30 Nov 12
Well, they should vote for bigger tax hikes for a larger percentage of people. But let's instead consider what would be smart for them politically. If the GOP can, as a bloc, enforce party discipline and all vote in favour of a small tax hike it will be much harder for ATR to come after incumbents. In return the GOP could probably ensure no cuts in military spending and maybe some cuts to social programmes.
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf a deal is cut involving tax increases, I am curious to see how signficant an impact ATR will have pushing to primary out the traitor Republicans in 2014.
Well, they should vote for bigger tax hikes for a larger percentage of people. But let's instead consider what would be smart for them politically. If the GOP can, as a bloc, enforce party discipline and all vote in favour of a small tax hike it will be much harder for ATR to come after incumbents. In return the GOP could probably ensure no cuts in military spending and maybe some cuts to social programmes.
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by moon1969No. Insofar as House Republicans are serious about fixing this nation's problems, and Obama is willing to drop the hammer on the middle class to score political points - to say nothing of the damage he would inflict on his second-term agenda - Republicans have to stand their ground for real, and very large, spending cuts.
Should Republicans vote now to extend the Bush tax cuts on income up to $250,000, which is 98% of people (and 97% of small businesses), or should they wait until a final plan is reached, or just go off the cliff?
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672I sure hope they do. Polls show the Republicans will get the rightful blame if the fiscal cliff is reached due to their refusal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the highest earners.
No. Insofar as House Republicans are serious about fixing this nation's problems, and Obama is willing to drop the hammer on the middle class to score political points - to say nothing of the damage he would inflict on his second-term agenda - Republicans have to stand their ground for real, and very large, spending cuts.
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. Just stop with the polls. "We think other people should pay more taxes". Liberals get stuck in this self-affirmation do-loop where you're in violent agreement with each other and you just think, ok, well we get to have our way now. No, you don't. That would be an abdication of responsiblity by the elected representatives of the Republican Party not just to their constituents, but to the country as a whole.
I sure hope they do. Polls show the Republicans will get the rightful blame if the fiscal cliff is reached due to their refusal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the highest earners.
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Americans know that the taxes on the rich have been sharply decreased for the last 30 years. Although you seem to hate the American public now that your ideology has been rejected, it is hardly unreasonable for them to say that this should be reversed in a time of fiscal crisis to contribute to the solution.
Ok. Just stop with the polls. "We think other people should pay more taxes". Liberals get stuck in this self-affirmation do-loop where you're in violent agreement with each other and you just think, ok, well we get to have our way now. No, you don't. That would be an abdication of responsiblity by the elected representatives of the Republican Party not just to their constituents, but to the country as a whole.
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're projecting. I don't hate anybody.
Americans know that the taxes on the rich have been sharply decreased for the last 30 years. Although you seem to hate the American public now that your ideology has been rejected, it is hardly unreasonable for them to say that this should be reversed in a time of fiscal crisis to contribute to the solution.
So, while we're on the subject - true or false statement for you.
A long-term solution to America's fiscal and economic crises will require spending cuts.
30 Nov 12
4 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672My assumption is that all or nearly all Republicans in Congress want to extend the Bush tax cuts, without or without spending cuts. Sure, the Republicans want spending cuts, but they want to extend the Bush tax cuts no matter what.
No. Insofar as House Republicans are serious about fixing this nation's problems, and Obama is willing to drop the hammer on the middle class to score political points - to say nothing of the damage he would inflict on his second-term agenda - Republicans have to stand their ground for real, and very large, spending cuts.
With that in mind, let me rephrase the question.
Should Republicans who want to extend the Bush tax cuts (without or without spending cuts), and which I assume most if not all of the Republicans in Congress want to do so, vote now to extend the Bush tax cuts for income up to $250,000 (98% of people and 97% of small businesses) with or without any spending cuts, or wait and risk that the Bush tax cuts will not be extended on the 98% (income up to $250,000)?
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by moon1969You asked two questions.
My assumption is that all or nearly all Republicans in Congress want to extend the Bush tax cuts, without or without spending cuts. Sure, the Republicans want spending cuts, but they want to extend the Bush tax cuts no matter what.
With that in mind, let me rephrase the question.
Should Republicans who want to extend the Bush tax cuts (without or wit ...[text shortened]... ing cuts, or wait and risk that the Bush tax cuts will not be extended on income up to $250,000?
No. Yes.
30 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Should Republicans who want to extend the Bush tax cuts (without or without spending cuts), and which I assume most if not all of the Republicans in Congress want to do so, vote now to extend the Bush tax cuts for income up to $250,000 (98% of people and 97% of small businesses) with or without any spending cuts?
You asked two questions.
No. Yes.
Your answer: No?
Or wait and risk that the Bush tax cuts will not be extended on the 98% (income up to $250,000)?
Your answer: Yes?
-----------
Why wait and risk the Bush tax cuts not being extended for the 98% of people and 97% of small businesses. Are you for tax increases?
30 Nov 12
Originally posted by moon1969Because Obama is not the least bit serious about meaningful spending cuts. If Republicans give away the tax breaks Obama wants, they have no leverage to get what they need to do what is right for the country.
Should Republicans who want to extend the Bush tax cuts (without or without spending cuts), and which I assume most if not all of the Republicans in Congress want to do so, vote now to extend the Bush tax cuts for income up to $250,000 (98% of people and 97% of small businesses) with or without any spending cuts?
No?
Or wait and risk that the Bush tax ...[text shortened]... ot being extended for the 98% of people and 97% of small businesses. Are you for tax increases?