasingly volatile stock market and then you have some of the ingredients of the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Stop me if you've heard this story before.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you look at some of the causes of the 1929 Stock Market Crash, please note that from Lincoln's election in 1860, Republicans controlled the White House and the US economy. This was the era of Rockefeller, Astor, Carnegie, and other great industrialists of the late 1800's who were demonized as "Robber Barons" during the Great Depression because they amassed personal fortunes by killing competition by cutting prices to the point where they lost money, until the competition went out of business. Then they cut wages, to their employees, and raised prices to their customers. They had all of the jobs so people had no choice about the wage cuts. With wages surpressed, there was a significant drop in the demand for products, leading to widespread unemployment while industrialists increased their wealth. This lead to a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthiest Americans and then you have unregulated banking and easy credit causing people to borrow money to invest in an increasingly volatile stock market and then you have some of the ingredients of the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Stop me if you've heard this story before.

1860-1929 greatest growth era in American history and, of course, you're totally wrong about the crash, but that's expected

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP should give Obama his tax increases.

 

[RoadVirus]

The GOP should give Obama his tax increases.

They will. They're just waiting for that retard to cough up some spending cuts (other then the military).

 

[MarcATL]

Reaganomics ended the New Deal. The principles of using taxes to pay for social programs was abandoned by the Republican Party and replaced with the principle that cutting taxes for the wealthy would create jobs for the middle class and taxes paid by the new workers would pay for social programs - trickle down economics. Reagan changed the entire structure of how social programs were to be funded, except it didn't work. It just created deficits, flat wages, and stock market instability.

As an added bonus, Reagan and Bush both laddled new, unfunded social programs to the federal budgets while cutting the very taxes that paid for them. Instead of "tax and spend Democrats" you had "cut and spend Republicans". Both government and social spending grew under all of the Republicans Presidents since 1980, but it grew the most under Bush because he gifted the nation with Medicare Part D without setting up a tax to pay for it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if set up an unfunded program, that program will be a drain on the public purse. At least the Democrats are smart enough to fund their programs and not leave the funding to the "voodoo economics" which the Republicans have been relying upon for more than 30 years.

Raygunn was one of the BIGGEST FLOPS for Presidents we've had in the last century.

The only thing that RW palooka was successful at doing was in making RWers FEEL good about themselves.

His policies ushered in total and complete mayhem and chaos, followed by Bush II's nonsense and we had damn near TOTAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

Enough is enough, we've tried it the RW way and it. does. not. work.

Just wait until this guy that we have now is done....
There is no telling if this country will be able to recover from the massive debt
that is gonna wipe us out...

And where is our fearless leader....
Still out on the campaign trail...
Getting his ass kissed.

Wishful thinking.

You guys have no leg to stand on...you let Bush run hogwild and roughshod on the economy.

You STILL defend him.

I don't wanna hear it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Raygunn was one of the BIGGEST FLOPS for Presidents we've had in the last century.

The only thing that RW palooka was successful at doing was in making RWers FEEL good about themselves.

His policies ushered in total and complete mayhem and chaos, followed by Bush II's nonsense and we had damn near TOTAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

Enough is enough, we've tried it the RW way and it. does. not. work.

Just wait until this guy that we have now is done....
There is no telling if this country will be able to recover from the massive debt
that is gonna wipe us out...

And where is our fearless leader....
Still out on the campaign trail...
Getting his ass kissed.

Wishful thinking.

You guys have no leg to stand on...you let Bush run hogwild and roughshod on the economy.

You STILL defend him.

I don't wanna hear it.

Inclusion of Bush 43 in any political discussion regarding the present federal boondoggle is no longer accepted. Obama has served nearly a a full term.
Now..Obama will get his $1.6 trillion. Then he will tell the GOP to go pound sand. He will do this because he a is a dyed in the wool statist. Obama wants nothing to do with anything that remotely resembles a reduction in government spending.
Obama's entire ideology is geared toward two thing. One is growing the numbers of the entitlement class. Two, growing the size of government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They cannot hide from the facts that the government has been controlled for 60+ years in part or whole by the democrats.

Republicans have controlled the economy of the United States since Reaganomics replaced Roosevelt's New Deal economics of the 1930's. Under the New Deal, the stock market was stable, and there were no crashes, it was the most stable and productive economy in history.

Since the economy has been run under Republican policies, we've had multiple stock market crashes, and the entire economy of the US has gone into freefall, and was only saved from total collapse by the Democrats.

But no, it's not bad conservative policies that crashed the economy. It's those damn Democrats. Conservative fiscal policies have lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's and a total economic collapse in 2008. What part of this is not working, do you not understand?

What part of this is not working, do you not understand

Jesus Christ are you ever stupid.