Obama plans three fights to "test Republican unity"

[cpwill]

this kind of stuff could only come from the kind of crowd who read the 2008 election as a mandate for a sweeping progressive takeover of the economy. doesn't he realize he will lose these fights?


The White House plans to test Republicans' unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission's findings, and pushing immigration reform. Obama's team says that these issues will make for good policy—and good politics, forcing Republicans elected in swing districts to choose between placating Democrats and independents and risking a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012.

The White House believes immigration reform may be the toughest test for the GOP—even tougher than tackling the deficit. "This will separate the reasonable Republicans from the pack running for president," said one senior Obama aide...



yeah. i'm sure they're going to lose alot of public support if they come out against amnesty, in favor of budget reduction, and against raising taxes. :roll:

 

[MKULTRABOY]

in favor of budget reduction

You mean if they come out lying?

 

[Guy Incognito]

this kind of stuff could only come from the kind of crowd who read the 2008 election as a mandate for a sweeping progressive takeover of the economy. doesn't he realize he will lose these fights?
[...]
yeah. i'm sure they're going to lose alot of public support if they come out against amnesty, in favor of budget reduction, and against raising taxes. :roll:

Wow, you're going to be feeling foolish soon. This is actually a pretty brilliant strategy for the Democrats.

It's divide and conquer. Most reasonable Republicans support tax cuts for the middle classes, whereas Tea Partiers are just shills for corporate interests who will fight to the last to ensure tax cuts for the wealthy. Most reasonable Republicans support a path to citizenship, Tea Partiers are generally racists who hate Hispanics as a matter of principle (ever see the South Park "They took our jerbs!" episode? That's the Tea Party).

It's a great scheme, make the reasonable Republicans see that the fringe elements of the party haven't got their best interests at heart. And once the Republican establishment realizes that the Tea Partiers are a liability, it's going to mean the end of the Tea Party.

 

[justabubba]

this kind of stuff could only come from the kind of crowd who read the 2008 election as a mandate for a sweeping progressive takeover of the economy. doesn't he realize he will lose these fights?


The White House plans to test Republicans' unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission's findings, and pushing immigration reform. Obama's team says that these issues will make for good policy—and good politics, forcing Republicans elected in swing districts to choose between placating Democrats and independents and risking a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012.

The White House believes immigration reform may be the toughest test for the GOP—even tougher than tackling the deficit. "This will separate the reasonable Republicans from the pack running for president," said one senior Obama aide...



yeah. i'm sure they're going to lose alot of public support if they come out against amnesty, in favor of budget reduction, and against raising taxes. :roll:

[emphasis added by bubba]

so, you seem to think that the public is not opposed to the illegal hiring of illegal workers, who displace American citizens expecting to earn a fair wage, or that the public does not mind that its tax dollars are being spent foolishly, or that the man on the street has no objaction to giving tax breaks to billionaire$ while we saddle our kids with ever larger federal deficits

 

[Diogenes]

You mean if they come out lying?

Isn't that a given?

 

[cpwill]

Wow, you're going to be feeling foolish soon. This is actually a pretty brilliant strategy for the Democrats.

:lol:, okay, we'll see.

It's divide and conquer. Most reasonable Republicans support tax cuts for the middle classes, whereas Tea Partiers are just shills for corporate interests who will fight to the last to ensure tax cuts for the wealthy.

i would like to see your polling data indicating that there is a significant part of the Republican Party who wishes to raise taxes on small businesses?

oh, wait. DEMOCRATS are the ones already fracturing on this issue, in the face of unified Republican opposition to raising any taxes.

Most reasonable Republicans support a path to citizenship

i like how you preface it with "reasonable", which can be taken to mean "agreement with me".

don't you remember the popular uprising the last time George Bush and John McCain tried to get 'comprehensive reform' ? Republicans were willing to overthrow their own leaders over that issue, you think they will blink from standing up to Democrats?

Tea Partiers are generally racists who hate Hispanics as a matter of principle

:roll: any evidence of this whatsoever, or are you just trolling?

It's a great scheme, make the reasonable Republicans see that the fringe elements of the party haven't got their best interests at heart. And once the Republican establishment realizes that the Tea Partiers are a liability, it's going to mean the end of the Tea Party.

:roll: if the Republican party tries to throw the Tea Party overboard, the Republican Party will cease to exist as serious contender. they know this, and they're not that stupid (probably).

 

[cpwill]

so, you seem to think that the public is not opposed to the illegal hiring of illegal workers, who displace American citizens expecting to earn a fair wage

i think that the public supports laws like Arizona's, and support laws which specifically target employers for hiring illegals in the first place.

or that the public does not mind that its tax dollars are being spent foolishly, or that the man on the street has no objaction to giving tax breaks to billionaire$ while we saddle our kids with ever larger federal deficits

billionaires? people who own small businesses that bring in $250,000 annually are billionaires?

 

[Erod]

Bring it on, Obama. This will seal your fate once and for all, if it's not already.

 

[cpwill]

Bring it on, Obama. This will seal your fate once and for all, if it's not already.

indeed. for the good of the country, i only hope he is this foolish.

 

[justabubba]

i think that the public supports laws like Arizona's, and support laws which specifically target employers for hiring illegals in the first place.



billionaires? people who own small businesses that bring in $250,000 annually are billionaires?

bringing in $250,000 revenues is NOT the criterion
earning a $250,000 PROFIT is where the increase in taxe rate will BEGIN

no surprise that distinction was absent from one who subscribes to a party which condones the hiring of illegals, spending tax dollars foolishly and handing out tax breaks to the highest earners while more of the population is falling into poverty

 

[Diogenes]

no surprise that distinction was absent from one who subscribes to a party which condones the hiring of illegals, spending tax dollars foolishly and handing out tax breaks to the highest earners while more of the population is falling into poverty

Replace "tax breaks to the highest earners" with "targeted investments for the politically connected" and you have described Obama's policies very well.

A free market rewards contribution, which is why Bill Gates has more money than the crack addict sleeping under a park bench. High earners are those who make greater contributions. You don't have to like it in every case - if I were in charge, Madonna and Michael Jackson would be cleaning toilets and be rewarded accordingly - but neither of us is in charge. The market is in charge and you will be rewarded to the extent that people like what you have to offer.

 

[haymarket]

There is much wisdom at the heart of this news story. If indeed the GOP does take over Congress in a few days, even if it is only the House, there will be a mighty power struggle that takes place between the members of the party who represent more of the libertarian right and the members of the party who are simply traditional conservatives. The issue will be cutting back on spending and in turn cutting back on the size and scope of government. But watch what happens when the libertarian True Believers want to tackle very popular programs like Social Security. The GOP leadership will attempt to talk reason with them and warn them of the possible consequences of tackling such sacred cows but True Believers normally are in no mood to listen to common sense. Then it will all hit the fan.

The establishment Republican leadership is already taking steps to control the newbies by "helping them" to staff their offices with veteran and experienced Washington DC pros.

This is going to be a three ring circus all by itself aside from fighting with the Dems and Obama.

 

[Cold Highway]

When Obama mentions fights I was thinking about actually settling things like men and throwing down, not pissant arguing. Granted I believe that the statist wave will continue despite all the talk.

 

[Wiseone]

billionaires? people who own small businesses that bring in $250,000 annually are billionaires?

Corporate profits are different than personal income, or at the very least the owner has the option in many cases to treat them differently especially if they are re-invested into the business or used for other business activities. For example that Obama tax credit for re-investment a while ago that we all forgot about would be an excellent example, by keeping that money as part of the business and not personal income he can pay far less taxes on that purchase than if he bought it himself. Even if he and the business are basically the same entity he still can benefit from keeping money separate and using it while wearing two hats.

Also taxes are only on net profit, not on gross income. So yes I'd say an individual who makes over 250,000 a year can spare a little more in taxes, especially consider he was doing it only 10 years ago and it certainly didnt destroy the economy.

 

[haymarket]

a question for Chevydriver

You cant spell Liberal without LIE and you cant spell Conservative without CON.

I suspect you think this passes for either being witty or being clever. But does it also occur to you that the word LIBERTARIAN also contains the same three letters making up the word LIE?

just asking

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Wow, you're going to be feeling foolish soon. This is actually a pretty brilliant strategy for the Democrats.

It's divide and conquer. Most reasonable Republicans support tax cuts for the middle classes, whereas Tea Partiers are just shills for corporate interests who will fight to the last to ensure tax cuts for the wealthy. Most reasonable Republicans support a path to citizenship, Tea Partiers are generally racists who hate Hispanics as a matter of principle (ever see the South Park "They took our jerbs!" episode? That's the Tea Party).

It's a great scheme, make the reasonable Republicans see that the fringe elements of the party haven't got their best interests at heart. And once the Republican establishment realizes that the Tea Partiers are a liability, it's going to mean the end of the Tea Party.

Do you have any evidence of this or are you being dishonest again? The fact that you go out of your way to lie about us tells us all we need to know about you, liberal.

 

[cpwill]

Corporate profits are different than personal income, or at the very least the owner has the option in many cases to treat them differently especially if they are re-invested into the business or used for other business activities. For example that Obama tax credit for re-investment a while ago that we all forgot about would be an excellent example, by keeping that money as part of the business and not personal income he can pay far less taxes on that purchase than if he bought it himself. Even if he and the business are basically the same entity he still can benefit from keeping money separate and using it while wearing two hats.

Also taxes are only on net profit, not on gross income. So yes I'd say an individual who makes over 250,000 a year can spare a little more in taxes, especially consider he was doing it only 10 years ago and it certainly didnt destroy the economy.

still waiting on the evidence that small business owners are billionaires.

and in the 90's we were in a boom (that was partially a bubble); today we are in an extremely unpredictable time, and business owners are looking for reasons to hoard cash and limit investments. you don't cause economic growth by increasing their incentive to do so, or giving them stronger incentives to invest overseas.

 

[Wiseone]

still waiting on the evidence that small business owners are billionaires.

and in the 90's we were in a boom (that was partially a bubble); today we are in an extremely unpredictable time, and business owners are looking for reasons to hoard cash and limit investments. you don't cause economic growth by increasing their incentive to do so, or giving them stronger incentives to invest overseas.

I never said small business owners were billionaires.

 

[justabubba]

still waiting on the evidence that small business owners are billionaires.

and in the 90's we were in a boom (that was partially a bubble); today we are in an extremely unpredictable time, and business owners are looking for reasons to hoard cash and limit investments. you don't cause economic growth by increasing their incentive to do so, or giving them stronger incentives to invest overseas.

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
business owners do NOT look for reasons to hoard cash
business owners do NOT look for reasons to limit investments

 

[Diogenes]

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
business owners do NOT look for reasons to hoard cash
business owners do NOT look for reasons to limit investments

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
successful business owners do NOT spend cash recklessly
successful business owners do NOT invest without expecting a return

The hostility of the Obama administration toward any business without enough cash to buy it off, and the incompetence of the Pelosi-Reid congress in failing to clarify what the tax rates will be even two months from now, have created enough chaos and uncertainty to convince every sentient entrepreneur to hoard cash until they can see which way the wind is blowing.

 

[justabubba]

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
successful business owners do NOT spend cash recklessly
successful business owners do NOT invest without expecting a return

The hostility of the Obama administration toward any business without enough cash to buy it off, and the incompetence of the Pelosi-Reid congress in failing to clarify what the tax rates will be even two months from now, have created enough chaos and uncertainty to convince every sentient entrepreneur to hoard cash until they can see which way the wind is blowing.

pure foolishiness and misunderstanding of things economic
we have a consumer economy
where the consumers' ability to buy is now handicapped by a depressed economy
tax rates have little to nothing to do with the reluctance of business to now invest/expand
diminished demand is the present reason for business' hesitation to invest and spend
precipitated by the financial meltdown on the republican watch

 

[Diogenes]

we have a consumer economy
where the consumers' ability to buy is now handicapped by a depressed economy

The consumer ability to buy depends on how much money they have, which in turn depends on how much they can earn by either producing something or providing a service. With the employers unsure of what their expenses will be in two months, it's pretty hard to find a job.

tax rates have little to nothing to do with the reluctance of business to now invest/expand

Obviously you are not in business for yourself. Tax rates have a great deal to do with reluctance to risk money.

 

[justabubba]

The consumer ability to buy depends on how much money they have, which in turn depends on how much they can earn by either producing something or providing a service. With the employers unsure of what their expenses will be in two months, it's pretty hard to find a job.


Obviously you are not in business for yourself. Tax rates have a great deal to do with reluctance to risk money.

a stunningly ignorant stance
1. to presume i am not a business owner; and
2. to presume a business owner declines to seek a profit because more of it might be taxed

 

[cpwill]

I never said small business owners were billionaires.

no, that was Justabubba.

 

[cpwill]

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
business owners do NOT look for reasons to hoard cash
business owners do NOT look for reasons to limit investments

business owners look to make the wisest decisions possible; they absolutely look to see if doing those things will benefit them.