Only 26% of REPUBLICANS want only spending cuts!

[Synthaholic]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, both sides have dug in now. It's like the shoot out at the ok corral.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, both sides have dug in now. It's like the shoot out at the ok corral.

Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts. So he isn't dug in.

Republicans would rather sink the country than go against Grover Norquist. How pathetic is that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, both sides have dug in now. It's like the shoot out at the ok corral.

Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts. So he isn't dug in.

Republicans would rather sink the country than go against Grover Norquist. How pathetic is that?

Stop fooling yourself. They're both dug in on taxes.

 

[oreo]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

Can you give me one single example of when taxes were raised on Americans and that money was used to pay down existing debt?

When the Federal Government get their hands on additional money--they simply use that for more leverage to borrow and spend more.

The cookie jar has got to be taken away--and that is the only meaningful way to stop this spending insanity.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

 

[Mr.Nick]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

Then the democrats and Obamafuck cries republicans are blocking them....

Of course the leftists in the media are so overwhelmingly dishonest, now they're trying to take both sides

The sad part is the retards on the left buy it because they believe anything they're fucking told...

What a bunch of shitcakes.

 

[Oddball]

Can you give me one single example of when taxes were raised on Americans and that money was used to pay down existing debt?

*crickets*

 

[Skynet]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

Can you give me one single example of when taxes were raised on Americans and that money was used to pay down existing debt?

When the Federal Government get their hands on additional money--they simply use that for more leverage to borrow and spend more.

The cookie jar has got to be taken away--and that is the only meaningful way to stop this spending insanity.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

 

[Oddball]

So, both sides have dug in now. It's like the shoot out at the ok corral.

Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts.

....spread out over 10 years, back-loaded to a date when he's no longer in office no less.

Which means that he's trying to punt the hard decisions...Just like the gutless pussy that he is.

 

[sharia4USA]

‘Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda...'

The words of President Barack Obama were ensued by celebrations in towns and cities across America, where the young and old were shedding tears of joy, amidst jubilation in the realisation that the figurehead who represented resistance to Western imperialism was killed by an elite force from the U.S Navy Seals. The description of the killing would please the imagination of many patriotic Americans as the account reminisces a scene one would watch in a Delta Force movie - the best trained commandos executing a dangerous mission in a slick, spectacular fashion - something that will go down in the future edition of US Navy SEAL Combat manual.

After the Hollywood-style operation drew to a close and the nonsensical narrative began, one finds an array of contradictory and conflicting media reports about the finer details prior to his assassination. Such inconsistencies add to the fuel of speculation about the exact nature of the event and even the killing itself. One account speaks of the presence of human shields that has subsequently been retracted and another report implies how Bin Laden resisted but the latest update states that he was unarmed and exhibited no willingness to fight. Following this piece of journalistic ‘accuracy', another absurd claim states that he was buried at sea following a ghusl and Jannaza prayer! Which sea was he buried in? Either the Indian Ocean or the North Arabian Sea!

The information, at best remains vague and sketchy, which will continue to add to the conspiracy theories that have already circulated. Putting aside the speculation and hearsay, a number of pertinent points can be made:

1. This event will not dampen the Ummah's zeal for change based on Islam

The U.S Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, voiced her thoughts and gave a message to the Muslim World stating that Bin Laden's death came at a time when people in the Middle East and North Africa were rejecting the ‘extremist narrative' and were standing up for freedom and democracy. Such comments are typical of those whom espouse the Capitalist mindset where a particular event can be capitalized in order to sway the masses in a certain direction in order to maintain the status quo of subjugation and oppression. It appears that her comments are a desperate attempt to set the trajectory of the Muslim World in line with the aspirations of the secular West as a way of continuously exploiting the rich resources and securing strategic interests for the Western powers.

It's a far cry to assume that the Muslim World does not wish to see the implementation of an Islamic political system upon her land. More and more of the Muslim population is placing greater hope and confidence in the Islamic model to govern life affairs and it is only a matter of time when both democrat and dictator will write their last pages in history before a new leaf is turned.

2. The ideological battle between Western interference and Islam still continues

The conflict between Haqq and Baatil has always been the central dimension of the human condition and existence. One only needs to ponder on the dialogues between Syedinna Ibrahim (AS) and Nimrod, Syedinna Musa (AS) and Firawn or our Nabi Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and Abu Jahl. It then becomes all too apparent that the conflicts can take many forms but remain constant in their essence. The fact that man-made systems and ideas are governing the earthly world requires a united Muslim effort to refute erroneous ideas, be it relating to belief, social ideals, political theory or economic policies. Therefore, the battle of ideas will still continue between Capitalism and Islam, so our struggle to eliminate the colonialist influence from our lands will proceed unabated. This struggle will haste forward despite the distractions and oppression that is bestowed upon this Ummah. This struggle will continue to be political in nature until, and even after, the Khilafah Rashidah takes its resting place.

بَلْ نَقْذِفُ بِالْحَقِّ عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ فَيَدْمَغُهُ فَإِذَا هُوَ زَاهِقٌ

"Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away!" [al-Anbiyaa, 21:18]

 

[Skynet]

So, both sides have dug in now. It's like the shoot out at the ok corral.

Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts.

....spread out over 10 years, back-loaded to a date when he's no longer in office no less.

Which means that he's trying to punt the hard decisions...Just like the gutless pussy that he is.

how much has the GOP offered? $2 trillion? im pretty sure that $4 trillion is larger than $2 trillion

ask the GOP where all those jobs that they campaigned on are.....

 

[Oddball]

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

Presidents don't balance budgets, they only sign off on or veto them.

Taxing and spending authority and legislation originates in congress, by law.

 

[Skynet]

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

Presidents don't balance budgets, they only sign off on or veto them.

Taxing and spending authority and legislation originates in congress, by law.

same question then, name a GOP controlled congress that has balanced the budget.

and if spending is the responsibility of congress, as is raising the debt ceiling, then by your logic how is this Obama's fault?

 

[Oddball]

Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts.

....spread out over 10 years, back-loaded to a date when he's no longer in office no less.

Which means that he's trying to punt the hard decisions...Just like the gutless pussy that he is.

how much has the GOP offered? $2 trillion? im pretty sure that $4 trillion is larger than $2 trillion

ask the GOP where all those jobs that they campaigned on are.....

Timidity is timidity, no matter from whence it comes.

Jobs are irrelevant to the topic at hand....Best start another thread on the subject.

 

[sharia4USA]

obama go to hell. Killing millions of innocents fuck you obama!

 

[Oddball]

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

Presidents don't balance budgets, they only sign off on or veto them.

Taxing and spending authority and legislation originates in congress, by law.

same question then, name a GOP controlled congress that has balanced the budget.

and if spending is the responsibility of congress, as is raising the debt ceiling, then by your logic how is this Obama's fault?

Nobody balanced the budget...The fake "balanced budget" scam projected the budget to be in balance in 2002, from 1998...It was a lie from the get-go.


Obutthead is the one demanding that the debt ceiling be raised.

You're not really that up on current events, are ya?

 

[Mr.Nick]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

Can you give me one single example of when taxes were raised on Americans and that money was used to pay down existing debt?

When the Federal Government get their hands on additional money--they simply use that for more leverage to borrow and spend more.

The cookie jar has got to be taken away--and that is the only meaningful way to stop this spending insanity.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

The GOP has been fixing democratic financial mess since day one..

Democrats have always been Federalists/socialists since they became...

Freedom is individual financial security - NOT government dependence.

 

[sharia4USA]

Can you give me one single example of when taxes were raised on Americans and that money was used to pay down existing debt?

When the Federal Government get their hands on additional money--they simply use that for more leverage to borrow and spend more.

The cookie jar has got to be taken away--and that is the only meaningful way to stop this spending insanity.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

i will answer your question when you can show me a GOP president in the last 50 years that has had a balanced budget.

The GOP has been fixing democratic financial mess since day one..

Democrats have always been Federalists/socialists since they became...

Freedom is individual financial security - NOT government dependence.

Only fascists support tax increases. Democrats are fascists incarnate!@

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

# 9-So are all the Pub plans, shyttehead...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.


We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)


The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.


With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.


However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.



*snip*

Can't you get it down to 6 percent? Rdean would be so happy then.