exactly, they can be criticized for not anticipating the problems with the economy. that argument however doesn't bode well for conservatives
I do feel there is a difference. It seems like NO has become possible. I know they still want to avoid raising taxes if possible, and are trying to think of ways around doing so. From the outside it really seems like the President is saying we have to find a way around raising taxes, but the people around him are trying to convince him that it is the best way, if not the only way they can achieve the massive healthcare overhaul.
Maybe, but I think there's a big difference between raising taxes on the wealthy and raising taxes on everybody. My impression is that they will try to raise taxes on the wealthy first (as he indicated he would do in his plan) and only if that isn't enough would they consider other solutions. I think the active consideration of those solutions is still a ways away. I didn't watch these shows myself, but the impression I get from quotes and clips is that these were just questions that were being asked that needed to be answered and not a coordinated attempt by the administration to get that idea into the national conversation.
Just saw this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ma-committed-shielding-middle-class-tax-hike/ [rquoter]"The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year," Gibbs said, repeating Obama's pledge from the presidential campaign.[/rquoter] So, I guess this really isn't news after all.
either Gibbs is lying, or this was a trial balloon that went pfffthft, or Obama has no control over his cabinet.
Or the explanation I proposed earlier is accurate, and Gibbs explanation in the article is accurate as well. Sorry, but the only explanations that really make sense are that people made news out of something that wasn't really news. Doh!
maybe they were floating the idea of tax increases as a means of compensating for the largest drop in tax revenues since the depression.
what point are you trying to make, that tax revenues to be made up for, or we should just not plan on paying for programs like bush's prescription drug program.
Obama's record deficits have nothing to do with the prescription drug program. and btw, W is no longer president- you'll need to get some new arguments.
How long exactly did we have to hear about "Clinton's recession" and all of the other things that Bush supposedly "inherited" from the previous administration? It is nothing but fact that $700 billion of the "record deficits" were directly passed on to Obama via TARP. Hundreds of billions more were added by Obama ceasing to run the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions off the books, instead accounting for the expected expenses in the budget rather than by "special" appropriations. IOW, you are continuing to embarrass yourself, basso.
are we talking defecits or tax revenues, you're all over the map. I still don't understand the point of your post, is tax revenue decreasing obama's fault?
The funny thing about TARP when you talk about Basso is that most people on this site supported or not based on philosophy regardless of political lines. Basso honestly thinks everyone is like him and they support policies based on affiliation. Case in point, he doesn't even know why he posted this info on tax revenues, he just thinks its anti obama in some way.
The same defense could've been applied to GH Bush when he was hammered from all sides for breaking his "read my lips" pledge yet few give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Obama clearly said that he was going to hold the line on raising tax cuts for those making under $250K. In fact the quote that Uolj posted he pledges to do so. Spin it as you may but if taxes are raised on those making less than $250K that is definately going back on his pledge. At the moment though taxes haven't been raised yet and there is no plan out to raise taxes on those under $250K so its premature to claim he is going back on his pledge.
Well, it could be the same if reagan left him a $700,000,000,000 bailout plan to account for and a finacial crisis not seen since the 30's while at the same time leaving him no wiggle room on interest rates because it was flooring the rates during bush's admin that was a major cause of the mess left. other than that, i can see how its the same
Reagan left GH Bush what was the largest deficit in US history at that time, an S&L bailout mess, a recession, and paying for a major military buildup.
Once again - basso resorts to the vaunted Time Machine argument to prove his point. Fiscal policies which were made from 2001-2008 = the result of the guy who took over in 2009.
Other than S&L bailout which was 1/6 of Tarp, its kind of hard to argue for Reagan leaving Bush a mess, WHEN BUSH WAS HIS VP
