Fox News' Bret Baier asked all eight Republican candidates:
"I'm going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you'd walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?"
All eight candidates raised their hand. If offered a debt-reduction package that is 10-to-1 in their favor, all of them would say no.
They are all so afraid of the far-right extremists that they wouldn't have the guts to work toward solving our debt problem. They would choose stagnation over real solutions.
This should be a real wake-up call to moderate voters.
Video of all 8 Republican candidates saying no to debt reduction deal
Interesting questions but they are phrased wrong. Part of the problem is in the phrasing. Whomever controls the conversation often wins. Damn it there is NO tax increases! Several years ago Clinton had things on the right path with the best national debt expectations we have had in the modern era. THEN Pres Bush gave a tax break that was supposed to be temporary and the vast majority of it went to the wealthiest people. Now a lot of ordinary people have been fooled by the joke that these wealthiest 5% need that money so they can hire everyone else, That's crap. The wealthiest people need to start paying what they paid before the GOP gave away what we needed and what we need now and that is the wealthiest people's proper contribution. It is a rare first world country indeed where the wealthy people pay as little as Americans. Has America gone nuts! Throw out the silly Tea Party!
Sad but true. However, some are in touch with God.
In reality, most went to the middle class. Wait till they expire and you will realize and remember the cuts. I wrote a hub about it but it was censored. Google Bush tax cut and read the actual bills. I will give you one example. 2001 tax cuts gave us a 3% with holding cut, some lower income got more with the new 10% bracket. 2003 gave another 2% cut. Expire the tax cut and you will lose 5% of you pay. Married people will pay 15% to 20% more when the marrage breakd are gone. Not to mention all the rules for 401K and retirement funds that gave you great options including putting in more for retirement and not paying taxes on it. That will all go away. There are many breaks for small businesses like the local elecrtician and more. If you read the bills, you will be truly suprised. I was
In typical deceptive style, you neglect to mention that President Obama only wants the cuts to expire for the top 2%.
The GOP will not close tax loopholes for the rich, and the won't vote for a bill that extends the tax cuts for the bottom 98% unless the wealthy get their free ride.
Who is the GOP working for?
As always, it is you that is truly uninformed. He says he wants to close loopholes fro the top 2 %, but wants to let the ENTIRE Bush tax cuts expire. Please be more informed when responding.
"In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans," Obama said in his speech. "But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again."
The Bush Tax Cuts will expire. Based on the previous legislative proposals, I predict the President and democrats will try to extend the cuts for the bottom 98%. Based on their previous policy, I predict the Teabaggers will demand tax Cuts for their masters, the top 2%.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the quote from the President is clear.
Do yourself a favor, go read the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut bills. I could care less what Obama said. Here are some fact for you:
1. Obama has raised taxes. Less than 30 days in office, he raised the taxes on gas calling it a sin tax to get people to conserve and buy electric cars. Recently GM has asked for a $1 dollar tax on gas, Obama said he would address it after the elections. Now I do not have to be a Harvard grad to know he meant he will do it, but knows it would hurt his election chances.
2. He raised taxes on cigaretts and alcohal.
3. Starting 12-31-2011 Obama has put a 3.8% tax on real estate sales over $250,000.
4. Obama want to eliminate the republican jet tax. THe tax break was part of Obamas stimulus plan. Nows for the best part. The tax break expired in 2010. Obama wants to cut a tax break that no longer exists.
So "Obama said" carries no weight when it comes to tax increases
In order for your prediction to come true, there are only a few cuts that will happen. They will not add up to anything.
One more thing, enough with tea baggers. Were they here when Congress overspent? NO Were they here when Obama pushed his stimulus? NO In fact they were not aroung for anything that everyone blames them for. The only item you can get on them for is the Debt debate.
http://www.moneyandrisk.com/retire-earl … atic-plan/
link to the Bush tax cuts here, there is also a link for a calculator to see how much your taxes will go up if Obama allows then to expire.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c … .1836.ENR:
Why can't we afford 1 trillion in tax cuts? The simple answer is to spend 1 trillion less. Better yet spend 2 trillion less.
There's a reason not a single one of them raised their hands.
Taxes are already as high as they need to be, we need to cut spending.
The real solution is cutting spending. John Stossel has many great ideas on how to create a surplus without raising tax rates one iota. If you stop and take a look at all the taxes we pay on all levels, you would see that we actually get to keep very little for ourselves. Even if you took all the money that the top 5% have, you still wouldn't come close to balancing the current budget, which by the way is not even a real budget. So the real cutting needs to be done and the politicians need to grow the backbone to do it.
Isn't that the job of the Super Committee?
Interesting that there are 12 of them.
I see a hung jury in our future...
12 people in charge of 2 trillion taxpayer dollars.
the constitution really is dead.
Well, Ive sent an email or two to my representatives in Washington, Evan. You should too if you havent already.
No, Im not overflowing with confidence that my objections to this superduper commitee are going to be taken seriously. But making your voice heard is better than not.
The Congress and President do not care what we have to say about anything. There is a new aristocracy emerging and they are confident that they are wiser and more virtuous than all the rest of us. That is why this whole thing was cooked up in secret meetings and ignores the budgetary responsibilities with which Congress was charged by the Constitution.
Emerging? I got news for you it emerged a long time ago and it aint goin away! As for whether or not they care about what we have to say I'm sure I agree with you, but I've never been one to take it lying down.
Everything was settled at the Bilderberger meeting. The marionettes do dance well though, you must admit.
I've been writing letters for years. No one cares.
They should be hung or they are well hung?
Are we still struggling in an economic down turn? What does a tax increase do to an economy in a recession? There are times I wish the Republicans did not take the House and that Democrats still had a filibuster proof Senate. It will take an absolute disaster created by an over reaching State to convince some that the government is a problem not a solution.
Michele Bachmann recently said that she would bring back the ban on gays in the military...
Because uncalled for, unneeded, unfair, hell-raising segregation and inner conflict is the USA's first priority. She is a visionary, she sees that drawing lines between citizens and breaking apart national unity is the best way to save a country spiraling out of control. I'm not a big Obama fan, but if she is the Republican's candidate, then congrats to the Democrats on another four years.
My husband, who is a registered Republican, says the same thing. If Bachmann, or any other extreme social conservatives gets the Republican nomination, then it's Obama for another four years.
Don't Ask Don't Tell has already been reinstated.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/18/nin … dont-tell/
On the request of Barry's Justice Department.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2 … arges.html
What national unity are you talking about?
Do you think our country is united right now?
The Tea Party and now the mainstream Republican Party simply dont want to tax the rich. All of the different liens, surcharges and regressive taxes on the poor and middle class are not so quietly applauded by the Republicans. After all, they need revenue and other scams to do their dirty pet projects that they get through with riders on bills that Democrats will vote for. They also have made no effort to resist the increasing 'war' 'economy' and they give a rat's @ss about creating jobs. But they wont dare mess with the wealthiest people's precious tax cuts eventhough alot of that money is leaving the country. Politicians need their kickbacks. And you could say Democrats are taking kickbacks from what they call Big Labor and that is true. But atleast the unions are fighting for jobs to stay in this country.
By the way, funneling your money to Switzerland or the Caymans to avoid taxes is called capital flight. In most countries it is a crime. In fact in South Korea (that's South Korea, the democratic, anti-communist part of Korea) you can and will get the death penalty for commiting capital flight.
Sorry Pretty Panther -
I did not see that you had posted on the same thing I did. I will pull mine down but let me include...
Now consider this...A CNN poll released this week 8/10 found that 63 percent favored "increases in taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans." Additionally, the cornerstone of the GOP plan to balance the budget without new revenue is privatizing Medicare, which transfers the cost of health care from the government to seniors on a fixed income. This approach (or to quote the poll exactly, "Major Changes to the Medicare and Social Security System")... was supported by 35%.
So who are the GOP candidates representing when they boldly ignore the majority?
I think we can guess who they are representing.
Because like you , so many have been brainwashed into believing that nothing can be cut so raise taxes!! Well guess what, if someone like me can find 5.06 trillion dollars in cuts they can find them and more. Take 5% across the board cuts, 15% pay cut for congress, 25% for the President. Cut 600billion dollars from the NSF. They spend so wisely, like the study of jell-o werstling, the recreation of the 64 worlds fair, study of ticket sales on the internet, the shrimp on the treadmill and a whole lot more. THe CBO and GAO showed a report to save over 200 billion dollars per year eliminating duplicate jobs and functions., but Washington ignored that report. And how about redoing the tax code so EVERYONE pays taxes, not just 50%, redo the business tax code. Make businesses that hide overseas pay taxes. Make companies that ship jobs overseas, make those people pay with holding taxes too. After all, they are working for an American company. If ater that we still need revenues, which we will not, I would be for a tax increase and I bet the right would be too.
They embarrass me and I'm not Republican. How can anyone possibly take them seriously?
So would a ten to one deal mean 10% budget cuts and 1% tax increase?== in that case why could it not be 8% cuts and lower tax by 1%? I think the premise was vague.
Also 10% cuts in spending would total less than an overall 1% tax increase on everyone. Vague.
I would have applauded any of them who had the guts to point out what a stupid question it was.
The GOP candidates should get used to hearing this question in some form, because it's going to be front and center constantly, right up to the 2012 election. Translation - are you in favor of continuing the ludicrous and damaging tax structure as it is now?
The cause of the U.S. worsening financial state is that we allowed industries and jobs to leave the country while wasting outrageous amounts of money on war adventures and unwarranted tax cuts. This was for our own good, we were told and few noticed that it didn't pass the sniff test.
Foreign production facilities may make their U.S. owners wealthy but closed factories and jobless people are poor sources of revenue at home. The only way to meet our debt obligations is by rapidly expanding our productivity, not by milking it dry for the rich.
Plan? Is there a plan? I doubt that many believe that the cure is to take granny's social security away while the wealthy get a free ride. Tax cuts are for those who create jobs and add to our economy; not a right of the privileged.
We will all sacrifice together, or we will all tank -- together. Anyone wanting to be elected in 2012 will need a better answer to the question above and others like it. And by the way, both parties got us into this.
Yes, the Republican candidates are wacked out! What's the problem taxing the rich and big companies? They been screwing people for years!
Not just the GOP. The U.S. financial system pulls the strings of the pols in both parties. This money behemoth only cares about next quarter's dividends and profits and they don't care how this is earned.
The financial people should be yelling about the U.S. corporate tax rate, not the personal income tax rate. Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails only Japan, at 39.5 percent and Japan has said it plans to lower its rate. Big money doesn't care because our laws allow them to open a 1 person office in Switzerland and pay their tax rate.
Citizens can start to fix things by studying the issues and working for change. If party levers are pulled blindly in 2012, then we'll get the same old political snowjobs at the behest of big finance and all bets are off. This is a critical period for us all.
hunter seemed left to me, was he less whacked to you?
Nothing comes out of a deal like this except more spending. Reduction is spendiing is a zero compromise deal. I am not going to allow you to spend at the same rate with the promise that somewhere down the road you are going to slow your rate of spending...that BS...it will not happen and I look like a "sucka the horses just ran over". Reduction in spending is first and foremost in any plan...no argument. Don't trade me beads for more spending and the promise that something good will happen later on when you have left office and most of the ones who are still here must meet your committments...that program sucks and has too many flaws to fix America...wake up! WB
You are correct. Time to stop passing the buck.
Much if the 'spending' is money leaving the country, one or two or three billion at a whack, handed to one little dirtpile country or another. It adds up pretty quick. The leaders of those countries know that as long as they remain dirtpiles, America will keep handing them billions.
It's easy to see where the cuts are to be made - military spending and entitlements. The military needs a haircut - like the one they gave me in boot camp. Entitlements - I'll willingly give up ALL of my so-called entitlements to help solve this crisis but, like everyone else, I won't give up a dime while the existing Bush tax cuts allow the wealthy to slide on their share.
It's all on the table and there isn't another choice. The last balanced budget was by Clinton and he hasn't been president for 10 years. With today's debt interest load, it is impossible to tax cut our way back into the black.
It's time to pay the piper - for all of us. There are no simplistic fixes to be had. So the Bush tax cuts will go along with the current entitlement level.
Clinton did not have a surplus, it was phony math. He did not declare the expenses of SS or Medicare. He counted the revenues that went to SS and cival service retirment funds ad income. That is not income. Make the adjustment and he was 400 billion in the red.
This lie has been repeated so frequently by right-wing fringe media scum that some rubes actually believe it. Research it yourself people, don't fall for this crap.
Actually Ron, What I posted is not what what the republicans say. What I posted is after resaerch. Do it yourself and you will be surprised. You will find out I am right
PS - why are we even talking about this when...
WE JUST GAVE 12 PEOPLE THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW TO SPEND $2.21 TRILLION OF OUR MONEY?!?!!?
King George never did this to us!
The Tree of Liberty is withering.
It has been sad watching the gop bring America to it's knees by opposing anything that black muslim non American citizen Obama has tried to do to bring America kicking and screaming into this century.
The gop has behaved more like the KKK than a viable opposition political party.
40 years behind the rest of the developed world at home, while invading other countries to enforce their sad religiously based morality as a pretence to control their wealth is not a good look.
America your values are in the gutter, and the tea party took you there.
A country cannot remain strong if it does not support those in need because it's morals are weak.
Strong countries support their weakest links, that's what strength is in a country.
Don't blame me, I don't vote Republican and Tea Baggers need to go form their own country! LOL I didn't watch the candidate debate the other night. Although I was in the mood to watch a comedy, I settled on the Family Guy instead - seemed more realistic than what the gop candidates had to say. Now that the Texas, Bible thumping Governor, Perry, jumped into the race (as if we need GWBush: Part 2), the gop cadidate debates is now an official sitcome!
I must agree. I avoided the bagger debate myself. I think they should go with the Texan myself. It's about time this guy got some of the attention he deserves.
He should get the attention he deserves, but they don't do tar and feathers like they used to.
Well with Bachmann winning in Iowa I would think Obama's reelection is secure...
If you look at it, Romney wasn't in the poll (he would have gotten first), and it was Bachmann's home state.
Paul got Second by only a 152 vote margin despite it being Bachmann's home state.
This means that the two most powerful presidential candidates in the Republican Party are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
Yes, that's right. Ron Paul is the second most desired candidate in the Republican Party right now.
Don't bother trying to find a news article confirming this - all the outlets are trying to hide this information. Most of the top Google.news searches for the Iowa vote completely ignore Paul.
Don't believe me? Here's the third-from-top news article title for the google.news straw poll results: "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll; Pawlenty 3rd"
-- who came in second?
End the Corporatism,
RON PAUL 2012
They'll continue to ignore the only Anti-War candidate in the race
(Yes, including Obama).
Pretty sure Obama will be another one term president ala Jimmy Carter. When his previous sycophants in the media are questioning whether he has any leadership skills at all, he is in deep doodoo. Not to mention, no matter what is done, the economy will not change for the better before the next election, and unemployment will probably get worse before it gets better. He is starting to realize he is on the way out, so he's taking a vacation in a million dollar house instead of staying in Washington to work on solutions. Probably grabbing up all the Presidential memorialbila he can ala the Clintons on their way out.
Rick Perry will kick his ass especially if he has Marco Rubio running as his VP. They'll take every state except for the northeastern ones. They may even take California with the help of the Latino voter.
Obama is plenty worried, why do you think he has so much more gray hair?
I'm happy for her that she got that recognition.
Not happy enough to ever in a zillion years vote for her, but kinda cool that the woman candidate is doing well, so far.
Just waiting for Mrs. Palin to jump in and spoil the party.
If she does, I'd be royally PISSED if I were MB.
A bit off topic, but not really. When we're talking about GOP candidates being out of touch.
I do not think Palin will run. I think she wants everyone to know she has support and is a force. I think she is positioning herself for a cabinet position and run for President in the future. I could be wrong
What cabinet post would Palin qualify for?
Ambassador to her beloved Israel is about the only thing I can see. And that's a huge stretch.
I continue to be amazed that anyone who voted for Obama can talk about qualifications for elective office. So I suppose you might have a point. You can't understand how one might be qualified to run a vast bureaucracy as Secretary of ? when the least qualified person to ever be elected to national office, let alone the Presidency, now sits in the oval office.
As former head of Alaska's oil commission and former governor of the most important oil state perhaps Energy would be the right post for her. But not if the Republican Congress and President Elect do the right thing then there won't be a Department of Energy for which a cabinet secretary would be needed.
I did not say she was qualified. I was merely pointing out why I do not think she will run for President.
So a little over a year from now, if Barry loses, are you willing to be openly mocked? There are good reasons not to make predictions.
Rick Perry, who was a write in, announced he was running for President today. He said something interesting, stating that he balanced the budget in Texas. I checked the validity of that statement and found that indeed he did, by using billions of dollars from the stimulus program instead of using those dollars on job creation as it was meant to be used. To my knowledge, wasn't Rick Perry very vocally against the Federal Stimulus Program as well as any Federal monies? I believe that story comes out of CNN Money, but go ahead and Google it. Interesting and sure to come up in the General, should he get there.
I guess it depends on whos site you believe. Here is on called Obamasupporters
http://obamasupporters.gather.com/viewA … 4979905155
I don't care what Perry did or did not do, he's not getting my vote.
The DADT law has been temporarily reinstated at the request of the government in order to allow additional time to implement the law.
The point is actually moot because the Appeals Court also prohibited any enforcement of DADT since the reinstatement is only a legal technicality.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ … 4Z20110716
by mio cid5 years ago
Is there any chance at all of a brokered convention?Can a new candidate jump in now, this late in the race?Will any of these events if they were to occur spell defeat for the Republican party?Is a debacle brewing in the...
by pisean2823115 years ago
Strongly defending his record as United States President during the nearly three years of his tenure, Barack Obama has said he deserves to be re-elected as he has not only revived the nation's economy, but also secured...
by mel227 years ago
Who will be the most viable candidates to run against the Dems next term?Romney?Pawlenty?Jindal?None of the Above? Palin?Other?Your thoughts on ONE that seems most viable as of now!
by woolman606 years ago
Show your support and Boycott the Republican Party
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
According to Virginia Republican party, Newt Gingrich is not eligible to run in the Virginia primary election. "Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot,"...
by Quilligrapher4 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.