Geithner predicts Republicans will yield on taxes

Comments (63)
PositivelyUp wrote:

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a B grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surpluses stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his base as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing.

Dec 02, 2012 10:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

This coming from a democratic 1%er who himself avoided paying taxes until obama elevated him to cabinet.

Remember the Clintons big tax dodge to avoid taxation a few years ago? We do, but the lefties hate THAT inconvenient truth.

Who sat on the Walmart board of directors killing american jobs and competition? Hilary Clinton, sitting Secretary of the United States.

Who has millions upon millions of dollars invested in Canadian oil companies and pipelines while writing and implementing sanctions on Iran? Susan Rice, the sitting American Ambassador to the United Nations.

Who has made millions upon millions of dollars from insider trading while in office? Nancy Pelosi, the sitting Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.

And the lefties accuse the republicans of pulling fast ones on the middle class?!? Shameless hypocrites.

Dec 02, 2012 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
derdutchman wrote:

Tax reform is something the Republicans have been promising since Ike and Mamie slept in the White House. It’s always give us what we want now and we’ll get to tax reform first thing the morning after. They always abort and it’s a bitter pill to swallow.

Dec 02, 2012 11:04am EST  --  Report as abuse

Straight talk please, not this used-car sales-pitch.

Dec 02, 2012 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse

Straight talk please, not this used-car sales-pitch.

Dec 02, 2012 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

stambo2001…since you seem to have a special hatred for Democrats based on the people in your post..I can only assume you voted for Romney in the past election. You know, the guy who as a venture capitalist farmed jobs overseas, pays a smaller percent in taxes than most middle class Americans while making hundreds of millions of dollars (and thinks that’s fair) and who has millions stashed in the Cayman Island and Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes? All of those strategies are legal, BTW. Thanks to our tax code and the rules in Congress that allow for insider trading. If you think the Democrats are the only ones guilty of things such as these..you are either ignorant or delusional on a level never seen before.

Dec 02, 2012 11:38am EST  --  Report as abuse

Geithner is all spin (3rd grade level).
A waste of time to read!

Dec 02, 2012 11:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The Bush era tax cuts were supposed to be temporary. The purpose of those cuts was to stimulate growth in employment. Neither of those things occurred. The issue isn’t blaming the richest in this country. The issue is that with a $1T annual deficit (and no job growth to offset the loss of revenue from the tax cuts), we can’t afford them. The problem is that if you totally repeal the cuts now (while the country is still trying to recover from the economic disaster that occurred just before Bush left office) you negatively impacted 98% of ALL American’s. You take away money they would otherwise spend on goods and services. More than 2/3rds of our GDP growth is from consumer spending. The Bush era tax cuts disproportionately favored the 2%. If we leave the tax cuts in place and simply cut government spending to reign in the deficit, you will create and even bigger problem. Massive unemployment which will cause even more losses in revenue. My least favorite government entity is the Department of Homeland Security. Which didn’t exist before 2002. Today DHS employees 240,000 employees and has an annual budget of $60B. To eliminate DHS you would dump all those poeple on the unemployment line. While our economic problems have exploded since 2000, in reality it was decades in coming because of malfeasance by our elected officials (both sides of the aisle). It will take decades to fix the problem. Tax reform and slowly cutting spending. As an Independent I look at the Democrats plan which is raise taxes (most on the 2%) by $1.6T and cut spending by $4T over the next 10 years as more reasonable than the Republican plan (Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013 which is the House’s Budget plan for 2013). Which cuts taxes EVEN further $4.4T and cuts spending by $4.1T over the next 10 years. The Republicans are banking on more tax cuts to stimulate the economy, even though that approach clearly didn’t work with the Bush era tax cuts. This is a complex problem.

Dec 02, 2012 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

@xyx2055 I’m afraid you have to go years back into my posts to understand a basic premise..I play devils advocate against whatever party is in power. Always have, always will.

When bush was president and waging wars I savaged him and the right on a daily basis. Being younger then I was not as kind as I am today to the democrats, believe it or not. I know boehner has investments in Iranian oil, I know republicans benefit from insider trading as well. The entire system is broken, but with democrats in power I’ll pick on them…cause they’re in power.

My intent is to break the delusion of the masses on both sides, plain and simple. You show me an elected official and I’ll show you someone who is not what they seem.

Dec 02, 2012 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

My informal polling of friends-family-neighbors, and from that separately posted on the internet return similar results: Human people [vv. not the corporations-are-people of Romney] favor the “Cliff” 13:1 to any watered down, kick-the-can-down-the-road compromises.

The general consensus seems to be that short term pain will yield long term gain by breaking the spiral of gratuitous tax cuts, spending increase, and tax-favored outsourcing.

Dec 02, 2012 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

stambo…between the House, the Senate and the President…there are ACTUALLY more Republicans than Democrats in power today. And the President doesn’t really count. His power comes mostly from the “bully pulpit” and the power of the Veto. Congress has ALL the real power. They have the ability to take away the presidents veto power by overriding it. The president has nothing comparable.

Dec 02, 2012 12:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
runninghorses wrote:

We sail over a cliff with wings. We can buy more wings with tax cuts for the wealthies ended. The rest of us are used to paying. Go with Thelma and Louise take your vehicle over the cliff. Landing with intention and money to continue the rise out of the Old and into the new with awareness. Fear is used so much in the negative it is also adrenaline what gets us up and over so take the fear given and realize it is opportunity. Go for it or get out of office.

Dec 02, 2012 12:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EdgePrice1978 wrote:

It would be better if we just let all tax rates go back to pre Bush, and take our government spending back to that period also! Quit the Obama giveaways and the Bush giveaways! Cut government spending and entitlements.

Dec 02, 2012 12:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

SanPa..while the fiscal cliff will negatively impact everyone…the richest in this country seem to be the ones screaming the loudest. One thing is certain…we have to address the problem. Continuing to kick the can down the road is not a solution. I believe the fiscal will happen and that it won’t be the disaster that it’s being portrayed as.

Dec 02, 2012 12:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

@xyz2055 if what you state is reality (which I also believe to be true btw) then why do so many democrats believe obama has a mandate to enact such huge and all encompassing social change? Is it intended, willful ignorance or just simple stupidity? If there really are more republicans in power then who ultimately is representing the larger section of american citizens? Rhetorical I know, but the loudest lefty mouthpieces like flashrooster and usapragmatic seem oblivious to reality and it truly is bizarro to witness.

Dec 02, 2012 12:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

stambo…Democrats are CLEARLY not in power today..therefore your sentiment is misguided. But the system is indeed broken…how is it that Congress with a 4% approval rating virtually gets re-elected? The problem in this country aren’t the politicians…it’s the voters.

Dec 02, 2012 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Stambo..My statement isn’t a subject of debate…it is a fact! Count the numbers of each party in the House and the Senate. There are more Republicans in Congress than Democrats. Obama can’t enact anything. For Obama to sign ANYTHING into law, the legislation must first be written and passed in the Congress. With out either party having a clear advantage in Congress how could Obama possibly do such a thing? What huge and all encompassing social change are you talking about? With the current composition of Congress, Obama would have to convince a substantial number of Republicans to support whatever agenda he has. Otherwise, it has no chance of happening. On the current issue of increasing taxes on the wealthy (eliminating that part of the Bush era tax cuts)….that is exactly what’s happening. You are seeing some Republican’s beginning to break ranks with Norquist and Boehner and supporting that idea. Though even that isn’t a done deal yet. And personally, I think honing in on just the Bush era tax cuts is too narrow of a focus.

Dec 02, 2012 1:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EDnMN wrote:

ATTENTION ALL PARTIES TRYING TO RUN THIS COUNTRY:
1- Stop borrowing money to give to other countries. It is idiotic to give to both sides of a conflict between multiple countries. Of course this would mean kick backs to Congress would have to stop. You’ll have to live within your means without continuing to steal from the tax payers.
2 – Eliminate all present tax laws/rules/loopholes/pork disguised as part of IRS rules, etc. Eliminate the IRS completely. Can you say sales tax? This would stop drug money being tax free.
3 – Congress members must show their tax records annually – retroactive to when they
initially “bought” their seat. This could lead to REAL public servants , rather than the crooks we have to have us support their special interests.
4- Eliminate subsidies (that would include the millions stolen by Nancy Pelosi for her husband’s businesses. All of these kick backs to Congress members from day 1 will be returned to the treasury.
5 – All government elected and appointed crook’s insurance benefits will be Obamacare. No more unlimited medical at no cost to the crooks. No more free postage. No more free airfare. No benefits not available to all citizens.
Congress must live like middle class so they can relate to the working people.
6 – While we’re on the topic of citizens, everyone must present a legally obtained picture ID before voting. Quit paying illegals out of tax money. Maybe they’d stay home if you crooks didn’t make it financially beneficial for them to sneak over here. Arrest and try in a court of working citizens those that commit crimes – such as giving weapons to the drug dealers , or paying for whores with government money. Stop giving free money to racist organizations , such as the Rainbow Coalition , PUSH, Jessie Jackson , for one.
-
This is a just a small start.

Dec 02, 2012 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
yatiyati wrote:

Not afraid of the higher taxes; just afraid of what will given to the Republicans in return.

Dec 02, 2012 1:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Quite simple, the Democrats don’t want to deal with spending at all.

Dec 02, 2012 2:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

So Timothy, where is the compromise?

Dec 02, 2012 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IrateNate wrote:

Is it really “up to Republicans” if Obama and the Democrats remain totally inflexible on the purely symbolic and pointless tax on the wealthy? An interesting spin, and purely political. But we should expect nothing less than this hypocrisy from the party who spent 10 of the last 12 years demonizing the Bush tax cuts but now want to blame “GOP obstruction” rather than Obama’s stubbornness.

Dec 02, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cicero-CA wrote:

To PositivelyUp: “Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion.” One big problem. Reagan’s tax cut took effect in 1986! The 1982 recession was induced by Paul Volcker to eliminate stagflation, the 15% mortgage rates, …

Dec 02, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

EDnMN…I got a chuckle out of your post. I agree with a lot of what you said. I laugh because some of it simply shows how absurdly incompetent our elected officials are. Your point #1 in particular. All of our problems are because Congress lacks the simple ability to balance a check book or to put a little something away for a rainy day. The purpose of taxes, tariffs. etc. is to raise revenue to cover the expenses of our government. It doesn’t take a financial genius to understand that there are dire consequences when you continue to spend money you don’t have without either cutting spending or increasing revenue, for decades! Our government apparently thinks it’s a good thing to lower revenue (cut taxes), give subsidies to oil companies making billions in profit or put loopholes in place that allows major corporations to pay practically zero in taxes when you’re already borrowing billions from China. I’d make the case that special interest (the large campaign fund givers) are more important to Congress than the average citizen. To the point that they are willing to destroy our country to keep those funds flowing in their direction.

Dec 02, 2012 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gangof4 wrote:

I think the Secretary is too optimistic. Will today’s far right GOP abandon their scorched-earth ideology and put national interests first? I’m not holding my breath. But if they do, they will have earned my respect and kept us from another recession.

Dec 02, 2012 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

IrateNate…the Republican’s already have a plan. It’s called “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013. It is the House Republican’s budget proposal for 2013. In that plan, Paul Ryan (the author) wants to CUT taxes by an additional $4.4T and cut spending by $4.1T over the next 10 years. He also makes the insane case in that document that we just aren’t spending enough on Defense based on a percentage of GDP. This would actually increase the deficit by $200B a year in the initial years of the plan. Do you believe that SOUNDS like a reasonable plan? The idea here is to begin cutting into the annual $1T deficit. Eliminating the tax cuts for the richest (Bush era tax cuts) are not purely symbolic. They would help lower the deficit by $1.6T over the next 10 years. We simply can’t afford all of those cuts. Democrats also want to cut spending by $4T over the next 10 years. Of the two (and I’m an Independent, btw)..the Democrats have a much more reasonable plan. This is how far apart the two parties are. I say let the fiscal cliff take effect. Looks to me like the Republicans are the ones who are stubborn.

Dec 02, 2012 2:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnEPearson wrote:

It would be wonderful if the republicans would critically examine the growth versus tax data which ought to underlie their claim. It doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you look at either the % increase in GDP or the % increase in median family income versus either the top marginal tax rate or the % of GDP collected as government revenue. There is essentially no correlation between annual growth and tax rates. It is that simple. They need to quit engaging in fantasies and go out and look at real world data. You would think that after the election they would begin to appreciate the “scientific gobbledygook” that they were so disdainful of in the run-up to the election.

Dec 02, 2012 2:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
truedat wrote:

This past election the Republicans ran a vulture capitalist who stole pensions, outsourced American jobs and dodged taxes via Swiss/Cayman Island bank accounts. (Newt Gingrich correctly warned them that Romney couldn’t be elected) The Republicans got handed their heads in the election but they still don’t get it and are now doubling down on stupid by once again representing the corporations and billionaires over regular people. Here is a tip, remove the Koch issued knee pads and start representing the middle class!

Dec 02, 2012 2:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
r.u.crazy wrote:

Mr. Geithner is correct in his assumptions. He failed to mention the Republicans will never cave for wanting near equal cuts in Federal spending which is the sane thing to do. Only a complete fool would trust someone who says “if you give me this now, I’ll give you this later”. Put some sunglasses on Geithner and you’ll see a striking similarity between him and the Peter Seller’s character in Dr. Strangelove. Geithner is a fool and a puppet, follow his advice at your own peril.

Dec 02, 2012 3:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

So why will Republicans raise taxes when the Democrats offer absolutely zero spending cuts? I see little to be optimistic about currently.

Dec 02, 2012 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
btheb wrote:

Please stand your ground Mr. Boehner. Government spending is not the answer to our economic woes. Even if it means another recession, you will not lose my vote. No tax increases…balance the budget by cutting govenment spending…wherever it has to be!

Dec 02, 2012 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dirtdauber wrote:

stambo2001-I applaud your thinking and proactive approach but certainly by now you realize that for most of these sheeple, it is easier to drink the kool aid of indifference/or just go along with the program. The others do not seem to be “true” thinkers who actually do some digging to find the truth but rather just parrot what they hear and like or what seems to work for them. We truly are becoming a nation of willful neer-do-wells who truly do not seem to care. They now have obamacare, obamaphones, obama-assisted housing, obama-welfare, obama food stamps, obama mortgage assistance, ad infinitum. I say let’s put this stupid rhetoric aside and go over the cliff. We aren’t going out of business or moving to Singapore, we can, as Americans, get this right. If your scared, hop in my back pocket for ride.

Dec 02, 2012 3:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Eugene31 wrote:

Tim’s right on this one. How can the GOP defend the tax break for the guys who have produced so little in the way of jobs while enjoying all the Bush era freebies? The voters told them what they think about the 2%. Unless the GOP wants to lose every election in the next decade, they better get on the wagon now.

Dec 02, 2012 3:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
celeyonn wrote:

Although I like Mr. Obama (compared to the alternatives), and have voted for him – Mr. Geithner has never impressed me at all, and I see he is holding true to form either by being ignorant – or purposefully torpedoing any good faith attempts at a compromise by predicting that
GOP will “yield” on this issue. What a great way to insure the GOP will be inclined to not yield. Is Hillary the only cabinet member with
common sense and some statesmanlike ability to speak. Take some lessons
Tim !!!!

Dec 02, 2012 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Amskeptic wrote:

actnow wrote:
“So why will Republicans raise taxes when the Democrats offer absolutely zero spending cuts? I see little to be optimistic about currently.” This is incorrect. At the last negotiation (the hostage-taking debt ceiling extortion)we trimmed the spending side already by 1 trillion. This is not the “Democrats” who bore the cuts, it is you and me and our fellow Americans who are out of jobs while the rich get richer. Wake up. This is not chess. This is Reality. It is IMMORAL to take away from the poor to subsidize the rich. It is disgraceful that the house Republicans posture yet again as though the election meant nothing.

Dec 02, 2012 4:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Xyz2055, I think you may have come to this conclusion after your last post to stambo, but you can reason with him. Here is why, he fundamentally thinks that Obama is so evil that he believes he is a ‘dictator’ or ‘tyrant’ that wants to impose his ‘Muslim views’ on society. Or at least from the nature of his posts believes that(could simply be a troll too).

People like you and I are the reasonable ones that need to get together and solve these issues, not nutjobs like him that can not see reality. from the nature of your posts I would say your slightly right of center, while I am slightly left. We need to take our country back from those that will not acknowledge reality.

Dec 02, 2012 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
editorinchief wrote:

@PostivileyUp – Congratulations on your dishonesty. Your facts give a totally false impression, but I suspect you know that, considering this same paragraph has been cut and pasted on news message boards for at least the last 2 years whenever tax increases are discussed.
Reagan’s 1981 tax relief, is the first of TWO he enacted. That legislation was phased in over three years and yes, resulted in a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. Of course your “output” figures are for 1982, just months after passage of the first elements of his 3-year plan, so it’s an entirely premature benchmark and you know it. The 1986 tax reform was even bigger and set the stage for the next 20 years of economic growth.
Contrary to your assertion, economic output rose 15.9% in the ten quarters following the 1981-82 recession. Real gross national product rose 26%. 20 million new jobs were created! Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%. The youth unemployment rate dropped 43 %. Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988. Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%. Despite cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, REVENUES from this bracket DOUBLED by the end of the Reagan presidency. Something you still can’t admit. The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988.
The only fly in the ointment was that SPENDING increased – thanks in no small part to the Congress, the House being controlled by – you guessed it – DEMOCRATS, who spent lavishly on domestic programs – not defense spending as has been mythologized. Even so, Reagan’s last three budgets had deficit numbers of $149.8 billion in fiscal 1987, $155.2 billion in fiscal 1988, and $152.5 billion in fiscal 1989. Obama’s last three budget deficits: $1.089 TRILLION in fiscal 2012, $1.297 TRILLION in fiscal 2011 & $1.34 TRILLON in fiscal 2010.
Obama has all the debt of the Congressional Democrats during the Reagan years and none of the growth, but by all means keep up the propaganda, because that whole Greek economic model is sure working well…

Dec 02, 2012 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
editorinchief wrote:

I love the liberal hypocrisy. Costco founder James Sinegal actively campaigns for Obama and embraces his program of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. As soon as Obama is elected, but before the end of the year when marginal rates increase, he and the Costco board declare a “special dividend” and pay themselves some $3 billion so they can take their profits at the current tax rates. Oh, and of course this dividend isn’t from EARNINGS, no, they’re borrowing the money for the dividends because they’ll still realize more money from the taxing savings at the 2012 rates than they’ll pay in finance costs under the Fed’s artifically-low interest rates. All the money that would have gone to jobs and investment in 2013 is being sucked into 2012 for tax avoidance just like Romney predicted. Congratulations America, you voted yourself more lean years if not outright recession when you cast your economically-illiterate feel-good vote for Obama.

Dec 02, 2012 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

@dirtdauber Thanks man. Here is the irony of the situation: being of the old fashioned, traditional, conservative mind where morality and honor have value (you know, a dinosaur of thought)I’m driven to at least give it the old college try.

But a quote from Plato’s Republic sums it up:
“But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you? he said.
Certainly not, replied Glaucon.
Then we are not going to listen; of that you may be assured. ” – and therein lies the problem. They will not listen for fear they may be proved wrong.

Dec 02, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion.”

This may be difficult for many libs and democrats to hear but the NATIONAL DEBT increased EVERY YEAR under President CLINTON.

Dec 02, 2012 5:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
studentvet wrote:

Republicans better do their job not grovers bidding, I don’t recall electing a lobbyist

Dec 02, 2012 5:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jeff81201 wrote:

If we need to cut spending and raise taxes, why is anybody concerned about the so-called fiscal cliff and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

How long do we continue kicking the can down the road?

Dec 02, 2012 5:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stockdude wrote:

Come on- both parties GROW UP- raise revenues on EVERYBOBY a little bit and cut spending especally on the leaches who are TOO lazy to accept any job until they can upgrade to a better job. When I was unemployed I took what I could get-a commission job- Guess what, I still have it 35 years later and I have had a womderful life and even paid for my own selfemployed health care. There is NO free lunch!!!

Dec 02, 2012 6:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

USAPragmatist..I was a registered Republican for decades…some of the old habits (slightly right) are hard to get rid of. :)

Dec 02, 2012 6:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

editorinchief..Please cite the tax bill that Obama signed into law that allowed the situation you described (dividend payments) to take place. The President signs legislation he doesn’t write the rules. Congress does. Go find the bill that allowed this and when it was written, passed and signed. Based on the nature of your post (immature)..I’m guessing you will find it was before you were born.

Dec 02, 2012 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

editorinchief..if you are mature enough (which I highly doubt)..read the following link regarding deficits over the past 4 years.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

Dec 02, 2012 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Both parties such, although I believe the Democrats suck more. Neither party has done what is right for the country. The alleged Clinton prosperity was all smoke and mirrors and disappeared with the dot.com bust. Interesting use of the ” it had exploded to $4 trillion.” That was in 12 years, BO, managed it in a fraction of the time. Republicans tell you they are going to screw you and then proceed to do so. Democrats claim to be your friend, then proceed to screw you anyway. Differences – none.

Dec 02, 2012 7:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

I love reading all of the ignorant Obama followers and Obama haters trash or support the Bush tax cuts. You do realize Obama extended them, and wants to keep them in place for all but 5% of Americans. His policies are pretty much the exact same as Bush’s. If you don’t think so, go back and look at all of the stimulus and spending that Obama and Bush did. Here are the results:

If you are Republican, Bush’s plan worked but Obama’s failed.
If you are a Democrat, Obama’s plan worked but Bush’s failed.

Here is a news flash for all of you. Bush and Obama have/had virutally the same economic policy. And it is bankrupting the nation. Republicans and Democrats are the problem, not the solution.

Dec 02, 2012 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Bush tax cuts ended in 2010. We are now under the Obama tax cuts. The press lets him get away with blaming everything, even his own legislation on Bush.

Dec 02, 2012 7:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Stick with sequestration.

No pressure on either side.

Dec 02, 2012 7:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@stambo, thx for clarifying that your intention in your political discourse is simply to be a contrarian, which is how trolls justify their obnoxious online behavior. Zero integrity.

Such extreme positions from each side. Cuts have been offered, lets agree on them, raise the debt ceiling so we can pay our incurred debt, and return the top 2% to the reagan tax rates, which supposedly was a supportable GOP position.

As far as costco paying themselves dividends, at least they pay a livable wage and benefits, unlike walmart, a red state favorite.

Dec 02, 2012 8:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@stambo, thx for clarifying that your intention in your political discourse is simply to be a contrarian, which is how trolls justify their obnoxious online behavior. Zero integrity.

Such extreme positions from each side. Cuts have been offered, lets agree on them, raise the debt ceiling so we can pay our incurred debt, and return the top 2% to the reagan tax rates, which supposedly was a supportable GOP position.

As far as costco paying themselves dividends, at least they pay a livable wage and benefits, unlike walmart, a red state favorite.

Dec 02, 2012 8:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TheNewWorld…you raise an interesting point. Obama allowed the Bush tax breaks to go forward. It was a compromise to get the debt ceiling raised last year. I wouldn’t have. I would have held the Republicans feet to the fire. We can’t afford the tax breaks, pure and simple. On this point I agree with you. Obama was wrong. Her was also wrong to sign an extension of the Patriot Act. That document circumvents our basic rights as U.S. citizens. the right to due process.

Dec 02, 2012 8:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
longtail wrote:

I don’t think Mr. Geithner understands Republicans. They do not necessarily have the best interests of the country at heart.

Dec 02, 2012 9:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
agencyRN wrote:

What cuts do they want.What increases will they accept. Boehner keeps saying the same things.The President has put an offer on the table,but the Tea Party/republicans are saying the same thing cut,cut, and keep the taxes at the same level.The exist poles basically say that the country is in favor of raising the taxes on wealth back to the Clinton era levels.

The President is very specific,but not the other side.They want cuts in Social Security,Medicare and Medicaid.They want the corporation to keep all the benefits. They say that they are for small business,and the middle class. Yet every time they want something they hold the people that they are supposed to be for hostage.

Last time it was the debt ceiling, veteran benefits and the unemployment payments.Now they want to hold the whole economy hostage. Every thing the President has to offer that helps small business with subsides,or the payroll taxes breaks for the middle class, They act like they have the power to run the country. They will hurt the people of this country and try to blame the President for it.But they will pay and pay dearly.

As for Norquist and the pledge, I can’t believe that these house members are more loyal to this clown then to the people of this country that voted them into office.They say that Obama is un american,but what they are doing is truly un american.

Dec 02, 2012 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LTR wrote:

This opening proposal from the Geithner to Boehner is akin to 1)g4 in a game of chess… poor move.

Dec 02, 2012 10:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

The times of growth in America were always during times of high, robust taxes. The Republicans are lying their arses off to serve their 1% puppetmasters.

Dec 02, 2012 11:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

Boehner – hold the line! Don’t let these bullies win and fragment Americans further dividing us by income after already dividing by gender, age, race, and anything else that can be used. Take us over the cliff together and let the Democrats stew in their own juice. All or none for a tax increase.

Dec 02, 2012 11:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bjoh249 wrote:

LOL at this Geithner guy talking about making others pay taxes when he wouldn’t even pay his own until he became Treasury chief.

Dec 03, 2012 2:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

iowafarm: Good luck with that. A majority of the American people agree with Obama on this issue, and rightfully so. The Bush tax cuts will end automatically. Obama wants to extend them for the Middle Class, so the Democrats are prepared to offer a bill doing just that. The Republicans are free to stop it just like they stop everything else, but the American people are really getting tired of their crap. It’s going to get harder and harder for them to win elections. Now, the Republicans can try to extend them for everyone, but it won’t get past the Senate and certainly won’t be signed by Obama. Obama has made that clear, and he will veto any attempt to extend all the tax cuts. And as I said, the people are with him on this. If taxes go up on the Middle Class, that rests squarely on the Republicans’ shoulders.

The Republicans are holding a losing hand on this one. What makes them look even worse, they keep preaching about spending cuts, but they can’t seem to come up with any, certainly not enough to make any difference. Republicans just need to get out of the way and let the Democrats and Independents govern. The Republicans have forgotten how.

Dec 03, 2012 3:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
dct1 wrote:

“Silliness. Congress is never going to give up this power,” Boehner said

But Congress has given quickly given up the power to declare lawful wars per the constitution, the power to coin sound money as per the constitution, the power to check and balance the executive branch and the power to uphold American citizens Bill Of Rights. Not a very good track record there John…

Dec 03, 2012 8:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Today’s headline:

“Grover Squeezes Bohner, GOP Spunk Emerges.”

Dec 03, 2012 6:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Perhaps we need to go over the cliff. Of course it will be painful but perhaps that is what we need. Our entitlement society has been protected from pain for too long. It is time to suck it up and get our country back on track.

Dec 05, 2012 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.