GOP unmoved by Obama's budget

  • Article by: New York Times Editorial
  • Updated: April 11, 2013 - 7:12 PM

President Obama knew full well that many Democrats and liberals would be sharply critical of his decision to propose reducing the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment, one of the centerpieces of his 2014 budget, which was released on Wednesday.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceApr. 11, 13 7:32 PM

From the article: "Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, said last fall that if Obama proposed [curbing the rise of Social Security benefits and raising Medicare premiums for higher-income people], he would consider allowing tax revenue to go up. But, on Wednesday, when the President actually did so, ... not a single congressional Republican could be found to consider a budget that combines twice as much in spending cuts as it raises in tax revenues." The statement speaks for itself....

38
4
dave9398Apr. 11, 13 8:18 PM

pumice - "he would consider allowing tax revenue to go up. But, on Wednesday, when the President actually did so, ... not a single congressional Republican could be found to consider a budget" --- The tax rate went up on the top earners in January, it was in all the papers don't you remember?

5
37
dschachenmeyerApr. 11, 13 9:38 PM

From the aricle, "budget that combines twice as much in spending cuts as it raises in tax revenues." -- Only by Washington math can you propose a budget that spends more next year than it does this year, but still call it a budget cut. Hint: it''s not a cut if you take a little money from one area but spend a lot more in another area. Total spending matters.

7
32
marsbonfireApr. 11, 1311:18 PM

dave9398Apr. 11, 13 8:18 PM pumice - "he would consider allowing tax revenue to go up. But, on Wednesday, when the President actually did so, ... not a single congressional Republican could be found to consider a budget" --- The tax rate went up on the top earners in January, it was in all the papers don't you remember?__________the tax rate reverted back to what it should have been. Stop acting like 3 points equals piracy.

36
4
lostwolf95Apr. 12, 13 5:01 AM

To Dmeyer: The bush tax CUTS which were extendended in January were not a tax rate increase. It was a short term tax CUT that has now been extended permanently (or until the next tax rate adjustment). The president did not want that tax cut to be extended for the rich. That is not an increase. Secondly, the top 1% of americans control 40% of GDP. This rate is CONSIDERABLY higher than a few years ago and monstrously higher than 30 years ago. How much GDP do you want them to control? Is 50% good enough? How about 60 or 70%? ENOUGH with the loopholes for the rich and the corporate welfare for big business already!

36
2
ti1310Apr. 12, 13 6:47 AM

---. The bush tax CUTS which were extended in January were not a tax rate increase. The president did not want that tax cut to be extended for the rich. That is not an increase.--- if the tax rate went up its an increase, just like Liberals calling a smaller spending increase a cut..Typical Liberal math

3
36
twinsajsfApr. 12, 13 6:57 AM

What I don't understand is why Republicans view corporate welfare recipients differently than individual welfare recipients. After all, corporations are people, right? Can someone explain this?

31
0
firefight41Apr. 12, 13 6:58 AM

pumice - "he would consider allowing tax revenue to go up. But, on Wednesday, when the President actually did so, ... not a single congressional Republican could be found to consider a budget" --- The tax rate went up on the top earners in January, it was in all the papers don't you remember?__________the tax rate reverted back to what it should have been.************************** It was a tax increase. Deal in facts once in a while.

1
30
carltonkaApr. 12, 13 8:03 AM

Just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Had that been done two years ago, we wouldn't have a debt ceiling crisis and we'd have lowered the deficit. Obama is working for Wall Street.

16
2
capsule2Apr. 12, 13 8:28 AM

firefight41, It was a tax increase. Deal in facts once in a while. = So if your employer cuts your salary in 2013 by 25%, and in 2014 gives you a 5% raise, you will consider it an increase in the ethical/moral sense? I think you should deal in facts once in a while.

18
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT