Should Republicans Vote Yes Now on the 98%

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Because 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.

Yeah but the Republicans also want to extend the Bush tax cuts or "breaks" as you call them. In other words, the Republicans would not likely accept a plan that does not include extending the Bush tax cuts on the 98%.

Indeed, highly unlikely the Republicans would accept a plan that did not extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98%. Moreover, the Republican desire is so strong to extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98%, they would do such without any spending cuts.

Thus, it is not as much of leverage as you think for the Republicans because they get a big item they want by extending the Bush tax cuts for the 98%,

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Because 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.

Obama proposed spending cuts and revenue increases worth $4 trillion over the next ten years back in February. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/politics/obama-budget-raises-taxes-on-the-rich-to-spend-on-jobs.html?_r=0

Originally posted by moon1969
Yeah but the Republicans also want to extend the Bush tax cuts or "breaks" as you call them. In other words, the Republicans would not likely accept a plan that does not include extending the Bush tax cuts on the 98%.

Indeed, highly unlikely the Republicans would accept a plan that did not extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98%. Moreover, the Republican ...[text shortened]... Republicans because they get a big item they want by extending the Bush tax cuts for the 98%,

You're missing a whole point of the debate.

If revenue is revenue...and Republicans are willing to raise government revenues by closing loopholes (some of which are valuable to me personally but I'm willing to accept, like the mortgage interest deduction), and these revenues are raised primarily on the backs of the "wealthy", then why in the hell would Democrats bog the country down over rates?

There's only one reason I can think of. Democrats want to increase the size of the economy that is under government control. It's the only logical explanation.

You don't really believe that elite Democrats are the "we're all in this together" crowd, and elite Republicans are the "every man for himself" crowd, do you?

Tell me you're not that naive. Please tell me that you understand this is really about the concept of government control. OVer your life.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obama proposed spending cuts and revenue increases worth $4 trillion over the next ten years back in February. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/politics/obama-budget-raises-taxes-on-the-rich-to-spend-on-jobs.html?_r=0

Where were those proposals yesterday?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

The conservative agenda was not rejected by all Americans but by a pretty thin margin considering the number of people who don't pay income taxes.

That's hardly a rejection, or a mandate for more taxes without spending cuts.

Originally posted by moon1969
Yeah but the Republicans also want to extend the Bush tax cuts or "breaks" as you call them. In other words, the Republicans would not likely accept a plan that does not include extending the Bush tax cuts on the 98%.

Indeed, highly unlikely the Republicans would accept a plan that did not extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98%. Moreover, the Republican ...[text shortened]... Republicans because they get a big item they want by extending the Bush tax cuts for the 98%,

These tax cuts are now the Obama tax cuts, since last year he extended them contending rightly it would be harmful to the economy not to. He could have at that time let them all expire, but did not. This highlights the lie that these cuts Bush originated were not exclusively for the rich as leftist demagogues have insisted on end.

Let's start calling them what they are, the Obama tax rates.

Originally posted by normbenign
The conservative agenda was not rejected by all Americans but by a pretty thin margin considering the number of people who don't pay income taxes.

That's hardly a rejection, or a mandate for more taxes without spending cuts.

No one proposed " more taxes without spending cuts" so you are flailing at Strawman.

Obama has won the majority of the votes two elections in a row. Last I checked, people who don't pay income taxes votes' count. This is a democracy; the will of the people should count for something.

Originally posted by normbenign
These tax cuts are now the Obama tax cuts, since last year he extended them contending rightly it would be harmful to the economy not to. He could have at that time let them all expire, but did not. This highlights the lie that these cuts Bush originated were not exclusively for the rich as leftist demagogues have insisted on end.

Let's start calling them what they are, the Obama tax rates.

OK. Obama wants HIS TAX RATES on the top two percent to be increased. Since they are his according to you, surely Republicans should have no objection to him doing what he wants with them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one proposed " more taxes without spending cuts" so you are flailing at Strawman.

Obama has won the majority of the votes two elections in a row. Last I checked, people who don't pay income taxes votes' count. This is a democracy; the will of the people should count for something.

You're right, their votes do count. Where's my wayback machine, man oh man would I go and redo that one...

Originally posted by normbenign
The conservative agenda was not rejected by all Americans but by a pretty thin margin considering the number of people who don't pay income taxes.

That's hardly a rejection, or a mandate for more taxes without spending cuts.

Americans who do not pay income taxes are Americans and their vote counts equally. This election, the popular vote was a decisive +2%, and also a large margin in electoral votes. The American people voted to give the sitting President Obama a second term. Three Democrats Roosevelt, Clinton, and Obama elected to two-terms since Wilson.

In 4 of the last 5 elections, the Republicans have failed to even get a majority of the popular vote.

The American people are rejecting the Republicans especially the far-right Republicans.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're missing a whole point of the debate.

If revenue is revenue...and Republicans are willing to raise government revenues by closing loopholes (some of which are valuable to me personally but I'm willing to accept, like the mortgage interest deduction), and these revenues are raised primarily on the backs of the "wealthy", then why in the hell w understand this is really about the concept of government control. OVer your life.

Sure revenue is a big discussion, and closing loopholes or eliminating deductions can raise revenue.

But you miss the point. The Republicans do not want to raise tax rates, and the President is giving the Republicans the opportunity to make sure tax rates do not go up, at least on the 98%.

Why would Republicans not vote to get it now and not jeopardize that, when they do not want to increase tax rates on anybody no matter about spending cuts?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one proposed " more taxes without spending cuts" so you are flailing at Strawman.

Obama has won the majority of the votes two elections in a row. Last I checked, people who don't pay income taxes votes' count. This is a democracy; the will of the people should count for something.

Let's see the spending cuts first! Winning the majority of votes in two consecutive elections did not mean Congress had to roll over and give GW Bush his Social Security reform.

The majority also elected a majority in the House which is where all taxation and spending originates. Is Obama thus mandated to follow the House lead? Each is responsible for representing their constituency, and doing the right thing for their country.

It is silly to think that the opposition party is supposed to just roll over when a President wins a narrow reelection.

Originally posted by moon1969
Americans who do not pay income taxes are Americans and their vote counts equally. This election, the popular vote was a decisive +2%, and also a large margin in electoral votes. The American people voted to give the sitting President Obama a second term. Three Democrats Roosevelt, Clinton, and Obama elected to two-terms since Wilson.

In 4 of the last ...[text shortened]... vote.

The American people are rejecting the Republicans especially the far-right Republicans.

2% does not begin to be decisive. House Republicans were reelected too, based on what they ran on. They also have a job to do and that job does not include rolling over.

Obama is not a serious President. He put that on display with his proposal to the House yesterday that included double the amount of his last proposed tax increase and $50 billion in new spending. He has offered no jobs plan - nothing - designed to get people back to work. He has no plan for what he would use this new revenue to accomplish. He does nothing to address the most serious issues facing our country, presumably at least in part because that would involve confronting his own Party.

Done for the night. Going to finish packing, and I'm headed on vacation tomorrow. Florida sun. TTFN.

Originally posted by moon1969
Sure revenue is a big discussion, and closing loopholes or eliminating deductions can raise revenue.

But you miss the point. The Republicans do not want to raise tax rates, and the President is giving the Republicans the opportunity to make sure tax rates do not go up, at least on the 98%.

Why would Republicans not vote to get it now and not jeopardize that, when they do not want to increase tax rates on anybody no matter about spending cuts?

"The Republicans do not want to raise tax rates, and the President is giving the Republicans the opportunity to make sure tax rates do not go up, at least on the 98%"

The immorality and stupidity of this ought to be obvious. There isn't enough money to really make much difference in this increase, but is a simple demagogic attack using class warfare on a minority.

Originally posted by normbenign
Let's see the spending cuts first! Winning the majority of votes in two consecutive elections did not mean Congress had to roll over and give GW Bush his Social Security reform.

The majority also elected a majority in the House which is where all taxation and spending originates. Is Obama thus mandated to follow the House lead? Each is responsible fo ...[text shortened]... t the opposition party is supposed to just roll over when a President wins a narrow reelection.

I certainly hope that the Republicans do refuse to raise the top rates on the wealthy and thus force the country over the "fiscal cliff". We'll see how popular that is with the People (the polls say differently but I know you think polls are nonsense).