Republicans say deal can be done on U.S. "fiscal cliff"

Comments (114)
jaye123456 wrote:

I’m suddenly a fan of Bob Corker. I believe all Republican politicians will do wonders for their political careers if they start using the C word (compromise) sincerely in the next month.

Nov 11, 2012 1:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Alexander_Sr wrote:

What is the stigma with the rich that they should’nt pay anymore taxes than they do now when it has been shown that people making a lot less that billionaires pay more taxes than they do.

Nov 11, 2012 2:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Texasbred wrote:

I am ALL aboard for higher revenues and tackling the entitlement programs. But I have to ask, how can S&P or Moody’s or that third one, that no one can seem to remember, have the power to downgrade our credit? We are a nation, a government that prints its own money, that has a Treasury Department and the FED. Who cares what these companies, that AREN’T governments, or commonwealths, if they downgrade us or not. S&P has shown there AREN’T objective and are willing to politicize the process. They only matter if they are perceived to have that power and they don’t. They truly are irrelevant in this process. They are biased and therefore have no real perceived say. Our money is back that the Faith and Full Credit of the United States of America. I put my faith in the US and not S&P.

Nov 11, 2012 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

I would be happy to just see the rich pay the same rate of taxes that I pay. Romney paid 13.9% instead of the over 20% I pay every yard and I do not even make 100,000. Trouble is that he is the exception. There are millionaires and billionaires who do not pay that much. There is enough money hidden in offshore accounts that, if taxed even ar 13.9% would generate over 4 trillion in taxes. It is time to clean up our tax system. It is time to eliminate places where the weathly can hide their money to avoid taxation. It is time for all the crying about high taxes on the rich would end, and they would start paying even close to what they cry they are paying.

Higher tax rates will only affect middle income workers and poorer workers who actually pay the rates. Few rich actually pay those rates.

Nov 11, 2012 2:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
candide08 wrote:

Republican definition of a deal: The other side agrees with us.

There is no cliff. The GOP doesn’t get what they want, tax cuts for the rich, no matter what happens.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/

Nov 11, 2012 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CIDiver wrote:

The only major problem with all of this is the biggest tax dodgers, crooks and thieves are the ones making the so called “laws”. That problem and the fact that the big money is what buys the votes and followers in D.C.
How can you ever expect the cheaters to ask other cheaters to do what is right?

Nov 11, 2012 3:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pbgd wrote:

The cliff will never happen./ What lawmakers have done can also be undone by lawmakers.

Nov 11, 2012 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TimMe wrote:

I think a deal can always be made if one side moves completely over to the other side’s position.
This is not what Obama will do though.

Nov 11, 2012 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Texasbred wrote:

Yep 30 minutes later and my posts still aren’t up. There was NOTHING inflamatory in them unless Reuters is secretly involved with S&P, Moody’s, and the 3rd credit company that noone can remember. (2:11pm) Bet this one doesn’t make it either. Im taking a screen shot.

Nov 11, 2012 3:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Texasbred wrote:

Im taking Reuter’s off my Bookmark page.

Nov 11, 2012 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

We need to reform the tax code by cutting loopholes and ending some tax deductions AND raising the top income bracket. The wealthiest Americans have been under-taxed and overpaid for too long now. They have all the money. No one else can afford to pay more. If you take the money from the Middle Class and social security, and raise the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, it will hurt the economy. The payroll tax cap needs to be raised on social security and the eligibility age raised from 62 to 64 or 65.

The rich are saving that money they’re retaining from the lower tax rates. A little bit of that would be better spent lowering our deficit. We also have to reduce defense spending, but not in a way where our soldiers are asked to sacrifice any more than they’re already being asked to do.

Obama won a mandate and the Republicans need to respect that. If we go about this the way the Republicans want to, it will hurt the economy while hurting millions of Americans who can’t afford to hurt any more. The Republicans don’t have good economic instincts.

Nov 11, 2012 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

The number and volume of Republicans opining about the “Fiscal Cliff” and how compromise can be worked out is truly sickening. Those same Republicans stood across the doorway, laid down lines in the sand and dared Mr. Obama to do anything until they were chastened by electoral defeat. And defeat on a scale unimagined it was. 332 Electoral votes for the President 206 for Romney. It was a rout. And to boot the Republicans lost senate seats and house seats narrowly continuing their reign in the House of Representatives albeit on a temporary basis. It’s the demographics and youth and minorities; a multicultural tide that like a flood is sweeping away the most reactionary Republicans like societal hurricane that cannot be stopped. It cannot be stopped by Karl Rove or Bush I II or III. It is a paradigm shift in America that has already begun in California and is sweeping the nation. It cannot be stopped by cheating suppressing the vote of those who would vote against you–Florida being a great example even in this election of 2012 when all the cheating couldn’t stop Mr. Obama from taking the popular vote. And it won’t be stopped by faking it with candidates like Rubio, Ryan or Cruz who don’t support the kinds of social programs that a modern society must have to function properly and whose main concern is to serve their wealthy masters by gaming the system in their favor.

Nov 11, 2012 3:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

The number and volume of Republicans opining about the “Fiscal Cliff” and how compromise can be worked out is truly sickening. Those same Republicans stood across the doorway, laid down lines in the sand and dared Mr. Obama to do anything until they were chastened by electoral defeat. And defeat on a scale unimagined it was. 332 Electoral votes for the President 206 for Romney. It was a rout. And to boot the Republicans lost senate seats and house seats narrowly continuing their reign in the House of Representatives albeit on a temporary basis. It’s the demographics and youth and minorities; a multicultural tide that like a flood is sweeping away the most reactionary Republicans like societal hurricane that cannot be stopped. It cannot be stopped by Karl Rove or Bush I II or III. It is a paradigm shift in America that has already begun in California and is sweeping the nation. It cannot be stopped by cheating suppressing the vote of those who would vote against you–Florida being a great example even in this election of 2012 when all the cheating couldn’t stop Mr. Obama from taking the popular vote. And it won’t be stopped by faking it with candidates like Rubio, Ryan or Cruz who don’t support the kinds of social programs that a modern society must have to function properly and whose main concern is to serve their wealthy masters by gaming the system in their favor.

Nov 11, 2012 3:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
roncee wrote:

All of this talk about the need for more revenue by the Democrats begs the question why these changes weren’t made in 2009 or 2010? The Congress was solidly Democrat and we could be two or three years along with the extra revenue that they claim is needed. As soon as the 2010 elections were over and the Republicans took over the House I started hearing how the Republicans were being obstructionist in not wanting to raise taxes. The time to do it if you had any cojones was when you had the majority in both houses of Congress! Methinks you are looking for shared responsibility for raising taxes. I’ve yet to see a tax that Democrats didn’t embrace wholeheartedly.

Nov 11, 2012 3:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

SO the GOP He-men who shook their spears and thumped on their chests over much ado about nothing is now blubbering because they went too far? Let ‘em sweat and think about it. They’re really just little hair on fire girls after all, afraid of their masters, the 1%, who might lose value in that Ali Baba pile of printed paper that might fall in value because they pushed bigotry too far.

Nov 11, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

SO the GOP He-men who shook their spears and thumped on their chests over much ado about nothing is now blubbering because they went too far? Let ‘em sweat and think about it. They’re really just little hair on fire girls after all, afraid of their masters, the 1%, who might lose value in that Ali Baba pile of printed paper that might fall in value because they pushed bigotry too far.

Nov 11, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

SO the GOP He-men who shook their spears and thumped on their chests over much ado about nothing is now blubbering because they went too far? Let ‘em sweat and think about it. They’re really just little hair on fire girls after all, afraid of their masters, the 1%, who might lose value in that Ali Baba pile of printed paper that might fall in value because they pushed bigotry too far.

Nov 11, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

“..he stressed closing loopholes rather than raising top taxes..”

Same old stuff just another one pitching about it.

Nov 11, 2012 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
swat wrote:

Interesting article. A nations elected leaders and the cliffs they jump off from represent the nations values and priorities. communicatorsinaction.com/2012/11/10/who-is-the-loser Greed takes many forms.

Nov 11, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moetheshmo wrote:

Private retirement plans (401ks) (IRAs) are hoarding 17 trillion dollars. That money can give the government its desperately needed cash and have even the poorest retirees get some comfort in their golden years. No longer would the government be forced to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and social programs for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. Some fat cats might yell at first, but they will soon accept the American way of sharing and caring.

Nov 11, 2012 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeannaTx wrote:

One of the items which should be on the table is eliminating the greatly lowered 15% tax rate on investment income along with the host of loopholes in place which often reduce that liability to single digits.

Nov 11, 2012 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TxStudent85 wrote:

If people want to stop complaining that the rich pay less percentage in taxes then we all should just pay the same amount. Think about it, if it is just a strait percentage of out gross income then there will be no need to get a CPA or some computer program to do our taxes. Also, think about all the time we would save from spending days finding all of the tax papers just to pay our taxes. The system will be easier, and simpler, but I do not think it will ever happen. Because then the poor will need to start paying taxes, and I guess no one wants that!? If it was me and I was given $6,000 a year because I am poor and asked to give back $600 (so 10%, I am just using this number for an example) I think it should be done. To me this would be the most fair across the board. But like what I said before it will never happen, the Democrats want to look more friendly to the poor, and the Republicans will be blamed for raising taxes on the poor and lowering it for the rich.

Nov 11, 2012 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SiberianOb wrote:

We could keep mortgage deductions only for a family’s primary home. That would protect the working class and the majority of the middle class. But if such measures don’t bring enough revenue to balance spending cuts, then tax rate increases will have to be on the table.

Certainly we can increase the cap for social security. An America free of poverty for the old is a better America for everybody.

But please don’t means-test any of this — look at what happened to Medicaid!!

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

I watched the president raise his pen and say he’s ready to sign the end of the fiscal cliff-hanger.
Then I heard him say he’s ready to compromise — once again, early in the public version of the behind the scenes quibbling. Hasn’t he learned anything? Or is this simply politicking?
But if the Bush gift to the 1% is not undone, then this guy’s the world’s worst poker player — with out cash.

Nov 11, 2012 4:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

Talk is cheap, let’s see if Romney/Boehner’s “group” is willing to compromise. or a return to the blame game.
Taxes need to be proportional to your income. You make more, you pay more – not less. No more loopholes and only 39% to the rich
(cut off .6% as a compromise.)
.6% of a billion = 60MILLION x 403 billionaires = $24,180,000,000 WOW!
Bye Bye deficit?

Nov 11, 2012 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jose3 wrote:

National marijuana tax = new revenue.

Would be a nice Christmas present.

Congress could go home early this year.

Nov 11, 2012 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jose3 wrote:

Right, closing loopholes is the same rhetoric that never goes anywhere. That is because Congress gets their “contributions” from making the loopholes.

Nov 11, 2012 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
obamaisright wrote:

I see that there will be some progress made toward the budget. I don’t see how this will help the economy. We must invest in rebuilding our middle class. Spending on education and repairing our infrastructure will speed up our recovery.

Nov 11, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tiktin wrote:

No one has ever managed to reduce a government deficit by raising taxes, because for every dollar the politicians raise taxes, they increase spending by two.

Nov 11, 2012 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse

We already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country and the US will absolutely collapse without our contribution. If Obama raises my tax rate to an obnoxiously high level, I will shut down my business and refuse to contribute. The top 2% are strongly opposed to taxes which do not include increasing rates on everyone. If the tax increases are for the greater good, then let everyone contribute. If the rate increases are deemed to be redistribution, we will leave you behind. I can put all of my money into Asian stocks with one click of a button. You should be aware that class warfare is destructive to both sides.

Nov 11, 2012 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

How many more months will these idiots kick the can down the road on this basic issue of overspending? Promises are cheap. It’s performance that counts. These deadbeats have had years to change fiscal policy repeatedly and yet leave it (reform) to the last minute. Promises are cheap. It’s performance that counts. We need fewer lawyers and more representatives of the people in Congress and Government.

Since over 50% of Americans believe that socialism is acceptable to them in our government as reiterated in the last election, let’s see how they feel when this nation is once again downgraded by S&P to junk and it costs $10.00 for a gallon of milk. What, as the same majority you don’t care? The government gives you the money for cigs, beer, dope, and other necessities? The teat is about out of free lunches as you will certainly see shortly as these empty promises of Congress and this President come to fruition. “Forward.”

Nov 11, 2012 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

I’m ready to go over the edge. It’s not going to hurt me much, and now that the Cheney wars are over and we don’t have a war-mongering/defense contracted president, let’s start paying down the debt. I think taxes should go back to when the top rate was 70% (Hoover or Truman days?).

Nov 11, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

Unless the Republicans agree to reverse the Bush tax cuts, it’s probably better to wait until January to cut a deal. I don’t think messing with mortgage or charitable deductions makes any sense in this abbreviated time frame. There would be unintended consequences. Nor would it raise the same money.

Nov 11, 2012 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

to tiktin: The BIG problem is lifetime pensions and healthcare – people are living longer. Cities have reduced them for new hires, but I know a retired school janitor who makes $5k/month and gets free healthcare – in a few years his SS and MC will kick in.

Nov 11, 2012 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LTR wrote:

Suck it up and pay your fair share… or be dragged out into the streets.

Nov 11, 2012 5:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LEEDAP wrote:

@TxStudent85, a flat tax ends up being regressive when you look at metrics like looking at the rate of taxes compared to the expenditure on basics like food, transportation and shelter. The rich should pay more because they benefit more from society. The poor should be helped because a healthy and safe community is better for economic prosperity. The principal shouldn’t be “simple” and “fair” because those principals don’t play a significant role in the economic welfare of society.

@moetheshmo are you suggesting the Government should raid private retirement accounts to pay for medicare? Isn’t that a little like taking from social security to pay for medicare? Wouldn’t it be better to simply cap social security benefits for high income retirees? Or remove the cap on social security deductions?

@Bfstk, you might be interested to learn how the Republicans retained the House here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/why-did-the-republicans-w_b_2110673.html. This can help explain why the unpopular policies of the Republicans seem to have limited the power shift to the left in the last election.

@Texasbred, in addition to the credit rating agencies, the privately run LIBOR seems to also have become corrupt. Kinda shows you that when the Government cedes control of regulations to the private sector, corruption reigns and the stable environment the free market thrives in is compromised.

Nov 11, 2012 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MassResident wrote:

Why bother? The “Fiscal cliff” is the best deal he country is going to get and any “compromise” is likely to come at the expense of larger deficits. How can anyone seriously call a 5% cut in Defense spending a problem when we are running a 40% deficit. The Bush tax cuts need to go, all of them, to even have an effect. So the economy will suffer some. We can’t get off the heroin of deficit spending without a little withdrawal and the proposed cuts are actually tiny compared with the size of the deficit. There will be a great deal of noise from Washington, but the special interests will keep their share of our money and the rest of us will lose.

Nov 11, 2012 5:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
laurapt wrote:

Obama should not make any such deal with Republicans, at all.

Obama won the election. His mandate, and the will of the American people, is clear. The ‘fiscal cliff’ is just a fancy way of saying that rich people are about to lose their shirts on bad investments they made, and they want U.S. taxpayers to bail them out.. again. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors designed to distract and divert attention from the real issue.

Obama should ignore both Boehner and his Tea Party Republican brats who throw a tantrum and stomp their feet whenever they don’t get their way. Its time for Obama to whip the House into submission, and show them who’s boss once and for all.

Let the U.S. go off the ‘fiscal cliff’. Its a non-issue for nearly all Americans.

Nov 11, 2012 5:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobz wrote:

Why in the world would Linsay Graham burden the disabled with cuts when we know they cannot help themselfs. I have 3 daughters that are disabled and cannot fend for themselfs. There are many programs to cut but do not cut money for the disabled.

Nov 11, 2012 6:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
amacd wrote:

Forget Axelrod, Boehner, Reid, Corker, et al. A young Republican Congressman on ABC’s “This Week” today discovered the only real solution to the ‘Fiscal Cliff’:

The guests and George Steponisdic intelligently discussing, debating, and informing Americans about the economic realities of the so-called ‘Fiscal Cliff’ on ABC were surprising — not so much from their outstanding lack of economic knowledge, but from a surprising truth offered accidentally by the young Republican Rep from Illinois, Aaron Schock when he proclaimed that the math doesn’t work and that taxing the rich will not solve the deficit problem, nor allow the investment in our future that all citizens and both parties want.

Yes, Aaron, “taxing” the rich (on their income) won’t solve the scare of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ —– but the way to solve the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ and also fund education, investments, and both capital and human resources for our society’s future growth, health, and prosperity can be achieved through the simple step of ‘Wealth Reform’ — as similar to the proven success of ‘Land Reform’ in many countries whose asset (land) was being monopolized, horded, and taken out of constructive use by an entrenched and tiny (1%) elite of wealthy land owners.

In our country, the entrenched 1% elite have taken the wealth of the country, the commonwealth, out of constructive use and are holding and hording it (as even FOX and CNBC business talking heads admit, “There’s trillions on the sidelines”), and this essential and potentially ‘game changing’ opportunity for investment in human and other resources is being sequestered by a financially blocking elite who are only interested in being a unearned income, ‘rentier’ class — just as the landed elites were in many other crushed and stagnated countries.

So, Aaron, you are a genius (possibly without knowing it), by pointing out that taxing the income of the rich is not enough (since most is at low rates like carried interest already).

What Obama needs to do to unlock the potential for our country is to use a bold program of “Wealth Reform” — particularly since the US has the highest GINI Coefficient of Wealth Inequality (0.80) in the entire world, which will make the politics of such such a “Wealth Reform” – “Program for Progress” in the US very popular with 99% of the CITIZENS.

Even the Corporatist Media will have to report that Obama is
considering “Wealth Reform” to address the ‘Fiscal Cliff’
and hell, just raising the specter of “Wealth Reform” will
have the wealthy begging for any other solution.

Best luck and love to the fast expanding ‘Occupy
Empire’ educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful, guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which doesn’t wear Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets.

Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality
Over
Violent/Vichy II
Empire,

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Nov 11, 2012 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Fiscal Ciff?

Hardly.

It’s just a bump in the road.

Nov 11, 2012 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

If president Obama does not end the Bush era tax cuts for the wealty, AND close some of the loopholes they employ to avoid paying taxes, he will effectively be saying he has no regard for the people who gave him a second term. I sincerly hope he keeps his word to his constituients, but I’m not holding my breath.

Nov 11, 2012 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The latest scam from the Republicans – “We’ll accept eliminating loopholes in exchange for lowering tax rates.” They know full well it’s much simpler getting a tax loophole through Congress than adjusting tax rates. They’ll try to negotiate for the lower rates and, if they get them, they’ll be back before Congress the very next year looking to reinstate any loopholes favoring the 1%. The middle class takes it in the gut once again. Don’t be fooled.

Nov 11, 2012 7:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

“SKIN THIS CAT”

Sounds pretty terrible for the average American.

Nov 11, 2012 7:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pbgd wrote:

The cliff will never happen. Congress can make laws and it can alter them, and it can even cancel them.

Nov 11, 2012 7:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Big fake talk from a Republican.
Don’t believe a word any lying Republican says.

Nov 11, 2012 7:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Drive it off the cliff – time to cut spending.

Nov 11, 2012 7:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mister-Mean wrote:

Let us start by curbing the entitlements to members of congress. Limit their pensions, health benifits etc. Let them show us the way by their leadership. I seem to recall that in the last attempt to repeal the ACA (Obama Care/Romney Care) that a provision was put in that would require any member of congress who voted for repeal would also give up their overly generous benefits. The Republican’ts removed it.

Nov 11, 2012 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

For everyone who is crying about the republicans (no you’re not attacking you are crying like a baby sorry) just remember that the reason they pay so little in taxes, THE BIGGEST REASON, is because of loopholes!

So keep bashing the republicans and thinking the dems are right about the economy. You are just making yourself look incredibly stupid. Yes your president and Reid look stupid too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Nov 11, 2012 8:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@TexasBred

You obviously don’t have a clue how governments fund their projects when they run deficits. The agencies you listed rate governments for the bond consumer. It is based on the abillity of the government to pay it back. Our credit rating is being lowered because we have a huge debt, and a large budget deficit. The fact that the dollar is the world’s currency gives us more leeway than other governments in the credit market, however we are in very dangerous territory. Despite what many economically/fiscally ignorant Democrats tell you, you can’t just print money or default on your debts without sever consequences. If you had your way our currency would be worthless.

Nov 11, 2012 8:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@moetheshmo oh I agree! lets raid the retirement funds of people who don’t work for the government! That will solve all our problems!!! Those stinking horders! /end sarcasm

Nov 11, 2012 8:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@amacd

What you speak of is called communism. Since you seem to lack any historical knowledge whatsoever, communism makes the wealthy poor, and makes the middle class and the poor poorer. We have the #1 economy in the world, you want to crush it.

Your wealth reform wont work.

A. Most of the wealthy (not rich, wealthy) has large chunks of money off shore.

B. They have the means to easily move out of the country, and the wealth to be welcomed in most any nation of their choosing.

c. The wealthy 1% makes up a large portion of our GDP every year. If you remove them out of the economy you take a much larger hit, (at least 25%) to the GDP.

d. The top 1% pays 36.7% of the federal income taxes. Removing them from the economy drops our income by over 1/3. Say goodbye to all of your beloved federal programs. This is literally killing the goose to get the golden egg.

e. No one will want to open a business in America. We already have the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world, a relatively expensive work force, and high energy costs. You are now proposing to remove all incentive to be successful. Good plan.

Taxes need to be raised, spending needs to be cut. Eating the rich in America will lead to the end of the US economy as we know it, and it would never be able to be restored. Thankfully, most of our politicians are aware of recent history and we have a constitution that prevents communists such as your self from just seizing private property from America’s citizens. Please move to Cuba or Venezuela and enjoy some of the government housing with your fellow comrades. You will then learn what poor really is.

Nov 11, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rugeirn wrote:

The first thing we need on this issue is basic honesty. Increasing tax revenues, regardless of what flim-flam games with play with the numbers and labels, means a higher rate of taxation. Pretending that “increasing tax revenues” and “raising tax rates” are two different things is an insult to the intelligence of a six-year-old, to say nothing of an adult taxpayer.

Yes – we need to increase tax revenues. Guess what – that means paying moe money in taxes! Can we be adults about this? Or do we have to go on being stupid children who pretend that words don’t mean what they say?

Nov 11, 2012 8:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Laurapt

I agree let the Bush tax cuts expire, and make the forced government spending cuts take place. What you are obviously ignorant of though is the repurcussions of no budget deal. 100% of tax paying Americans will have their taxes increased. 100% of Americans will have less access to Federal spending. 100% of Americans will feel the next recession which will happen due to less money in the private sector through the tax increases, and less government spending.

This isn’t an issue facing 1% of America, it is an issue facing every American, their kids, and their grand kids. The next four years is going to be interesting to see. When all of those handouts dry up, unemployment hits double digits, and social services get cut across the board, perhaps you will then realize that you, and millions of the government dependents, have no idea how the economy works and that they voted themselves into further poverty.

Nov 11, 2012 8:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“I see that there will be some progress made toward the budget. I don’t see how this will help the economy. We must invest in rebuilding our middle class. Spending on education and repairing our infrastructure will speed up our recovery.

How does increasing spending on education help the economy? We increased education spending by large ammounts under Bush. Did that speed up the recovery? What good is a college education when you end up at a restaurant after you graduate? How does getting a degree in English or History, help the economy? How is a college graduate better off with a B.S. degree and $145,000 in debt and no job prospects? How does taking money out of the private sector, putting it in the hands of the government, and having them spend it inefficiently help the economy. I appreciate education and infrastructure, but thinking that throwing more money at them to help the economy is utter stupidity. They are necessary expenses of the country that drains the economy, they are not significant contributors.

Nov 11, 2012 8:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Blodwin wrote:

“Loopholes and deductions.” Specifically which ones were the Republicans prepared to let go in the interminable election to which we have just been subjected. I heard silence.
Lets face the fiscal cliff first, which had bipartisan support, and then move from there – those Bush Tax cuts on Uncle Sam’s credit card remain a central part of the problem.

Nov 11, 2012 8:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BurnerJack wrote:

Despite the class warfare, while it understandable that much is made about raising taxes on the Rich, it will have little impact on the defecit while breaking the “No tax raise” pledge courtesy of Grover Norquist.
I do indeed believe that there is a need to reduce spending and that will always raise the ire of the recipients of many that will be impacted by the “finacial cliff”.
Politicians do understand this as well, therefore, the tax hikes and spending cuts will take place. The trick is that both sides will let it happen while making it look like it was someone else’s fault. “It was the ‘other side of the aisle’ that did this.” will be the cry of absolution. All smoke and mirror. Cowardly maybe, but the truth is reelection will be far more difficult if one’s constituency is negatively impacted and one can be attributed with a ‘smoking gun’.
This is why these measures were inacted in such an ‘automatic’ fashion. Moral of the story: Both sides know its necessary while also recognizing it would be political suicide to treat the public with the truth as if they were adults.

Nov 11, 2012 8:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Doc62

“Talk is cheap, let’s see if Romney/Boehner’s “group” is willing to compromise. or a return to the blame game.
Taxes need to be proportional to your income. You make more, you pay more – not less. No more loopholes and only 39% to the rich
(cut off .6% as a compromise.)
.6% of a billion = 60MILLION x 403 billionaires = $24,180,000,000 WOW!
Bye Bye deficit?”

You fail at math, economics, and have no clue what our debt and deficit is.

.6% of a billion is 6 million. 6% would be 60 million. Budget deficit for 2012 is $1.1 trillion dollars. If we took your completely wrong number of $24 billion off of that number it would $1.076 trillion dollars. You didn’t even make a dent it. But the corrected number would be $2.4 billion dollars and that is nothing.

It will be priceless to see the faces of all of the Democrats, Socialists, and 99%ers when that raising taxes on the rich is not going to get us anywhere close to balancing the budget. The Keynesians have successfully deficit spent us into a hole too deep spend us out of. The economic correction in America is going to hurt the poor the most. And it was all brought to you by Bush and Obama, Republicans and Democrats. Fiscal liberalism and Keynesian economics will die a very painful death in the first half of this century.

Nov 11, 2012 8:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

We are the cat they plan to skin.

Nov 11, 2012 8:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
edgyinchina wrote:

Once more it appears that the only compromise the GOP knows is, “You’re either with me, or against me”… It’s that same ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that got us here in the first place….

When Bill left a 4 Trillion budget surplus to GW in 2000, the national conversation was the fear of paying down the deficit too fast…. Now after GW, and his financial crisis, the debt has ballooned again. When Bill was pres, the tax rates were much higher – particularly for the rich, and the unemployment rate was about 2%…. Now we have lower taxes and an unemployment rate of 14%…. Can you ‘educated’ geniuses not see the problem ? ?

Nov 11, 2012 8:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

@Texasbred, 30 minutes is not a long time. Reuters sometimes takes hours to display new posts. Response time probably just depends on the volume of comments coming in. Reuters has a large number of comment sections for various stories online at any given time.

Nov 11, 2012 8:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

@Texasbred, 30 minutes is not a long time. Reuters sometimes takes hours to display new posts. Response time probably just depends on the volume of comments coming in. Reuters has a large number of comment sections for various stories online at any given time.

Nov 11, 2012 8:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Don’t trust Corker, he is a liar.
He talks out of both sides of his mouth.
He is a flip flopper, like Romney and a puppet of the rich:
“On May 20, 2010, despite his initial role as the key Republican negotiator on financial regulatory reform, Corker voted against the Senate Financial Regulations Bill that if passed would increase scrutiny of financial derivatives traded by major U.S. banks and financial institutions.”

Nov 11, 2012 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

@Texas_BlueBlood, let me get this straight. You are trying to scare the government into keeping your taxes low — by threatening to close down your business if the rate goes up?

Nov 11, 2012 9:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

@Texas_BlueBlood, let me get this straight. You are trying to scare the government into keeping your taxes low — by threatening to close down your business if the rate goes up?

Nov 11, 2012 9:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Fact Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost us $42 billion in 2012 per the CBO. Ending them will drop the deficit 3.8%. Where are you geniuses going to get the other $1.06 trillion dollars to eliminate the deficit?

Nov 11, 2012 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beech wrote:

I’m not at all wealthy, and it will be very bad for me financially to be taxed at such a high rate as obama is proposing on my dividends.

Nov 11, 2012 9:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beech wrote:

why won’t you post my comment!!!! very frustrating. just what i would expect of such a left leaning mess as reuters!!!!

Nov 11, 2012 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

@TheNewWorld, good point, and I don’t know the answer to your question. One adjustment should be applied to your numbers, though: according to CBO, if you extend the calculation over the next 10 years, the total savings averages out to $95 billion per year. Nevertheless, that is still a relatively small number compared to projected deficits.

On the other hand, how much do these deficits really matter to the country? I don’t think anyone knows for sure, but a reasonable argument says that as long as inflation stays low, deficits alone will not bring the U.S. economy down.

At the present time we can still borrow, and the world still wants lots of dollars every year. Since we control the supply of dollars, our overall position is still quite strong.

Nov 11, 2012 9:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@edgyinchina

Bill did not leave a $4 trillion dollare budget surplus. That is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think the government would take in $4 trillion extra in taxes a year and not spend it? Clinton’s large budget surpluse was over stated because they included the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes was bringin in more than the cost of the benefits, and the “Social Security surplus” makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted.

If we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. It was very good that the federal budget was balanced and the budget deficit of $300 billion he inherited from GHW Bush was erased. It was a great accomplishment, and it is one reason he will go down in history as one of the greatest US Presidents of all time. However, it was no where near $4 trillion dollars. It was no where near $1 trillion, it didn’t even top $100 billion dollars.

Nov 11, 2012 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

I think the President and Warren Buffet are correct. It’s about time the income tax’s progressiveness was restored.

Nov 11, 2012 10:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
malco123 wrote:

When I pay into SS and Medicade, I don’t see it as an entitlement when I finally get some off it back.

And come on Alexander_Sr, the common man doesn’t pay more tax than billionaires. They may pay higher percentages, but 15% of a $billion is a heck of lot more than 35% of $100,000.

Nov 11, 2012 10:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OrnellaMuti wrote:

Dems repeal the Obamacare, Reps give them the tax hike.

Nov 11, 2012 10:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

Many of the highest earners in this country get away with murder when it comes to taxes. Their tax returns look like Mitt Romney’s.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/06/06/the-fortunate-400/

Nov 11, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
d_web wrote:

This is why the republican base did not show up for the election.

Nov 11, 2012 10:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Ralphooo

I think the $95 billion figure is if you remove the Bush tax cuts in their entirety. He cut taxes for everyone that paid taxes, not just the rich. The tax cuts that he did enact for the rich was the estate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes helped spur investing, the estate taxes only accomplished ensuring that the wealthy families in America stay in power.

As far as the deficit and debt not being a big deal, that is what I find so frustrating in the mindset of so many Americans, and Keynesian economists. Debt is not free. It requires interest. In 2011, we paid $454,393,280,417.03 in interest. You read that right, $454 billion dollars went to interest payments. To give an idea of the significance of that number, the US department of defense will spend $612 billion dollars this year.

Again let me stress this. Debt is not free. We are growing the debt at $1 trillion dollars a year. What also grows with that deficit is the interest payments. This further squeezes the ammount of money available for everything else.

Running deficits is preached by Keynesians. Europe is a perfect model of the results of Keynesian economics. They are dealing with a debt crisis, and due to the interest on their bonds and loans, they have to cut spending, further weakening their economy. The EU will more than likely not survive because of the Keynesians.

What happens to the US if we decide to start defaulting on our loans and bonds. Our interest rates will sky rocket, and that in turn will increase the cost of our debt. If you want to skip out on that $400 billion dollar interest payment, your new debt will be $400 billion plus another $600 billion next year. Want to just claim bankruptcy? The dollar is ruined, the World economy is ruined, we have anarchy in America due to all of our dependents. We are talking a great depression that will take decades to fix. All the while no one will ever loan the government money ever again. The other option is to print more money causing drastic inflation. We print $16 trillion to pay off the debt, the dollar is then worth 50 to 60 cents of what it is worth today, gas hits $6 a gallon, and every other commodity in America skyrockets. Take home pay does not increase at the rate of inflation and the middle class and the poor get hit the hardest.

The only option we have right now is to balance the budget to stop the bleeding. This will cause a recession. It requires raising taxes and cutting spending. Unemployment benefits have to go back to 26 weeks, food stamps have to be cut, military spending has to be cut, education has to be cut, Planned Parenthood, and PBS lose their funding. This is necessary, no action now means it happens later and hurts much worse when a higher percentage of our budget is being used to pay interest. Got to love how fragile fiat economies are. Everything is dependent on the trust of the dollar, lose that trust and it is a Great Depression.

Nov 11, 2012 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@amacd Where did you get a Gini coefficient of .8? The U.S. has the highest?

Nov 11, 2012 11:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@TheNewWorld A fantastic post. Thank you sir.

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

Tea Party Republicans in the House aren’t exactly the sort to compromise; if you recall, there is this one particular knuckle head — we’ll call him Raul Pyan — who hated the idea of compromising, so he came up with his own budget and tried to push it on everyone else.

Nov 11, 2012 11:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LittleAsian wrote:

Whether tax is raised or cut, tax is still paid. This acts as a barrier of entry, competition is discouraged, wealthy ceos get to exploit workers because there’s no competition. Take away all these monetary policies, encourage people to start up, get a healthy environment where companies can compete against each other where the most innovative, price-efficient company will succeed. Employees will also never face exploits from such an environment. The government is only needed to maintain peace & order and protect citizens from external threats. We don’t need them to create an artificial market which leads to protest after protest.

Nov 11, 2012 11:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
elfenstar wrote:

The real question is: can we come to terms on the entitlement side?” So republicans are going to screw around with Medicaid, medicare and social security anyway.

Nov 12, 2012 12:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
elfenstar wrote:

The real question is: can we come to terms on the entitlement side?” So republicans are going to screw around with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to get their revenue, and close loopholes for the middle class is all that tells me.

Nov 12, 2012 12:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
MrEthiopian wrote:

We all need to pay for the actions of the USA since year 2000, the rich and poor need to pay their fair shares. Corporations that for years have been saying that giving them tax breaks would stimulate more jobs, but never did, need to pay their fair share and more. This is not a problem for Obama to fix, if it was that simple he would have already fixed it. The problem is that both the democrats and republicans act like spoiled children that if don’t get their way simply throw a temper tantrum and refuse to discuss further.

We as Americans fully understand that the problem is between democrats and republicans and that both need to give and take and find a solution that both can live with, if either side continues to act like children we the American people will remember this and in 2016 will kick you out, figure it out or get kicked out your dissension.

Nov 12, 2012 2:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

Defense needs to be in the cutting lock as well as entitlement programs. Is the other big pie in our budget. We already spend more than the next 10 countries combined.

Nov 12, 2012 3:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
LEEDAP wrote:

@TheNewWorld please be more civil. Stop calling people ignorant and stop using a tone that suggests everyone is an idiot. Because your correlation of the Republican compromise on the fiscal cliff with the EU’s imminent demise and Keynesian economics is pretty far fetched and darn near incoherent rambling to me. So in that case, it’s like the pot calling the kettle black. But…

@TheNewWorld kudos to you for accurately pointing out that the revenue generated by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would only add $42B to the coffers in 2013. I am also grateful for your generally reliable facts. However, I respectfully disagree with your free market (nearly Austrian School of Economics) flavored arguments. I admit to a bit of Socialist leanings because I believe the Government has a role in our economy and some markets like education, parks, healthcare, clean air and water, and security belong to the commons where price should not be a primary consideration in the ability to make a transaction. My beliefs make me disagree with you, but they don’t make me think you are ignorant. Clearly you are smart. But just because people disagree with you doesn’t make them stupid.

Nov 12, 2012 4:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
LEEDAP wrote:

I think the deal might go something like this:

* $2 in cuts for every $1 in revenue
* Democrats give in by allowing the retirement age to rise to 67
* Republicans give in by allowing Bush cuts to expire on those earning over $500K/yr, Social security and medicare deduction caps are removed. Charitable giving deduction caps are implemented.

Not sure about the math but the real problem with this idea is it isn’t complicated enough.

Nov 12, 2012 4:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Beery wrote:

Talk is cheap. I’ll believe the party of ‘no’ is willing to compromise when I see it actually happen.

Nov 12, 2012 4:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@TheNewWorld

I see that you studied economics at the Glenn Beck University, where they fed you Fox Fantasy Economics.

The EU, historically, has low debt levels. EU membership requires it to be kept to below 60% – lower than the debt levels GWB ran up. Spain, in 2007, had one of the lowest debt levels of all. It was around 40%. Even now, Spain has a debt level of under 70% – about the same as the debt that GWB left behind.

In other words, this fantasy you get from Fox, that Europeans ran up huge debts, is the reverse of reality. They actually had lower debt levels than US Republicans.

You believe Fox and rant on about Keynesian economics because you don’t actually know what Keynesian economics is. You just know that Republicans are supposed to oppose it and obediently follow the herd. Keynesian economics says that government spending and debt should be reduced when the economy is strong. If Republican had done that, instead of taking a strong economy and *increasing* debt, the USA would be in much better shape now.

Europe’s problems are structural. Nothing to do with debt level. One problem is that they have no sovereign currency and hence no national banks to turn to in a crisis when they need cheap finance. Right now, Spain is paying 7% on the open market, which is ridiculous compared the the fraction of a percent that sovereign currencies such as the US and the UK are paying.

Compounding that is the right-wing stupidity from Merkel, insisting on the spending cuts so admired by Republicans. These kill growth and increase costs, leading to higher debt levels, but never work to fix an economy. In this situation, the Keynesian approach is for the government to spend to keep employment and growth at reasonable levels.

In other words, once again your Fox News fantasy is the opposite of reality. The European crisis is not because they are being too Keynesian. It is because they are no being Keynesian enough.

Nov 12, 2012 5:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
minipaws wrote:

IOUSA!

Nov 12, 2012 6:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
NorthStarMan wrote:

Adopt Simpson-Bowles, it’s already got bipartisan support and it achieves all our goals. Debate is not necessary.

Nov 12, 2012 7:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

@laurapt

You said (in part) “Its time for Obama to whip the House into submission, and show them who’s boss once and for all.” So you are advocating an autocratic Obama dictatorship then? Remember the old adage of being careful of what you wish for.

Nov 12, 2012 7:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
longtail wrote:

I will believe that Republicans will compromise when I see pigs fly. Thank god for the fiscal sidewalk.

Nov 12, 2012 8:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
roncee wrote:

americanguy wrote:

“On May 20, 2010, despite his initial role as the key Republican negotiator on financial regulatory reform, Corker voted against the Senate Financial Regulations Bill that if passed would increase scrutiny of financial derivatives traded by major U.S. banks and financial institutions.”

He must have had a helluva lot of Democrats on his side. As I remember the Congress was solidly Democrat in May, 2010.

Nov 12, 2012 8:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
roncee wrote:

@laurapt

“Its time for Obama to whip the House into submission, and show them who’s boss once and for all.”

Obama’s time was 2009/2010, when he had a sizable majority in the House. He’s not boss of the House, he’s boss of the Executive branch of government.

Nov 12, 2012 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
roncee wrote:

NorthStarMan wrote:

“Adopt Simpson-Bowles, it’s already got bipartisan support and it achieves all our goals. Debate is not necessary.”

Tell that to Harry Reid, he’s the one who tabled it in the Senate; albeit as the behest of Obama.

Nov 12, 2012 8:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
jw_collins wrote:

For years Republicans make their demands and damage the nation in their inaction and obstruction. Then they go to DC, stand on the marble steps and sing a song, then go home. They do nothing but war-spend, obstruct and name post offices. They lose the election then they go back to DC and say they can make a deal as long as they are in charge, as long as they get what they want, as long as their demands are met. The nation calls them fools but they don’t hear. The nation points accusing fingers at them but they don’t see. They have started wars, justified torture, spent to oblivion, whined like children and the nation wastes away, and somehow still they think they are relevant. Time for the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs. They have long outlived their usefulness. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to penetrate their thick insular shell so that they aware of their own reality.

Nov 12, 2012 8:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
ScroogeYou wrote:

“Boehner last week repeated his party’s commitment to not raise anyone’s tax rates…” the key word here is rates. The left fork of Boehner’s tongue that refers to rates is working to protect the wealthy while trying to sound like he wants to protect ALL of us, but the right fork of his tongue then says he wants to tax health insurance benefits. Anyone who progressed beyond 5th grade mathematics can see that cost of Boehner’s scheme will DISPROPORTIONATELY RAISE taxes on the working classes while having LITTLE to NO effect on the wealthy. As has been the case for the last 20 years the poor will get poorer and the rich richer. It’s time to end the upward redistribution of America’s wealth to the already wealthy. Raise Capital Gains taxes to at least 35% and reduce the tax rate on earned income (where people actually WORK for their money instead of their money working for them) to 15% to reverse the last 20 years of upward wealth redistribution.

Nov 12, 2012 8:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whittier5 wrote:

There is no “entitlements” issue at this Time.

IF we Fixed the MediCare Part D Prescription Coverage fiasco the Bush Admin & GOP created in 2005, and IF we eliminated Welfare for the Wealthy by removing the FICA Tax Cap, we would not only help balance the Budget, but there would no “entitlements” issue ever.

MediCare Part D is currently the only “entitlement” that most people would consider an entitlements. That is, it is a “giveaway” that is not self-funded, but paid for out the General Fund. Why? Because Bush’s neo-CONs had pledged their “sacred duty” to Grover Norquist.

Further, they Price-Fixed the medications to provide Welfare to Big Pharma. Two typical Senior medications cost about $1000/mo through MediCare, yet cost only about $25/mo in Canada and Mexico!! Same medicine from same companies’ plants!!

On SS & regular MediCare, why should Joe and Jane MiddleClass pay FICA & MediCare W/H on 100% of their $90,000 Income while A-Rod, Peyton Manning, Paris Hilton, J-Lo, Tom Cruise, etc., et al. pay in only on their first $110,000 of Income?

Eliminating that Welfare handout would fully fund a more generous SS payment and full MediCare for Grandma for the foreseeable Future.

Healthcare costs, nonetheless, need to be driven down.

Nov 12, 2012 9:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whittier5 wrote:

@TheNewWorld, “fantastic post” of @bates148 really means both of you are FANTASTICALLY WRONG. Please learn something before taking up so much white space.

Nov 12, 2012 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama’s plan to tax the rich is a farce:

The centerpiece of President Obama’s plan is to raise taxes on the rich (households making $250.000 or more). The only problem with this “solution” is that it is dishonest. President Obama likes to give the impression that his plan to tax the rich can significantly reduce the deficit, a claim which is false and which Obama knows is false.

Everybody knows that the rich have a lot of money, so it may appear reasonable to non-economists that taking some this wealth can fill the hole in the budget. What the public doesn’t know, and what President Obama will not tell them, is that there are just too few rich people in America for this plan to work.

According to the CBO, over the next 10 years the Obama budget will produce a deficit of $10.900 billion, or 5.3% of GDP on average. (cbo(dot)gov/publication/22061)

According to the left’s own calculations, Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the rich will generate $700 billion in additional revenue over the next decade, or just a pathetic 0.3% of GDP. (cbpp(dot)org/files/1-31-07tax.pdf)

In other words, the plan to raise taxes on the rich will only cover one out of fifteen dollars of deficit spending. Where is President Obama going to get the other fourteen out of fifteen?

To the $10.9 trillion in deficits we need to add the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. According to the Trustees of these programs, the unfounded liabilities are a staggering $52 trillion. (cga(dot)ct(dot)gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0197.htm)

Again, any honest economist who knows the facts can tell you that a measly $70 billion in revenue per year from the rich will not come close to cover America’s fiscal hole of at least $63000 billion dollars.

Nov 12, 2012 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FriendlyTxn wrote:

It is mathematically impossible to shrink the deficit and lower our debts without growing the pot of money by which it all gets paid, not just by the 5%. What will grow the economy, what will increase the amount of tax money paid by all wage-earners? And then, of course, how can we cut waste and quit spending so much? Those should be the only serious questions being asked by all legislators. I think it’s foolish to just focus on how much more can we take from the wealthy. There aren’t enough of them.

Nov 12, 2012 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
uc8tcme wrote:

“Say ‘yes’ to Simpson-Bowles, Mr. President. I’m willing to say ‘yes’ to Simpson-Bowles. We need more revenue in Washington. We need more private sector jobs. We don’t need to raise tax rates,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

I bet you do want Simpson-Bowles, you don’t want Norquist up yours.

Nov 12, 2012 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tego wrote:

Democrats weakening and deserting the middle class. Limiting mortgage deduction will hurt home building. Limiting charitable deductions will hurt the poor as well as medical research, educations and much more. Obama seems to becoming another Romney, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Nov 12, 2012 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tego wrote:

Texasbred: I read you comments. Good riddance.

Nov 12, 2012 2:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xit007 wrote:

Finally a blog that has a few thinkers and NEW WOrld – is a thinker and not mired in the stereo typical political crap. WHittier has a point in the capping of FICA and SS. We are in dire straits,our political and governing systems are corrupt with cronyism. We have always known what we should do – but you cannot give corporate handouts for favors – lobbyists. Our government has been inept at running anything because it is sourced by political appointees. Who want Karl Rove or David Axelrod making policy for our country.( one look like Elmer Fudd and the other looks like Archie Bunkers son in law – Meathead.) Everyone needs to put in to make this work – and everyone needs to work who can. We cannot keep dividing and spending – weakening the economy. The way forward is not doubling down on what got us here. I am sure the richest Americans will pay more now if there was a promise of fiscal reform. Who wants to throw money down a hole. But does America have the stuff to stop blaming and just get to work on the problem….

Nov 12, 2012 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
amacd wrote:

bates 148 per your question on GINI Coefficient of WEALTH Inequality, yes the US is .801, but Zimbabwe is a bit higher as it is also higher on Income Inequality than the US.

So, we’ll have to try a bit hard to be able to cheer, “We’re #1″ in wealth and income inequality.

[Source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Best,
Alan

Nov 12, 2012 4:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
awildbill wrote:

Oh, I’m so happy! But wait, isn’t this what got us here? Compromise? Will it be the other C word, Cave? Will Obama pull his Lucy trick and pull the football out just before Charlie Brown (played by John Boehner) kicks the ball? Nevertheless, I will start holding my breath now…

Nov 12, 2012 7:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wulff wrote:

Same Old Same Old! We will not get this economy going again with higher taxes. Some loopholes can and should be reduced, but this must be done with care. “Greed is good!” has become the bad attitude label assigned to “fat cats,” “robber barons,” or whatever equally evil sounding name has been universally applied to leaders of business and finance. America is not about class warfare, it’s about upward mobility. What is truly strange is an attitude comparison that can easily be made amongs four recent presidents. Consider Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama. All come from humble beginings with a strike or two from the start. Only one came from a stable family, living in an apartment over a grocery store. Two come from broken and/or troubled marriages, and one was an orphan. All four have achieved the ultimate status in The American Dream, the US Presidency. Only one promotes class warfare and ignores our heritage. He needs an epiphany. That we all must pray for.

Nov 13, 2012 1:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnWH wrote:

“no Republican will vote for higher tax rates” LOLOL…the beauty of it is that not one single Republican vote is needed….Bushie is singin the sunset blues….say bye-bye to the Fat-Cats gift….
Let the Republicans flop around like dead fish!

Nov 13, 2012 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnWH wrote:

BTW….Let’s not forget that Sequestration is the mess Republicans created by pulling a hissy-fit over the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts last year. That plug should have been pulled 2 years ago. DO IT NOW…and then see if Boner and the boys want to dance with Sequestration. While they’re at it, close the “loopholes” as well. It doesn’t have to be an either or proposition. Its like Republicans are saying….if you do this we’re gonna do what….clear the deposit and balance the budget??? DUH!

Nov 13, 2012 10:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Conney wrote:

spending or taxes must be increased/decreased.

Nov 13, 2012 11:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
Conney wrote:

spending/taxes have to be reduced/increased

Nov 13, 2012 11:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
denniswendt wrote:

It’s NOT a cliff, it’s a curb, or maybe a speed bump. We have all year to ‘fix’ the mess.
Any impact on the U.S.’s credit rating is overblown and will be adjusted back up once a deal is worked out.

Nov 13, 2012 1:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WStaples wrote:

For the top 1% to pay just 4% extra would be negligible to the individual taxpayers but mean a huge increase in revenue for the country. There is no logical reason not to go back to the tax rate we had during the booming economy at the end of the ’90s.

Nov 14, 2012 2:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.