GOP warns Obama against tax increases

@Pagan:
Evidence:

“Democrats Win Control of Congress” Washington Post 11/9/06
"Obama, Dems Win Historic Blowout Victory" UPI 11/5/08
"GOP Seizes House; Democrats Keep Senate" NPR 11/3/10

Democrats won the elections and have had 83.3% control the past 6 years. Take some responsibility.

Your statistics about the filibuster are counter-productive to your argument. The point being debated here is which side is/isn't compromising. With all of those filibusters, and the number of RINOS in the Senate 2007-2010, the Democrats could have probably passed their legislation without giving up much. So your guys did what you wanted-no compromise.

"National Debt Has Increased More Under Obama Than Under Bush" CBS News, 3/19/12.

From the last paragraph: "If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."

Funniest are the Obama budgets, which have been voted down the last few years without any Democrat votes in favor of them.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?".

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!

"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.

America didn't elect a businessman with business experience.

They elected a rock-star community organizer who attracted voters drawn to "free stuff".

Since Obama can't find enough "millionaires" to fund his "free stuff", he's now forced to ask all the rest of us to pony up the money.

Finally, the middle class are finding out THEY will eventually be footing the "free stuff" so they're not liking it much.

Patriot:
Can I add Fact #3?

The Democrats controlled the Senate and the House of Representatives the first two years under Obama.

So, the Democrats were in 100% control the first two years, and 50% control the last two years. That sounds like 75% control of Congress over the past four years.

Before the Bush tax cuts we were running a surplus, ever since we have been running a deficit. What we need to do does not seem very complicated to me.

Patriot -

You left out the fact that GW Bush ran two wars "off budget" - meaning that all of the military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan were not included in his numbers.

If I run anything "off budget" I get bill collectors calling me and my stuff reposessed. It is not one party that is responsible for the fiscal mess we have - it is both parties.

Blame will never fix it. Honesty and compromise will.....

re:JoeBlow

2 facts you need to come to grip with Joe ....

Fact # 1 Obama has added 6 trillion to the national debt since taking office. The deficit went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion under Barack. Bush added 4 trillion in 8 years which was BAD but no where near Obama. Obama is on course to add 10 trillion of NEW debt based on his projected borrowing and spending upto 2016. This is a disaster for the US and worst of all for each of us who will most likely see our financial future doomed due to debt.

Fact #2 The Senate under Harry Reid has not passed a budget in 4 years. Yes 4 years. The senate is controlled by the Dem's.

I understand your frustration with both parties but let's keep the ratio's correct here. I would honestly say this spending and debt problem is out of control under Obama and his senate dem's and you here NOTHING from the democrat's to address it - only from Republicans. This has been the case for 4 years now. Paul Ryan's budget last year would have been a GREAT solution but it died in the senate.

Washington acts in a way that your family never could — they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem.

We have to have taxes to improve our country and all aspects. I think the GOP is way behind schedule. They are operating from the 16th century. Last nights State of the Union was forceful and makes me proud to be a USA citizen.

I think Obama is so strong and so powerful and will go down in history as one of the most influencial president. Buba

Rubio is a common sense guy. Common sense however isn't part of Obama's collective thinking.. never has been. People listen to Rubio and they say "yes that makes sense". People listen to Obama and they say " that makes zero sense and I have zero confidence it will ever happen" ..but I will vote for him anyway. What sense does that make?? America is in trouble.

Nice to know the republicans have the folks on this message board fooled. Who spends the money? Congress. Blaming the President shows a lack of understanding of the constitution.

How about we put the blame where it belongs, the congress, both republicans and democrats. The President has an obligation to provide a budget which is his SUGGESTION. The congress has an obligation to pass a budget, meaning they control spending. The House and Senate refuse to work together, that is the problem. Again both sides are equally guilty.

The House proposes a budget that has no chance of passing in the senate so the senate ignores it and doesn't pass a budget. Both are playing political games with the lives of the American people. If anyone thinks that either party gives a hoot about you and me think again. Both parties are only concerned with what they need to do to maintain/gain power and keep getting elected.

"Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend. The tune changes, but the song remains the same."

Yup, R or D it does not matter. Spend Spend Spend.

I am quite confident that the Dems were happy with No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D,
but don't forget. They also received a "YES" vote from Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and even Paul Ryan. (along with TARP, and the Bank Bailouts)

Yes, those of you who only blame Obama and the Dems would best be served by taking a closer look.

I would be happy to vote for a Fiscally Responsible party. I just cant find one.

And if the only choice is to EITHER spend money on defense and "liberating the Iraqi people" OR helping Americans, I vote to keep the money here.

Nice painting on the wall.

Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend. The tune changes, but the song remains the same.

Under barack's "leadership" we have seen percentage of citizens on food stamps increaes to all time highs in the history or our country.

And barack claims this is a "success"

What is failure then barack - everyone doing well?

Does the President know anything about double-entry bookkeeping? Does he even know how to use a "spreadsheet"? Does he know anything about "budgeting"? Nothing that he has proposed shows that he would even know how to operate a newspaper route, much less the United States of America.

He demanded (and got) taxes increases on the wealthy, which will pay for less than ten days of his spending. Who is going to pay for the other 355 days? He will have to taxes every family in America at 50% or more to pay for his programs. He has already raised the taxes on every American family by $1,200 just this year. In addition, our health costs have raised by $2,500 per year. That's money that you and I have to pay, money that neither you nor I have to spend.

If Congress allows him to spend one more dime, it will be derelict in its duty.

4 years ago barack said

"I will cut the deficit in half during my first term"

It wasn't cut in half

It wasn't cut by 25%

It wasn't cut by 1%

It increased

Barack also said if allowed his

FIRST

of many spendathons of 787 billion that unemployment wouldnt reach 8%

It reached 8%

It reached 9%

It reached 10%

It reached 11%

Several trillion dollars later, barack still couldnt do as he promised

You will have to forgive me for using this guys actual history as indication of how the next 4 years will be.

As opposed to his nonsense talk that 50% of the country buys into.

I look at results.

And barack,

You failed.

"Republicans warned Tuesday that President Barack Obama's second-term agenda would bring more tax increases and escalate deficit spending,"

And then an eighth grade kid pointed out that congress controls spending and that no tax increase can be passed without the approval of congress.

"Republicans responded to Obama's State of the Union address with fresh appeals to voters on the economy, promises to rein in federal spending and address the future of entitlement programs like Medicare."

So they blame Obama for the spending, then say they will rein in spending. Also, republicans have fought against Medicare since before its implementation and every day since. Their latest attempt to privatize medicare is just another way to kill one of the many New Deal programs that they have always hated.

What is "fair" share? Why should I pay more because I make more? If a man who makes 10 mil a year pays 20%, he just paid 2 mil in taxes. You don't think that's enough? All you see is he has 8 mil left in the bank, not what he already gave.
If the Hollywood stars and people like Buffet, Pelosi, Obama and others feel they "should" pay more, what's stopping them? Everyone has the address to the IRS. Write a check and send it. The fact is that they don't want to pay more, they just want the appearance.

The government neeeds to stop spending. We do have a problem, despite what Pelosi says. That's it. There is enough coming in. Stop shoving it all out.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, ..... said both parties had failed voters by driving up trillion-dollar deficits. "Washington acts in a way that your family never could — they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem,"

Exactly right Mr Paul (and you are often wrong). I am really sick of hearing people point across the political isle and blame only the other side.

Blaming Obama for the deficit is disingenuous. And if you take an honest look, you might find that your party shoulders a good part of the blame.

Clean up your own side before looking elsewhere.

Which GOP response am I suppose to adhere too?

If 'trickle down' economics worked when Regan was in office...

why did we George W. Bush need to sign the first bailouts?

If the Bush tax cuts worked...?

why do some blame Obama for the unemployment?

Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans was a idea. And we tried it. The result was...

**'The $2.5 Trillion tragedy: What America has given up for 10 years of Bush tax cuts' -
By Zaid Jilani – Think Progress – 07/07/11

'While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither.

The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion through 2010.'