What's new
By:

Pissing Match

Republicans nominated Romney for president on a campaign of "closing tax loopholes." Now, just a few months later, this sequester is about to hit. Obama says "let's close the tax loopholes Romney said he was going to close," and republicans are fighting against it. Yeah, sounds like it's Obama's fault to me...
 
Totally off subject. This thread is about the government threatening the the 1st amendment.

Do try to keep up.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Republicans nominated Romney for president on a campaign of "closing tax loopholes." Now, just a few months later, this sequester is about to hit. Obama says "let's close the tax loopholes Romney said he was going to close," and republicans are fighting against it. Yeah, sounds like it's Obama's fault to me...
Click to expand...

Way to paint it in a very one sided way. To bad that is not all the President is saying.
 
Scat said:
Totally off subject. This thread is about the government threatening the the 1st amendment.

Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

I thought it was such nonsense that it didn't warrant a response. But there is a potentially good discussion in there somewhere, as I pointed out.
 
SaltyDawg said:
What else is he saying that republicans disagree with?
Click to expand...

He want sto stop the spending cuts. Republicans even offered leaving the cuts up to the Presidents discretion as long as they happened.

YOu can have that for starters.
 
Stoked said:
He want sto stop the spending cuts. Republicans even offered leaving the cuts up to the Presidents discretion as long as they happened.

YOu can have that for starters.
Click to expand...

That's not the sticking point on an agreement. Boehner has flat out said there will be no new revenue, no matter what. That's the sticking point.
 
Scat said:
Why is it a Republican vs. Dem thing? How about simply what is he saying that's a lie.
Click to expand...

It's a republican vs dem thing because the republicans make it that way.

Again, they are now adamantly against something proposed by the dems (closing tax loopholes) that they supported just a couple months ago when their own presidential candidate proposed it.
 
SaltyDawg said:
It's a republican vs dem thing because the republicans make it that way.

Again, they are now adamantly against something proposed by the dems (closing tax loopholes) that they supported just a couple months ago when their own presidential candidate proposed it.
Click to expand...

Partisan much? LOL

Obama seems to think he can solve this country's woes by simply farting around with taxes. He needs to realize that spending cuts have to be incorporated as part of the plan.
 
Scat said:
Partisan much? LOL

Obama seems to think he can solve this country's woes by simply farting around with taxes. He needs to realize that spending cuts have to be incorporated as part of the plan.
Click to expand...

Again, Boehner said he won't even consider any plan that includes new revenue. The dems (Obama, Reed, Pelosi) have said they will agree to spending cuts as long as there is a tax increase, even if it's just closing the loopholes Romney said he would close. Boehner said that is not going to happen.

There is some debate about when and where the spending cuts should happen, and how much they should be. But everyone is in agreement that at some point there should be cuts in some areas.
 
SaltyDawg said:
That's not the sticking point on an agreement. Boehner has flat out said there will be no new revenue, no matter what. That's the sticking point.
Click to expand...

The republicans have flat out said that the cuts are going to happen. Sounds liek a sticking point to me.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Again, Boehner said he won't even consider any plan that includes new revenue. The dems (Obama, Reed, Pelosi) have said they will agree to spending cuts as long as there is a tax increase, even if it's just closing the loopholes Romney said he would close. Boehner said that is not going to happen.

There is some debate about when and where the spending cuts should happen, and how much they should be. But everyone is in agreement that at some point there should be cuts in some areas.
Click to expand...

I think the reublicans say this because there was already one round of new taxes/revenue and the republicans do not want more.
 
Scat said:
Totally off subject. This thread is about the government threatening the the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

What's the threat, besides a generic "you'll regret it"?

You know what Woodward should regret? He is actively campaigning for Obama to assert even more executive authority by defying a Congressional budget. As much as the senior official should not use that language, in this case Woodward is in the wrong, and I don't see the "regret" comment as definitively indicating anything stronger than that.
 
Stoked said:
He want sto stop the spending cuts. Republicans even offered leaving the cuts up to the Presidents discretion as long as they happened.

YOu can have that for starters.
Click to expand...

Obama wants to stop spending on tax credits. Will the Republicans let him do that? :)
 
Stoked said:
I think the reublicans say this because there was already one round of new taxes/revenue and the republicans do not want more.
Click to expand...

This is a false statement, of course. The Republicans voted for a more limited tax cut than they wanted to vote for, not a tax increase.
 
One Brow said:
This is a false statement, of course. The Republicans voted for a more limited tax cut than they wanted to vote for, not a tax increase.
Click to expand...

If I read correctly there were increases to revenue in there. The carrot the left got for offering the right the carrot of tax cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top