Archive for Sunday, September 26, 2010

Obama calls GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ an echo of disaster

September 26, 2010


— President Barack Obama says Republicans’ plan to slash taxes and cut spending if the GOP retakes the House in November is no more than “an echo of a disastrous decade we can’t afford to relive.”

Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to skewer House Republicans over the “Pledge to America” they unveiled this week. It also promised to cut down on government regulation, repeal Obama’s health care law and end his stimulus program.

“The Republicans who want to take over Congress offered their own ideas the other day. Many were the very same policies that led to the economic crisis in the first place, which isn’t surprising, since many of their leaders were among the architects of that failed policy,” Obama said.

“It is grounded in same worn-out philosophy: cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself. That’s not a prescription for a better future.”

Republicans used their own radio address to defend the plan.

“The new agenda embodies Americans’ rejection of the notion that we can simply tax, borrow and spend our way to prosperity,” said one of its authors, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy.


Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

When you ain't got nothin' good of your own to talk about...........this is the pathetic Dems strategy. America is saying, "We'll take our chances". Obama has to feel foolish at this point. How presidential. Whoever is telling him to take this approach (I asssume Axelroid and Emanuel) are off course. Emanuel probably is preparing to set-up Chicago to feather all of their nests in a couple years anyway as we speak.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 7 months ago

And you prove this point 30-40 times a day.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 7 months ago

If the shoe fits...

Remember, it is not most dems, it is most Americans who still blame Bush and his regime for our failed financial position.

Of course, facts do not matter to you....being a habitual liar.

planecrash 7 years, 7 months ago

"here", in this instance, would be spelled H.E.A.R. I, however, doubt your lack of a 3rd grade education affects the credibility of your argument.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 7 months ago

3rd paragraph says it all. Why would we vote for the same clowns who got us in this mess? It takes a minute to clean up the messes that were made in 8 years.He's already accomplished more in 2 years than most who came before him.I'm ready to give him another term. I knew going in it would probably take 8 years to get us back where we should be. It's happening, just not as quickly as the fear right-wingnuts would like And wouldn't it be just too bad if they were the ones making some sacrifices this time. You will know when racism ends in this country,It ends when our Black President is allowed to be just as mediocre as all the white ones before him..

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 7 months ago

What did I miss? Nobody called anybody a racist, What is Nancy-Tom crying about now? I hate it when comments get deleted before I see them, especially when it's a comment on one of my posts.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 7 months ago

"and demand nothing from the government!"

Except the roads you drive on, the military that fetches the oil you use to drive your car, the police and courts which enforce traffic laws and commerce in general, etc....

oh, and the development of the internet which you use to inflict your crybaby whining on the rest of us.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 7 months ago

You've got to be think it took 8 years? Try more like 40...this wasn't just a Bush issue.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 7 months ago

America calls the current regime a total disaster.

tomatogrower 7 years, 7 months ago

It's more whiney from the Tea Party. They support giving more money to the military and put bumper stickers on their cars in support of the troops, but don't ask them to pay more taxes.

And why hasn't someone asked this question? The tax cuts that everyone seems to think will create jobs have been around for several years now. Where are the jobs? Create jobs, then get tax cuts, not the other way around. Would you honestly pay someone to put a roof on your house, before they had actually started working? If you want to not pay taxes, because you believe it's your money, and you don't want to share, fine. At least you're being honest. But if you really think tax cuts are creating jobs, other than being able to hire more servants, then you are either lying or delusional.

whats_going_on 7 years, 7 months ago

It seems the Repubs are trying to take a bite out of the Dems book, calling for a nice, cheery "change"

If those on the right are so quick to take this piece to heart, I want them to remember how enraged they were last time "change" was promoted...............................................

Mike Ford 7 years, 7 months ago

hey tom go on fox as a victim maybe they can sell your garbage to the rest of the arguement baiting victims of their own ignorance in this country on that channel. David Stockman called the Reagan economic policies a farce a month ago and yet these clowns keep trying to get people on their titanic and HL Mencken is still right about the stupidity of the American people. Oh well.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 7 months ago

The fact is that there is nothing new here. It is the same recycled policy that got us into this mess from 2001-2009.

If you disagree, please point out what is new about this Pledge that differs from policies under GWB.

The GOP "policy" from 2001-2009 was to cut taxes without cutting spending. In fact, spending increased dramatically alone with the deficit under GWB. The two wars alone contributed at least a trillion to the deficit.

There are two ways to cut the deficit: tax increases and spending cuts. This "Pledge" is to cut taxes, increase defense spending, and invoke unspecified cuts in the future.

Sound familiar? Miss GWB yet?

Mike Ford 7 years, 7 months ago

typical wingnut ploy shewmon, did you watch chris christie and figure out how to say outlandish things and bait people and walk away or did you go the bully way like he did? we know what you're up to... go somewhere where you're comments are a surprise....

Jimo 7 years, 7 months ago

Most Tea Party people I know seem disappointed.

No end to earmarks, no balanced budget requirement, not a peep about reforming entitlements.

What isn't mentioned: Wall Street, subprime mortgages, lobbying, banks.

Same old country-club GOP views, unchanged regardless of how many fiascoes have occurred. “We’re not going to be any different than what we’ve been," says the man the Tea Party has been working so hard to make House Speaker.

Don't come cry on my shoulder when Lucy (the GOP) pulls the football away from Charlie Brown (the Tea Party) yet again.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 7 months ago

Better get some new glasses before you try to "see into the future".

Mike Ford 7 years, 7 months ago

gee, tommy "crash" craddock shewmon wants to bring back the original destroyers of america, big business and the gop to do away with regulations and take us back to laissez faire gop deregulation destruction and do 2000-2008 all over again... not this time crasher...

beatrice 7 years, 7 months ago

He wasn't anointed, he was elected. Why do you hate America and American elections so much?

Jim Phillips 7 years, 7 months ago

It would be interesting to learn just who on this board lives off governmental/taxpayer hand-outs and who doesn't. It might explain the blind loyalty and naivety that gets posted. I also find it interesting that those evil Bush tax cuts are probably going to be continued to help spur the economy. Gee, go figure!

Jim Phillips 7 years, 7 months ago

OK, I've retired from one job and am working part time, by choice, in another. Your turn.

beatrice 7 years, 7 months ago

Trickle down economics don't work. Leaving Wall Street to fend for itself without regulation doesn't work. Drilling, baby, drilling doesn't work. Talk about naive.

The Republicans have no plan, and they proved it. Amazingly, because of general unhappiness with the continuation of the economic downturn and unemployment, the Republicans will do well in this coming election. However, I suspect showing us their plan might actually hurt their chances.

Why don't Republicans want to admit that to fight wars a nation must make sacrifices. Tax cuts for the wealthy isn't it. We can't afford to continue along this path, unless we make massive cuts to defense, medicaid and social security. Now, who wants that?

Jim Phillips 7 years, 7 months ago

So, please tell us what the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan is. So far, I haven't heard one. I do believe the Republican, if they fulfill their promises, is to repeal Obamacare and slash government spending to reduce the deficit. Sounds like the basis of a plan to me.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 7 months ago

And ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would put something like $7oo million back into the coffers. But Repubs don't want that. It's easier for them to gripe than actually come up with a plan.And when they filibustered last week, they also shot down a pay raise for the troops. "Pledge to America" is just recycled " Contract on (oops, for) America". It didn't work the first time, why would it work now?

KS 7 years, 7 months ago

I'll take my chances with the GOP over the Dems anyday. I have about run out of money to give to the governements. I guess I will have to look to the taxpayer to pay for my needs.

Jimo 7 years, 7 months ago

I guess that would make sense if the Democrats didn't agree that you probably don't have any more money to give to government - and shouldn't have to. Did it ever occur to you that you lack the money as a direct - and predicted - consequence of GOP policies?

By what logic then the GOP, whose one constant theme is cutting taxes for the wealthy (as the cure for an endless changing list of 'illnesses')?

Or reads this statistic and finds nothing wrong with it: "The proportion of income earned by the top 1 percent of American families was about 10 percent of the national total from 1945 to 1979. Since 1980, that share has doubled, reaching about 20 percent in 2008 — or more, if capital gains are included."

This gross imbalance in wealth happened once before in American history: in the 1920s in advance of the Great Depression. Coincidence? Hardly.

Middle class not getting enough earnings? Correct analysis. The cause of this being the Democrats? Failure of analysis.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 7 months ago


How many people in the poverty level either own controlling shares of, or own outright, large businesses that hire a multitude of people? By including the "rich" in the tax cuts, they are allowed to reinvest in their businesses, thus creating more products and/or services, which allows them to hire more people, which reduces unemployment, which creates more disposable income for more people, which allows other businesses to prosper, which creates more job opportunities, which reduces the number of people receiving government hand-outs, which reduces the nation's deficit while creating a larger tax base via consumer taxes. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

jaywalker 7 years, 7 months ago

Cue the crickets. I find it funny that people think taxing the rich more 1) is a solution, and 2) is actually where the Dems plan to get their money after printing us into oblivion. What percentage of federal taxes collected does the wealthiest segment pay already? Nope, the middle class is about to get absolutely hammered.

Jimo 7 years, 7 months ago

"What percentage of federal taxes collected does the wealthiest segment pay already?"

Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of the national wealth they collect in the first place or as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to reduce its deficit (most of which originate with Republican policies over the last decade - see chart).

jaywalker 7 years, 7 months ago

"national wealth they collect in the first place or as a percentage of what the government needs to reduce its deficit .."

Wealth they collect? Percentage of what the government NEEDS???????????? Where do you think you live? Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it Betty? Danny. Right.

That may be one of the worst retorts of all time. I leave it to you to study your own reply and discover what's wrong with your line of thinking. I'm too busy shaking my head in disbelief.

Jimo 7 years, 7 months ago

"What part of that is difficult for you to understand?"

Primarily the fantasy portion.

True, if I was writing a picture book for children on how capitalism works, I would do well to just copy your comment. After all, few third graders are so perceptive as to ask "why don't you eliminate all taxes for the rich so everyone can be rich?".

In the adult world, your error is believing that throwing money at billionaires "allows" them to do much of anything beyond purchasing estates in Provence or endowing trust funds for their grandchildren. Besides, there are very few "rich" people "with" businesses - there are quite a few that run other people's businesses, some considerable number who speculate with other people's money, a few who play with grandpa's money, and a fair number who warble tunes, dunk balls, and do other things that make them famous for being famous. And not one of those people "reinvest" in any business. To be fair, there are a few 'unicorns' that indeed are quite rich and have businesses. I'm unaware of any of them however who are motivated by marginal tax rates.

jaywalker 7 years, 7 months ago

You should stop talking now. Seriously. Sincerely.

notajayhawk 7 years, 7 months ago

What happened after the cuts took effect, Jesse? Did federal revenues increase or decrease? Did unemployment go down, increase, or stay the same? Did the economy grow - faster than expected and projected - or did the recession that started in the last year of Clinton's administration continue?

Mike Ford 7 years, 7 months ago

turn the country over to judgemental clowns to run the place like a pta....awesome...

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 7 months ago

I'm not riding anyone's gravy train. I have two jobs and volunteer for a non-profit. I pay my own bills Tom, and taxes,too. Since you've already posted many times that your wife is the bread-winner in your house, who's the real welfare recipient?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 7 months ago

Raising taxes or reducing spending, the only two ways to reduce the deficit.

Where are these in the "Pledge"?

notajayhawk 7 years, 7 months ago

And in other amusing news:

"White House, Dems see tax cut vote after election"

I love the way the Dems are trying to spin this. They're trying to "cut" taxes. The tax "cuts" were given to us by George Bush. (I know, I know, that flies in the face of the liberal dogma that Bush only cut taxes for the rich, but in reality three times as much went to the 'non-rich'.)

What the Dems are voting on - or, I should say, not voting on - is a maintenance of the status quo, at least for the middle class. In reality that means a tax increase for the 'rich'. And the Dems are trying to come up with some kind of spin to make it sound nice and noble that they're chickening out on voting for a tax increase before the election, and would rather wait until most of them are lame ducks anyway.

Lindsey Buscher 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

KS 7 years, 7 months ago

Jimo - The money does not belong to the Government. It belongs to me (and you). If the Government controlled its spending and did so wisely, I would not have such a great concern for taxation. I have a major problem when the spending is out of control and the message is that they want more. Enough is enough. To talk about tax cuts for the rich is a classic example of class warefare. The rich got the money by not being stupid. The rich got the money by working hard and taking risks. The same opportunities that are here for all of us. Some just choose to work a little harder. BTW, go get a job from a poor man. I guess I have to ask the what point will you say enough is enough? Will you squeal at a 60 percent or say, 80 percent taxation rate or is that okay as long as it is not your money? Just where will you draw the line and say no more? My bet is that you won't answer that.

beatrice 7 years, 7 months ago

Another example of class wannabe. Somebody dreaming that they too will become that top 1 percent, even if there is virtually zero chance it will happen. At what point will you finally say, okay, enough is enough -- 5% top rate? 3%? negative 2%? How about we give money to the rich since they are such wonderful keepers of the rest of us -- will that make you happy?

Now, consider what I just did. I completely made your point null and void by belittling the motive of your argument. Who cares if I'm correct, as long as I put a stop to the argument is all that matters! That is exactly what you do when claiming that arguing against continuation of the Bush era tax cuts (which were designed to be temporary!) is about class warfare. Sorry, but it simply isn't. It is a reality check that we can't continue down the same path without making massive cuts to things like defense, medicaid and social security. Our debt is too great to think we can continue without making sacrifices. We still have two wars to pay for, and recognizing this fact has nothing to do with greed, envy, or class warfare. It is just reality.

Remember, the top tax rate under Reagan was 50%. He must have been a Socialist seeking such an outrageous amount, correct?

Finally, the rich don't just create jobs, as you claim. The tax cuts are in place now, the average savings of the wealthiest Americans has ballooned in recent years, so where are the jobs?

No, jobs are created when businesses see a need that will in turn bring a greater profit. Just being wealthy doesn't create jobs in and of itself. That is a false assumption.

notajayhawk 7 years, 7 months ago

"Remember, the top tax rate under Reagan was 50%."

Actually, it was 69.15% when he took office.

It was 28% when he left.

At least make an attempt at getting some facts straight.

Stephen Roberts 7 years, 7 months ago

Jimo - veryone can "afford" to pay more taxes, especially the 47% of Americans who do not pay ANY income taxes... The idea is that I can not afford pay income taxes, so everyone else wil need ot pay more is gettig really old.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.