Gay Patriot Header Image

Why didn’t Obama deal with debt ceiling when he had a Democratic majority?

From January 20, 2009 until January 3, 2011, a period of more than 700 days, Democrats controlled the White House and held overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  And for the past six months, with increasing vitriol and ever elevated volume, they have been criticizing Republicans for their attempts to finish the work Democrats left undone, like not passing a budget for FY 2011.

If the president thought raising the debt ceiling was so important, why then didn’t he schedule a vote to do so when his party controlled Congress?  Obama, John Hinderaker writes,

. . . is now fixated on the “deadline” of August 2, 2011, but where was he in 2009? Or 2010? Or prior to last week? It has been over two years since the federal government has had a budget. For Obama to adopt a sanctimonious “eat your peas” approach to the federal budget is so disingenuous that it is not surprising that Republicans find him infuriating to negotiate with.

When Democrats were in power, they ran up the tab, acting as if they would never be no consequences to their spendthrift policies.  And now they’ve left the Republicans to clean up the mess they left behind and is now faulting them for not doing it the way the Democrats (claim they) would have done it when they had the chance.  They had the chance but didn’t take it.

Instead of criticizing the Republicans, why doesn’t the president’s party acknowledge its own responsibility for the current impasse?

Share

80 Comments

  1. in answer to your question…..because he really, really doesn’t know what he’s doing

    Comment by Leslie — July 12, 2011 @ 6:48 pm - July 12, 2011

  2. Dan,

    Why do termites finally destroy the beams, causing the structure to collapse and subjecting them to deadly exposure?

    These Progressives grow the economy from the bottom up a notch for the entitlement crowd by destroying the rich and middle class. Meanwhile the government class enjoys ever wider perks like the liquor manifest that Pelosi kept on her personal military jet.

    Obama is acting true to form for what he and the Progressives are really all about.

    Comment by Heliotrope — July 12, 2011 @ 7:59 pm - July 12, 2011

  3. We’re learning all sorts of new things these days… like the fact that we need to borrow money to pay Social Security. Amazing, what with the trust fund and lockbox. I am shocked! Shocked! to find that they’ve not been truthful.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — July 12, 2011 @ 9:01 pm - July 12, 2011

  4. Actually, the real answer to your question is: that would include having to acknowledge how much of government is invested into the Democratic party (ie unions, government workers, etc). The shrinking of government would also mean the shrinking of their base and a major source of their campaign cash funnelled through unions and kickbacks… :(

    Comment by Tim in MT — July 12, 2011 @ 10:50 pm - July 12, 2011

  5. well, lordy….all we need to do is jut stop taxing millionaires even more to stop all these budget problems and job stagnation. I mean, it worked so well for over 6 years while the Republicans were in full control, right? There were absolutely no jobs or deficit issues during those years, right?

    (aaaaaaaand……cue big Liz Lemon-like eye rolling)

    Comment by Kevin — July 12, 2011 @ 11:51 pm - July 12, 2011

  6. To borrow a rheotorical device from the 2008 campaign: the Democrats would rather point fingers at the car in the ditch than fix the road.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — July 13, 2011 @ 12:03 am - July 13, 2011

  7. Evidently you missed a few posts down, Kevin.

    So let’s see; less than $500 billion deficit in the worst year and 5% unemployment rate – versus three times the deficit amount and twice the unemployment rate.

    And you know what’s really funny, silly Kevin?

    You and your fellow Obamabots were screaming that 5% unemployment and a deficit of less than $500 billion represented fiscal collapse, irresponsibility, and economic calamity — yet you’re now insisting that three times the deficit amount and twice the unemployment rate represents fiscal prudence and a roaring recovery.

    I personally blame racism. Namely the fact that you and your fellow liberals think that black people are so inferior and stupid that the only thing you can expect is that they be clean, articulate, and have a Negro accent only when they want. In your universe, they certainly aren’t capable of managing money or doing their job, which is why racists like yourself invariably demand that government step in to “protect” them and lock them into a lifetime of plantation dependence on the kindness of whitey liberals like yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 12:07 am - July 13, 2011

  8. I mean, it worked so well for over 6 years while the Republicans were in full control, right? There were absolutely no jobs or deficit issues during those years, right?

    Right.

    ObaMarx and his liberal felchers are costing US businesses $2 TRILLION a year in regulation costs of compliance and lost productivity. Imagine how many people could be hired if they could keep that money instead of the loosing investment that is the US federal government.

    The Bush tax cuts “for the rich” created a roaring economy with 8.1 million jobs created over 50 months until the sh*t liberal policy of demanding mortgages for people without incomes hit the fan. They also increased the number of “the rich” who pay all federal income taxes.

    Before the capital gains taxes were reduced in 2003, the CBO estimated the revenues would increase by 36%. They doubled to over $103 billion. They also estimated that the tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. The revenues wound up coming in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

    In the six quarters before the ’03 tax cuts, GDP grew at a rate of 1.7%. Afterward, GDP grew at a rate of 4.1% in the six quarters after.

    The S&P dropped 18% in the previous six quarters and increased 32% in the following six quarters.

    We lost 267,000 jobs in the previous six quarters and gained 5 million in the following seven quarters.

    So please explain to us what’s so damn great about Obamunism with taxpayer money laundered through unions, taxpayer money used to buy automatic weapons for the Mexican cartels to kill border patrol agents, tens of millions unemployed, $14.5 trillion in debt, a $1.4 trillion deficit etc. etc. etc. What makes you think cutting off more revenue (raising taxes) would do the trick?

    Comment by TGC — July 13, 2011 @ 2:57 am - July 13, 2011

  9. Why? Because all social liberals are classically passive-aggressive. The Republicans have a classic case of MANGINA SYNDROME.

    Comment by rjligier — July 13, 2011 @ 3:56 am - July 13, 2011

  10. Kevin just wants to starve granny by not paying her social security check. Just like the President.

    Tell me Kevin, why does the President want to stave seniours?

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 13, 2011 @ 7:31 am - July 13, 2011

  11. BS, Livewire! Granny will have her peas whilst Obama shoves cheeseburgers into his puss.

    That’s where the “green jobs” are.

    Comment by TGC — July 13, 2011 @ 8:25 am - July 13, 2011

  12. Well, Kevin’s an idiot, so clearly math will not be of use to him, but the math is this:

    - The deficit is around $1.6 Trillion.
    - Raise the tax rates on people who earn $200K or more, and you bring in $40-60 Billion per year.
    - Repeal *all* the Bush tax cuts, and you bring in $350-400 Billion per year.
    - To close the deficit and maintain projected spending levels would require across-the-board tax increases of 88% for all income levels.

    Is this what Kevin and Levi really want?

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 8:34 am - July 13, 2011

  13. The November 2010 elections is the reason since they passed Porkulus then rammed ObamaCare against our will. Porkulus & ObamaCare remain toxic political death for all Democrats though for a reason.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — July 13, 2011 @ 9:35 am - July 13, 2011

  14. Shouldn’t we start by raising the taxes on liberals and see how it goes? I mean, they’re so hell bent, they should be showing how it’s done.

    Note Warren Buffett says he should pay more, but shifts his money to Bill Gates for the write off.

    Comment by TGC — July 13, 2011 @ 10:39 am - July 13, 2011

  15. Instead of criticizing the Republicans, why doesn’t the president’s party acknowledge its own responsibility for the current impasse?

    Or, instead of assigning blame, why don’t both sides focus instead on solving the current impasse? That would be nice, Congress actually focusing on fixing a problem for once.

    The Bush tax cuts “for the rich” created a roaring economy with 8.1 million jobs created over 50 months until the sh*t liberal policy of demanding mortgages for people without incomes hit the fan. They also increased the number of “the rich” who pay all federal income taxes.

    Wait, what? The Bush tax cuts are still in force right now, and have been in force for the entire recession. So the economic upturn is all down to the Bush tax cuts, but the downturn has absolutely nothing to do with them?

    Also, I suppose the economic growth during the 90s was also down to the Bush tax cuts? Oh wait, that was the Clinton tax hikes that caused that…

    Or maybe tax hikes and tax cuts don’t really make that much of a difference on the whole.

    Well, Kevin’s an idiot, so clearly math will not be of use to him, but the math is this:

    - The deficit is around $1.6 Trillion.
    - Raise the tax rates on people who earn $200K or more, and you bring in $40-60 Billion per year.
    - Repeal *all* the Bush tax cuts, and you bring in $350-400 Billion per year.
    - To close the deficit and maintain projected spending levels would require across-the-board tax increases of 88% for all income levels.

    Is this what Kevin and Levi really want?

    Don’t know where you’re getting Levi from, he hasn’t even posted in this thread yet (at least not as I make this post).

    Still, this is a neat little strawman, the “liberals think we can kill the deficit just through tax increases” which I’ve not seen in actual liberals and don’t subscribe to myself. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a good start and would, as you just stated, take a good bite out of the deficit. There’s also a few subsidies to take a look at, but the majority of the rest should come through spending cuts of one sort or another.

    Assuming the $400 billion figure is the end of the revenue side, that means a 3:1 ratio for spending cuts to tax increases by your math, which I personally think is a more than fair deal (if I had my way, I’d make it 1:1). Now if only the Republican Party would think that way.

    Oh, and hi. I’ve been busy not being here. It’s been fun.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - July 13, 2011

  16. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a good start and would, as you just stated, take a good bite out of the deficit.

    And once again, Serenity demonstrates that it doesn’t intelligently read what it cites.

    Let us repeat:

    - Raise the tax rates on people who earn $200K or more, and you bring in $40-60 Billion per year.
    - Repeal *all* the Bush tax cuts, and you bring in $350-400 Billion per year.

    The key word there is “all”. Serenity, being a typical class-warfare obsessed liberal, believes that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted high-income individuals. What Serenity doesn’t recognize is that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts benefitted lower- and middle-income individuals ($60 bn versus $400 bn per year).

    So Serenity, why not be honest and state that Obama Party members like yourself want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class because you won’t stop spending?

    And this was hilarious:

    There’s also a few subsidies to take a look at, but the majority of the rest should come through spending cuts of one sort or another.

    Liar. You have stated here that anyone who cuts government spending is killing the poor and elderly and destroying the middle class.

    You will not cut spending, Serenity. You are a liar. You only want to raise taxes and continue to waste money. Republicans have realized that, and also realized that you and your fellow Obama Party members are such sociopaths that you will cut off Social Security checks rather than reduce one dime of your spending on Wagyu beef for White House dinners, jet trips to Spain for Michelle Obama and her massive entourage, salaries for SEC workers who download kiddie porn all day, alcohol education programs for Chinese prostitutes, and “stimulus” grants to nonexistent zip codes.

    Not another penny. The immature and childish Obama Party needs to learn to manage its allowance instead of demanding more money from its parents.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - July 13, 2011

  17. Or, instead of assigning blame, why don’t both sides focus instead on solving the current impasse? That would be nice, Congress actually focusing on fixing a problem for once.

    Serenity, welcome back. Accepting that the GOP must share some blame for the situation, you are to be congratulated for recognizing that the Democrats are equally to blame for having ignored an economic situation that has left is with the impending train wreck we now face.

    As for you, ND30, sir…

    And once again, Serenity demonstrates that it doesn’t intelligently read what it cites.

    With all due respect, enough of the “it” bullshit, ok? Feel free to invalidate a person’s politics, but coming from a guy who endured that sort of crap from idiots who were certain they were so much more entitled than I to common human respect, it isn’t helping our cause any, ok?

    ND30, I love you, man, but please don’t do to them what was done to some of us. Serenity’s politics are misguided, but the individual deserves more than to be denied humanity.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — July 13, 2011 @ 1:10 pm - July 13, 2011

  18. And yesterday, Serenity’s messiah, Barack Obama, let slip the true basis of his philosophy:

    And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

    “Able to keep”?

    Put bluntly, Barack Obama believes that the government is entitled to all of your income and that it decides how much of it you are “able to keep”.

    This is communism. Pure, unadulterated, communism.

    And this is why Serenity, Levi, Counterfail, Cas, Auntie Dogma, and all of the liberal trolls are die-hard Obama supporters who will do anything Barack Obama tells them to do: they are ingratiating themselves for handouts, just like their forbear suckups in the Soviet Union used to do for bigger vodka rations and being moved up on the car list.

    Moreover, it is sick. If Barack Obama wants to pay more, he can; the US Treasury is happy to accept your donations. But he doesn’t. And then he blames government for not taking it from him for the fact that he doesn’t.

    This whole episode is really revealing what predatory, communist sociopaths the Obama Party and its supporters like Serenity are. These people will literally cut off Social Security checks rather than giving up one penny of their arugula and Wagyu beef at the White House. These people shriek about “fair share” and “sacrifice” while they refuse to make contributions on their own volition and then cheat on their taxes.

    People like Serenity seriously believe that they are entitled to sponge off other people. They seriously believe that they should be paid ridiculous amounts far above the actual value of their labor. They demand pay equal to those who work when they won’t work at all.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 1:11 pm - July 13, 2011

  19. And once again, Serenity demonstrates that it doesn’t intelligently read what it cites.

    The key word there is “all”. Serenity, being a typical class-warfare obsessed liberal, believes that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted high-income individuals. What Serenity doesn’t recognize is that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts benefitted lower- and middle-income individuals ($60 bn versus $400 bn per year).

    I know what I read, I know what I wrote, and I meant what I wrote. Every word.

    Liar. You have stated here that anyone who cuts government spending is killing the poor and elderly and destroying the middle class.

    I must once again ask you to cite where I said anything like that, and note that statements made by other people do not count because other people are not me.

    You will not cut spending, Serenity. You are a liar. You only want to raise taxes and continue to waste money.

    You have no idea what I’d do.

    Republicans have realized that, and also realized that you and your fellow Obama Party members are such sociopaths

    I’m not a member of any political party and, as you liked making note of in the past, I’m not even American. This is a purely academic exercise to me.

    that you will cut off Social Security checks rather than reduce one dime of your spending on Wagyu beef for White House dinners, jet trips to Spain for Michelle Obama and her massive entourage, salaries for SEC workers who download kiddie porn all day, alcohol education programs for Chinese prostitutes, and “stimulus” grants to nonexistent zip codes.

    It is amusing that you usually hate Social Security, but as soon as the possibility of Social Security checks not going out as usual comes up, suddenly it becomes “Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and regular Social Security checks”. Similar with Medicare.

    The Supreme Court already rule in 1960 that people do not have a fundamental right to Social Security and you should be happy that people are suddenly realizing this, it might actually get people out of the mindset that Social Security is something that they have a God-given right to. I thought that was something you want, but I guess the possibility that over-65s might blame the Republicans for the fact that they’re suddenly without Social Security scares you so much that all principles go out of the window. Though maybe it’s that sort of fear that will finally prompt Congress to agree on a sane deal.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 1:14 pm - July 13, 2011

  20. Put bluntly, Barack Obama believes that the government is entitled to all of your income and that it decides how much of it you are “able to keep”.

    Technically, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is. If Congress wished to impose a 100% income tax, they could. It would not be advisable (or even sane) to do so, but they could.

    These people shriek about “fair share” and “sacrifice” while they refuse to make contributions on their own volition and then cheat on their taxes.

    I just proposed a broad base tax increase, and I have never cheated on my taxes.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - July 13, 2011

  21. The Bush tax cuts “for the rich” created a roaring economy with 8.1 million jobs created over 50 months until the sh*t liberal policy of demanding mortgages for people without incomes hit the fan. They also increased the number of “the rich” who pay all federal income taxes.

    The housing bubble drove all of the job creation and economic growth during the Bush years. The Bush tax cuts only freed up more money to further inflate the bubble, which immediately and temporarily helped fuel growth, but only amplified the damage after it all came crashing down.

    And it came crashing down because the financial industry has been given free range to do whatever it wants by both parties. Liberals didn’t force a Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House to start handing over houses to poor people, but even if they had, that wouldn’t have created the economic calamity that we’re all living through. Financiers took those mortgages, lied about what they were, and infected just about every part of the economy with them. They shouldn’t have been allowed to do it, their activities should have been better regulated, and our government failed to do so.

    Pretending like George Bush had some great economic record when he left office with the economy losing 800,000 jobs a month is insane, unless you think it’s okay to base a modern economy on wildly inflating bubbles and extended periods of economic contraction.

    Comment by Levi — July 13, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - July 13, 2011

  22. It is amusing that you usually hate Social Security, but as soon as the possibility of Social Security checks not going out as usual comes up, suddenly it becomes “Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and regular Social Security checks”. Similar with Medicare.

    All of the people who are currently receiving Social Security checks, Serenity, have paid over 6% of each paycheck they have ever received into the system for the privilege of doing so. Virtually all of the people who are currently receiving Medicare have paid over 2% of each paycheck they have ever received into the system for doing so.

    I am more than happy to reform and even get rid of Social Security and Medicare if need be for people of my age who are still in the workforce and still have time to plan for these things. But what you and your Obama Party are doing, Serenity, is denying people benefits for which they have already paid and sacrificed personal income for decades so that you can Wagyu beef for White House dinners, jet trips to Spain for Michelle Obama and her massive entourage, salaries for SEC workers who download kiddie porn all day, alcohol education programs for Chinese prostitutes, and “stimulus” grants to nonexistent zip codes.

    You pathetic pieces of dirt would scream your heads off if a private insurance company collected over 8% of peoples’ every paycheck from them for over forty-plus years and then refused to pay any benefits. You would accuse them of murder and blame every death that occurred on them, as you already have done to private health insurance companies and retirement planners. But when the Barack Obama Party and the government does it because they don’t want to cut a penny of their spending on waste and welfare addicts like you, you clap and cheer.

    Finally, your hypocrisy is hilarious, given that you shriek and scream that people have a “right” to welfare and health insurance. It’s amazing how quickly those principles go out the window when it would mean that your Obamamessiah would actually have to cut his spending.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - July 13, 2011

  23. @North Dallas Thirty: Where did I say that “anyone who cuts government spending is killing the poor and elderly and destroying the middle class”.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 1:41 pm - July 13, 2011

  24. The question, in case some of you neglected to read the original post, is why Obama failed to pass a budget despite holding an unassailable majority in both houses. Some of you have decided that the best way to state your argument is to deflect any negative attention your beloved party may be receiving as a result of their cowardice. Please, allow me to re-iterate…

    I’ve said this before, and I repeat it here…

    The Democrat Party recognized early on that despite the baseless hoopla with which they were ushered into office, they quickly realized that putting their dreams into practice meant going against the American majority’s idea of recovery: that being the notion of sucking it up through a tough spot, and picking themselves up and getting the job done.

    The Democrat Party bought into the statist notion of redistribution, yet understood that to do so meant certain electoral doom, as was demonstrated last November.

    The reason these same statists never bothered to push their own ideas is actually quite simple: to do so would mean yet another defeat at the ballot box, hence, they became determined to do everything they could to ensure as many of their enemies (read: Republicans) as possible were placed in a position to meet their electoral doom, as well. After all, if the Democrat Party was destined to fail, they might as well find as many Republicans as they could to blame to go down with them. Misery loves company, and all that happy horse-crappy.

    Anyone recall,” We won’t know what’s in it until we pass it?”

    In short, the majority Democrat Party were abject cowards, and consistently lacked the courage of their convictions, as is demonstrated on this very site on any given day.

    If you lack the intestinal fortitude to answer the original question Daniel’s post put forth, perhaps you might want to consider the idea that you refusal to do so constitutes a de facto acknowledgment that the Democrats did, indeed fail to demonstrate the courage of their convictions.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — July 13, 2011 @ 2:00 pm - July 13, 2011

  25. Pretending like George Bush had some great economic record when he left office with the economy losing 800,000 jobs a month is insane, unless you think it’s okay to base a modern economy on wildly inflating bubbles and extended periods of economic contraction.

    Levi’s fear of President Bush again makes him ignore the ‘tech bubble’ that burst prior to President Bush taking office, and how the tax cuts got us out of that. Oh, I forgot, Levi believes President Bush was too busy causing 9/11 to have done anything else.

    Levi’s fear of Facts again makes him ignore efforts to curb Fannie and Freddie, that were stalled in the congress by Democrats, who argued that there was nothing wrong. But hey, it worked so well, let’s do it again!

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 13, 2011 @ 2:01 pm - July 13, 2011

  26. Eric,

    I’d argue it’s not just fear, it’s immediate gratification. It’s the same mentality of running up massive debts, because bankruptsy will ‘fix it’.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 13, 2011 @ 2:03 pm - July 13, 2011

  27. Levi’s fear of President Bush again makes him ignore the ‘tech bubble’ that burst prior to President Bush taking office, and how the tax cuts got us out of that.

    Back to the same issue here. I recall there was also a recession in the early 90s, so what tax cuts got the United States out of that recession?

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - July 13, 2011

  28. Financiers took those mortgages, lied about what they were, and infected just about every part of the economy with them. They shouldn’t have been allowed to do it, their activities should have been better regulated, and our government failed to do so.

    And who are the “financiers” who lied about those mortgages and securitized them with the implicit guarantee that they were backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, Levi?

    Why, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which between the two of them own or guarantee almost 40% of the US mortgage market, including a huge chunk of subprime mortgages which they, by your standards, “lied about”.

    And who told them to lie about it? Why, the Obama Party, which insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should “roll the dice” and subsidize/securitize/lie about subprime mortgages – over the Bush administration’s objections.

    So you created the mess, Levi. And of course, like the childish brat you are, you blame other people, knowing that your parents are so incompetent and stupid that they will do what a child says and believe anything their child tells them.

    Problem is, we’re not your parents. You have to take accountability for your actions — which is probably why you’re so bitter and hateful towards anyone who holds you to standards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - July 13, 2011

  29. Levi’s fear of President Bush again makes him ignore the ‘tech bubble’ that burst prior to President Bush taking office, and how the tax cuts got us out of that.

    Indeed he does, Livewire — which is even more hilarious, given that Levi and his fellow Obamabots like Serenity have spent the past two-plus years screaming that nothing that happens during a President’s term is his fault, but instead can be blamed on his predecessor.

    The problem Levi and Serenity have is that they held up Obama as a Messiah, a super-genius, and a transcendent being, rather than acknowledging that he’s little more than a foul-mouthed and incompetent rabble-rouser surrounded by a group of idiot syncophants who he has made certain have no chance of ever being able to look smarter than he does. It doesn’t do well for them to acknowledge that Obama’s primary qualification to be President is his having genes that code for extra melatonin — and the fact that he doesn’t fit the stereotype that Obama supporters like Levi and Serenity have that people with these genes are dirty, inarticulate, and cursed with a “Negro accent”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 2:24 pm - July 13, 2011

  30. These people shriek about “fair share” and “sacrifice” while they refuse to make contributions on their own volition and then cheat on their taxes.

    It strikes me that certain people seem to be exempt from having to sacrifice anything: social security recipients, medicare recipients, Government bureaucrats, education bureaucrats… The word sacrifice seems only to apply to a certain class of taxpayers… those who are successful enough to earn a high income, but not wealthy enough to pay lawyers to hide their assets from the tax man.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 2:28 pm - July 13, 2011

  31. I recall there was also a recession in the early 90s, so what tax cuts got the United States out of that recession?

    Actually, most economists recognize that the tax hikes that took place during that period of time actually PROLONGED the recession and made it worse.

    Meanwhile, many other economists recognize that the tax hikes that took place under Clinton actually resulted in the movement of investment money in a fashion that accelerated and supported the inflation of the technology bubble. Instead of investing in things that were supportive, people invested in froth.

    What happened in housing was that the Obama Party, in order to buy votes, demanded that bankers make loans based on skin color and minority status rather than income and ability to pay, and then created artificial demand by ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize these loans and increase their value via the implicit government guarantee carried by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Had the Obama Party simply let banks continue applying income and ability to pay tests and required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to only securitize loans that passed, there would have been a limited market at best for subprime, which would have lowered the number of available buyers, held demand down, and thus moderated prices.

    The Obama Party chose to mess with the housing market to buy votes and collapsed the global financial system in doing so. Period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 2:30 pm - July 13, 2011

  32. We do not have a growth-oriented tax structure in the USA. To become globally competitive, we need one. There are over 60,000 pages in the current tax law. This is why a crony corporation like GE gets away with paying nothing while growing businesses get creamed. The tax code should be thrown out entirely, and replaced with a simplified code less than 100 pages in length. It is ridiculous that Russia has a flat tax and Sweden has a lower corporate tax than the USA.

    Even more important than tax reform, pro-growth policies would require substantial reform of the regulatory structure. This means Government will have to sacrifice some of its power. The EPA should be stripped of its power to regulate C02, and the power of agencies like the NLRB to sue companies like Boeing for putting factories in right-to-work state should be cleavered entirely. And every government agency dealing with discrimination should be disbanded; very few businesses are going to discriminate anyway. It’s not worth the cost of the bureaucracy to monitor them.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 2:44 pm - July 13, 2011

  33. North Dallas Thirty: Where did I say that “anyone who cuts government spending is killing the poor and elderly and destroying the middle class”.

    Right here, Obama puppet.

    The video is right there. Obama Party members, Obama supporters, liberals, and progressives all insist that anyone who wants to cut government spending wants to murder the poor and the elderly.

    This is why you’re called a liar, Serenity. Your Obama Party showed its true colors with that advertisement. They lie about and demagogue anyone who proposes any type of government spending cut.

    This is what liberals support, this is what “progressives” say, and this is what Obama Party members like you believe. Suck on it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 2:47 pm - July 13, 2011

  34. I note that the state of Minnesota has had a “Government shutdown” for over two weeks, and the sky has not fallen, and there aren’t S&M biker gangs terrorizing St. Paul and Duluth.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 3:05 pm - July 13, 2011

  35. The Obama household tax return showed $500,000+ donations to charity. Before taking this optional deduction, the Obama household would have paid taxes at the pre-Bush tax cut rate. If President Obama believed that he should be paying more taxes, why did he take the optional deduction? There is no penalty for not taking a deduction.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — July 13, 2011 @ 3:15 pm - July 13, 2011

  36. Gee, what a surprise; Barack Obama is a hypocrite who demands others pay more while he himself dodges paying what he screams is a “fair share”.

    Wonder where Levi, Counterfail, Cas, Serenity, Auntie Dogma, and the other Obamabots are on that one? You would think they would have no mercy on a millionaire using tax loopholes and breaks, as much as they scream about it for others.

    But of course, we can’t expect them to hold their Messiah, their blessed Lightworker, to the same standards that they do everyone else. After all, the whining that they and their Party do is all about forcing others to do what they want; as we see with Rangel, Geithner, Kerry, Sebelius, Solis, and umpteen administration officials, they don’t believe in paying their “fair share”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 3:20 pm - July 13, 2011

  37. [...] Why didn’t Obama deal with debt ceiling when he had a Democratic majority? [...]

    Pingback by Sen Mitch McConnell: Lets Cave In. Debt Confrontations with DEMS Scare Me | VotingFemale — July 13, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - July 13, 2011

  38. This kind of financial meltdown was planned all along – another way to grab more power. He just never figured that tea party and newly elected candidates would become so in-stringent.

    Comment by Leah — July 13, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - July 13, 2011

  39. We do not have a growth-oriented tax structure in the USA. To become globally competitive, we need one. There are over 60,000 pages in the current tax law. This is why a crony corporation like GE gets away with paying nothing while growing businesses get creamed. The tax code should be thrown out entirely, and replaced with a simplified code less than 100 pages in length. It is ridiculous that Russia has a flat tax and Sweden has a lower corporate tax than the USA.

    Even more important than tax reform, pro-growth policies would require substantial reform of the regulatory structure. This means Government will have to sacrifice some of its power. The EPA should be stripped of its power to regulate C02, and the power of agencies like the NLRB to sue companies like Boeing for putting factories in right-to-work state should be cleavered entirely. And every government agency dealing with discrimination should be disbanded; very few businesses are going to discriminate anyway. It’s not worth the cost of the bureaucracy to monitor them.

    All total bullshit. Taxes are the lowest they’ve been in decades. The richest people don’t pay any taxes at all. Corporations are making more money than they ever have, and they barely pay any taxes either. We should be at 110% employment according to conservative economic theories, but it just isn’t trickling down, isn’t it? How much more profit do companies need? How low do rich peoples’ taxes need to get? At what point do these people who are making money hand over fist end up actually reinvesting their freed up cash into the economy?

    Comment by Levi — July 13, 2011 @ 5:17 pm - July 13, 2011

  40. And who are the “financiers” who lied about those mortgages and securitized them with the implicit guarantee that they were backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, Levi?

    Why, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which between the two of them own or guarantee almost 40% of the US mortgage market, including a huge chunk of subprime mortgages which they, by your standards, “lied about”.

    And who told them to lie about it? Why, the Obama Party, which insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should “roll the dice” and subsidize/securitize/lie about subprime mortgages – over the Bush administration’s objections.

    So you created the mess, Levi. And of course

    Oh yes, I’m sure the George Bush administration was stymied by the Democratic minority to fix the problem. As if a Republican President would intervene in financial markets on the regulatory side during during an election.

    Republicans wanted the bubble, they fostered the bubble, they ignored the problem, Democrats were in no position to enact anything or prevent anything from happening… you’re making stuff up.

    Comment by Levi — July 13, 2011 @ 5:21 pm - July 13, 2011

  41. OK, Levi is really stupid because I have refuted his talking point multiple times and he still doesn’t get it. In a global economy, if a corporation has money to invest in creating jobs, why should it invest in the USA that has a higher tax rate than any other industrialized country (save Japan), and where they will have the EPA, the NLRB, the EEOC, and dozens of other agencies and ravenous lawyers breathing down their necks?

    The purpose of investing or expanding isn’t to give people jobs, it’s to increase profits. Companies can make more profit expanding in freer countries than they can in the overtaxed, over-regulated USA.

    Do the smart people at least get that?

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 5:27 pm - July 13, 2011

  42. By my count, this is the third time I have posted this video of Obamacrats denying there was a crisis at Fannie and Freddie and obstructing Republican attempts to prevent the mortgage crisis.

    Link: http://youtu.be/_MGT_cSi7Rs

    It must be amazing to be Levi and have a mind impervious to facts or evidence (and to be utterly captivated by a seventh grade biology lesson).

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 5:30 pm - July 13, 2011

  43. Aw crap. He’s back. I gotta find a different handle so y’all stop mistaking me for an idiot sockpuppet.

    Comment by Kevin — July 13, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - July 13, 2011

  44. Just call yourself The Good Kevin. Although I can tell you guys apart because your posts don’t usually consist of asinine bullcrap.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 6:39 pm - July 13, 2011

  45. Again, presented with facts, Levi doesn’t understand them.

    You can lead Levi to facts, but you can’t make him think.

    Note that Levi can’t understand parlimentary procedures and processes of giving the minority a voice, yet he ‘understands’ President Bush was responcible for 9/11.

    Still, with the President goes deeper and deeper into a bunker mentality, it’s not going to get better.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 13, 2011 @ 7:15 pm - July 13, 2011

  46. If Democrats were truly powerless to obstruct anything in the Bush Years, Miguel Estrada would be sitting on the Supreme Court.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 8:11 pm - July 13, 2011

  47. Because he didn’t want to. It is part of his plan to damage this country. It is now a leverage to damage republicans. Just like he damaged NASA and is destroying energy. Just like he nationalized GM and CHRYSLER and healthcare. No budget, inflated dollars, and unemployment are what he WANTS.

    Comment by Az Mo in NYC — July 13, 2011 @ 8:18 pm - July 13, 2011

  48. Actually, most economists recognize that the tax hikes that took place during that period of time actually PROLONGED the recession and made it worse.

    Again, cite your sources. If ‘most economists’ agree on this, you should be able to find at least a few who have already written on the subject.

    Right here, Obama puppet.

    You said:

    You have stated here that anyone who cuts government spending is killing the poor and elderly and destroying the middle class.

    I responded:

    I must once again ask you to cite where I said anything like that, and note that statements made by other people do not count because other people are not me.

    You state unequivocally that I made that statement or words to that effect at this site. When challenged, rather than admit that you cannot find any evidence of me having made such a statement, you instead post a link to a video by The Agenda Project, a group that I have no affiliation with and in fact had not even heard of before today.

    You are pathetic and you are a blatant liar. You make direct accusations that people made objectionable statements, then make weak attempts at backing those accusations up by posting statements made by entirely different people, then compound your already contemptible behaviour by painting those you slander as the liars!

    I don’t see how it’s possible to even have a reasonable debate with someone who cares not one bit about what is true and what isn’t.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 8:59 pm - July 13, 2011

  49. Strange twist of fate just now when I was reading FiveThirtyEight. I proposed the possibility of a 3:1 strategy to pay the deficit (75% spending cuts, 25% tax increases) and stated my ideal scenario of a 1:1 strategy (50% spending cuts, 50% tax increases).

    This is relevant because polling recently done indicates that Republican voters on average favour 74% spending cuts and 26% tax increases, which is near as makes no difference the same as my 3:1 proposal. Meanwhile, Democratic voters on average favour 54% spending cuts and 46% tax increases, which closely matches my ideal 1:1 scenario.

    Seems my instincts on what is fair and reasonable in this debate match up very closely with actual American voters.

    Incidentally, independent voters went with 66% spending cuts and 34% tax increases, a 2:1 ratio. I’d be willing to take that as the compromise position myself, though I doubt many here would agree.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 9:16 pm - July 13, 2011

  50. The problem is history. In 1986 and 1990, Demonrats promised spending cuts in return for tax hikes. The tax hikes happened, the spending cuts didn’t. The Demonrats still ower Republicans from the last two times they promised… but did not deliver… spending cuts. Why should Republicans agree to something they’ve agreed to before and always gotten burned on?

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2011 @ 9:48 pm - July 13, 2011

  51. Why should Republicans agree to something they’ve agreed to before and always gotten burned on?

    Reason #1: The alternative to not getting a deal is that the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the United States gets a downgraded credit rating, and Republicans get blamed for maintaining a dogmatic “No tax hikes” policy at the expense of not getting a deal.

    Reason #2: If you decide your opponents are entirely unreasonable and getting a fair deal with them is actually impossible, you end up with… well exactly what the United States has right now. Gridlock, and gridlock is never good for the markets.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - July 13, 2011

  52. Again, cite your sources. If ‘most economists’ agree on this, you should be able to find at least a few who have already written on the subject.

    Oh, Pomposity, have you forgotten the number of times your butt got kicked and you were called out for this very game?

    Liars and hypocrites like yourself can never live by their own rules. You scream and cry and wet yourself and demand “sources” while you spout off nonsense left and right. That’s why you left, of course; you had thoroughly shredded any ounce of credibility you ever had, and you ran away and hid for a few months.

    And then it got even funnier:

    You state unequivocally that I made that statement or words to that effect at this site. When challenged, rather than admit that you cannot find any evidence of me having made such a statement, you instead post a link to a video by The Agenda Project, a group that I have no affiliation with and in fact had not even heard of before today.

    As usual, Serenity lies when confronted with evidence of what Serenity believes, does, and says. But of course, we expect that from liars like Serenity who don’t want to own up to their ads shrieking that Republicans want to murder grandma.

    That really shows how desperate, cowardly, and pathetic Obamabots like Serenity are. It’s like back in January when Serenity claimed that Sarah Palin tried to murder Gabrielle Giffords.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 10:28 pm - July 13, 2011

  53. The alternative to not getting a deal is that the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the United States gets a downgraded credit rating

    Lie. Serenity is, as expected, merely repeating Obama talking points, as the welfare addict is programmed to do, and not dealing with reality.

    Serenity is doing as Obamabots like itself invariably do, which is to lie to protect its Barack Obama. As was made clear today, the decision to default and the decision to cut off Social Security checks would be solely that of Barack Obama, and is nothing more than an example of how Obama Party liars and welfare addicts like Serenity would throw the elderly under the bus so that Serenity can continue to suck on the welfare teat.

    Those are facts, Serenity, provided by experts. You merely sit and repeat Obama talking points and push polls, which is no surprise; you have never demonstrated any degree of intellectual prowess here, much less honesty, and thus do little more than demonstrate how “progressives” and liberals like yourself are nothing more than welfare addicts desperate to preserve their parasitic existence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 10:37 pm - July 13, 2011

  54. And then we get to Levi, another example of the utter lack of intelligence of liberals.

    So… how did the Democrats stop the Republicans from doing anything about it?

    Who had complete control of the government at that point in time?

    And yet, Levi screams and cries and insists that the Obama Party, despite having complete control of the government AND a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the past two years, far more than Republicans even dreamed of having, was powerless and hamstrung against the Republicans, and thus is not at fault for Obama’s actions making the economy worse.

    When you’re dealing with an liberal zealot like Levi or Serenity, neither of whom is capable of dealing with facts or practicing rational thought, they produce these types of hilarious contradictions. It’s almost mind-boggling.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 10:43 pm - July 13, 2011

  55. Oh, Pomposity, have you forgotten the number of times your butt got kicked and you were called out for this very game?

    Wow, more brick jokes. At this point I’m actually re-reading my own comments and effectively commenting on them as a third-party given how little I remember about what happened in these year-old debates.

    I don’t really want to get too far into either due to the fact that it would take more time than I’m willing to give, but I note a neat quote mine in the second where a comment in which I stated I saw no relevance to polling on the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ due to it being intrinsically permitted under the First Amendment was used to try and make it look like I was flip-flopping over whether Sarah Palin’s favourability mattered or not.

    Liars and hypocrites like yourself can never live by their own rules. You scream and cry and wet yourself and demand “sources” while you spout off nonsense left and right. That’s why you left, of course; you had thoroughly shredded any ounce of credibility you ever had, and you ran away and hid for a few months.

    Meanwhile, you use petulant indignation and irrelevant year-old comments to obfuscate the fact that you have not posted any evidence towards your ‘Most economists think’ comment.

    As usual, Serenity lies when confronted with evidence of what Serenity believes, does, and says. But of course, we expect that from liars like Serenity who don’t want to own up to their ads shrieking that Republicans want to murder grandma.

    Once again, you try to make me into the liar when your comments are on record for everyone to see. You did not state a belief that I share such views, you said that those were my actual words.

    That really shows how desperate, cowardly, and pathetic Obamabots like Serenity are. It’s like back in January when Serenity claimed that Sarah Palin tried to murder Gabrielle Giffords.

    Then, after all that, we get back to square one! Another claim that I said something with no evidence to back it up.

    You’re just trolling at this point and I’m not going to converse with you further in this thread. Have a nice day.

    Comment by Serenity — July 13, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - July 13, 2011

  56. And, as expected, Pomposity is easily manipulated into shooting itself in the foot.

    Meanwhile, you use petulant indignation and irrelevant year-old comments to obfuscate the fact that you have not posted any evidence towards your ‘Most economists think’ comment.

    Which neatly proves that Pomposity is in fact not interested in and does not actually read or consider any sources; Pomposity simply dismisses anything that contradicts Pomposity as irrelevant without any consideration and merely repeats Obama talking points.

    As the cited comments also showed, and as Pomposity was called out on at the time.

    And now, of course, Pomposity, just like Levi, runs away. That’s typical; Pomposity also ran away today when slapped with the fact that Pomposity supports tax cheats and hypocrites and that Pomposity supports and endorses government practices like cutting off benefits for which people have already paid that Pomposity insists constitutes murder and fraud if private insurance companies were to do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2011 @ 11:13 pm - July 13, 2011

  57. And yet, Levi screams and cries and insists that the Obama Party, despite having complete control of the government AND a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the past two years, far more than Republicans even dreamed of having, was powerless and hamstrung against the Republicans, and thus is not at fault for Obama’s actions making the economy worse.

    I’ve never said anything of the sort. The Democrats did have an unprecedented opportunity to do whatever they wanted, and they squandered it, mostly due to Obama’s foolish pursuit of bipartisan unity that will never come. I don’t buy the Democrats’ excuse that they were hamstrung by the Republicans. Obama deserves to lose in 2012 because of how poorly he handled things in the first two years in office, and I don’t think it’s too early to count him among our worst Presidents. His pitiful leadership might have been acceptable in a different time, when the economy was booming and when we weren’t fighting wars, but he’s only exasperated the problems we’re facing by failing to defend the liberal ideology that supposedly props up the Democratic Party.

    I don’t know why I’ve bothered to respond to you, you’ll accuse me of defending Obama no matter what I say.

    Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 1:11 am - July 14, 2011

  58. The problem is history. In 1986 and 1990, Demonrats promised spending cuts in return for tax hikes. The tax hikes happened, the spending cuts didn’t. The Demonrats still ower Republicans from the last two times they promised… but did not deliver… spending cuts. Why should Republicans agree to something they’ve agreed to before and always gotten burned on?

    That point is rendered irrelevant by the Bush years, when Republicans had free license to do whatever they wanted and they chose to spend. At some point, people like yourself are going to have to realize that the supposedly conservative politicians you keep voting for over and over again don’t really care about deficits, government spending, or the size of government. They make a big deal about it when they’re out of power, and they forget all about it when they’re in control, excusing their behavior as necessary based on the recession they inherited, or the wars they need to start, or the policies of the previous administration, etc. It’s a trick, they’re lying to you, and you keep falling for it even though people are warning you that it’s all total bull.

    Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 1:19 am - July 14, 2011

  59. Oh, this becomes too, too easy.

    Levi whines this when confronted with the Obama Party blocking the Estrada nomination:

    That doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    But of course, what did Levi whine and cry and scream last year when called out on his Obama Party’s failures?

    By the way, it isn’t as if voting against something is the only way to obstruct in the Congress anyway. Before bills even get to the main chamber, they have to pass through committee, and Republicans can put holds on items and otherwise delay a bill’s movement. Take Obama’s appointees; more than a hundred that he appointed have yet to be approved because the Republicans in their respective committees have put holds on their nominations.

    So Levi is claiming nomination blocking is irrelevant as an example when he was using nomination blocking as an example to blame Republicans for his Obama Party’s failures mere months ago.

    And it also neatly explodes his backpedaling that he’s “never said anything of the sort” and that he didn’t buy such an excuse…when in fact he makes clear in that same comment that the Obama Party was powerless and hamstrung by the Republicans and he endorsed and supported that excuse.

    And then the desperate hypocrite tries this one:

    If Democrats, when they didn’t have control of any part of the government, are singularly responsible for the entire financial collapse, than shouldn’t the Republicans, who at least control one of the chambers of Congress, be held responsible for the terrible way the economy is performing?

    Sorry, Levi. You’ve stated that the leadership of the House is in no way responsible for the performance of the economy.

    Or you can acknowledge that your Pelosi-Obama Party IS responsible – and thus bring your entire blame-the-Republicans fiasco crashing down around your ears. Hypocrite or liar, your choice.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 2:46 am - July 14, 2011

  60. And then the desperate, pathetic book-banner Levi really beclowns himself:

    That point is rendered irrelevant by the Bush years, when Republicans had free license to do whatever they wanted and they chose to spend.

    And now we see the comical inversion that happens when you have anti-fact magical thinkers and bigots like Levi in charge.

    Big deficits are bad – except when Obama runs four times the amount, which is good

    Government spending is bad – except when Obama runs three times the amount, which is good

    There’s no consistency, intellectual argument, or even link to reality — just magical thinking, childish adherence to dogma, and a complete and total aversion to any facts whatsoever.

    But this is my favorite:

    It’s a trick, they’re lying to you, and you keep falling for it even though people are warning you that it’s all total bull.

    Levi, you acknowledged that Obama supporters like yourself lied during the campaign to deliberately mislead and trick people.

    You’re projecting. You have stated that it’s OK for politicians to lie. You support and endorse politicians lying. You are trying to attack Republicans for the very policies and practices and lying that you and your fellow “progressives” and Obama Party leaders endorse and support and practice.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 2:52 am - July 14, 2011

  61. Shorter Serenity: Democrats are going to lie about spending cuts anyway, so Republicans should just raise taxes and the debt limit and not demand anything.

    If debt and deficits don’t matter, why even bother collecting any taxes? Why limit spending in any way at all?

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 4:18 am - July 14, 2011

  62. And the proof of Obamacrat’s lack of sincerity about spending cuts is this.

    1. Republicans want $4 Trillion in cuts, no tax increases.

    2. Obamacrats claim to want $3 Trillion in cuts, and $1 Trillion in tax increases.

    If you take the Obamacrats and Republicans at their word, then there are $3 Trillion in cuts they agree on. So, if the Obamacrats were being honest about their willingness to cut spending, they could agree to the $3 Trillion in cuts and put aside the tax increases as a separate issue.

    That they won’t shows that the Obamacrats are about as honest about spending restraint as Abe Blumenthal is about his Vietnam War record.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 6:17 am - July 14, 2011

  63. Also, even though no real conservative would defend the profligate domestic spending during the Bush years, it is worth noting that deficits declined steadily throughout his administration until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 (thank you Liz Dole). The first budget by a Democrat Congress tripled the deficit of the last Republican budget. The next Democrat budget more than tripled the previous year’s deficit.

    Worse, the Demonrats under Obama have increased Federal Spending to 24% of GDP and they have no intention of ever returning it to historical norms of 18-20% of GDP. And therein lies the problem.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 6:58 am - July 14, 2011

  64. All total bullshit. Taxes are the lowest they’ve been in decades. The richest people don’t pay any taxes at all.

    Levi, IRS statistics from 2008 disagree with you.

    the top 4.2% of returns came from those making $1 million or more in taxable income. They made 14% of the adjusted gross income reported to the IRS — and they paid 24.1% of all the income tax revenues the IRS received. Those who made more than $10 million accounted for 5.2% of the adjusted gross income reported to the IRS, 0.015% of the returns — and 8.1% of the total amount paid in income tax.

    H/T Hot Air.

    How can you tell when Levi’s lying? His lips are moving.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 7:57 am - July 14, 2011

  65. The lefties have found a way to manipulate statistics to claim that taxes are lower than ever. Basically, Federal receipts are lower as a percentage of GDP than they have been historically. This is not because of Bush Tax Cuts or because the productive class has not been beaten enough. It is because of Obama’s massive unemployment. Tax receipts are lower simply because there are fewer people paying into the system. And because people in the upper income brackets tend to have the most volatile incomes, and they have been hit sharply by the economic downturn.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 8:04 am - July 14, 2011

  66. If you take the Obamacrats and Republicans at their word, then there are $3 Trillion in cuts they agree on. So, if the Obamacrats were being honest about their willingness to cut spending, they could agree to the $3 Trillion in cuts and put aside the tax increases as a separate issue.

    But the Republicans don’t control everything. What you’re saying is that the Republicans, who only control 1/3 of government, should get everything that they want and not be made to give up anything at all. You’re being completely unreasonable if you agree with that premise. Further, I could just as easily say that the unless the Republicans agree to tax increases, then they don’t care about the deficit.

    I also just want you to know that I’m playing devil’s advocate here, the idea that we will be cutting this much spending during a recession is absurd to me.

    Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 8:17 am - July 14, 2011

  67. I also just want you to know that I’m playing devil’s advocate here, the idea that we will be cutting this much spending during a recession is absurd to me.

    Wow, Levi actually told the truth for once. The idea of sound economic policy is absurd to him.

    Now hush Levi, Adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 8:52 am - July 14, 2011

  68. So Levi and Serenity both acknowledge that they’re lying, that Obama and the Obama Party will never support any spending cuts whatsoever, and that all this is about is gamesmanship and lying to raise taxes and continue wasteful spending.

    Typical.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 9:21 am - July 14, 2011

  69. If you take the Obamacrats and Republicans at their word, then there are $3 Trillion in cuts they agree on. So, if the Obamacrats were being honest about their willingness to cut spending, they could agree to the $3 Trillion in cuts and put aside the tax increases as a separate issue.

    Brilliant that you can’t seem to see your own argument working in reverse.

    The Republicans have spent the last few months doing nothing but saying “We will never, ever raise taxes” over and over again. So then you give them $3 trillion in spending cuts, ask for the $1 trillion in tax increases to go with them, and watch the Republicans refuse to vote for any tax increases because they’ve now got most of what they wanted, the deficit is no longer a pressing issue, and they’ve now got no reason to give the Democrats anything whatsoever.

    That’s what’s called ‘giving away the queen’. Start your game of chess by giving your opponents what they really wanted to end up with anyway, then hope that they will spontaneously give you what you want despite no longer having even the slightest reason to.

    This is, of course, the main problem. The Democrats believe the Republicans would just take the spending cut side of any deal and spurn the tax increase side if given the opportunity, and they’re right to believe that. Meanwhile the Republicans believe the Democrats would take the tax increase side of any deal and spurn the spending cut side if given the opportunity, and they’re also right to believe that.

    They key now really seems to be who blinks first.

    Comment by Serenity — July 14, 2011 @ 10:28 am - July 14, 2011

  70. Oh, and I think I’ll just leave this here.

    Moody’s Puts U.S. Ratings on Review for Downgrade

    “Moody’s is the first of the big-three credit rating agencies to place the United States’ Aaa rating on review for a possible downgrade, meaning the agency is close to cutting the country’s rating.”

    But yeah, saying there’s a possibility the United States could lose their Aaa rating, that’s just liberal propaganda! Right?

    Comment by Serenity — July 14, 2011 @ 10:33 am - July 14, 2011

  71. I’m curious….

    Has anyone actually, you know, answered the question posed in the title of Daniel’s post?

    What part of “M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y” don’t some of these people understand???

    Comment by Eric Olsen — July 14, 2011 @ 10:44 am - July 14, 2011

  72. So, Serenity admits the Democrats aren’t bargaining in good faith, but just playing a game; proving my point entirely.

    And the Moody’s report isn’t much but hype. Competent financial managers have already taken the possibility of a temporary delay in payments into account. And there is no reason to default unless Obama chooses to; the Treasury will have ample funding to service the debt in August, regardless of whether there is an increase to the debt limit.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 10:47 am - July 14, 2011

  73. Has anyone actually, you know, answered the question posed in the title of Daniel’s post?

    I think we assumed Daniel was being rhetorical. But if you want an answer, it’s because Democrats didn’t want to. They had a plan which was to vastly expand the Government, and that would force the public to accept a massive tax increase to cover it. Also, they figured the economy could take another one for the team and would recover no matter what they did to it. That was a major miscalculation, but given the absolute economic illiteracy displayed by the Obamacrats and their followers… not surprising.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 10:50 am - July 14, 2011

  74. And, of course, Obama flouncing out of negotiations like a spoiled drama queen was not helpful either.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 10:53 am - July 14, 2011

  75. That was a major miscalculation, but given the absolute economic illiteracy displayed by the Obamacrats and their followers… not surprising.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much what I suspected as well, V.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — July 14, 2011 @ 10:55 am - July 14, 2011

  76. @Eric,

    The answer is simple, unfortunately. When in complete control, the party doesn’t want to admit the cliff is coming and that it’s going to hurt.

    Or Lorc Acton in, well, action.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 11:00 am - July 14, 2011

  77. Actually, Pomposity, we dealt with this last night — and you ran away.

    The simple fact is this: the only way that would happen immediately is if there is a default, and the only way that there would be a default is if Barack Obama chose to default rather than to rather than reduce one dime of spending on Wagyu beef for White House dinners, jet trips to Spain for Michelle Obama and her massive entourage, salaries for SEC workers who download kiddie porn all day, alcohol education programs for Chinese prostitutes, and “stimulus” grants to nonexistent zip codes.

    Your lies are unraveling, Pomposity, which is why you are getting more desperate. The Republicans are making it clear that welfare addicts and Obama syncophants like yourself will cut off the benefits for which the elderly have already paid and deliberately default on US debt rather than stop living your lavish lifestyles at government expense.

    You threatened Social Security and it backfired. You now are whining about downgraded credit ratings, when it is clear that the only way that would happen is if welfare addicts like you and Barack Obama CHOOSE to prioritize spending on yourself ahead of paying the bills.

    What you are making clear, welfare addict Serenity, is that you don’t care about the elderly and you don’t care about the country’s economy; you only care about one thing, and that is maintaining your out-of-control spending. You and Obama are like children throwing a tantrum because you’ve blown your allowance and Mommy and Daddy are refusing to give you more — or perhaps more apropos, you’re just repeating your “community organizer” days when you would picket banks and call them racists because they held black people responsible for their debt obligations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - July 14, 2011

  78. Oh, and it gets better: the Mocha Messiah is demanding massive tax increases on small business and manufacturing.

    You can tell that Obama’s entire economic circle is full of liberals like Serenity and Levi who have never in their life run a business, managed expenses, or had to comply with government regulations.

    Fortunately for the rest of us, the people who voted for Hopeychange and black skin last time are starting to realize that Obama truly has no concept of how anything even remotely related to the economy works, and instead subscribes to the Van Jones theory of forcible government redistribution.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 1:37 pm - July 14, 2011

  79. And also, let’s look at what Obama is insisting can never be cut under any circumstances.

    Mr. Obama’s “untouchable” list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on “green” jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

    So Obama would rather default on the debt, cut off Social Security and Medicare, and stiff military personnel and health care providers than dump a boondoggle high-speed rail system, stop unspent “stimulus” funds that are overwhelmingly going to Obama donors, and get rid of crony kickbacks to failing companies headed by Obama donors and syncophants for “green energy”.

    In other words, Pomposity, your Obama admits that his first priority is to pay off his cronies, and to hell with anyone or anything else.

    How do you think that’s playing, Pomposity? We know you support the kickbacks and welfare for Obama supporters and screwing everyone else over, but do you think your attitude is mainstream?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 1:47 pm - July 14, 2011

  80. So, NDT the Democrats are saying they are willing to cut anything except entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending.

    Gee, what does that leave?

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 2:19 pm - July 14, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.