Comments about ‘GOP warns Obama against tax increases’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 12 2013 10:45 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"The senate is controlled by the Dem's. "

You want facts?

Well, yes, the senate is controlled by the Dems, but not with enough numbers to pass anything they want. So, any budget that the dems would like would be shot down by the GOP.

The house, on the other hand, is controlled by the GOP. And they can pass whatever budget they want. And they have, with ZERO Dem votes.

So, basically, the house passes a partisan budget that has no chance of passing in the senate, and they know it.

Until EITHER, the house proposes a bi-partisan budget, OR the Senate gets enough numbers to stop any GOP filibuster, you will get the same thing.

At least acknowledge what is happening.

johanngoethe
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I am dismayed at the President's speech, because the rhetoric was not in a compromising spirit. Too combative to achieve unity in the country. Obviously he believes that his election generated significant capital, which he intends unwisely to spend in this heightened bellicose style. Why not bring the country together by giving a little here and taking a little there? Rubio appeared nervous and too young when held up against Obama. McCain would have appeared too old, but the Republicans should have brought forward an articulate, credible woman, latino or black of middle-age to project wisdom, common sense and a respect for the danger our country is in. We Americans can usually sense when rhetoric is soaring in the wrong direction with pretense, bluffing, saber-rattling, over-blown ideology and a pseudo toughness saturating the air of Washington. Enough already!

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@patriot
"Paul Ryan's budget last year would have been a GREAT solution but it died in the senate."

Paul Ryan's budget is a great solution if the question was "how should we drive this economy into the ditch we just barely pulled out of?".

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

JoeBlow:

So you are saying it is okay for the Senate Democrats to not pass a budget because they can’t pass 100% of what they want without some compromise with Senate Republicans?

But, the House Republicans are bad because they can pass the budget they want without any Democrat support?

Sorry, elections have consequences-even the only election the Democrats lost-control of the House.

Are the Republicans supposed to negotiate with themselves? The Senate Democrats will have to compromise at some point, if they want to be serious about a budget. What do you expect the Republicans to do while Reid sits there and pouts about not getting his way? Just roll over? Republicans did their job and Reid hasn't.

All this still doesn’t take into account the time the Democrats completely controlled Congresss. That actually goes back to the 2006 elections. So, out of the last six years, Democrats have controlled 83.3% of Congress and the purse-strings. Like Fred44 said, “Who spends the money? Congress. Blaming the President shows a lack of understanding of the constitution.”-yes, even back in 2006.

David
Centerville, UT

The truth:

Both parties have acted irresponsibly with our money by promising and spending too much.

Under Bush both parties responded to 9-11 by voting to go to war with Afganistan, and then Iraq...both parties! You can't say that Bush is responsible for those wars when Hillary, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc voted to go to war.

Under Clinton federal spending improved due to over speculation with the technology sectors. The tech bubble raised $billions more tax revenue than anticipated. When the bubble burst treasury revenues disappeared...before Bush took office!

The 2008 recession was partially a result of a housing bubble, which was directly attributable to 1990's democrat policy and market manipulation. They put the squeeze on banks to extend loans to people that never would have qualified. That was Democrats, folks. Then Democrats blame the banks when it all went belly up in 2008.

The Senate hasn't produced a budget because they didn't want to.

Back to my first point: both parties have spent recklessly. But who is talking now about correcting the spending? I only hear Republicans talking and making effort to fix the problem. Obama wants to increase spending and raise taxes.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Lossing Bush tax cuts was called fiscal cliff by the commander.

Please Mr. Obama! Keep your hands of off our money, businesses, schools, and healthcare.

David
Centerville, UT

Some posts hear state that is is Congress' responsibility to pass a budget. That is correct. But the president signs it into law. When the president threatens to veto the bill, it kills the effort.

The Republican House has produced budgets to address the spending problem our country has. The President vows to veto the bill, the Senate refuses to take up the bill, so it dies. So when liberals complain that the Congress has failed to correct the spending problem, you must look to President Obama as the source of this problem. He could help move things along if he would compromise and work with Congress. The House has said no more taxes its time to reduce spending, which the honest will admit is too high. Obama insists on more taxes and more spending, which the honest will admit is the wrong path.

WHAT NOW?
Saint George, UT

The picture with the article shows a very junior senator who has done nothing while warming a senate seat.

The same junior senator delivered the same tired republicon talking points.

Until the sweating rubio and those of his ilk have the guts to abandon their obsession with tired republicon talking points republicons will continue to lose prospective voters.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"What now" I'm discouraged that you choose to use derogatory names for the political party you don't agree with.

You do realize (I hope)that there are several equally deregatory names for YOUR political party?

BTW - strictly speaking; there's no such thing as a "very" junior senator. Each state only gets 2 Senators, never elected at the same time, therfore one Senator MUST be the junior senator and other must be the senior senator.

If you gauge the response from most media, including your lamestream media, you'll find that most Americans enjoyed his rebuttal even if they didn't agree with it.

Comments like yours probably encourage (reasonable) demos. to consider the Republican party as their party of choice.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

David,

So you are saying by relaxing the rules related to loans, the congress FORCED banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back? I believe that would be a misrepresentation of what happened. Did they open the door for unscrupulous loan officers to write loans collect their commission or bonus and then bundle the loans and sell them? The answer is an emphatic YES!

So I am confused don't republicans want to do away with government regulations? Wasn't this an elimination of government regulations in regard to loaning money.

Oh and by the way compromise is not I will tell you what the truth is and what is the right way to do things and you need to do it may way and if you don't I will criticize you for not compromising. You are right the House has passed budgets the last two years. Budgets they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate. So what exactly did that accomplish besides political grandstanding for the tea party?

Both parties are a joke and could care less about the American people.

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

I have noticed something recently, many Dems. are fond of saying the wealthy need to pay their fair share yet when asked to define that the only answer they can give is more. So here is a clear question to all who say the wealthy are not paying their fair share, what percentage total (fed., state, local) should any person pay of their income? 10%, 20%,30%,40%, 50%, 60%, 70% 80%? what percentage is their fair share? Not more simple percentage.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Democrats control the Senate?

Show me the evidence...

‘When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 (From Dems) to a record 139 in 2007-2008.' (From Republicans)

**'The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo – 01/27/10

Double the Filibusters from the Republican Senate. Over 400 Filibusters to date.

Less than 3% of any legislation passed by the Republican dominated House.

Blame Obama for the budget? Congress passes a budget. And...

**'Republicans BAIL on budget talks, blame Democrats' - By David Espo - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/23/11

Regan tripled the national debt.

W. Bush, doubled the debt.

Obama? Has done neither.

And Senator Orrin Hatch? Voted to raise the debt ceiling...

x16 times.

VST
Bountiful, UT

The word "compromise" is an interesting word.

Unfortunately, it does not exist in Obama's vocabulary.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

KC

"I have noticed something recently, many Dems. are fond of saying the wealthy need to pay their fair share yet when asked to define that the only answer they can give is more."

Hmmm. Sounds familiar. And when I tell people that our income tax rates are the lowest in 60 years, those on the right say they must go down. When asked to define what the tax rates should be, the only answer they give is LESS.

I often hear how Reagan lowered tax rates and created jobs and a great economy. However, those tax rates that Reagan oversaw were much higher than they are today.

How could that be. How could a 50% top tax rate be great under Reagen but a 40% rate is a job killer under Obama?

David
Centerville, UT

Fred44,

My understanding is that banks were pressured and threatened if they did not extend loans to people who historically would not qualify. Banks then came up with a way to minimize their risk and to make profit on the risk.

The whole deal was a bad deal instigated by Democrats in the 90's.

I completely agree with you that both parties are corrupt, selfish, and failing to represent the people and the country. The time may be approaching when a 3rd party candidate could do very well if it was the right candidate.

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

JoeBlow
While you not answer my question I will still answer yours. Here is the problem with the claim that they are lower. While Federal taxes have gone down many state and local taxes have gone up. Take New York City for example, if you live there and you are wealthy you have a combined tax rate of over 60%. So for every $1.00 you make that is $.60 in taxes not as you try to claim $.40. That is what is wrong. You MUST take into consideration the state and local taxes as well not just the Federal.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "JoeBlow" I hate to tell you this, but Reagan's tax cuts worked. To get the economy going again, and going strong you need 3 things. You need lower rates, the lower on capital gains the better. You also need to cut government spending. All of that needs to be followed up with a cut in regulations.

The rates are only part of the story.

See "The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform" at Rutgers University. Also read "The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth" by Michael Griffith.

To "Fred44" yes, the feds did force banks to make loans, they did it with threats that would put the banks out of business. Read "The True Origins of This Financial Crisis" in the American Spectator.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

David,

Actually Representative James Leach a Republican from Iowa led the charge to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act from the 1930's, which opened the door to the deregulation of Wall Street and the banks. Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House at the time, meaning the House was controlled by Republicans. He even admitted in the Presidential Debates that repealing Glass-Steagall was a bad idea.

The act to repeal Glass-Steagall was known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after their sponsors, all three republicans. In the Senate the vote was 54 in favor 44 against (every republican voted in favor all but one democrat voted against. In the House the vote was 360 in favor (208 republicans 152 democrats).

Again I don't hold democrats blameless, but I think republicans need to be truthful and accept their share of the responsibility, which in this case is the lions share.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:RedWings

You honestly think Obama would compromise on anything?? Name one thing the man has compromised on in 4 year. Obama is a hard core leftist and there is ZERO compromise on ANYTHING. The GOP has proposed 4 budgets from the House but Obama and the Senate Dems won't even talk... ever! You tell me who the compromise party is and who the do-nothing party is. Not even close.

David
Centerville, UT

Fred44,

A simple on line search reveals a NY Times article that states both parties were to fault, but a key turning point occurred during Clinton's last year in office. I still say, both parties are at fault, but Democrats led the charge.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments