Both sides dig in on "fiscal cliff," but "nothing going on"

Comments (70)
Toouncommon wrote:

President Obama: Hold the Line!

People who do no work should pay more taxes than those of us who work for a living. Capital gains should be taxed higher than incomes!

Dec 04, 2012 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Toouncommon wrote:

President Obama: Hold the line!

Make the rich pay their fair share.

Dec 04, 2012 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
steve-2304 wrote:

President Obama: Please take us over this cliff. Screw Boehner. Tell McConnell to stick it.

At year end, issue an Executive Order to suspend implementing the new tax rates until Feb. 15th.

We’ll be over the cliff, but won’t feel any direct effect.

Then, after the new Congress is seated in January, insist that they immediately restore the tax rates for the 98%, continue the S.S. tax holiday one more year, and eliminate once and for all the hostage-taking over raising the debt ceiling.

Force Boehner & the TPers to vote AGAINST a tax decrease for 98% of the country.

And if he refuses, he can cry when he loses his Speaker position after the 2014 mid-terms when the Dems re-capture the House.

Dec 04, 2012 7:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Toouncommon
Do not get it do you. If only the top 2% pay-we ALL pay. The top 2% could afford it, can you? There in no disarray-The Speaker said no taxe on the 2% but here is some other stuff. The Republican party said no way Mr. Speaker nothing at all. obama does not like either so here we go, we ALL pay and off the cliff and into full blown recession. Fine with me. It is going to take what it takes to get this fool out of office. We still have not forgotten Benghazi BTW.

Dec 04, 2012 7:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JimZap wrote:

Raise taxes on the top 2%…fine, but w/o a plan (in writing) to CUT government spending, you’re just blowing more hot air!

Dec 04, 2012 7:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

The tide has turned, as Republicans would be asking Team Obama ” what is a vote for Revenge”

Dec 04, 2012 7:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnSmithP wrote:

The fiscal cliff upon which we stand, is a precipice made of our own devices.

After indebting our children’s generation, our generation is now engaged in national debate about how much debt to pass on to our grandchildren’s and our great-grandchildren’s generations.

Future generations should not be sentenced to a fiscal hell that is the product of our generation’s sinful spending and criminal governance.

If this generation cannot implement honest fiscal reform, then no generation, other then our own, more rightly deserves to go over the fiscal cliff.

Dec 04, 2012 7:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveOSmith wrote:

The Republican Party has the rare opportunity to be the Taxing party while the Democrats are the party proposing a tax cut. If the Republican Party persists in their efforts to protect the rich 2% of the population the Bush Tax cuts will expire. The Democrats will then propose a tax cut for the middle class and the Republicans will be in the position of opposing a tax cut for 98% of the population. You can’t get elected with only 2% of the population. The “new” Tax cut when passed will be known as the Obama Tax Cut. This would result in an additional loss for the Republicans. At least if the Republicans pass the bill that the Senate has already passed they can claim that they saved the majority of the Bush Tax Cuts. They can then work on budget cuts in the spring as the party that saved, as opposed to the party that opposed, Tax Cuts.

Dec 04, 2012 8:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Look past the imminent and much needed sequestration as part of self correction to – balancing the budget with no borrowing, putting an end to war-bleeding in 2013 (not 2014), VAT on imports to spur local manufacturing/jobs and the like.

Dec 04, 2012 8:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:

Who do you think they will come after when they get done destroying the upper class? Your children! “Slaves are made in such ways!” –William Wallace.

Dec 04, 2012 8:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lightnin wrote:

How come he doesn’t stop playing politics and instead do something that would cut expenses, reduce crime, create jobs, and raise taxes the RIGHT way, like legalizing Marijuana? Or cutting down on the 80 or so gov’t agencies that have duplicate responsibilities? How about cracking down on the $46 BILLION waste in Medicare? Nope, there are too many democrat politicians, lawyers, judges, and other crooks who’d lose the dirty money they make the way things are!

Dec 04, 2012 8:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@JohnSmith- I don’t think we can blame this mess on one generation. The Nat’l Debt was $930 Billion in 1981 when Carter left office, tripled under Reagan’s watch, went to $5 Billion under Bush Sr., etc.

IOWs, many of us ARE those “children and grandchildren” who’ve already been handed a massive debt and constant deficits by our forebears. (I’m not saying we should do the same to our posterity, just pointing out that boomers, Gen X, and whatever they’re called and catagorized after X, what, Gen Y?) And now the “Millenials” are in their 20′s.

What I’m trying to say is, it’s not like the torch is passed cleanly and clearly from one generation to the next, despite JFK’s dramatic speech of symbolism to the contrary. They overlap, always have.

Dec 04, 2012 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Great job Reuters. Your about as unbiased as MSNBC…as usual.

Dec 04, 2012 9:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hedonikos wrote:

An astute observation Zen. Unfortunately most people who post lack the ability to see both sides of an argument. When it comes to government spending, both republicans and democrats are responsible. I have seen government grow larger regardless of who has the power. Right now, Democrats are demonized for wanting to raise taxes and Republicans are demonized for wanting to cut spending. Neither can recoognize that both need to happen. Spending cuts can come from getting out of the police business around the world and focusing our defense closer to home. Also it is time to get out of the foreign aid business. This has been going on for decades. Seems to me that the debt can be paid down if we weren’t giving money away to countries that see us as the enemy. (Pakistan comes to mind) There are so many wasted funds going where they are not doing Americans any good.

Realities and priorites are very askewed depending on the political leanings Americans have. The inability of leaders and those with power to see the whole picture is really what is preventing us from solving our economic problems. Baby boomers are starting to reach retirement. The Medicare system was designed to help these people. And guess what. It was put together by previous generations to give to their children as they got older. We all pay into it so it isn’t an entitlement. And when our children reach retirement there won’t be as many on Medicare roles as there is now so again it will start to balance out. It is called foresight. Something most Americans can’t do.

As for bobber1956, one has to wonder who is the bigger fool when he states that this is what it is going to take to get this fool out of office. Someone needs to remind you that this “fool” is only allowed 2 terms so he won’t be in office after this term. You may remember Benghazi but you obviously can’t remember your civics classes.

Dec 04, 2012 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mike113 wrote:

According to the authors of this article, David Lawder and Thomas Ferraro, “The Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for corporations ….. is seeking tax cuts for their companies”. That’s ludicrous (and also a bit of sinister weirdness: the kinds of big corporations that are members Business Round Table mostly contrive to pay hardly any corporate income tax at all; and many of them (like GE) pay none, or receive cash windfalls from the IRS. So what the heck do they mean by “tax cuts for their companies”, which they also call, very deceptively, “tax reform”?? It looks they mean they should all pay no tax at all, or get payments from the IRS, like GE did — all at the expense of individual taxpayers like you and me.

I hope President Obama charms the Business Roundtable with his celebrated smile, and sends them home without a cent in undeserved tax breaks. And I am confident he will. ‘ .

Dec 04, 2012 10:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MNbabyboomer wrote:

I hope the GOP holds it’s ground. Stand up for AMERICA for a change. No matter what the liberals will blame you. DO NOT GIVE IN..

Dec 05, 2012 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Todd1 wrote:

If Republicans want 2.2 Trillion in spending cuts and no tax hike for the wealthy, and the President and the Democrats want 1.6 Trillion in a 3% tax increase from the rich, the middle of that 3.8 Trillion spread is 300 Billion in spending cuts and 1.5% tax hike for the wealthy. That’s the compromise.

Dec 05, 2012 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Todd1 wrote:

If Republicans want 2.2 Trillion in spending cuts and no tax hike for the wealthy, and the President and the Democrats want 1.6 Trillion in a 3% tax increase from the rich, the middle of that 3.8 Trillion spread is 300 Billion in spending cuts and 1.5% tax hike for the wealthy. That’s the compromise.

Dec 05, 2012 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

Do the Repos really think they’ll be able to get a better deal after the new Congress begins with their smaller House majority and Senate minority? Luck with that boys.

Dec 05, 2012 4:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

Tax hike now austerity later – learn anything from Europe? This country
and its opportunity was built on hard work, misery, sacrifice; now all the newcomers want free everything – including the President. Glad my parents aren’t around to see everything they worked so hard for ruined under this Administration.

Dec 05, 2012 7:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

Boehner – take us over the cliff. Screw the Democrats. Share the misery that has been inflicted on us with everyone that voted for him.

Dec 05, 2012 7:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

People that work deserve to keep what they earn – no new tax increased on ANYONE.

Dec 05, 2012 7:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
BigJoe45 wrote:

Boehner needs to grow some huevos and tell the president that he can have either an increase in taxes or an increase in the debt ceiling. NOT BOTH. Then let Obama decide which one he wants more. Thats the ONLY way the debt will get under control.

Dec 05, 2012 8:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
cocostar wrote:

Considering the idea that corporate profits are supposedly going through the roof and wages have been going down for the last 30 years tax cuts for the middle class should be permanent.
Now that the republicans have brought the idea of earned and agreed upon retirement plans being considered entitlements and attacking the ones that haven’t been looted by Wall Street yet, we need to remember that they played the same deal back in 2001 when Bush took office claiming that the tax cuts were going to generate revenue and increase jobs. Instead we got poverty level jobs and high unemployment, huge deficits and 60 thousand business’s off shoring. Unanswered questions and unfunded wars. Ending up in near collapse of the economy and our infrastructure.
The cuts were suppose to be temporary to stimulate the economy. The democrats and the country were totally deceived and the republicans have been nothing but arrogant about ending the cuts ever since. Going as far as causing the countries credit rating to be affected.
They have now brought entitlements into the picture as a bargaining tool for their tax cuts.
A good idea for entitlement cuts would be a congressman’s retirement maxing out at 52 thousand and going on the same medical plan as the rest of the retiree’s in the country. “Say” medicare!
Nothing but republican spin coming from the morning JOE and yesterdays FOX. One of the next new laws the democrats put into effect after the filibuster law gets an overhaul should be a new law enforcing truth in broadcasting! Fox and the morning Joe would be in regular trouble for having selective hearing and stating selective fact along with 60% of the rest of the babbling talk shows!

Dec 05, 2012 9:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
cocostar wrote:

Did Boeing or any of the other military industrial complex suppliers ever take a cut in pay and benefits? Maybe they would like to take a cut in pay about 15% and have no retirement paid into their plan for about 5 years? The 15% pay cut could go untaxed and be paid in unregistered stock right back into the company weekly and show a regular zero balance…! They could be just like the teamster freight Union! Dumped and duped by a billion dollar company!
None of the military industrial complex would get a penny in tax cuts if it were up to me! Nothing but a war machines and government pilfers!

Dec 05, 2012 9:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
cocostar wrote:

Another idea would be to increase property tax or limit the write offs. Corporate farms would be a good place to start. Considering the most of them are multimillion dollar operations that hire poverty level wages in many cases. Their tax definitely needs to double or triple!

Dec 05, 2012 10:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
BigJoe45 wrote:

@mike113 – I am always astounded when people call for taxes on Corporations. People don’t seem to realize that those costs for corporations are going to trickle down to everyone else in the form of higher prices! You can’t look at corporate taxes as free money. That money will come from everyone who purchases anything from that company. So, a call for higher corporate taxes is a call for higher taxes for every american. Smart countries have low corporate taxes to entice business investment and find other ways to raise revenue.

Dec 05, 2012 10:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
cocostar wrote:

I’m all for going off the cliff. Just think, 51% voted for Obama. Republicans claim 47% of them are on entitlements or in poverty. So who’s not going to get the 2200 dollar middle class tax break that the extensions would cover? I would but I’m willing to give it up so the other 47% that are republican and middle class get what they deserve from this president! NOTHING!!

Dec 05, 2012 10:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dave1968 wrote:

who’s the big man now? – Eric Cantor

Dec 05, 2012 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
Obsilutely wrote:

@BigJoe45: That is a rather coy argument. We are not forced to purchase anyone’s product. If someone raised their prices just because of taxes then I would stop buying their product. Saying “higher taxes on corporations means higher taxes for all Americans” is a farce. Corporate tax rates are at an all time low and the middle class is bearing the brunt of the tax burden (I know of two companies who pay a negative tax rate). I don’t know of a single middle class individual that pays a negative tax rate. Do you? So your premise is false. Smart countries also jail corrupt bankers and give more to educators, infrastructure, and social programs than we do. Businesses are not supposed to run countries, but for some reason it’s okay if they run this one at the expense of its citizens.

Dec 05, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Today’s Headline:

“As Pressure Builds, GOP’s Bohner Erupts.”

Good times. The two-minute wonder strikes again :)

Dec 05, 2012 11:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
BigJoe45 wrote:

@Obsilutely: You and I agree on many things. First, I don’t think that a negative tax rate is acceptable either. I also agree with you about jailing corrupt individuals. And I CERTAINLY agree with you that businesses should not be running countries. However, if everyone stops buying from a business because it has to raise it’s prices to pay taxes, then the business will not exist here anymore. Whats to keep them in this country if the local population doesn’t provide any reason to stay. I know some would say that the talent in this country is enough to keep a business here but that’s a pipe dream. The U.S. is no longer the world leader in talent. In global economies, business will go where the profit is. So, the only thing we really have to offer is lower corporate taxes.

Dec 05, 2012 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Hedonikos wrote: “Right now, Democrats are demonized for wanting to raise taxes and Republicans are demonized for wanting to cut spending. Neither can recoognize that both need to happen.”

Here’s the problem with your “both parties suck equally” theory. Obama and the Democrats have proposed tax increases AND spending cuts. In other words, they have recognized that both need to happen and have crafted their proposals accordingly. The Republicans, on the other hand, still refuse to budge on their insistence on no tax increases. They are alone in not recognizing that both need to happen.

Dec 05, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Todd1 wrote: “If Republicans want 2.2 Trillion in spending cuts and no tax hike for the wealthy, and the President and the Democrats want 1.6 Trillion in a 3% tax increase from the rich, the middle of that 3.8 Trillion spread is 300 Billion in spending cuts and 1.5% tax hike for the wealthy. That’s the compromise.”

I’d be willing to bet that Democrats would agree to such a compromise. I’d be equally willing to bet that the Republicans would reject it.

Dec 05, 2012 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Obsilutely wrote: “We are not forced to purchase anyone’s product. If someone raised their prices just because of taxes then I would stop buying their product.”

Quite correct. A case in point would be the Denny’s restaurants in Florida owned by John Metz who plans on cutting off his nose to spite his face by adding a 5% “Obamacare surcharge” to all his customer’s checks. I’m sure I’m not alone in avowing that I would never in a million years set foot in one of Metz’s restaurants.

Dec 05, 2012 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

5% Obamacare surcharge at Denny’s. What do you want to bet, the owner chickens out and doesn’t stick with his big tea party grand slam.

Come on Metz, we dare you.

Dec 05, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BigJoe45 wrote:

@4ngry4merican: It is your choice to boycott that business. But I urge you to think about the thousands of employees who would be unemployed if everyone acted the same as you do. I live in florida and I will gladly pay the 5% surcharge if that’s whats required to keep those people out of the unemployment lines.

Dec 05, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

BigJoe45..you are wrong. Tax increases on business DO NOT always trickle down to the consumer. Businesses can increase the price of their product (if taxes go up), but they run the risk of lower sales that in the long run lowers their profit margin. And there are a bunch of corporations out there right now that have plenty of wiggle room when it comes to taxes. Apple immediately comes to mind. They live in a VERY competitive market. They also have a 27% profit margin, pay a function tax rate of around 8% and have $100B in cash. Apple easily absorbs an increase in taxes and can do it with raising the price of their products. Higher taxes equals higher prices is NOT an absolute guaranteed principle. What the market will bear is!

Dec 05, 2012 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BigJoe45 wrote:

xyz2055: You make a valid point. It was not my intention to say that it happens every time. Only that it will happen most of the time. The case of Apple is interesting because they have a huge profit margin but also out source most of their production over seas. SO, maybe the govt should only charge income tax to corps that outsource their jobs overseas??? Would that be enough to level the playing field i wander??

Dec 05, 2012 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Boehner is in a bind. History shows that on his own he’d do a compromise deal. He and Obama had such a deal (handshake) last year. But he’s got radicals like DeMint, Ryan and Cantor that he’ll have a very difficult time selling a compromise deal to.

Dec 05, 2012 1:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

BigJoe45…Obama suggested something very similar to that last year. Tax brakes for companies that bring jobs back to America. I think that’s a great idea. With regard to free trade agreements in general..Ross Perot was right (“Giant sucking sound”). We open our markets freely to products made in China with $1 an hour labor. Their economy is radically different from ours. We can’t complete with that. I don’t think we should be simply opening our markets to U.S. corporations that move their manufacturing operations off shore. It isn’t fair to the American workers. What ever happened to tariffs (which our government once used to raise most of their revenue..instead of taxes).

Dec 05, 2012 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bwsailorman wrote:

Let’s recall all of congress and get people not obligated to the rich.

Dec 05, 2012 1:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The U.S. is the market that every country wants access to. Why are we giving access away for free. Charge a upfront price of admission (tariffs). Level the playing field.

Dec 05, 2012 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mirror2 wrote:

@iowafarm-”built on hardwork,misery,sacrifice”
I bet you inherited your farm, if that’s your real occupation.
I just came off of Harvest, you Farmers don’t work that hard, except lobbying for subsidies, and “Crop Insurance”. Did you get your crops in before the deadline for insurance?

Dec 05, 2012 1:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hugbear281 wrote:

Mr. President, YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF THIS! If you can’t cross the aisle and negotiate a resolution good for both sides…then what the HELL are you doing there!! I say Impeachment Proceedings are in order if you fail this!

Dec 05, 2012 2:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stickystones wrote:

I swear I just saw Henny Penny run by and say ‘the sky is falling’! Everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong – Obama and Boehner are not any further along than the NHL debacle. Maybe get two centrists from each party in the House & Senate and let them see what can be done. Oh wait, we already did that …. Bowles-Simpson! Then both parties promptly ignored it. Until their is the will to compromise no plan will suffice for both sides.

Dec 05, 2012 2:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bocomojoe wrote:

Fine with me. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. They were a horrible mess anyway and need to go away. Polls say that most Americans will blame the Republicans if Congress can’t reach a consensus, and they are right. Screw the Republicans. Let them stew in their own sauce. Out with the GOP in 2014 and 2016. Time for moderates to take back our country and end the power of the radical right wing nuts. Republicans pander to the wealthy and the stupid among us. They are dragging this country down into a slimy and filthy gutter. Romney’s 47% dominate the Red states and suck off the rest of us who work hard for our paltry wages and refuse to be on the public dole.

Dec 05, 2012 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bocomojoe wrote:

Fine with me. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. They were a horrible mess anyway and need to go away. Polls say that most Americans will blame the Republicans if Congress can’t reach a consensus, and they are right. Screw the Republicans. Let them stew in their own sauce. Out with the GOP in 2014 and 2016. Time for moderates to take back our country and end the power of the radical right wing nuts. Republicans pander to the wealthy and the stupid among us. They are dragging this country down into a slimy and filthy gutter. Romney’s 47% dominate the Red states and suck off the rest of us who work hard for our paltry wages and refuse to be on the public dole.

Dec 05, 2012 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Carmi wrote:

Looks like the same people who voted for Obama are blaming the Republicans and those who voted for the Republican guy, ol’ what’s his name, believe it’s Obama’s fault.

I just wish all these people we voted into office would learn to do their jobs instead of bickering. They should all know how to negotiate and make compromises; otherwise, what are they doing in office besides collecting a paycheck?

Dec 05, 2012 2:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

All President Obama has to do, is throw in 10 cases of Vodka or Bourbon, and Boehner will accept any deal offered to him.

Dec 05, 2012 2:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“Both sides dig in on fiscal cliff”

I’m surprised there is any hole left for these jerks to dig into.

$95 billion left before the limit is hit again.

Of course Mr. Geitner can raid all the Federal Pension Funds again to get some extra play money if he wants.

Dec 05, 2012 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

xyz, I agree. Tariffs provide direct revenue and they incentivize domestic production of goods. Historically, tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. have ranged from 20 – 40%. Over the past 30 years, they have slipped to 1.3%. China still charges us 20%. This is a good arrangement for multi-national businesses, bad arrangement for U.S. economy.

Time to re-start the tariffs.

Dec 05, 2012 3:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Obsilutely wrote:

@BigJoe45 – What about pay cuts for executives? Aren’t they deserving of scrutiny when times get tough? Executive pay has skyrocketed while workers wages have decreased. Granted, not every company is run by a C-level tier of greedy individuals but it does seem that the more successful a company the more of the profits go to the top by way of bonuses, benefits, or options. Hostess went out of business and the executives still reaped a bonus of $180 million. I’m not saying that success shouldn’t be rewarded but in my personal opinion no one is worth an annual pay package of $50 million dollars. Especially when the resources in this country have been extracted the way they have over the past thirty years. It’s insulting to those who are struggling (and working three jobs to make ends meet). So again, why are the workers required to take the pay cut when the executives are the ones who are overpaid? Why can’t these CEOs take pay cuts (after all, they are the ones who have done better than all of us over the past three decades) to balance the tax offsets? If I were a shareholder and I knew that a CEO was putting his pay package before common sense I would be quite upset.

Dec 05, 2012 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

I would not mind a story on American sentiment toward the cliff. My sense is that 16 voters will favor going over the cliff for every 1 favoring a coddled compromise.

Dec 05, 2012 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bwsailorman wrote:

Boot them all out of congress with a recall and get people that listen to their people back home.

Dec 05, 2012 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stickystones wrote:

americanguy wrote:

All President Obama has to do, is throw in 10 cases of Vodka or Bourbon, and Boehner will accept any deal offered to him.

I don’t think he’s that easy, I think it’ll take a few cartons of Camels too ;)

Dec 05, 2012 3:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Though I’m not surprised, there is an amazing audacity in the Republicans’ insistence on doing further damage to their political brand by demanding that taxes not go up on the richest Americans. Most Americans agree that taxes on the wealthy should go up. This was reflected in the election outcome. CEOs agree. The wealthy in general agree. I believe even most Republican voters agree. So what is it? The only explanation is that Republican lawmakers are afraid of Grover Norquist, and as far as I’m concerned, that is grounds for impeachment of every lawmaker who signed a pledge to Norquist and now refuses to walk away from that pledge. The country, the American people, must come first. That is who lawmakers are beholden to, and no one else. And in the meantime Congress needs to pass a law banning the signing of such pledges. It’s ridiculous that the GOP signed them in the first place. It amazes me that their constituents tolerate it.

Taxes must go up on the richest. It’s only logical. Then, rather than deciding on how to cut Medicare and Medicaid, Congress needs to focus on ways of lowering the cost of healthcare in the US. That is how you cut the cost of entitlements.

Republicans are insisting that Obama specify entitlement cuts. But they’re only doing that so they can turn around and attack Obama with it. That’s exactly what they did during the Presidential campaign. Obama’s Affordable Care Act saves tax payers over $700 billion in Medicare costs and Romney and the Republicans dishonestly attacked Obama claiming that he cut $700+ from people’s Medicare, so don’t vote for him. But he didn’t cut Medicare benefits. Finding their next angle of attack is all the Republicans ever do anymore, and that is what they’re up to in these budget negotiations. They’re complaining that Obama isn’t meeting with them face to face, but until they’re willing to support an increase in tax rates for the top tax bracket, there’s no reason for Obama to meet with them.

Dec 05, 2012 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

BigJoe45: I agree with your suggestion that we lower taxes for those companies who keep jobs here and raise them on companies who export US jobs. That should be a no-brainer. But as xyz2055 pointed out, there was an attempt to pass such legislation. Obama and the Democrats tried to pass a bill giving tax breaks to companies that returned jobs to the US and merely ended special tax breaks already in place for companies who ship jobs overseas. This legislation was blocked by the Republicans: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill

Obsilutely: Though it would be very difficult to do, I wish there was some way we could place a limit on executive pay. However, if Obama or the Democrats made such a proposal, they would be attacked by Republicans for being socialists.

I think the tariff issue should be should be looked into, but we run the risk of causing inflation as prices on imports would go up, and we import a lot. In the past when we used tariffs extensively, we were making much of what we used and had abundant supplies of everything. We would also be risking a trade war. Right now our economy is too fragile to risk something like that. But I think it needs to be looked into.

Dec 05, 2012 4:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

The media would have us believe the fiscal cliff is some sort of boogie man. Let’s do it!

Let’s go over the fiscal cliff. We need to cut spending.

Dec 05, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
uc8tcme wrote:

“All he (Obama) is talking about is rates on the upper income, so if the House were to give that to him, where does the discussion then go? It goes to entitlements which is where it ought to be in the first place,” Corker said.

The Bush tax cuts is costing the US $3.4 Trillion today (if let expired in January) in lost revenues, the entitlements are barley and in some cases not keeping up with the rate of inflation. So how can one now cut entitlements to offset the Bush cuts that have already dug the hole – this do not make sense. Any one object? – please explain your point.

Dec 05, 2012 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

There is no fiscal cliff. It’s a hill. And it’s uphill. But it’s gotta be did. Raise revenue, cut spending across the board. Not that complicated, republicans.

Dec 05, 2012 6:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BurnerJack wrote:

Seems to me, there is a great need to make politically unpopular spending cuts, loophole eliminations, etc. This ‘fiscal cliff’ is nothing more than a LONG OVERDUE step at fiscal responsibility. The Idea is to blame the opposite side of the aisle so THEY may suffer the brunt of the political fallout while ensuring that these measures DO in fact occur. I also feel thaty while it may seem like it would be bad for the economy, becoming more financialy responsible is ALWAYS more benefitial in the long run.

Dec 05, 2012 6:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
systemBuilder wrote:

Recessions are healthy – it’s like the economy is taking a bath and getting clean again. Recessions punish the imprudent and reward the responsible citizens and businesses. We’re in the horrible mess because over the past 15 years we’ve tried to AVOID cleansing our economy with recessionary baths.

Cliff / Recession : BRING IT !!

Dec 05, 2012 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

AlkalineState wrote: “5% Obamacare surcharge at Denny’s. What do you want to bet, the owner chickens out and doesn’t stick with his big tea party grand slam.”

That’s a good bet. The corporation that owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden is already in damage control mode after the backlash they received for announcing they were going to cut all their employees down to part time to skirt the mandate.

Dec 06, 2012 9:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

So to recap, the “fiscal cliff” is roughly $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, about half of which are from entitlements and half of which are from defense. The Republican proposal is roughly $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, all of which are from entitlements and zero of which are from defense. And Obama’s proposal is the ridiculous one??

Dec 06, 2012 9:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Congress holds the pocket book. Republicans hold the Congress. Hence the Republicans hold all the cards. Democrats must have forgotten that we vote for Congress every 2 years, and the majority of the country wants Republicans holding the pocket books. I want them to allow tax cuts to end, and then force the Democrats to cut spending. We paid over $400 billion for interest on our debt this year. You Democrats screaming for more of the deficit spending should be slapped in the face by your children and grand children. They will take your social security, to pay for the debt, it will be the right thing to do in my opinion.

Dec 06, 2012 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@AlkalineState

“There is no fiscal cliff. It’s a hill. And it’s uphill. But it’s gotta be did. Raise revenue, cut spending across the board. Not that complicated, republicans.”

I agree, but unfortunately Obama doesn’t. He wants to throw in a new $50 billion stimulus in his spending. Democrats never, ever, cut spending. They get new money, and they can’t help but spend it.

Dec 06, 2012 1:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@uc8tome

Where did you get your $3.4 trillion number? Is that over 30 years? Please explain. For the record the total US revenue is around $2.5 trillion a year. Letting the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would bring the government nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. That’s $823 billion in added revenue and $127 billion in interest to be exact, for a total $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction. So please, where do you get your numbers from?

Dec 06, 2012 1:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flashrooster

So let me get this straight, your big bright plan is to tax companies at a higher rate, than the already highest rate in the world (up to 51%, 39% Federal, 12% Max state) for moving employment overseas, which they have to do to compete with the other companies in the world. So you will make sure that they can not compete and have a choice of completely relocating out of the country, or closing shop. Just brilliant.

Why not close all the loopholes and subsidies, and lower corporate taxes from 39% down to 20% to make us competitive with the rest of the world and attract more companies? That brings us more GDP, more jobs, and more taxes. Democrats will never get it.

Dec 06, 2012 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@bwsailorman

Congress gets elected every 2 years. The Republicans all just got voted into office to do exactly what they are doing.

Dec 06, 2012 1:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.