Obama insists on tax hike for rich as part of fiscal deal

Comments (169)
Verpoly wrote:

Obama has no room to back off and he need not to. It’s the deed left over from Bush era that he didn’t yield to GOPs during the first term presidency, so why he yield now as he stands no chance to run the third term ? Geithner already resigned before facing this cliff.

Nov 09, 2012 8:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Had-enough wrote:

Awwww yes, and of course this had nothing to do with President Obama’s reelection. It was just a coincidence that the market fell immediately after elections and continues to do so. Come on take the rose glasses off! The threat of more corporate taxes, more regulation and not clear leadership from this President for an economic plan is a large part of the markets reaction. Yes, the global market plays a role too, but at least be honest about the President’s role!

Nov 09, 2012 9:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
neilc23 wrote:

Obama and House Speaker Boehner reached an agreement in July of 2011. However, our ‘gutsy’ President chickened out within 48 hours after Dirty Harry Reid refused to go along with the agreed $4 trillion deficit reduction coupled with $800 billion in INCREASED TAXES. Reid wanted to increase tax increases by 50%, from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion.

What good are bipartisan agreements when their backbone doesn’t doesn’t match their rhetoric.

Nov 09, 2012 9:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuarkHadron wrote:

“Show Down”

I sure hope it doesn’t turn into a show down. The election is over. Time for the campaigning to stop and work on meaningful solutions to start. Showmanship hurts us, not helps us. Calls for “Republicans” to compromise are all well and good. BUT, the Democrats need to compromise as well. The election was not overwhelmingly won – it was close to 50/50. And Obama did not win a majority (50% is not a majority – it is more than Romney got, but not a majority). While most will say this shows a ‘split,’ that is just the crap the parties (and the media) feed us (and too many are willing to believe). What it really shows is that the two parties don’t work. To get that slight lead each must appeal to their respective extremes – where no compromise is possible. The vast majority of reasonable, rational people in the middle are left unrepresented. Most Democrats are not ‘extreme’ and have more in common with most Republicans than they do with their extreme left-wing loonies on the fringes. Likewise for most Republicans – most have little in common with their right-wing nuts. There is room for compromise in the middle. Reasonable people are not ‘all or nothing.’ Rational people realize there must be some give and take on both sides. We can afford to cut some government spending. We can afford some type of offset on taxes. (Look up how many State and local elections approved increases in taxes – people are willing to pay to improve our situation. Many passed with a large majority – which shows both Republicans and Democrats agreed and came together for solutions.)

This ‘show down’ crap helps no one but the two parties.

Communicate with your representative. (Please, do not call them ‘leaders.’ They are NOT – they should ‘represent’ YOU!) Let them know that you will not be fooled by their made-up divisions that serve only their career of politics. Let them know that you are willing to accept compromises that benefit the nation and will not tolerate political showmanship that serves only to keep them in the news and ultimately damages us and the nation.

Nov 09, 2012 9:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

Obama will make his statement and then continue packing for his overseas trip. Guess our economic problems are not important enough to stick around – and neither is the devastation of the NE where many have been without power for 11 days if they are lucky enough to have a house still standing or homeless if their homes are piles of rubble.

Nov 09, 2012 9:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
imacracker wrote:

Boehner should get to work on a new budget that incorporates the cuts that are coming along, and simply issue a challenge to Harry Reid and the President to do their jobs, and do the same.

We get the government we deserve, and we just elected one. The left won, and the left is in favor of big, expensive government. Well, guess what, it has to be paid for. So now everybody’s taxes should go up, especially the bottom end of the income range, who have gotten close to a free ride for a decade.

Let the social security tax cut expire. Let the income tax cut expire. Let spending be cut dramatically. Let it be written, let it be so.

Nov 09, 2012 9:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
julianzr wrote:

What if the high income earners paid more taxes to solve the fiscal cliff? If Congress disagreed, president can consider the situation a national emergency and act by executive order.

Nov 09, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@neilc, typical example of what the right has become, living in their own bubble of reality. The Grand Bargain failed in August 2011 not because of your pariah Harry Reid, but because john Boehner was unable to sell it to the Tea-Party nut jobs in the house.

Nov 09, 2012 10:08am EST  --  Report as abuse

Sounds like the right is going to again obstruct anything that would help the economy in a “double or NOTHING” bet for 2014… Like last term.

I urge them to do so; the nation will find it is much easier to advance after Repoblicans become a regional force, not a national one.

Nov 09, 2012 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bill54321 wrote:

Prediction: Whatever happens, the media will praise Obama and/or blame Republicans.

Nov 09, 2012 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
beancube2101 wrote:

Fox News:
“Study warns of another recession if ‘fiscal cliff’ not addressed, …”

Fox News already decided to revenge for losing this election. The media tycoon’s servants inside Congress will create another huge crisis for this country. It is time for American patriots to organize some huge teams to round up the media tycoon’s News stations.

Nov 09, 2012 10:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rollo2 wrote:

Obama will do what he always does, give a grandiose speech, jump on AF1 and fly off for a long tour of Asia. Being president and working through our problems has never been on his priority list. He spent the last four years vacationing, golfing, doing TV shows, celebrity parties, fund raising and campaigning. Being president is a part time distraction.

Nov 09, 2012 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
blargg wrote:

They’ll likely never come to the real solution, since they are the problem. It’ll be more intervention, more meddling with the economy and crippling its ability to reconfigure and heal.

Nov 09, 2012 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
dkn111 wrote:

We all know what the speech will be:

1. It is Bushes fault.
2. The Republicans don’t know how to compromise (ie cave in)

Same old talk……….

Nov 09, 2012 10:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

If the right does not obstruct then america dies. The dems won the election but that does not make them right. It just reinforces the belief that originated with Plato that citizens under 30 are too ignorant and lacking in life experience to have a say in voting. Just because children and special interest degenerates were gathered en masse to out-vote their elders does not in and of itself mean they are right. It just highlights why democracy is a complete and utter joke.

Nov 09, 2012 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
dkn111 wrote:

We all know what the speech will be:

1. It is Bush’s fault.
2. The Republicans don’t know how to compromise (ie. cave in )

Same old lies…..

Nov 09, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
MKM23 wrote:

“neilc23 wrote:
Obama and House Speaker Boehner reached an agreement in July of 2011. However, our ‘gutsy’ President chickened out within 48 hours after Dirty Harry Reid refused to go along with the agreed $4 trillion deficit reduction coupled with $800 billion in INCREASED TAXES. Reid wanted to increase tax increases by 50%, from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion.

What good are bipartisan agreements when their backbone doesn’t doesn’t match their rhetoric.”

@neilc23

History is an awesome subject and I suggest you learn it before posting such a bogus comment. The plan did not fall through with Obama. Boehner was not able to sell the plan to some members of his party base and as a result, reniged on the deal.

Nov 09, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse

lol @ Rollo2….

Obvioulsy you don’t remember the guy before Obama who spent a record amount of time sitting in Craford , TX, including 490 days there and 400+ at Camp David and Kennebunkport.

Clinton spent a far bit of time meandering around as well as Bush I. Presidents travel, the are diplomats, they are representatives of the country to the rest of the world.

CONGRESS is the one that should be running the country day-to-day. CONGRESS is the one who should be negotiating domestic policies to fix this economy.
CONGRESS is the one who has steadfastly refused to do their jobs.

CONGRESS took 5 breaks this years, incuding bailing out in Sep. to go campaign and left multiple pieces of significant legislation on the table (including this issue about the Grand Bargain cuts).

CONGRESS is the ones that don’t work summers,holidays for weeks, closes sessions early and has a 5 week christmas, and barely manages to function every other day of the year.

Nov 09, 2012 10:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

This sequestration is really small potatos – amounting to $50B defense cuts and about $50B in social programs across the board – relative rounding error in the budget.

Save all this soap opera – world isn’t going to end nor people are going to die in masses.

Nov 09, 2012 10:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

Who cares about his “statement” the only statement I want to hear from him is that he has solved the problem. To start your negotiations by making a statement is just bogus. You know he’s planning to sink the deal and blame it on the republicans. Why else is he GOING TO BURMA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS?!?!?!

Nov 09, 2012 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

@BIOSTUDIES – i suspect they have phones on airforce 1. seriously, so it’s ok for boehner to go on before the president and state his case before negotions start, but not the president? do you even realize the two have already been down this road once before; agreed on a solution, and your obstructionist party couldn’t agree on the solution? not that i expect you to admit to that. heck, you still believe hussein had wmd’s just before we invaded. i suspect you also believe the world is flat.

Nov 09, 2012 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
CDN_Rebel wrote:

They shouldn’t make a fiscal cliff deal – to paraphrase from one ad ‘burn the mutha**cka down’. After America gets a reset in taxation (and with PayGo still law I believe) then the REAL negotiations can begin, as in which services to reinstate and how to pay for them. The lapse of the payroll tax cuts and Bush tax cuts MUST happen, for the good of the nation. A little short term pain for long term stability – eat your peas!

Nov 09, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

Go ahead John Boner. Retain your non-compromising position.

Nov 09, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
MarketPawn wrote:

Cuts? How funny is this reporter trying to be?
Political “cuts” are just decreases in the “proposed increase” not acutal decreases in last year’s budget.
Cuts would need to be along the line of laying off 1/3 of every Federal, State, Local government employee (since budget matches these funds). Then rasing taxes on every individual by 15%.
None of that is going to happen.
Instead, there will be an “announcement” and massive printing by the FED.

Nov 09, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

With Boehner’s statement yesterday that *any* tax increases are unacceptable – even in the wake of the CBO’s findings that increases on the wealthy would NOT be a significant job killer, he signals that they are ready to once again be obstructionists for the sake of 1% of the population. The fact that they are willing to risk $Trillions in net worth of average Americans 401K’s to protect the upper 1% of the population from a very modest tax hike is despicable!

Nov 09, 2012 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
Caspary wrote:

We should call for the impeachment of Boehner!

Nov 09, 2012 11:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

Still trying to wrap my head around why Bush’s 2000 victory with 47.9% of the popular vote was a “mandate” to do things the Conservative way and Obama’s Victories of 52.3% and 50.5% respectively are apparently mandates for obstructionism….

Nov 09, 2012 11:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
Guerrero wrote:

Who cares what he says!

Nov 09, 2012 11:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
uc8tcme wrote:

There is nothing wrong with going off the cliff. The GOP is trying to prevent the Bush tax cuts from going away completely – so they want to negotiate with the tax cuts in play and if they give up a percentage of the lower rate they still come out better than letting them expire completly.

So, go off the cliff and start with new terms for everyone on January 2 with everything on the table.

BTW – it is not really a cliff, it is a gradual deduction is expenses and an increase in tax rates.

Nov 09, 2012 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChangeWhat wrote:

Cuts:

Defense budget
Politician Health Insurance Plans (No American gets the same as they do)
Earmarks

Regulations:

Gas and Oil Industry – Need to be profit capped, no more multi billion profits every quarter while Americans are price gouged at the pump.

Electric Industry – Way overpriced needs to be cut so Americans can start using their money to benefit their families and not the rich. The power lines used were put in from electrics inception. So why should we pay increases increases increases. Electricity should be dirt cheap and everyone should have it.

Food Industry – Let our farmers GROW! Build ecotowers in highly populated areas like the middle of NYC for example. Each region of the country should be self reliable its the 21st century. Food prices need to decrease now!

Cigarette Industry – Should be shut down, how can the government and FDA allow them to still be in production knowing they kill US. Tax money and a means to control the population is the only reasons I can come up with. I’m a smoker by the way.

Cost of Living and Inflation need to be capped and minimum wage needs to be risen tremendously.

Taxes:

The rich need to be taxed heavily for next 30 years and the middle class needs tax cuts now.

Nov 09, 2012 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
justinolcb wrote:

4 more years of Obla-bla-bla speeches, 21 million people still unemployeed, and more free Obama money!!! Incompetence is nationwide it seems… jus’ sayin’

Nov 09, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jocomus wrote:

It’s doubtful if anybody would sell mortgage bonds to the FED if these bonds are profitable. So the very person victimized by this fiscal standoff is Bernanke who has bought up long-term bonds, but is stuck with stockpiles of QE cash having no way out with spending cut-throat.

Nov 09, 2012 12:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

I wish DOJ/FBI can investigate Boehner for his corruptive ties with the top as he is hell-bent on defending the long overdue tax handouts to the top.

Nov 09, 2012 12:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

stambo2001 wrote:
“If the right does not obstruct then america dies.”

The right were not elected to lead. The right, by obstructing, are a minority trying to force their ideology down the throats of the majority.

Then you wonder why you keep losing elections…

America died in 2007-2008, under the last Republican regime, and it speaks volumes of Republican historic revisionism that you are already pretending it never happened.

stambo2001 wrote:
“It just reinforces the belief that originated with Plato that citizens under 30 are too ignorant and lacking in life experience to have a say in voting.”

This would be a great argument, if it actually came from Plato instead of Fox.

A word of advice: check your fact before posting. Plato said people under 30 should not have children. -> http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/plato.html

Nov 09, 2012 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

AZreb wrote:
“Obama will make his statement and then continue packing for his overseas trip. Guess our economic problems are not important enough to stick around”

Now they have these amazing things called “telephones” and “emails”. Modern people can work on the move – do try to keep up.

Nov 09, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

It’s clear from many of the comments on here that rightwingers still don’t get it. No surprise. After all, in the election they ran the table in the southern red states, where education is poorest and didn’t win any states where education is strongest: http://www.happyplace.com/19076/election-infographic-shows-most-educated-states-voted-for-obama
They either don’t understand how democracy works, or they understand and have decided to reject American democracy, wanting to replace it with an inferior rightwing authoritarian model. Well folks, we’ve been trying it your way for a few decades now and throughout that period the only time we’ve really moved forward was during the Clinton Presidency and the Obama economic rescue. It’s time to stop holding this country back.

Obama has a mandate. He won reelection by a whopping 126 electoral votes. Bush and the Republicans insisted that they had a mandate when Bush won reelection with a 35 point margin. One thing Obama repeated over and over, to where everyone should be clear on where he stands, that taxes must go up on the wealthiest Americans. People voted in favor of that idea. Polls consistently back that up: a majority of Americans believe taxes should go up on the wealthiest Americans. Even wealthy Americans agree with this. And if rightwing voters weren’t taught to think otherwise, a majority of them, too, would support raising taxes on the wealthy. There’s a national consensus: taxes must go up on the wealthy.

The problem with Republicans is one of their own making: they signed pledges to Grover Norquist never to raise taxes, and they’re all afraid to break that pledge. That’s their problem. They never should have signed such a pledge in the first place. That’s stupid and shows poor leadership on their part. Well, it’s time to get over that and start serving the American people instead of Grover Norquist.

Nov 09, 2012 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ is really just a fiscal cleanse.

It’s the Simpson-Bowles plan with a countdown installed on it.

So let it happen, as-is. It was a bi-partisan agreement. January comes, we cut spending and let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5%…. expire. Why are we calling that a cliff? It’s the built-in contingency plan, and it’s exactly what we need now. Am I missing something?

Nov 09, 2012 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I have a simple answer. Restore the lt capital gains rate back to 25% and leave everything else alone. Higher income taxpayers that get mot of their income from investments would pay more, yet the poor and middle class will see very little impact, as most of their investments are tied up in their retirement accounts. Leave the earned income tax rates alone.

This isn’t raising taxes, just restoring them.

Nov 09, 2012 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

You all seem to forget The Speaker is the the third most powerfull person in the free world. He has the money, which in many ways makes him the most powerful. Yes obama and reid have to work with him…or we all pay. THAT is the simple reality of it all. That and the fact that the quy that is going to bring down obama over Lybia works for The Speaker too.

Nov 09, 2012 12:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Are we supposed to believe that it would be disastrous if the federal government let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, while cutting spending across the board? So…. cutting spending and increasing revenue. That’s the big disaster? Huh?

This is not a cliff. It’s a vitamin. Chomp the Flintstone, Congress! Do it!

Nov 09, 2012 12:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mountainrose wrote:

Tea party will never go for tax increases. And republicans cannot hold on to the house majority without them(tea partiers). They can also never win national elections with them.However curtailing deductions like the mortgage interest one will generate new sources of revenue without calling em what they are: tax increases, a big tax increase for the middle class.

Nov 09, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
livelystone wrote:

I’m just curious. . . The President hasn’t submitted a budget for a few years. Shouldn’t that be a good place to start instead of focusing on this small piece of the whole puzzle. Everyone knows that if you go ahead and raise the taxes on the rich that it will do nothing for the deficit spending!! Sounds like smoke & mirrors to me.

Nov 09, 2012 1:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

BTW The same people that put the Speaker where he is put obama where he is. Quit your b—-ing!

Nov 09, 2012 1:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeaWa wrote:

The wealthy DO NOT create jobs. They line their pockets. Absolutely, undeniably, and shamefully so. In fact, the ‘wealthy’ getting rich off our markets are often times not even Americans and their ‘wealth’ doesn’t even feed our local economies!

Nov 09, 2012 1:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeaWa wrote:

@Hadenough – Just because the spoiled greedy corporate world throws a temper tantrum at the threat of being held accountable, does not mean that if continued to be given a free ride that they would create sustainable jobs. They are greedy, they will never do anything for the good of the people. Period. At best, when our interests coincide, we can benefit. But they never act for the purposes of our interests. Never.

Therefore, when we must present boundaries. That is what regulation is all about. As far as taxation, they must pay their due to operate here just like the rest of us have to.

Nov 09, 2012 1:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeaWa wrote:

@alkaline – “This is not a cliff. It’s a vitamin. Chomp the Flintstone, Congress! Do it!”

You’re right! Obama doesn’t have to do anything about it, does he? It’s already done. It’s the speaker that is whining, now isn’t it?

Nov 09, 2012 1:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

totherepublic explains: “BTW The same people that put the Speaker where he is put obama where he is. Quit your b—-ing!”

Really? You think those were the same voters? Political affiliation aside (and that’s a biggie here)…. Boehner is a congressman from the 8th House District of Ohio (suburban Cincinnati). How did Obama’s Calfornia voters for example…. vote for Boner?

Nov 09, 2012 1:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

livelystone
Very good point on the budget but you forget, king obama is above the law.

Nov 09, 2012 1:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

@livelystone & totherepublic
could you reichties please do a little fact checking before crapping out the same tired and untrue BS. obama submitted all req’d white house budgets on time. it is congress that could not pass one.

Nov 09, 2012 1:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Dow was down, the speaker gave a q/a press conference, Dow climbed 100 points. obama gave a speech with no q/a Dow dropped over 100. Now this is just factual observation in real time. Seems every time the dems speak things get worse. And of course one of obama’s main speaking points was dysfunction-yeah he knows all about that. No, it ain’t over.

Nov 09, 2012 1:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Dow was down, the speaker gave a q/a press conference, Dow climbed 100 points. obama gave a speech with no q/a Dow dropped over 100. Now this is just factual observation in real time. Seems every time the dems speak things get worse. And of course one of obama’s main speaking points was dysfunction-yeah he knows all about that. No, it ain’t over.

Nov 09, 2012 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

@TOTHEREPUBLIC
thanks for proving just how ridiculous the now soiled right is. so you’re ok with the 7000+ point drop in the dow during bush2, and still won’t believe the magnificent run in the dow over the past four years? i suggest you march right down to the trustee over your 410k and demand it be returned to the “wonderful” level at the end of bush2 second term, since you think you were better off then.

Nov 09, 2012 1:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
911PATRIOT76 wrote:

By going on vacation to Myamar . . . .

Nov 09, 2012 2:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

jcfl
Here and now stupid.

Nov 09, 2012 2:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I Have a solution. Do what every other Nation in the G8 has done. A Nation wide sales tax.

In Canada it is 5%, and it was brought about by the Conservatives in th 90s and it is still here with the Conservatives in 2012.

Nov 09, 2012 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
robb1 wrote:

Please raise the 15% federal tax on corporate, from $ 50K to at least $100K. It will help small business to hire.

And keep the 15% capital gain at least for assets held longer than 10 years, otherwise we end up taxing inflation.

Nov 09, 2012 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
robb1 wrote:

Please raise the 15% federal tax on corporate, from $ 50K to at least $100K. It will help small business to hire.

And keep the 15% capital gain at least for assets held longer than 10 years, otherwise we end up taxing inflation.

Nov 09, 2012 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Now it is up to the Republicans to join the adult crowd and stop acting like little children and crying over every little supposed slight.

E.G. Crying about Obama making an overseas trip (basically doing his job), as others have said there are these fancy things called phones and email, hell maybe you have even heard of this ‘video conferencing’ thing. I would suspect that Air force One supports any of this (sarcasm of course it does).

Nov 09, 2012 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MWalter wrote:

More class warfare spewage from Barry. Why shouldn’t everyone (including the 47% who pay absolutely no income tax at all)contribute to this calamity. This is especially true of those who get from the government without contributing anything.

Nov 09, 2012 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
yubamary wrote:

Let the cuts expire then maybe they can work together. Raising taxes on the rich just will not do it. They need to stop spending and until that happens nothing will happen. it will be the same borrow more and tax more until there is nothing left. Obama will continue to blame everyone else. It’s his economy now and he will still continue to handle it the way he has in past.
Since there is no budget I persume they will still go on with extended appropriations. So that means spending will not slow down.

Nov 09, 2012 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Too bad Obama’s tax the rich plan is only expected to yield $40B in revenues while he blew last years “budget” by more than $1,600B.

Is that the kind of arithmetic Clinton was talking about?

Nov 09, 2012 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ohheck wrote:

Way to go, Obama! No more tiptoeing around Republican obstructionists. Keep a tight hand on the reins.

Nov 09, 2012 3:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

I hope the GOP blocks the deal and sends us into recession. America needs to wise up to the misinformation camapaigns of the GOP and I doubt that will happen without a considerable event to prove to them finally that it is just a manipulation process that the GOP do to get their money.

I think without a real attempt to move the GOP into reality (they can’t continue to hate so much and cause so much pain, and lie so much), they will never win the presidency again.

Reagan put in place the tax cuts that created the 47% they now hate. That is the definition of insanity. They hate the Reagan democrats. We see it, we know it. They just keep saying it too. It’s lunacy. The hero of the GOP created the people they hate.

Nov 09, 2012 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnnyReno wrote:

“The threat of more corporate taxes, more regulation…”

I’m so sick of reading this rhetoric. Yeah, if you let crooks and thieves run rampant on Wall Street they’ll make billions. That doesn’t make it right. If you don’t like the fact that this presidency is trying to maintain a shred of morals in corporate America, then maybe you should move to the UAE and get you a nice condo on Dubai.

Nov 09, 2012 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mandingo wrote:

Yes Obama that is why you were elected and Bonner if you want to let him lead then stop talking and allow the leading, instead of always protecting the rich who are your party backers. The rich lost this election and we know as much info as they propagandize about how poor they are – they are outpacing everyone else in obscene wealth which past societies (Roman Empire) show, could destabalize society.

Nov 09, 2012 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjg484 wrote:

We need to get back into the public sphere the recently ‘disappeared’ report which analyzed the last several decades and showed clearly that tax reduction for the highest incomes HAS NOT CREATED JOBS OR ECONOMIC GROWTH. Then every voter needs to contact their representatives in the House and Senate and tell them to get to a fair and balanced answer to the ‘fiscal cliff’

Nov 09, 2012 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Andreas2218 wrote:

These are not Tax Hikes, Reuters. They are simply the expiration of unwanted tax breaks for wealthy individuals put in place by the Bush Administration. Once a reasonable person understands that, there should be no excuse to oppose this expiration, especially since individuals making over $250K per year are not collectively opposing the expiration either. Four thousand dollars payable each week is a generous amount of money and if a small portion of your taxes is restored to a fair rate there shouldn’t be much financial hardship for these peoples.

Nov 09, 2012 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mstamper wrote:

“the planned measures could take an estimated $600 billion out of the economy and severely hinder economic growth.” Hmm… The annual budget deficit under Obama (and approved by the American people!) is $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion minus $600 billion equals $700 billion. So, even with a $700 billion budget deficit, the economy will collapse? What a pathetic joke our “economy” is! Even $700 billion in borrowed money can’t prop it up anymore. Our “economy” consists of millions of parasitical “consumers” spending borrowed money on Middle East oil and Chinese goods. And what do we exchange for all of this stuff? Worthless debt. The US is perpetrating the biggest financial swindle in human history.

Nov 09, 2012 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

For the most part, any body that wants to raise taxes on businesses does not have one. Any one that owns a business that has employees that vote for business tax hikes should lay-off all their employees. I did. Let them find some other way to pay for their houses and health insurance. Think I am alone? Watch the unemployment numbers the next few months. I and most others are not going to pay people that make it harder for me to pay them. That would be just plain stupid. Which we are not. I hope this short display of common sense wakes a few people up-probably not. I have money-enough to retire on plus some. Enjoy obama’s chains.

Nov 09, 2012 3:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bayou_Crier wrote:

The presidential election was won on electoral votes not the popular vote which was split 50-50. So, there is no mandate from the electorate about taxes on the rich.
Keynesian economics says taxation and fiscal cutbacks is the remedy for the budget defit.
I think the let the fiscal cliff come, we are still in a recession with 8% unemployment and a 16 trillion dollar debt.
The fiscal cliff will make quick work of all that ails the economy and since the country is already in recession a few more years won’t hurt given the prospect for real results.

Nov 09, 2012 3:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse

A majority of Americans didn’t vote, how could a majority of Americans have shown that they supported his policies in the election??

Nov 09, 2012 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MelodySummer wrote:

Obama has only one solution and that seems to be to tax the wealthy even more than they already are. Basic budgeting 101 for the idiots in Washington. Make due with what you have already and cut your spending. Oh sorry, that would mean Obama couldn’t pay off his puppet masters…

Nov 09, 2012 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RWBSW wrote:

I’ve always wonder why people forget the past, refuse to study history…i.e. When taxes are reduced, revenue to the government increases(Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton) You cannot help the economy by removing money from it (taxes), taking a cut (government payroll) and say you have put it back into the economy where it has been reduced in real numbers.(revenue to the government declines)
More employed in the private sector equals more taxable income.
Reality is truth…I never receiver a job, or even a job offer from a poor man.

Nov 09, 2012 3:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sgreco1970 wrote:

Reuters is trying to rile the base I see. Look, its not a “tax hike” its an end to a “tax cut” they didnt deserve in the first place. here’s where they can put “fiscal responsibility” to the test.

Nov 09, 2012 3:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Phoebe3 wrote:

People of the great USA…who do you think gives us jobs? The wealthy but not for long. They won’t be able to handle the tax increases this president is ready to put on the wealthy so better to cut down in size than get raped to make up for the ones who don’t want to work. Sorry to be so blunt but the truth hurts. America was the land of opportunity now the president wants to punish the hard working American who has worked hard to accomplish what they have so that the others who don’t want to work hard can have it a little bit easier. Come on America wake up and smell the demise of our beautiful country.

Nov 09, 2012 3:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IntoTheTardis wrote:

The GOP is in a box. Obama is still POTUS and the Senate is firmly Democratic. They only control the House. They have two options, go along with what Obama wants or obstruct everything just like last time. Elections have consequences. The GOP is the minority party. It’s time for them act like the loyal opposition.

Nov 09, 2012 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kkong164 wrote:

Robin Hood lives!

Nov 09, 2012 3:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
teddyb wrote:

Hit the rich. Punish success. Dampen the enthusiasm of those who have created jobs, and innovation. Pick a fight with The Church. Appease those lanquishing in the culture of workless welfare. Hang out with celebrities. Spend millions of tax dollars on vacations. Remove the bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Capitol. Insult Mr. Netanyahu. ….The list goes on, and gets worse from here. How is all this pre-packaged as “hope and change”, or how is it translated as “forward”. Someone? Anyone.

Nov 09, 2012 3:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
zerses wrote:

Ok, IF taxes are going to be “raised” on the “rich” how about thinking about the reality of what “rich” really is?

Rich isn’t the same in every city – every city has a much different level of “rich”.

Why does the person in Northern Virginia get taxed as “rich” but the person who makes FAR more than others in Mobile make just about what the median income is in Fairfax, really doesn’t?

Why can’t the people who live in Northern Virginia not have much hope of buying that home for the market value because their taxes are far too high?

Alabama is FAR different from and AREA like Northern Virginia or San Francisco.

This about a sliding SCALE for taxes (yeah, I know it’s what we’re supposed to have but it’s not, not by a long shot.)

Example – family of four living in Mobile Alabama is around 37,000 about what it is in Tacoma, WA – ok, so those cities RICH would be FIVE TIMES OR MORE what the MEDIAN INCOME is.

Example 1 – Family of four in Mobile Alabama can buy a home for ABOUT $90,000.

Example 2 – Fairfax, VA (Northern Virginia very close to DC) Family of four home $445,000

Now really think about that… incomes are different for SOME but not for ALL but the sliding scale makes all the more sense – sliding must mean SLIDING!

It costs MUCH more to live in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles than the more depressed areas that have no plan, no income and basicically many, MANY people not working.

The issue of taxes needs to be a lot more thought out about AREAS rather than JUST about “how much you make”. The tax structure is so out of control they need to take it back to the drawing board and let a very good computer spit out a “fair” tax for all INCLUDING the “RICH”.

RICH is AT LEAST FIVE TIMES what the MEDIAN INCOME is in any given area – so RICH isn’t $250,000 IN ANY SANE MIND!

WAKE THE HECK UP WASHINGTON.

Many people here have good ideas and have made good points like the man above me and I will quote in full his comments because I think he speaks for many sane minds.

“I hope the GOP blocks the deal and sends us into recession. America needs to wise up to the misinformation camapaigns of the GOP and I doubt that will happen without a considerable event to prove to them finally that it is just a manipulation process that the GOP do to get their money.

I think without a real attempt to move the GOP into reality (they can’t continue to hate so much and cause so much pain, and lie so much), they will never win the presidency again.

Reagan put in place the tax cuts that created the 47% they now hate. That is the definition of insanity. They hate the Reagan democrats. We see it, we know it. They just keep saying it too. It’s lunacy. The hero of the GOP created the people they hate.”

It IS lunacy – and we need to get everyone together on the same page to be able to not only fix our tax structure but to put everyone who wants to work BACK to work in jobs that are challenging and fun – and the training should be FRREEEEEEEEEEE not cost everything you’re going to make for the next 8-10 YEARS! I am disabled, I need training and I can’t get it because my husband makes $10.00 and his small social security he’s 66 – we make “too much” to get any help so we live paycheck to paycheck without waste, NO waste…

Nov 09, 2012 3:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
zerses wrote:

Ok, IF taxes are going to be “raised” on the “rich” how about thinking about the reality of what “rich” really is?

Rich isn’t the same in every city – every city has a much different level of “rich”.

Alabama is FAR different from and AREA like Northern Virginia or San Francisco.

This about a sliding SCALE for taxes (yeah, I know it’s what we’re supposed to have but it’s not, not by a long shot.)

Example – family of four living in Mobile Alabama is around 37,000 about what it is in Tacoma, WA – ok, so those cities RICH would be FIVE TIMES OR MORE what the MEDIAN INCOME is.

Example 1 – Family of four in Mobile Alabama can buy a home for ABOUT $90,000.

Example 2 – Fairfax, VA (Northern Virginia very close to DC) Family of four home $445,000

Now really think about that… incomes are different for SOME but not for ALL but the sliding scale makes all the more sense – sliding must mean SLIDING!

It costs MUCH more to live in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles than the more depressed areas that have no plan, no income and basicically many, MANY people not working.

The issue of taxes needs to be a lot more thought out about AREAS rather than JUST about “how much you make”. The tax structure is so out of control they need to take it back to the drawing board and let a very good computer spit out a “fair” tax for all INCLUDING the “RICH”.

RICH is AT LEAST FIVE TIMES what the MEDIAN INCOME is in any given area – so RICH isn’t $250,000 IN ANY SANE MIND!

WAKE THE HECK UP WASHINGTON.

Many people here have good ideas and have made good points like the man above me and I will quote in full his comments because I think he speaks for many sane minds.

“I hope the GOP blocks the deal and sends us into recession. America needs to wise up to the misinformation camapaigns of the GOP and I doubt that will happen without a considerable event to prove to them finally that it is just a manipulation process that the GOP do to get their money.

I think without a real attempt to move the GOP into reality (they can’t continue to hate so much and cause so much pain, and lie so much), they will never win the presidency again.

Reagan put in place the tax cuts that created the 47% they now hate. That is the definition of insanity. They hate the Reagan democrats. We see it, we know it. They just keep saying it too. It’s lunacy. The hero of the GOP created the people they hate.”

It IS lunacy – and we need to get everyone together on the same page to be able to not only fix our tax structure but to put everyone who wants to work BACK to work in jobs that are challenging and fun – and the training should be FRREEEEEEEEEEE not cost everything you’re going to make for the next 8-10 YEARS! I am disabled, I need training and I can’t get it because my husband makes $10.00 and his small social security he’s 66 – we make “too much” to get any help so we live paycheck to paycheck without waste, NO waste…

Nov 09, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LordDragon wrote:

Kudos to Obama and he should close those loopholes on overseas accounts to dodge taxes as well. We could probably double our revenue if we put some muscle into the IRS even without a rate increase. If the GOP won’t budge let the fiscal cliff bring down the hammer and see if they would like to pass tax reform on the lower and middle class after that. They would not date vote against it. Poor and middle class Republicans wouldn’t pass that up. Immigration reform? I think they see the light now. It’s time for them to end there obstructionistic behavior over the last 200 years.

Nov 09, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mstamper wrote:

“What if the high income earners paid more taxes to solve the fiscal cliff? If Congress disagreed, president can consider the situation a national emergency and act by executive order.” There’s the dirty little secret no one is talking about. Rule by decree – dictatorship – is coming soon. Nationalization, wealth confiscation, a suspension of the Constitution and for all practical purposes the end of the United States as we know it. That’s what 50% of the people voted for in 2012.

Nov 09, 2012 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BigOnUSA wrote:

In response to “Had-enough”, the market “fall off” ended yesterday and had little to do with the reelection of President Obama and more to do with the so-called “fiscal cliff” that was created by both parties. Indeed, calling it a “fall off” is hyperbole. If at this point we don’t understand the need for regulation or the fact that the trickle-down theory does not work in a capitalist society, then we are doomed to revisit the economic devastation that was created a mere six years ago.

Nov 09, 2012 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stevedebi wrote:

A lot of comments, but some points are missed.

1. The President did in fact submit budgets. The Senate voted 99-0 to reject the last one – and didn’t create one to replace it. The Senate has in fact not passed a budget in 3 years.

2. The Constitution (remember that little document?) placed the power of the purse into the Congress, not the President. Since the House was re-elected to Republican control, that means that a majority of the country wants them in power (unlike the Senate, the House is apportioned by population, not two representative for each state). So any talk of the President having a “mandate” on money matters ignores the realities of how the American system was created and is run.

Nov 09, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Tax cuts at the top is no-brainer.

Move past that on to revenue generation via clamping on abuse in social programs as well and having IRS auto-scrutinize each of top 120k accounts for loop-holes and start some payments on the debt for youth’s-sake.

Nov 09, 2012 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GB1234 wrote:

If Americans wanted a job-killing tax hike on small businesses, they would have voted the GOP out of power in the House. Instead, they voted the GOP a hefty margin of victory, about 17%, which is a way higher a margin of victory than they gave Obama (only 2%).

Nov 09, 2012 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

Will see how Obama deals with it. I prefer to say “high-end tax rates set back to Clinton levels”. If Repubs hold out (which they will likely do), Obama should let all cuts expire for a year. I don’t make a gazillion/year, it might add up to about $600 for me (which doesn’t even cover the increased cost of gas) and I’m patriotic enough to be glad to help pay down the deficit now that Cheney’s wars will be over, and we don’t have a president who is likely to start another one just to benefit connected contractors (Iraq was started under false pretenses and Cheney outed Plame when her husband pushed to reveal the truth).

Nov 09, 2012 4:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Patriot_70 wrote:

I think they should tax the wealthy to death. Honestly, they have all that money and aren’t giving it to me, so the need it taken away from them and spent for things that will help everyone else. I say take it all, every red cent. Tax them until they go out of business then nationalize their industries like GM. Then no one will be rich, everyone will be equal, and everyone will be so happy then.

Nov 09, 2012 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Toxic_Kitty wrote:

The mAjority of Americans did not vote for him be ause they agree with his policies. They voted for him because 1) he’s black and 2) they want free stuff. Don’t kid yourself Mr. President, you won because black America is racist to the bone.

Nov 09, 2012 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

mstamper sez: “That’s what 50% of the people voted for in 2012.”

50% also voted for the middle class to subsidize more high-end tax cuts and doubled defense spending, or to increase the deficit if a $25K cap on MC deductions wouldn’t pay for it (it wouldn’t do squat). We don’t have to worry about that now.

Nov 09, 2012 4:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hoxfan wrote:

This is a win-win for Obama.

If he draws a line in the sand and the GOP gridlocks it, the public will view that as a violation of a direct mandate and throw out all the right wingers in 2014.

And if he does nothing, taxes go up for the rich anyway and the deficit goes down, which eventually will create the 12,000,000 jobs that are imminent.

GOP doesn’t have a scrap of leverage. They need to either put up or shut up.

Nov 09, 2012 4:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MEWeaver wrote:

Verpoly, get over blaming Bush. The Dems owned Congress and they did nothing – except social engineering.

A tax hike isn’t a bad idea, the problem is Congress (Repub and Dems) will see it as additional revenuse to spend not pay down the debt.

Nov 09, 2012 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

All this myth about the wealthy creating jobs – it’s in China that they create these jobs. No one needs these folks as there are plenty other large, medium and small businesses capable to replacing these folks in no time.

If they cann’t play by the rules, just leave and there are plenty that’ll jump in to take their place.

BTW, these folks will dance to the tune of consumers as it’s their money that they borrow to start their businesses in the first place, shelter ther bankruptices, expliot the research that get created with public funds and shamelessly make the goods and jobs outside of US but keep on taking from local consumers without supporting anything meanigful back to the local communities. With the exception of few good ones, the rest range in spectrum from shameless to criminal in nature.

Good news is that the analytics have enough data on these peoples practices that over time, most of these folks will be held accountable – one at a time to put them in their places. Just give it time.

Nov 09, 2012 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

mstamper
That is why we are the “United States”. The lib dems cheated their way through to obama. Look a the map county by county. Cities are blue, the rest is red. REALLY think about that! Hint. You cannot eat or drink concrete. Cities have gun control (have unarmed their people)the red counties don’t. Perhaps those cities were built on rock-n-roll. The country was built by rednecks and country music. REALLY think about that!

Nov 09, 2012 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

I’d like to see Donald Trump step forward now and offer to pay more taxes to help pay down the deficit. His recent antics were embarrassing, but this would present an opportunity to take the high road and rehabilitate his image.

Nov 09, 2012 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DetroitNative wrote:

When they came for the rich I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t rich.

Nov 09, 2012 4:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MJT52 wrote:

By all means, raise taxes. Heaven forbid we should deprive those poor struggling college girls of their birth control.

Nov 09, 2012 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dkn111 wrote:

The problem with Obama’s plan is that his definition of “rich” includes way too many small business people. They will have no incentive to stay in business.

Nov 09, 2012 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jjparkerjim wrote:

God bless America! the land that I love stand beside her and guide her. The country is too devided to come together. Obama and the democrats have torn a big hole in the hart of this country. By placing a target on the backs of buisness owners and job creators pitting employees against employers. Stating that the republican party is made up of 50+ old white guy. Raising an issue about the millionares and billionares not paying there fair share? They already pay 65% of all the money going into the governments coffers. The haves and the have nots kind of creepy Bolsheviik speak. Oh I kind of remember they were the Democrats in Russia at the time before the revolution. Most of what Obam and Biden espouse is right out of their playbook. Promise free stuff to the masses and deliver little of nothing in governance. You were all bamboozled and baffled with BS. Now Obama can continue his endless vacation at our expence.

Nov 09, 2012 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MJT52 wrote:

USAPragmatist”there are these fancy things called phones and email, hell maybe you have even heard of this ‘video conferencing’ thing. I would suspect that Air force One supports any of this”
You sound just as childish and condescending as Obama did in the debates when he said ‘we have these ships that carry airplanes, etc. ad nauseum’.
We may have them, but the fact that he places a trip as a higher priority shows his concern or lack there of for ‘leading’.

@jcfl. . . the last budget Obama submitte couldn’t even get any democratic votes. what does that say for his leadership??

Nov 09, 2012 4:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BBoy705 wrote:

The question that should be asked, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one, is how much money does any one person honestly need? I mean think about it… we consider people who have too much junk in their houses hoarders and encourage them to get psychological help, people with too many cats or dogs… well they’re a little crazy. But people with many millions or billions of dollars more than they could ever possible spend are revered and some people (who will never benefit from the money those folks have) want to protect them from having to ay their fair share of taxes! How much sense does that make???

Nov 09, 2012 4:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

@MJT52
http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/01/24/fact-sheet-responding-to-republican-no-budget-claims/
http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/01/24/gop-senators-agree-senate-passed-%E2%80%98budget-agreement%E2%80%99-in-august/
The Budget Control Act, passed by the Senate in August 2011, set the federal budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 – a fact acknowledged in recent months by leading Senate Republicans.

Nov 09, 2012 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

The reason the market is falling is that the Republicans have sold out to the wealthy and have abandoned the middle class. If you have less than multiple millions, they do not care what happens to you, and in fact probably don’t care until you have over 10 million. They are the party of the 1% not of the rest of us. So they do not care.

If Obama would just cut off Israel, which solidly backed Republicans, and bring our troops home, much of the deficit would go away. No more wars for Israeli domination of the Middle East and D.C. ! Slash military spending. Abrogate “free trade”, which has miserably failed. Then abrogate the Federal debt. Then the Treasury would be unable to borrow and they would have to balance the budget. And seal the borders. This place is sinking into the dirt. Why do no politicians care? Because our system is hopelessly corrupt under our current Constitution. Time for a new one.

Nov 09, 2012 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ReutersAgenda wrote:

Taxing is only half the battle! Stop spending is the other half! Since each is against the others platform, nothing desperately needed is going to happen. Which way to the cliff? How about every way!

Nov 09, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Smithj666 wrote:

Funny how the president feels his reelection was a mandate and an endorsement of his policies, but all of the reelected super majority House Republicans who oppose his polices did not receive the same mandate and endorsement of their policies.

Nov 09, 2012 5:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blasterman wrote:

I say, if the Republican’s won’t move to the center then so beat it. Let the country go off the fiscal cliff. If they care so damn much about spending levels then lets cut all spending INCLUDING THE MILITARY eliminate ALL the Bush tax cuts. Let us go over that cliff. Obama has compromised enough in his first term. He’s done nothing but move right. The hypocritical Republican’s are responsible for most of the mess we’re in. Bush started a goddamn war and didn’t raise taxes to pay for it. How is that fiscally responsible? The Republican’s didn’t believe in fiscal responsibility until they lost the election 4 years ago then it was SUDDENLY a hot button issue. Lets also remember that Bush’s medicare part D did not allow the government to bargain for medication prices like any sensible government does. Bush’s corporate hand out politics were copy/pasted from banana republics.

Nov 09, 2012 5:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrina12 wrote:

Yes, follow through. Get those with less to hate those with more. As if taxing the well of more will provide any benefit to those lessor off except to feel good that someone got screwed. Class warfare, looks great since useless got re-upped. he will never back down. All the republicans need to give up, let him have at it. Give them everything and let them be responsible for the Havoc they caused. They should hold a major press conference, say that effective immediately Obama can have everything he wants. Its his plans and policies. The republicans should tell the world that HE OWNS IT ALL. No one to blame, no misques on challenge. When everything Tanks. Hold up a sign in the Chamber that says see, we told you so……Its all his. When Unemployment reaches 20 %, when inflation is 10 -20 % and gas is $8.00 dollars a gallon and the rich all moved to other countries and their is no one to pay the bills. Obama will have the America he seeks,

Nov 09, 2012 5:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrina12 wrote:

Yes, follow through. Get those with less to hate those with more. As if taxing the well of more will provide any benefit to those lessor off except to feel good that someone got screwed. Class warfare, looks great since useless got re-upped. he will never back down. All the republicans need to give up, let him have at it. Give them everything and let them be responsible for the Havoc they caused. They should hold a major press conference, say that effective immediately Obama can have everything he wants. Its his plans and policies. The republicans should tell the world that HE OWNS IT ALL. No one to blame, no misques on challenge. When everything Tanks. Hold up a sign in the Chamber that says see, we told you so……Its all his. When Unemployment reaches 20 %, when inflation is 10 -20 % and gas is $8.00 dollars a gallon and the rich all moved to other countries and their is no one to pay the bills. Obama will have the America he seeks,

Nov 09, 2012 5:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrina12 wrote:

Yes, follow through. Get those with less to hate those with more. As if taxing the well of more will provide any benefit to those lessor off except to feel good that someone got screwed. Class warfare, looks great since useless got re-upped. he will never back down. All the republicans need to give up, let him have at it. Give them everything and let them be responsible for the Havoc they caused. They should hold a major press conference, say that effective immediately Obama can have everything he wants. Its his plans and policies. The republicans should tell the world that HE OWNS IT ALL. No one to blame, no misques on challenge. When everything Tanks. Hold up a sign in the Chamber that says see, we told you so……Its all his. When Unemployment reaches 20 %, when inflation is 10 -20 % and gas is $8.00 dollars a gallon and the rich all moved to other countries and their is no one to pay the bills. Obama will have the America he seeks,

Nov 09, 2012 5:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Our household makes far less than 1/2 what Obama’s rich tax targets earn. Still, the reason I didn’t vote for the man a second time has to do with his window-dressing policies, i.e., making decisions that play to the public and do absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand.

His administration does this repeatedly on almost every issue of national concern. Blue smoke and mirrors. He is in the wrong job, IMO.

Nov 09, 2012 5:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GRAZOR wrote:

great deal OBAMA,,,,stick to your ideas and let the GOV. sink. What is right when they take more from the rich and give it to the GOV,, which in turn poorly invests it in stimulus or green energy failures. Everyone should have been aware this was to happen if OBAMA was re-elected,, let the GOV sink in red tape,,, the rich will survive just fine and the poor and the entitlement receivers will go down with nothing,,, and so it shall be!!

Nov 09, 2012 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Any reductions in benefits, whether intended or not, for recipients of Social Security and Medicare must be proportionately shared by ALL recipients of benefits from the Federal Government, both active and retired, both civilian and military, including all elected officials entitled to any tax funded benefits.

No more “special” reservation for the politically powerful.

And recipients of all high end retirement, bonus, or any other plan receiving any sort of tax preference, must suffer proportionate cuts as well. This should include health benefits.

Nov 09, 2012 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jose3 wrote:

And I insist that Obama legalize marijuana and institute a national marijuana tax.

Nov 09, 2012 5:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@MJT52, The point is that a President can and should multi-task. They should not hold up their schedule to deal with petulant children. So my point was that crying about him going on an overseas trip is acting like a little child that is not getting enough attention just because they want to have the whole world revolve around them. He is more then able to respond to/negotiate with the GOP if they have any legitimate proposal.

And if it sounds condescending good, it was supposed to, because a lot of the posters are acting like little children. Just like Obama’s comment at the debate was supposed to, because Romney had/has such a poor grasp about foreign policy and it’s nuances, yet he was acting like a know it all.

Nov 09, 2012 5:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pharmakia wrote:

let all of the Bush tax cuts expire.

Nov 09, 2012 5:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shimloom wrote:

Now the real teeth and claws will come out to rape America. This guys wants to take from the rich to give to the unwilling to work. Socialist agenda continues. All the money in privtae hands won’t be enough for him or the Dems. He wants to ruin the country and he will if not for the Rep’s.

Nov 09, 2012 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shimloom wrote:

Now the real teeth and claws will come out to rape America. This guys wants to take from the rich to give to the unwilling to work. Socialist agenda continues. All the money in privtae hands won’t be enough for him or the Dems. He wants to ruin the country and he will if not for the Rep’s.

Nov 09, 2012 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Machiavelli1 wrote:

I love it how just as we finish off an election in which RepubliCons thew around (and ultimately wasted) hundreds of millions of dollars on the election like it was nothing, it’s right back to the same stubborn opposition to a 2-5% increase in taxes.
But wait second, we can’t tax the rich, that’s class warfare. Also they’re the “Job Creators” and we don’t want to risk stressing them out. Might as well cut spending on programs which provide vital support to families barely strugging to keep food on the table.

After all, it’s not like those same right-wing investment bankers had anything to do with the economic collapse in the first place…

Nov 09, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Machiavelli1 wrote:

I love it how just as we finish off an election in which RepubliCons thew around (and ultimately wasted) hundreds of millions of dollars on the election like it was nothing, it’s right back to the same stubborn opposition to a 2-5% increase in taxes.
But wait second, we can’t tax the rich, that’s class warfare. Also they’re the “Job Creators” and we don’t want to risk stressing them out. Might as well cut spending on programs which provide vital support to families barely strugging to keep food on the table.

After all, it’s not like those same right-wing investment bankers had anything to do with the economic collapse in the first place…

Nov 09, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
romney_voter wrote:

After the election, I have now come around to the Democratic way of thinking. (If you can be them, join them.) So lets enact a 75% income tax on all income over 500K. And going “forward”, all entertainment industry income over 500K should be taxed at 90%.

Nov 09, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dakotacountry wrote:

When the Dems took over for bush our unemployment was 4.6% The GDP was 3.5% and we had 52 straight months of job growth. Since Obama we have doubled our unemployment and more than doubled our National debt..Still Obama brain washes the country into saying it was all Bush’s fault. and he gets elected again???? Way to many people sucking off the system that auto vote Demo everytime… You can’t fix stupid and one of these years we won’t be able to fix our freedom

Nov 09, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kkong164 wrote:

How does it feel to know that you live in a nation of airheads?

Nov 09, 2012 5:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@jcfl, Won’t matter too much as totherepublic will be leaving the country on Christmas day, since Obama won. Would love to know what wonderful country “wins” out. I hear this place called China is ‘business’ friendly.

a quote from a post by totherepublic, Nov. 6th http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/06/us-markets-stocks-idUSBRE89T0LN20121106

“..Looks like I sold my house just in time. I laid-off all my help 6 mos ago. Got my pass port and started looking at some banks out of country to put my now CASH in. If obama stays I will be completely out of the country by Dec 25″

Be sure to renounce US citizenship or you will never be truly free from the clutches of Socialism.

Nov 09, 2012 5:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Jose3
“And I insist that Obama legalize marijuana and institute a national marijuana tax.”

Now that is the one best thing obama could do for this country-that is why he won’t. It is a good thing. Our State did.

Nov 09, 2012 5:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Havanodo wrote:

My understanding is that Mr. Norquist won’t allow the Republicans to ever raise tax or he will see they do not get elected again. That’s what was said when they interviewed him on 60 minutes just a few weeks ago

Nov 09, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xbjllb wrote:

The Republican “mandate” via control of the House is BS, because it only survived because of redistricting, aka CHEATING. Without redistricting (GOP governors and legislatures making GEOGRAPHICALLY RIDICULOUS changes in voting districts to lock out all opposition) the Democrats would have taken the House as well. The people are FED UP with the GOP, they have only 30% support of the public, and even that is crashing fast. Fight the President on this, and the DNC will make sure that every voter who voted this time votes in 2014, and that will be the GOP’s real nightmare.

Nov 09, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dfbowman wrote:

Let me see if I can help. I’m a Republican and didn’t vote for Obama. Would it help if I asked all my friends to join in and send a letter to Congress asking them to STAND DOWN? Or would you rather they block so when Obama’s plan fails he’ll have cover?

Nov 09, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“Obama insists on tax hike for rich as part of fiscal deal”

Good. In other revolutions, they just shoot the rich or cut their heads off. This is a more balanced approach I think. A positive step toward a reasonable and negotiated solution :)

Nov 09, 2012 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scrumble wrote:

The rich have stolen so much money from the rest of us, it’s only fair that we get some of it back.

Nov 09, 2012 5:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Enough is enough. Finally, some backbone from day-one may be two, steam-roll.

Nov 09, 2012 5:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

AlkalineState

“Good. In other revolutions, they just shoot the rich or cut their heads off.”

obama is rich you know….

Nov 09, 2012 6:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Onerioi wrote:

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.

Nov 09, 2012 6:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

scrumble
“The rich have stolen so much money from the rest of us, it’s only fair that we get some of it back.”

You mean a rich person broke into your house and stole something from you and you did not call the police. That was stupid.

Nov 09, 2012 6:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Bobber, maybe that’s why Obama has a soft spot for them as a a group. He is now one of them. In the name of peace (and self-preservation), he is willing let them get off with just paying more tax instead of paying with their heads in a basket. The nice thing about that is, he pays the tax too. win-win.

See? We’re reasonable people and we can work this out amicably. There is hope. God Bless America.

Nov 09, 2012 6:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
alurlyrx wrote:

BO can raise all the taxes he wants, but if the he doesn’t stop overspending, it won’t do any good. BO has an agenda is killing incentive and wealth.

While he continues his mantra for taxes, he spends at a rate that can’t be sustained nor paid back. Enjoy the last days sheep.

Nov 09, 2012 6:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Obama doesn’t have to run for re-election. These teabag house members do though. And if no deal is reached, the automatic across-the-board spending cuts, and the tax hikes on the wealthy… go into effect in January.

So there is no political reason or incentive for Obama to deal on this. The fact that he is sitting down and dealing…. means he’s trying to the right thing for the public and prevent some market disturbance. But if you republicans want to keep throwing a fit, go ahead. You already lost the election and you’re set to lose on this if you keep whining. You have been cornered by a community organizer (in all fairness to you, he’s a very shrewd community organizer). I think you’ll see.

Nov 09, 2012 6:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jrpardinas wrote:

Yes please.

Enough of these pigs at the trough!

Nov 09, 2012 6:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

Interesting how many people are coming to the defense of the “super wealthy” in decrying tax increases.

A good number of those millionaires and billionaires pay little or no taxes due to loop holes created by our elected officials in exchange for generous campaign donations. Just the 27 trillion hiding in the Caymans alone – if taxed at the 13.9% that Romney paid would generate over 4 trillion dollars towards paying off the current 16 trillion debt. I have been paying 28% and make far less than these rich people. Why is it Ok for them to pay little or nothing, and I have to pay 28% taxes? It is time for tax fairness. It is a time to go after the hidden and therefore non-taxed incomes.

Nov 09, 2012 7:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrBobMichigan wrote:

Let the Bush era tax cuts expire. That solves more than half of the deficit problem right there. Those cuts were bad policy then, and became a lunatic policy when we tried to fight two wars and offer prescription drug benefits to seniors without reversing them.

It’s not the election that worries the markets. It’s the uncertainty. Nobody can make prudent business decisions while these idiots continue to behave like spoiled 5 year olds. If they’d all say “we agree on Bowles-Simpson” the markets would take off tomorrow because the uncertainty would go away. If they continue with “we’re going to play chicken with the cliff”, the markets will continue to stagnate.

Nov 09, 2012 7:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

No and freak no. Giving the government more money is not and will never be the answer. This problem is the direct result of both parties providing freebies for votes. Drive the fricking thing off the cliff and quit the blame game – we are all responsible for this mess. It’s Bush, it’s not Obama (as much as I he is the worst president in my lifetime)

Nov 09, 2012 7:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
soulice wrote:

Whatever…its all politics still. He can keep this promise (a first) and not really affect anything, except punching Republicans. 56 million people are jealous (me included) of those that are successful and make millions. If you do an exit poll and ask a lower or middle class person if they think it is fair to tax the rich more, OF COURSE they are going to say yes. Duh!
The CBO and Congressional Tax group have both said that raising taxes on the rich or applying the Buffet rule will have little affect on revenues and basically spitting on a fire for the deficit. The Buffet rule will bring in 31 billion over 7 years….diddly squat!

Nov 09, 2012 8:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FinanceAust wrote:

I am an outsider, and USA supporter, looking at you from overseas.
The overwhelming impression I get from the behaviour of wealthy Republicans is one of sheer unadulterated greed.

Wealthy Americans already have some of the lowest tax rates in the world.

It is truly disgusting and pathetic to see the wealthy and their crooked Wall Street buddies unwilling to pay even a reasonable amount of tax to start paying off your mountain of debt.

Most of that debt was incurred by waging futile wars in foreign countries. At the same time, the shambolic response to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent Sandy, expose the catastrophic failure of USA authorities to look after their own people at home.

Nov 09, 2012 8:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

@Alkaline — A correction: If no deal is reached, tax hikes on *everyone* go into effect in January. So I think Obama does have a political reason and incentive to work through this alongside the Republicans. (I don’t think letting *all* the cuts expire at the end of the year is necessarily a bad thing — as it stands today, there are too many people without any skin in the game. It would be better though if they could reform the tax code at the same time; 1986 was too long ago.)

By the way…those “teabag house members” you spoke of just *were* re-elected, of course, and won more support from the country as a percentage of the population than Obama did; even increased their majority. I’d call *that* a mandate — more than what Obama got. So if the House as a whole looks at the election numbers, they should either negotiate from a position of strength, or tell Obama to go pound sand, and let the fiscal adjustments happen. Arguably, that is what the country elected them to do.

Nov 09, 2012 8:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

If the Repulicans throw this country off the financial cliff to protect the wealthiest 2% from having thir taxes raise theywill suffer bigger loses in te future.

Nov 09, 2012 8:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
soulice wrote:

@FinanceAust – stay home. Both Democrats and Republicans have rich and greedy and rich and giving and rich who are both greedy and give some to charity. These type of people exists all over the world and I am sure there are plenty in your country too. Watch those stones as they may hit your glass walls. And you are clueless on the debt and what taxing the rich would actually do for us, other than make some people feel better.

Nov 09, 2012 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pixeldot1 wrote:

hmm…the rich you say,wow WHAT THAT BE ALL THOSE WHO GOT BAILED OUT?????

Nov 10, 2012 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
sgordon1259 wrote:

so much for republicans compromising. what part of the Temporary bush tax cuts makes them think it is a permanant tax cut?

why leave rich tax cuts in place? oh no they don’t there is no proof that the rich hire when they pay less taxes. NONE.

If there was such a thing there would not be millions out of work today. In fact I would think that it would be safe to say that the last 4+ years of those bush tax cuts (If believed helped create jobs) should have created enough jobs to employ everyone who needs a job.

Nov 10, 2012 7:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ace_Buzby wrote:

“raising tax rates, which would undermine the jobs and growth ”

This is a lie. The highest tax rate in the USA used to be 90% back in the 1950′s and the country did fine.

Now that rate is 30% and Republicans claim it is hurting the economy. They lie. The rate used to be 3 times higher!

Raising taxes on income over 250,000 a year back to 1990′s rates would not hurt anything.

Nov 10, 2012 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
RudyF wrote:

“Obama said the majority of Americans believed those making more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes”.

Just because the majority thinks something is ok, doesn’t make it ok. Remember apartheid?

Nov 10, 2012 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

$600 billion per year is but a start, if the US is to avoid the fate of Greece.

Nov 10, 2012 11:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@DRBobMichigan

Ending the tax bush cuts will just take out $100 billion a year. We have another $900 billion to take care of for the deficit. It is 1/10 of the problem, we need to knock that 1/10 out and then adress the other 90%.

Nov 10, 2012 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Samrch wrote:

If he want to tax the rich high inheritance tax (estate tax) does more for equality then high income tax. Some one may have did a great service to the economy to get the income. Also taxes on capitol gains should be changed to taxes on capitol losses. People who invest in growing profitable businesses are doing the USA a favor. People send American resources to a bottomless pit are doing harm and should be taxes.

Nov 10, 2012 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

For anyone claiming that the Obama victory is not a clear win or mandate because of the small margin in the popular vote should realize this is not the first narrow win in presidential history.

Let’s look back at the popular vote:

Kennedy won 0.17% over Nixon
Carter won 0.51% over Ford
G.W. Bush won -0.51% over Gore (yes, he lost the popular vote, but won in the Electoral College)
G.W. Bush won 2.46% over Kerry
Obama wins 2.4% over Romney (not the final number, Florida is still out)

In 2004 Bush, with only a 2.46% victory over Kerry, claimed he had a mandate and political capital to “spend” in moving forward his agenda with congress after his victory.

Obama has won, no matter how close it was, no matter the demographics, and no matter your political party.

We have our president, and regardless of how you voted, or what your demographic niche is, the house and senate must man up and work with our president to resolve our problems and move our country forward without partisan politics!…NO MORE obstructionism, get to work and do the job you were elected to do!

Nov 10, 2012 5:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bob1cpa wrote:

Ok, why hasn’t anyone questioned Obama about why his tax plan would allow singles to make $200,000 while couples only would get to make $250,000 before reaching the top bracket?. Is this his Marriage Penalty Tax that worked so well to separate low income families on welfare? How about $375,000 for singles and $750,000 for couples with an additional 10% more on income over $5,000,000 directly used to cover Medicare and make cuts permanent along with major cuts in non effective programs couple with needs testing on social security and certain Medicare costs?

Nov 10, 2012 5:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RetiredNMKid wrote:

I am very disappointed in Mr Obama’s obstructionism. His insistence on a targeted tax increase is misguided, and demonstrates his lack of understanding of economics. Surely his advisors know better. No one, Mr Obama included, knows whether raising tax rates will increase or decrease tax revenues. He and his advisors need to focus in increasing revenues rather than naively insisting on increasing tax rates. Economic growth will bring increased tax revenues as small businesses hire more workers … more taxpayers. Unlike some, I would like to maximize tax revenues to pay off the debt we are leaving for our children. Surely that must be the objective of negotiations as we approach the so-called cliff. Hopefully, Mr Obama will work with Congress to develop and quickly pass a realistic budget. And surely he and his administration will live within that budget every year. That’s the only sane path to survival.

Nov 10, 2012 6:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

RetiredNMKid: You’re not using your head. Of course Obama and his advisers aren’t being naive in wanting to raise tax rates to increase revenue. You’re being naive to even suggest such a thing. They’re smarter than that. History dictates that the Republicans’ approach of cutting tax rates on the wealthiest to where they are paying a lower percentage of their income than other Americans and where those same people are accumulating more and more of the nation’s wealth while everyone is falling behind is the policy that can’t be defended. It’s really quite obvious if you spend just a few minutes thinking about it. Trickle down economics does not work. A strong Middle Class makes for a strong America.

People in the top tax bracket are paying less in taxes than ever before. Revenues are down. If you examine periods in our history when tax rates were much higher you’ll learn that the higher tax rates did not hurt job creation, productivity or GDP. The Republicans’ trickle down policies have been disastrous. Obama just wants to go back to where the top rates were under Clinton.

Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion in our history. He balanced the budget and created surpluses, and not one Republican voted for Clinton’s budget. Then, Bush was elected and had a Republican majority in the House and Senate, they raised taxes, went on a spending spree and returned us to record deficits. Obama is simply trying to turn back the imbalance the Republicans created in our tax system. And tax rates will remain very low for the wealthiest Americans by historic standards. Besides, so many of the wealthy, like Mitt Romney, have perfected way of paying far lower tax rates than their actual marginal tax rates would have them pay.

We tried it the Republican way and our nation paid a heavy price, and we’ll be paying that price for a long time to come. It’s time to return back to policies that have been proven to work. It’s time to be rational again.

Nov 10, 2012 8:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gigimoderate wrote:

Bobber1956
Are you having a temper tantrum? Laying off your employees! If you had employees I can guarantee you that they will be better off working for someone else that cares for them and their families. Someone else will step up to the plate and be more successful, more inspiring and fill your void. Good bye and good riddance. There is always someone else smarter and brighter waiting to take over!

Nov 10, 2012 10:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GWK22182 wrote:

Pres. Obama and his cohorts Reid and Pelosi amplified the Bush administrations fiscal, currency, economic distruction by rampant Govt. spending despite “Fiscal Cliff” insight. By still giving into Bernanke and his 1% chronies 3 times .
1.Get a Budget 2.Cut Spending 3.Eliminate Tax Loop-Holes 4.Reverse Glass-Steagal
5.Bring Jobs Home (Tax Credits for domestication) 6.Increase Domestic Manufacturing and Exporting 7.Simplify the Tax Code 8.Cut Foreign Welfare 9.Cut False Entitlements 8. NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE LIES. GET IT DONE!

Nov 11, 2012 12:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Randy549: The reason Obama won, and that the Democrats increased their numbers in both houses of Congress, is because of thinking like yours. A majority of Americans have grown sick and tired of the myopic, irrational way too many people on the right twist everything in such a way that it fits their extremist ideology. There’s never any room for learning something new. There’s never any room for admitting that you’re wrong. There’s never any room for compromise. You people ignore or deny whatever doesn’t support your ideology.

Case in point. You’re trying to argue that the tea party won a mandate in the last election. I’m sure you’ll choose not to believe it, but no rational person presented with all the facts regarding this election would come away thinking the tea party won a mandate. You’re consumed by delusional dogma, to the point where you can no longer think rational.

I’ll make a few obvious points that rational people would recognize. If the American people wanted to give the tea party a mandate, they would not have overwhelming backed Obama for a second term. They would not have increased the number of Democrats in the House and the Senate. That’s a very clear and simple concept that should be easily grasped by a rational mind.

A majority of Americans don’t like the tea party. There is no tea party mandate, except inside your head. If the American people were trying to give the tea party a mandate, Romney would not have won the Republican primary. Michele Bachmann would probably have won. Most of the Democratic Senate candidates who won would have lost if the American people were trying to give the tea party a mandate. If a tea party mandate was the aim of the American electorate, Republicans would have increased their numbers in the House. Instead, they lost a few seats. Show me one national survey that shows the American public wanting more tea partiers in our Congress. The truth is that since the tea party has exerted its influence in Congress, Congress has enjoyed the lowest approval ratings in its history. That, my friend, is not a mandate, no matter how you twist the facts. Do you not even realize that saying such things, or posting them, only makes you look inane?

Nov 11, 2012 1:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
susette wrote:

The “fiscal cliff” is the GOP holding our country hostage once again. Do it, and we will fire everybody and move our factories to China. Heard that, done that. There is no way around it. We get it. Taxes are going up. Because you simply won’t face fommon sense. So here we go.

Nov 11, 2012 10:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

Firstly, the so called “fiscal cliff” is a dramatic name adopted by the media and political drama queens. It is more like a fiscal “curb.” We are not going to fall into the pits of hell if the deadline is reached with no agreement or a solution. Whether action is taken before or after the deadline, an agreement WILL be reached and a correction WILL be made before the world comes to an end.

As far as right vs. left economic strategies, economists WIDELY AGREE that the economy cannot grow jobs without a strong middle class. Without a demand for goods by the middle class, there will be NO JOB Creation. The upper income tax break aka trickle-down theory on job creation is proven FICTION.

In mid-September, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service published a detailed report, documenting the fact that reducing taxes on the wealthy does not, in fact, generate economic growth. Instead, the CRS found, the trickle-down model appears to be “associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top.”

Obama WON and Romney/the GOP and its “no new taxes” and “trickle-down” proponents in the house and senate LOST.

Time to move on and handle business. The people have spoken. It’s time for our leaders to do their job which is to represent the will of the majority and their interests.

Nov 11, 2012 7:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

History shows us that in last 30 or so years that the Democrats are actually more fiscally conservative than the GOP despite the right’s claim to that title.

Since 1981:
The budget deficit grew under Reagan
The budget deficit grew under G.H. Bush
The budget deficit shrank under Clinton
The budget deficit grew under G.W. Bush

Who is better to handle the economy and deficit again?

Nov 11, 2012 7:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@bemore2day

I will correct this for you:

Since 1981
The budget deficit grew under Reagan
The budget deficit grew under G.H. Bush and the DNC Congress.
The budget deficit shrank under Clinton and the GOP Congress.
The budget deficit grew under G.W. Bush and the GOP/DNC Congress
The budget deficit grew under Obama and the DNC Congress. Shrank under the GOP Congress.

Clinton is the only president to shrink the budget deficit. Guess who was in Congress during

Nov 11, 2012 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@TheNewWorld

That would not be a correction, but an addition. The additional information is interesting, thank you.

Nov 12, 2012 12:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

CHANGES IN DEBT BY POLITICAL AFFILIATION (Wikipedia)

Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness.[20] Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, former Clinton Treasury Department official, observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and “old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)” on one hand (decreasing debt), and “new-style Republicans” on the other (increasing debt).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

Nov 12, 2012 12:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“Obama insists on tax hike for rich”

Fine, start with yourself bud – you are FAR from poor.

Nov 13, 2012 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

**Since 1981:
The budget deficit grew under Reagan
The budget deficit grew under G.H. Bush
The budget deficit shrank under Clinton
The budget deficit grew under G.W. Bush

Who is better to handle the economy and deficit again?**

Add all that together and it’s still way shy of what Obama has done, lol!!

Nov 13, 2012 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

You have to love the absolute insanity of the liberals on this board.

When Bush was president and the democrats held both houses of congress, well everything was Bush’s fault.

When Obama was president and the democrats held both houses, well everything was STILL Bush’s fault.

When Obama has been president for 4 years and the democrats hold the senate and Republicans hold the house, now it’s the Republican’s fault.

You people are the ultimate 5 year old child. NOTHING is your fault! It’s always someone else that is the problem.

It’s quite pathetic actually.

And of course you never mention the stretch when Bush was President and Republicans held both houses. Proabably because we had 52 months of growth in a row and sub 5% unemployment. Also the deficit was lowering every year until the democrats took control of Congress. But you fools pretend that never existed don’t you?

Nov 14, 2012 12:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“When Obama was president and the democrats held both houses, well everything was STILL Bush’s fault.”

If the POTUS was SOLID Democrat for 100 years – they would still… blame Bush.

I admit, Bush sucked, but it’s time to own up to the fact that… Bush hasn’t been running the show for the last four years.

Nov 14, 2012 6:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.