Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98

Thread: Karl Rove calls Obama a lying sack of sh*t

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,743
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063817]Republicans will support elimination of ill conceived tax breaks...[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. Not really.

    [QUOTE][url]http://www.atr.org/senator-tom-coburn-proposes-trillion-dollar-a6346[/url]

    There is no rate reduction whatsoever in this plan. It's a set of tax hikes, plain and simple. There is no tax reform in this plan. The plan would undermine prospects for long-term tax reform. By voluntarily taking $1 trillion of tax deductions and credits away now to pay for Congressional over-spending, there's $1 trillion less to trade with for lower rates later.

    Taxes under this plan would rise to the historical spending level, rather than bringing spending down to the historical tax level. When combined with all other current law tax provisions, the Coburn tax hike would permanently set tax revenues not at 18 percent of GDP (the historical tax average), but at 21 percent of GDP (the historical spending average). The goal of conservatives should be just the opposite--bring spending down to the historical tax average of 18 percent of GDP and balance the budget without raising taxes.

    It's now clear Senator Coburn's plan all along was a trillion dollar tax hike. Senator Coburn pretended to care about ethanol (until he was forced to admit he supported the ethanol mandate, the cause of 98% of government-induced ethanol production). In reality, he wanted to lay the groundwork for GOP support of this trillion dollar tax hike plan. He failed. Now more than ever, Congressional Republicans are united behind the belief that tax increases should be "off the table" in addressing Washington's over-spending problem.

    The conservative movement has taken tax hikes off the table. Today, 25 conservative organizations sent a letter to House Speaker Boehner and Senate Republican Leader McConnell urging them to keep tax hikes off the table. The Coburn trillion dollar tax hike is far outside the mainstream of the conservative movement, as well as where Congressional Republicans are.

    Most (fully 57%) of the $1 trillion in Coburn tax hikes are in five areas: mortgage interest ($187 billion), health insurance ($200 billion), chained CPI ($60 billion), foreign earned income exclusion ($71 billion), and the transit/parking benefit ($52 billion). This goes to show that it's not easy to raise taxes without hitting close to home. As we have pointed out, "tax expenditures" mostly go to everyday things like owning a home, having health insurance, and saving for retirement. The fact that 57% of the Coburn tax hikes are in this area is not surprising, but the report does bury this fact behind a veritable army of Lilliputian tax hikes which don't add up to much.

    The best part of the tax plan? The "tax me more" fund. ATR has long called for a "tax me more" checkoff for limousine liberals who complain that their taxes aren't high enough. Rather than hiking taxes on everyone, these rich liberals should be able to pay more voluntarily to assuage their left-wing guilt. The Coburn plan does have this, providing a silver lining to an otherwise cloudy forecast for taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4063823]Yeah. Not really.[/QUOTE]

    All the Republicans need to do is support the Commission plan and they can't even do that because of the no tax pledge. They have been so totally expossed they're trying to hide behind a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget which has zero chance.

    For the record I'm not happy about the fact that Republicans are blowing an opportunity to make major cuts and at least keep taxes reasonable going forward. Chances are we are going to get a huge tax increase down the line for this missed opportunity.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063824]All the Republicans need to do is support the Commission plan and they can't even do that because of the no tax pledge. They have been so totally expossed they're trying to hide behind a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget which has zero chance.

    For the record I'm not happy about the fact that Republicans are blowing an opportunity to make major cuts and at least keep taxes reasonable going forward. Chances are we are going to get a huge tax increase down the line for this missed opportunity.[/QUOTE]

    If we are talking , "Clinton era" taxation, I am in agreement with you.

    Make NO MISTAKE however, we have a bloated spending problem. The main thrust of which is buying votes. SHAME....

    the founding fathers did not conceive of how corrupt a society could become with transfer payments instead of real governance.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063824]All the Republicans need to do is support the Commission plan and they can't even do that because of the no tax pledge. They have been so totally expossed they're trying to hide behind a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget which has zero chance.

    For the record I'm not happy about the fact that Republicans are blowing an opportunity to make major cuts and at least keep taxes reasonable going forward. Chances are we are going to get a huge tax increase down the line for this missed opportunity.[/QUOTE]

    It is interesting that we are talking back and forth about Republican proposals. Coburns plan had 9 trillion in cuts. To get to 4 trillion we could leave out half.

    Can you spell out the Democrats proposal for cutting spending? I haven't been able to find it online.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063833]It is interesting that we are talking back and forth about Republican proposals. Coburns plan had 9 trillion in cuts. To get to 4 trillion we could leave out half.

    Can you spell out the Democrats proposal for cutting spending? I haven't been able to find it online.[/QUOTE]
    Candidate Senator Obama assured us that he'd find programs that didn't work and get rid of them.

    They must all work.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063833]It is interesting that we are talking back and forth about Republican proposals. Coburns plan had 9 trillion in cuts. To get to 4 trillion we could leave out half.

    Can you spell out the Democrats proposal for cutting spending? I haven't been able to find it online.[/QUOTE]

    They don't have one and so what Obama has still won the debate. The Republicans walked this thing right to the edge and it turns out they didn’t have a plan they could pass either. Instead of compromise they turned out to be ideologues no better than the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Look where Pelosi and Unions and Right wing Republicans really stand on deficit reduction. They are in lock step when it came to a serious plan Simpson Bowles.

    The Republicans are going to follow Grover Norquist into the dust bin of history if they aren’t careful.


    [url]http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/128713-pelosi-left-rip-proposal-from-debt-commission-chairmen[/url]

    [QUOTE]Labor unions and liberal Democrats lit into the preliminary proposal, which the two chairmen touted as the first serious plan to tackle the country’s growing debt.
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it was “simply unacceptable.”
    “Any final proposal from the commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare,” she said in a statement.
    AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the chairmen had told“working Americans to ‘Drop Dead,’” while Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) faulted the report for cutting Social Security benefits while reducing corporate and upper-income taxes.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.atr.org/senators-opposebr-simpson-bowles-tax-hike-a5685[/url]

    [QUOTE]Senators Should Oppose
    Simpson-Bowles Tax Hike
    Americans for Tax Reform today sent the following letter to senators Tom Coburn (R-Ok.), Mike Crapo (R-Id.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.):
    You have today announced that you will support the Simpson-Bowles-Obama debt commission report on Friday. This report contains a ten-year net tax hike of over $1 trillion and increases tax revenues from their historical 18 percent of GDP to a record and permanent 21 percent. This report shifts the debate from where it properly should be—spending—and onto deficit reduction, and thereby tax increases.

    This report opens the door to a third round of disastrous budget summits. In 1982, President Reagan agreed to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes became law, but spending went up. President Reagan called this the worst mistake of his presidency. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush broke his “read my lips” Pledge when he agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes at the infamous Andrews Air Force Base summit. He later lost re-election largely on the tax issue, and actual spending was higher than CBO predicted it would be before the deal.

    All the tax hikes in Simpson-Bowles are real—they become law upon the bill being signed. Many of the spending cuts are simply promises to do better on appropriations bills, and have been historically-impossible to enforce.

    The tax increase in question is not “tax reform” along the lines of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. That bill lowered marginal tax rates and broadened the tax base, just as the commission report does—but with one essential distinction. That 1986 bill was tax revenue-neutral, whereas the commission report is a massive, $1 trillion-plus net tax hike on the American people. It’s a tax increase that is merely disguising itself as tax reform. Real tax reform would lower the rates, broaden the base, and be at worst tax revenue-neutral. Again, this plan has a stated goal of raising tax revenue to 21 percent of GDP indefinitely, a record never hit in any one year, and higher than the historical level of 18 percent of GDP. The plan raises the gas tax and raises the Social Security payroll tax. Taxpayers may have lower marginal tax rates under this plan, but they will have a bigger tax bill to Uncle Sam.

    I urge you to only support a plan that is tax revenue-neutral.[/QUOTE]

    The Tea Party is in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and the left. No compromise the country can shove it.

    I know you own a business. I feel sorry for you, you are screwed totally by the Tea Party and the Democratic Left.

    Read my lips a plan that can't pass through Congress and get signed into law isn't a plan.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-19-2011 at 11:24 AM.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063842]They don't have one and so what Obama has still won the debate. The Republicans walked this thing right to the edge and it turns out they didn’t have a plan they could pass either. Instead of compromise they turned out to be ideologues no better than the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Look where Pelosi and Unions and Right wing Republicans really stand on deficit reduction. They are in lock step when it came to a serious plan Simpson Bowles.

    The Republicans are going to follow Grover Norquist into the dust bin of history if they aren’t careful.


    [url]http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/128713-pelosi-left-rip-proposal-from-debt-commission-chairmen[/url]



    [url]http://www.atr.org/senators-opposebr-simpson-bowles-tax-hike-a5685[/url]



    The Tea Party is in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and the left. No compromise the country can shove it.

    I know you own a business. I feel sorry for you, you are screwed totally by the Tea Party and the Democratic Left.

    Read my lips a plan that can't pass through Congress and get signed into law isn't a plan.[/QUOTE]

    The difference for me is that I understand that this President will never go along with a plan to help this country that does not raise taxes. Democrats are simply too addicted to spending and waste. I think the American people are smarter than that. As such I think they will pass some stop gaps and push the issue to the next election cycle. Unfortunately this is how things are shaping up.

    As a business owner I'm thankful for the Tea Party. They pushed this issue to the frontlines. Just a few months back Obama was calling for clean debt ceiling hikes and Obama was putting out a budget that raised spending by 4 trillion more over the next decade. The both of those measures lost 97-0 in the senate. My hope is that R's will sweep in to power in the presidency and both houses of Congress and do what is necessary to get the country back on track. The sad reality is that all my hopes for a bipartisan deal are off the table.

    You mentioned business owners. Look what Democrat Steve Wynn had to say today:

    Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, trashed President Obama on a company conference call today. Below are the most damning portions of the call:

    I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

    And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

    You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

    The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

  8. #28
    Taxes are going to go up they have to go up. Our future unfunded liabilities make that enivitable regardless of how much we cut future spending.

    The question is are they going up in a way that reduces drag and makes the playing field for business and individuals equal, or are they going up in a way that creates more anti-competitive drag in our economy and reduces risk taking activity that might actually create some economic growth? I suspect the best deal small business and the risk takers are every going to get is right now.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063850]Taxes are going to go up they have to go up. Our future unfunded liabilities make that enivitable regardless of how much we cut future spending.

    The question is are they going up in a way that reduces drag and makes the playing field for business and individuals equal, or are they going up in a way that creates more anti-competitive drag in our economy and reduces risk taking activity that might actually create some economic growth? I suspect the best deal small business and the risk takers are every going to get is right now.[/QUOTE]

    Todays issue is spending not taxes. Coburn identified 8 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. The current deficit projection over the span totals 15 trillion. My belief is that with real spending cuts alongside some closure of tax loopholes we have the potential to grow our way out of this mess. The problem with tax hikes is that when Govt gets extra money they tend to spend it. Tax hikes wont solve our problems. They will simply make things worse. I don't consider closing loopholes and removing foolish tax subsidies to be tax hikes. I think most congressional republicans would agree.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063854]Todays issue is spending not taxes. Coburn identified 8 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. The current deficit projection over the span totals 15 trillion. My belief is that with real spending cuts alongside some closure of tax loopholes we have the potential to grow our way out of this mess. The problem with tax hikes is that when Govt gets extra money they tend to spend it. Tax hikes wont solve our problems. They will simply make things worse. I don't consider closing loopholes and removing foolish tax subsidies to be tax hikes. I think most congressional republicans would agree.[/QUOTE]

    You don't but the Tea Party members of the House and the pledge that Norquist is pushing does. We are dealing with radical crazies not people willing to compromise. You have Presidential candidates who absolutely believe that we shouldn't let the debt ceiling rise. Even Romney has been pushed into a corner and he knows better. The members of the radical right in the House have given their leadership a great bargaining position and they have taken it away at the last second.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-19-2011 at 11:59 AM.

  11. #31
    [B]to my point on spending:[/B]

    At his press conference last week, President Obama repeatedly said that a “balanced approach” is needed to deal with the fiscal situation.
    The White House has obviously poll-tested and focus-grouped that phrase. But just because it’s gimmicky, that doesn’t mean balance is a bad idea. So I’ve decided to take the President’s challenge.
    I want to know why America’s fiscal situation is so out of whack. I’m willing to take a dispassionate look at the numbers. And if those figures show that the President is right, and that “unaffordable tax cuts” have caused higher deficits, then I’m willing to support higher revenues (after all, I am a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road guy).
    My first step was to go the White House website and track down the historical data from the President’s Office of Management and Budget.
    Those numbers show that federal spending, on average, consumed 19.8 percent of GDP from 1950-2000.
    Tax revenues, by contrast, have consumed an average of 18 percent of GDP.
    If my math is correct, that means deficits averaged almost 2 percent of GDP over that period.
    To determine why deficits are higher today than that long-run average, I decided to look at what spending and revenues will be over the next 5-10 years. I could have picked this year, but that seemed unfair since the economy is still weak, which causes abnormally high spending and unusually low revenue.
    Moreover, the spending figures would be artificially high because of wars that we are told are soon coming to an end.
    Additionally, everyone is talking about 10-year plans, not fixing the problem overnight, so looking at the 5-10 year figures makes sense.
    And, to expose any smoke-and-mirrors by the GOP, I also will assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. That way, we’ll know the degree to which Bush’s tax cuts are responsible for additional red ink.
    So I went to the Congressional Budget Office and found the relevant data (Tables 1.1 and 1.2, along with Table 1.7).
    I discovered that tax revenues between 2016 and 2021 will average about 18.2 percent of GDP. And that’s assuming, as just noted, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent.
    I also found that the burden of federal spending will average about 23.6 percent of GDP during that same period.
    So let’s see what we should do if we want to satisfy the President’s demand for a balanced approach…hmm…
    Tax revenues will be 18.2 percent of GDP, slightly higher than their historical average of 18.0 percent of economic output. So we can safely conclude that revenues in general (and “unaffordable tax cuts” in particular) are not responsible for higher levels of red ink.
    Now let’s look at the outlay side of the fiscal ledger. Federal spending is projected to consume about 23.6 percent of GDP, substantially higher than the long-run average of 19.8 percent of economic output.
    In other words, if we want to assign blame for higher deficits, the increase in federal spending deserves more than 100 percent of that blame.
    Which implies, if we want to be balanced, that spending restraint should be more than 100 percent of the solution.
    Here’s a chart based on those OMB and CBO numbers.

    By the way, lest anyone think that I cherry picked historical data, I deliberately decided not to use 1946-2010 data, which would have made my point even stronger. Over that longer period of time, revenues average 17.7 percent of GDP and spending averaged 19.7 percent of GDP.
    However you slice the numbers, America’s fiscal policy problem is too much spending. The solution, as I explain here, is to limit the growth of the federal budget.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063860]You don't but the Tea Party members of the House and the pledge that Norquist is pushing does.[/QUOTE]

    Disagree. It was the Presidents failure of leadership that hardened the stance on both sides. See the Ryan article I posted earlier.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063819] . If the election were held today Obama would lose to Romney in a Reaganesque landslide. States like Pennsylvania and New Jersey would fall.[/QUOTE]


    uh yeah... right.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063863]Disagree. It was the Presidents failure of leadership that hardened the stance on both sides. See the Ryan article I posted earlier.[/QUOTE]

    Let me ask you why should the Republicans want the President to lead? They got him right where they wanted him but they don't have enough descipline to make a good deal.

    The President has practically begged them for a small tax increase so he can throw a bone to his base. By digging in they actually made the President look like the only adult in the room.

    Regarding Romney who could beat the President the same nuts in the House who are blocking a good deal are trying to sabatoge him for Bachman another like minded radical.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-19-2011 at 12:04 PM.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4063870]Let me ask you why should the Republicans want the President to lead? They got him right where they wanted him but they don't have enough descipline to make a good deal.

    The President has practically begged them for a small tax increase so he can throw a bone to his base. By digging in they actually made the President look like the only adult in the room.

    Regarding Romney who could beat the President the same nuts in the House who are blocking a good deal are trying to sabatoge him for Bachman another like minded radical.[/QUOTE]

    The President offered nothing but tax increases in his "grand bargain". The Republicans never "had him where they wanted him" because he offered nothing. It is all a sham designed to help his reelection campaign. The campaigner in chief has lived up to his reputation. I repeat that so far the Democrats and the President have offered nothing. They have done a good job of political posturing but the electorate will see right through it.

    As for the "nuts" in the house pushing for Bachman, I would suggest letting the primaries play out before making your judgements. I dont see her getting the nod. Perry has the best shot of the not-Romney candidates.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4063869]uh yeah... right.[/QUOTE]

    I'll play this out for us.

    Chiefst: You dont believe it check out the Polls

    Bitoni: I dont believe in Polls

    Chiefst: But the numbers are clear across multiple polling agencies

    Bitoni: Polls can be deceptive. So can numbers. Bush lied people died!

    Chiefst: Seriously?

    Bitoni: Tax the rich! Pay your fair share! Wall street fat cats! Millionaires and Billionaires!! Obama Rules!

    Chiefst: Agree to disagree.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063891]
    Chiefst: But the numbers are clear across multiple polling agencies
    [/QUOTE]

    if the GOP wins NJ and PA in the 2012 general election I'll eat my hat

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4063901]if the GOP wins NJ and PA in the 2012 general election I'll eat my hat[/QUOTE]

    Beanies don't count. :D

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4063901]if the GOP wins NJ and PA in the 2012 general election I'll eat my hat[/QUOTE]

    If they do, I feel you'll make a patsfanken type exit from the Poli forum...

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4063854]Todays issue is spending not taxes. Coburn identified 8 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. The current deficit projection over the span totals 15 trillion. My belief is that with real spending cuts alongside some closure of tax loopholes we have the potential to grow our way out of this mess. The problem with tax hikes is that when Govt gets extra money they tend to spend it. Tax hikes wont solve our problems. They will simply make things worse. [B]I don't consider closing loopholes and removing foolish tax subsidies to be tax hikes. I think most congressional republicans would agree.[/B][/QUOTE]

    You would be wrong. They don't support closing loopholes because in essence it is a tax increase.

    The Republicans are so radical at this point they won't even support closed loopholes with lower tax rates.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us