Congressional leaders optimistic after meeting Obama

Comments (60)
hexazebra wrote:

How about reducing the number of tax slabs, making the highest tax rate as 25% and removing the option of ITEMIZING? We can force people earning more than 100 million USD in a year paying 25% tax.

Nov 15, 2012 8:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse

“The U.S. Postal Service announced on Thursday a record net loss of nearly $16 billion last year, more than triple its loss the previous year.” Maybe service to the rural (primarily republican) areas needs to be cut because they are less profitable.

Nov 15, 2012 8:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse

McConnell is not negotiating on behalf of his party, his country or even his state. He is negotiating for his own selfish interest — he does not want to be primaried out by a very rightwing republican.

Nov 15, 2012 8:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Very significant cuts in the defense budget must be made.

Nov 15, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Very significant cuts in the defense budget must be made.

Nov 15, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
seejayjames wrote:

At this point, I almost think we could let all the breaks expire. There would be an economic impact, yes, but we’d have ample funding to keep the entitlement programs at their current levels, and not cut other important programs like education. One way to ease the burden a bit for the poor and middle-class would be to raise the standard deduction by a healthy amount, and raise the social security cap by a good chunk as well.

Either way, Defense needs some serious cutting, and corporations need to pay closer to the 35% that they do on paper…the average is apparently more like 10%, after the many loopholes:

http://costoftaxcuts.com/corporate-income-tax/

Capital gains and dividends also need to be jacked up, though how much is debatable, as low rates here overwhelmingly help the wealthy.

We need some serious funding to start paying off this debt. I’m all for having the wealthy give back a lot of the massive gains they’ve made in the past three decades (and especially the last 10 years), but if everyone else does some too, we’ll just get there faster…and have plenty of funding to grow infrastructure, green energy, and education…investments that we need for the long term.

Nov 15, 2012 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fyngyrz wrote:

The nation gets far more back in productivity and other factors than this loss; communications and package transfer are eminently reasonable things to subsidize. As for rural areas, yeah, that’d be great, cut the farmers off. How can you be so short-sighted?

The idea that a government service — and that’s what this is — has to make a profit or break even is a complete fail right out of the gate.

Nov 15, 2012 9:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fyngyrz wrote:

The nation gets far more back in productivity and other factors than this loss; communications and package transfer are eminently reasonable things to subsidize. As for rural areas, yeah, that’d be great, cut the farmers off. How can you be so short-sighted?

The idea that a government service — and that’s what this is — has to make a profit or break even is a complete fail right out of the gate.

Nov 15, 2012 9:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fyngyrz wrote:

Bring our sailors and soldiers home. From everywhere. Wars, bases, “peacekeeping”: everywhere. Let them work here, on OUR bases and at our shores, working for OUR defense, putting their salaries back into OUR economy, living in OUR housing. Don’t cut military funding: Just route it back into our economy, stockpile the ammo, etc. We are not the world’s cop. And considering the damage we’ve done to our own constitution, we’ve no leg to stand on any longer as a country that can talk about respecting rights. Bring ‘em home. Do it now.

Nov 15, 2012 9:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RSaltyDog wrote:

The Bush Tax Cuts are not new taxes. They are resuming tax rates that were promised by President Bush in 2001 and 2003.

Nov 15, 2012 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“Democrats and Republicans dug in on their long-held opposing positions on the eve of the talks, with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warning, “What we won’t do is raise tax rates.”"

McConnell is an idiot. This isn’t raising taxes. The tax holiday expired years ago, you extended. We don’t have money to keep extending it. We are spending over $400 billion on interest payments on our debt. You want that to continue to rise? $400 billion a year would come in handy for defense and domestic spending, instead we give it out to pay for the debt that was racked up by Bush and Obama. Tax cuts is government spending.

Nov 15, 2012 10:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Obama doesn’t need to listen to Republicans, who seem to be having difficulty understanding that they lost and are just continuing with there childish ‘policy’ of obstructing everything.

He can let the cuts happen, and then present a couple of bills reversing the bits he doesn’t like. That would force Republicans to show there true colours – would they obstruct tax cuts for the middle class and increased military spending?

Nov 15, 2012 11:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lanemason wrote:

the Republicans are fools.

They should accept the $1.6Tr tax 10y increase and call Obama’s bluff and force him to cut the other 10Y $840B from expenditures/entitlements. $1.6Tr is less than 1.5% of the GDP over those ten years…

They could immediately recast themselves from the obstructionists that they have been, to being ‘party of fiscal sanity and reconciliation’

Nov 15, 2012 11:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Republicans never do anything that doesn’t benefit the rich. I certainly don’t trust them to overhaul the tax code. What is it with their obsession with giving the rich the lowest taxes possible? The wealthy used to pay a much, much higher percentage of their income in taxes, and our country was much better off for it.

Republicans just don’t have a leg to stand on in opposing raising the top tax bracket to 39.6%. We know it works. We know it won’t harm the economy or job creation. A majority of the American public wants it to happen. Obama was given a mandate to do it. The wealthy are getting off easy at 39.6. Besides, most of them pay rates like Romney does, 14% and less. And an even larger majority of the American public thinks that’s wrong.

We need to raise the income tax rates on the top tax bracket and close loopholes and limit tax deductions. We also need to rein in these offshore accounts. We should also end corporate subsidies and make corporations pay their marginal tax rates. Marginal tax rates on businesses should be lowered to 25%, but all businesses should pay the full rate. The one exception I would allow for is businesses that create jobs in the US. They should get a tax deduction for creating US jobs.

Nov 16, 2012 12:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Personally, since the bush tax cuts were in place when we took the world to the brink of depression. Would it really really kill the economy to let them all expire?

Nov 16, 2012 12:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
FinanceAust wrote:

At a time when the US economy is in need, Mitch McConnell & the Republicans want an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent of American earners.

What an absolutely disgusting example of unbridled greed!

Nov 16, 2012 3:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
tracing wrote:

a solid win, a mandate lol

the tyrant is about to get a surprise

Nov 16, 2012 4:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
rksplash wrote:

There is no fiscal cliff. The ear catching term was invented by spin doctors to give the electorate the impression that there leaders are hard at work fixing the problem. You create a crisis then you tell everyone you have fixed it or postponed it. Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. They will come up with some cosmetic tax hikes and small spending cuts that won’t even but a dent in the deficit. When you engineer society to believe that it’s OK to put everything on a credit card the majority will no longer even try to understand basic accounting.

Nov 16, 2012 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
RailBended wrote:

Stop spending so much money, with pork barrel spending and government handouts.

Actually collect taxes from people that owe them.

Bring the troops home, have them patrol the borders.

Hire people to provide oversight for some of our more blatantly fraudulent programs.. and pay them on a commission basis a percentage of the money they save the country when they catch fraudsters.

and if you’re still gonna try and screw with people who make “too much money”, then please remember $250,000 a year is a completely different thing depending on where you live.

Nov 16, 2012 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
amos033 wrote:

President Obama will be known in history books as the “Raiser of Taxes”

Nov 16, 2012 9:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
KDupre wrote:

First, he says he’ll be willing to negotiate and then he indicates he won’t bend. What does he really mean?

If this president would stop taking positions on every side of this issue maybe we would be able to understand what he intends to do.

Increasing taxes will not solve the debt problem since Congress is determined to spend as much as possible regardless of the tax income.

Nothing is going to change until Congress agrees to STOP SPENDING MORE THAN THEY GET IN TAXES!!!!

Nov 16, 2012 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

the american people are now ready to find out the consequences of voting back in arguably the most unproductive president in US History. as smart as obama is purported to be, the man doesn’t know the first thing about negotiating. you don’t start with a hardline position as a pre-cursor to talking about the things you are actually negotiating over. it makes zero sense. so far i don’t see him doing anything differently post-election which is in part why we’re in this constant mess to begin with. the markets are going to continue to punish investors due to his inability to lead.

Nov 16, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

@rich_f it’s far, far too late. The children are at the wheel of the car and picking up speed. Simply a matter of time before a wreck of epic proportions. It will be interesting to watch the parasites of today’s left suck the lifeblood out of their very own nation over the next couple years.

Nov 16, 2012 10:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

The bottom line is if we want a balanced budget we all need to pay more taxes across the board, and cut spending across the board. Not just the military. Not just social spending. Not just taxes on the wealthy elite. There isn’t really any realistic alternative, just stop-gap suggestions for political gain. This supposed fiscal cliff does more to get us there than any of these compromises, so let these guys ride off the cliff. It will be better in the long run.

Nov 16, 2012 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sosarishall wrote:

Yes punish/destroy the rich; that’s what they did in Russia –and where did that get them?

“You want what I have and resent me for having it”
Well knock it off.

Nov 16, 2012 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sosarishall wrote:

Oh, completely lower salaries for government employees who do not put themselves in harm’s way in service.

Nov 16, 2012 11:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Let the fiscal cliff happen. Return taxes to what they were in the 90′s. Cut spending across the board. Sounds like a good plan to me. Why are we trying to avoid it?

Nov 16, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

I want to know who started calling belt-tightening a ‘cliff.’

We’re going off a cliff here? How?

Nov 16, 2012 11:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
smokeys wrote:

The argument over tax rates is somewhat irrelevant and has more to do with people’s anger than good economic policy. For everyone who thinks that those high 50%, 70% and even 90% tax brackets in the ’50s thru the early 80′s were so much better and brought in so much more revenue, please take a look at the government’s own office of management and budget website and see that our tax receipts as a % of GDP has remained relatively constant – from 17% – 19% – no matter what the top tax rate was. Tax reform of 1986 dropped the top tax rate from 50% to 28% and yet revenue collections remained at about 18 to 19%, even 20.5% in 2000. Tax rate arguments are about notions of fairness and punishment – in other words – not productive for economic policy. What we really need to look at is what actually brings in revenue most efficiently. Despite an increase in the top rates I would be surprised that actual revenue as a % of GDP were to increase for more than one year – because that’s what’s happened historically for the last 60 years.

Nov 16, 2012 1:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

AlkalineState – Agree.

Just another false doctrine designed by the one-percenters and pushed to execution by corrupting the political will of Boehner and his party.

I wish DOJ can wake up to investigate the corruption links to hold the designers of this false-doctrine folks accountable to justice.

Hope some sense and backbone prevails this time around with Obama in not jumping to concessions in the name of compromise but pass the sequestration that represents meaningful much needed self-correction that’s long overdue.

Public is tired of the mindless fear-mongering and is prepared to deal with short term dip at the benefit of the long-term stability and accountability to related systems.

All the best.

Nov 16, 2012 1:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vett1208 wrote:

I think its about time to break out all the vaccinations you have that never been released your not going to get alot of money just from taxes

Nov 16, 2012 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

Well, obviously from the comments of the majority of posters here, the solution is simple: round up all the Repubicans in internment camps. Then we would have a utopian society, free of cancer, disease, crime, and dropped calls.

Oh, and the unions continue to do a marvelous service to this country. Hostess is closing its doors for good, thanks to uncompromising union demands. Over 18,000 layoffs.

Nov 16, 2012 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

Wow, sitting between Boehner and Reid! Obama must feel like he’s fallen into the fiery pits of hell.

Nov 16, 2012 1:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

ConradU812…you are the poster child of partisan. Look…Boehner and Obama had a handshake deal last year for $1.6T in new revenue and $2.4T in cuts..across the board. This is a good compromise to the “cliff”. But the gang of 6 and the tea party republicans (..can you say Paul Ryan) squashed the deal. The one part you left out of the Hostess issue are the Venture Capitalists turning the screws on that company. While I normally don’t care that much for unions, the Union President in this case has a valid point. The VC are squeezing Hostess for millions on the backs of the employees.

Nov 16, 2012 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@xyz2055,

Like I said, round up all the Republicans…they’re the cause of all our woes. Unions are great.

Nov 16, 2012 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Conrad, we don’t have to round them up. They all live in Kansas and Kentucky voluntarily. The foxnews paradise.

Nov 16, 2012 3:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ruhr wrote:

It is now beyond doubt the economies of Europe are shrinking as a result of austerity measures implemented to deal with impaired government finances, and that the accompanying hardship visited on the populace will be alleviated only if the level of social unrest increases, forcing the national governments into action to avoid total implosion.
By contrast, in the U.S the fear of falling over the so called “fiscal cliff”, is pervasive as politicians on both sides of the debate hold to defined positions, with no impasse on the horizon to solve the deficit or debt, while investors mark time on assessing the ability of government to service the debt and maintain the value of the dollar.
Stepping back for a moment, there is no disputing growing economies are a product of strong private and public sector demand. The economic health of the total economy is dependent on both the public and private operating in growth mode. This is evident from the fact a great deal of private sector activity and hiring is, and will always remain dependent on government requirement.
Therefore where the finances of either the public or the private sector are seriously impaired, the market takes a view it will have a dampening effect on growth in the economy and battens down the hatches. Without a doubt the message cannot be clearer; the economic health of an economy requires both the private and the public sectors to be firing. Without strong public finance and strong public demand, there is no growth, and no economy.
To those who assert differently, one need only look at the impact of measures designed to strengthen the balance sheets of European government such as cutting wages, shedding jobs, reducing retirement benefits, and the pullback of spending on education and hospital care, have had on the economies of Europe.
The upshot of these measures is that on a country wide basis most European government’s economies fall deeper and deeper into recession due in large part to falling tax receipts, in the process eroding the ability of government to support the economy, and leading to ever increasing levels of unemployment.
In short the very measures designed to reduce government spending have also had the effect of reducing government revenue, to the point where national government not only cannot afford to clear their indebtedness, but are unable to provide stimulus to the economy.
If the U.S. is to avoid the circumstance bedeviling Europe, the solution requires the finance of the federal government be put on a strong footing. This is why the Bush era tax cuts, which by and large favor the wealthy, must revert back to the norm. It is absolutely vital the finance of the U.S. government and the U.S. economy take precedence over all other interests.
On the government’s side, it is necessary that normalization of taxation is accompanied by cuts to government expenditure, removing wasteful and or profligate spending, and or outlays that displace individual responsibility. However, to avoid repeating the European outcome, steps must be taken to ensure that corrective action will not work to depress economic activity, and with it, government receipts.
At all costs, America must not follow the austerity path that is threatening to turn Europe into the next Japan. America must first fix its finances if it is to fix its economy.

Nov 16, 2012 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama’s tax the rich plan is expected to yield $700B over TEN YEARS.

Obama blew his 2011 budget alone by more than $1,590B

That means it’ll take ten years of taxing the rich for Obama to repay LESS THAN HALF of what he overspent in just 2011 – is that the kind of arithmetic Clinton was talking about? LOL

…we have a SPENDING problem and Obama has offered no specifics (like the ones he called on Romney to provide) of what he plans to cut.

Nov 16, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@zyz2055,

I almost forgot. The “handshake” deal you’re speaking of was patently false: the $1.62T in new revenue was based on the assumption of annual GDP growth something in the order of 3.7-4%. You can’t anticipate revenue (rationally, anyway) based on a growth that hasn’t happened and that’s based on no realistic basis. The GDP, as we all know, has fallen well short of that since then. Given this, the plan would have failed.

The $2.4T in “cuts” was based largely on pre-existing cuts, so wouldn’t have resulted in a net reduction in debt. This smoke and mirror trick was shown for what it was, and subsequently fell on its face.

Nov 16, 2012 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

The tax cuts have to end. There is no option. Over $400 billion of our tax dollars is going to pay interest on our debt. It is a complete waste of our tax money. Instead of running deficits we need to run surpluses and use the surplus to pay the debt off. That means we have to raise taxes. That means the Obamaphones go bye bye. Unemployment goes back to 26 weeks, and then you go find a job. That means we can’t give 11 million undocumented workers citizenship. Just about every program and department of the federal government has to tighten its belt. Companies are forced to cut waste, and search for ways to become more efficient. If we want a government that doesn’t go bankrupt, they are going to have to do the same.

Nov 16, 2012 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

amos033 wrote: “President Obama will be known in history books as the “Raiser of Taxes””

Just to put things in their proper perspective, Clinton proposed and got a much larger tax increase than Obama is proposing, from a top tax rate of 31% to 39.6%, and instead of being known as the Raiser of Taxes, he is considered by historians to be one of America’s best stewards of our economy, if not THE best. And not one Republican voted for Clinton’s budget. Furthermore, historians rate Bush as being one of the worst stewards of our economy. And I shouldn’t have to remind you that Bush is a Republican and he had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. They did a terrible job, which is why we shouldn’t allow them much input with these budget negotiations. They don’t know what they’re doing and they’ve proven this. They will be know in history books as the “Wreckers of the Economy”.

Nov 16, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Some cliff. “If this happens, we might be forced to raise revenue and cut spending across the board.”

So scary. Don’t cry, McConnell!

Nov 16, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
VonHell wrote:

There is no “avoiding” the cliff…it is funny how americans believe this… “avoiding” is what the greeks are doing forever now lol… the cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit before gets FOBAR… but instead allowing the cuts to be automatic as planed by “cold heart” economists… they will stage a play where there will be a “battle”… and after that “battle” a truce will be reached and the democrats will give up the tax on the rich and the republicans will give up benefit cuts to the poor… and nothing will change… the same thing the greeks do in essence…

In the end they will increase the debt limit… and US will give one step back from the edge to avoid a recession… and the abyss ahead will get a lot deeper…

Nov 16, 2012 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

ConradU812…if I had all day..I’d take you apart like the $2 watch that you are…but why bother..as Ron White says..”You can’t fix stupid”".

Nov 16, 2012 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Folks..mark my words..a deal will get done. And it will be $4T over 10 years. $1.6T in revenue (cutting deductions for the wealthiest) and $2.4T in cuts across the board. You heard it here first.

Nov 16, 2012 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
imacracker wrote:

We need to broaden the base. If taxes are going to go up, then everybody needs to pay more. It is time for the “middle class” to start paying for all the crap they want government to do.

The gravy train is about to pull into the station, folks.

Nov 16, 2012 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sarkozyrocks wrote:

Maybe the red state / blue state divide is too deep? Financially solvent reds won’t accept demands of bankrupt blues to pay for their free stuff…naive to think they will for much longer. Great article by Jack Worthington “Secession in Europe and the US” http://jackworthington.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/secession-in-europe-and-the-us/

Nov 16, 2012 5:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

imacracker..I’m middle class,,I have a household income of $175,000 pay 22% in taxes and fund my own 401k….I get zero government assistance…exactly what gravy train do you think I’m on?

Nov 16, 2012 5:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

NewWorld, I was agreeing with you up to the point about not giving non-citizen workers citizenship. Why? Some studies suggest these workers hurt the economy, some say they contribute. One thing that is for dang sure, if you keep them marginalized as non-citizens they will never become much more productive than they already are. If they are here, working, and haven’t go into trouble with the law, then they have a pretty good potential to move up in society and help pay the bills even more than they do already.

Nov 16, 2012 5:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StevePVB wrote:

I wouldn’t believe a word Obama says, even if he puts it in writing and says it on national TV. Do not go for “his” deal now in exchange for “your” deal later.

Nov 16, 2012 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lucky12345 wrote:

What about the debt ceiling…?

Nov 16, 2012 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

There is no fiscal cliff. It’s the Simpson-Bowles plan. Let it happen.

Nov 16, 2012 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lucky12345 wrote:

My only question is were is MY free stuff!!!

Nov 16, 2012 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@diluded0000

My concern is that making them legitimate citizens will also make them elgible for government benefits. Sadly the businesses take advantage of them and pay them very little. A high number of them would qualify for food stamps, etc. We do not have the jobs, or the money to take on another 11 million citizens right now. Immigration reform needs to happen, and we need to severely punish businesses that hire them. We need to prevent them from entering the country. Amnesty at this time makes no sense. If we had a budget surplus an 2% to 4% unemployment, I would say streamline immigration for them and have them go through the normal channels at an expedited rate. But that is not the situation in America right now. One of the major reasons immigration laws exist is to control unemployment rates.

Nov 16, 2012 7:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@xyz2055

I think you are right. It will be $4 trillion over ten years on paper with a lot of smoke and mirrors and creative accounting and forecasts. I think I prefer the fiscal cliff myself.

Nov 16, 2012 7:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kathrynne wrote:

Term limits…will end majority of all this ranker and force politicians to be more productive on capital hill…the pres is limited to 2 terms, well the house and senate should be limited to two terms and you will see the lobbyists become extinct…as they would have new people voted in on a regular basis. Anyway…Pres Obama I hope will not turn in to Capitulator-in Chief like he was in his last term and make a respectable legacy that sticks. I hope all of the Mormons get voted out of office on Capital Hill…why that group is a powerful force on the Hill and in our Defense and Security Depts. they are a majority(CIA, FBI, Secret Service)…

Nov 16, 2012 8:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

lucky12345: I love seeing “intelligent” rightwingers insulting the American electorate. Please continue. It worked wonders for you guys in the election, didn’t it? And now we know from Romney AFTER the election that he really meant what he said about the 47%. He really doesn’t like 47% of Americans. Well, guess what? 51% of Americans don’t like him. All the growing American constituencies hear your insults and are taking note.

imacracker: Your position, that we’re all starting from an equal playing field and that it’s inherently unfair to ask the wealthy to pay more without asking everyone else–is that a fair depiction of your position?–ignores too much of reality to be adopted. 3 points: 1) Most of the affluent pay far less than the marginal tax rate of 35%. Romney, for example, paid 14%, and would have paid 9% in 2011 if he wasn’t running for President; 2) the wealthy have had their way with our government for over 3 decades now. Because our elected officials are dependent on campaign donations in order to keep their congressional seats, they are at the mercy of lobbyists and the industries that pay them. So we’re at a point now where the American people are an afterthought. Our government’s top priority is pleasing the biggest campaign donors. The result, of course, is that policy is determined by what best helps the wealthy get wealthier, and often at the expense of the Middle Class; 3) Point 3 is the flip-side of point 2, the American Middle Class no longer has much in the way of representation in our government. For over 30 years now 98% of the people’s wages have been stagnant while the cost of everything has risen dramatically. The American Middle Class is at a serious disadvantage. When the Middle Class was strong, during the 1940s – 1970s, everyone prospered, including the wealthy. But something has changed since the 1970s. The wealthy have prospered enormously off of the Middle Class, and now that we’re tapped out, they’re looking elsewhere. Cedrick Smith just wrote an excellent, well-researched book called “Who Stole the American Dream?” that explains what went wrong. It explains how lobbyists took over.

So the point is, we shouldn’t look at the current budget negotiations in a way that starts everyone off as equal players. The Middle Class has been getting the short end of the stick for a long time now. The Middle Class is tapped out. They don’t have anything left to give. It’s time for the wealthy to make up for some lost time, and a lot of lost revenue. That said, Obama isn’t asking anything unreasonable of them.

sarkozyrocks: “Financially solvent reds won’t accept demands of bankrupt blues to pay for their free stuff…naive to think they will for much longer.”
I think you’re confused. The red states take a lot more from the federal government than the blue states do. Generally speaking, blue states pay in more then they get back. The poorer red states get more from the federal government than they pay in. In a sense, the blue states support the red states. That’s a fact.

Nov 16, 2012 8:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

kathrynne: Although I like the idea of term limits, don’t think that will do anything to eliminate lobbyists. Then it will become a party continuance. Lobbyists will donate to whichever party members agree to do their bidding.

Say a candidate is running for Congress. She wants the seat for her district that her party now holds: because of term limits, the current Congressperson has to step down. A lobbyist for an oil company that desperately wants the Keystone pipeline to be given the go-ahead tells the new candidate that they’ll fund her campaign if she promises to support passage of the Keystone pipeline. Now, if she and others start taking the money but not doing as they promised, the party will be hurt. The lobbyist will back the opposing party next time around, and the opposing party will be happy to take the money. So it behooves the candidates of both parties to play ball. Money is just irresistible to political candidates because money, more than any other factor, determines who wins in an election. 93% of candidates who outspend their opponents win their election.

Plus, politicians know they can get away with doing the bidding of lobbyists in exchange for campaign cash because few Americans really pay attention to what’s actually going on with our government. They tend to side with one party or the other and believe whatever soundbite they happen to hear that is favorable to their party and/or disses the other party. It makes it very easy to manipulate the public. That’s how millions of Americans came to believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US, or that he traveled around apologizing for America, or that Obamacare called for death panels, or even that Obama might be the anti-Christ. We need to pay closer attention and do more to get involved.

Nov 16, 2012 9:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

What’s to celebrate? The Republicans cave, we get screwed – somehow this do not sound like a positive thing to me.

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

Let’s forget partisan politics and get something agreed to quickly. The fourth quarter is a period of major consumer spending and confidence among all Americans is important to keep spending and employment levels increasing. Uncertainty will hurt more now than any other time of the year.

Nov 19, 2012 8:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.