More "fiscal cliff" talks but neither side giving ground

Comments (20)
saavedra wrote:

In both 2008 & 2012 Obama ran on platform to raise taxes on those with an income of $200K per year while not increasing middle class taxes.

He won both times. Let’s move on or are Republicans willing to sacrifice the greater good on the alter of the Wealthy and priviledged?

Dec 10, 2012 1:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
congressive wrote:

Boehner is negotiating all right. He’s offering LESS revenue than he did before Obama’s election by a hundred and fifty billion dollars. He seems to think he won and can make even bigger demands on the prez so he’s negotiating backwards.

Good luck with that.

Dec 10, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

Wish Boehner and Obama would listen to Alan Simpson. What he said on Jon Stewart the other night made a lot of sense.

Dec 10, 2012 2:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

How can there be talks when Obama is campaigning with his unions in Michigan? What did this trip cost taxpayers?

Dec 10, 2012 2:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sanmiguel wrote:

Could it be that both sides are wrong? Could it be that there is something fundamentally wrong with our economic system, and it doesn’t matter what we spend, or collect in taxes, it’s still going to fail? Has anyone ever really looked at that possibility? Could it be that we can’t see the forest for the trees? Has the national debt ever gone down? Has inflation ever been reversed, except in a “Great Recession or Depression”? Could it be that all sides are wrong?

Dec 10, 2012 2:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Pubs not giving in and Pubs not used to Dems not giving in. What to do what to do?

Dec 10, 2012 2:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ciao wrote:

congressive wrote: “He seems to think he won”
He did win, he was also reelected. And he was reelected running on a platform of balanced budgets and smaller government.

Dec 10, 2012 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tuscar wrote:

Boehner ran unopposed in one of the most Gerrymandered districts in America, I would hardly call that a confirmation of his political ideas…

Dec 10, 2012 3:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@saavedra said: “In both 2008 & 2012 Obama ran on platform to raise taxes on those with an income of $200K per year while not increasing middle class taxes.”

Yes, and he then proceeded to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy during his first term…chock that up as false promises number….hold on, I lost count.

Ohh, he extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because the GOP made him? Well, why didn’t he do it when he had a super-majority with which he was able to pass PPACA without a single GOP vote…at least we know where his priorities lie: in cementing his legacy via Obamacare.

Dec 10, 2012 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@congressive…and I guess you missed the fact that Obama’s spending cuts to revenues offer went from about 4:1 to 1:4…meh, let’s focus only on what we can blame the GOP for, it’s a lot more fun.

Dec 10, 2012 4:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@misterjag…and I wish Obama would listen to his own Simpson-Bowles when they said any real effort to rectify our fiscal issues MUST include entitlement reform…why does Obama refuse to address the issue?

Dec 10, 2012 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“GOP’s Bohner Assures America: I Think We Can Still Come Together.”

Dec 10, 2012 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kate90 wrote:

Reuters – why don’t you cover California’s latest boondoggle. Why aren’t we hearing about the big tax increase that brought in less revenue?

That’s news!

Breitbart is the only one who covered it. Why is that?

Dec 10, 2012 5:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

I love how they want to include social security as one of the entitlements they want cut. Social Security does not add one dime to the debt. Infact it is at present self supporting.

The problem is that the Govenment has dipped into social security trust funds a number of times, and the only thing I can see would be if the Republicans can get rid of Social Security (a goal espoused during campaigns of a number of them) they would then not have to worry about repaying the Trillions of dollars they have drained from the Social Security Trust Funds),

I am glad that I will not be receiving Social Security, but I am still concerned about all those who have paid in they whole working life, and may not be able to draw any benefits.

Dec 10, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kate90 wrote:

If your adult son maxed out 35 credit cards and came over to ask you for money, what would you do?

Dec 10, 2012 5:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

jaham: What you are incapable of understanding is that governing requires compromise. It’s not a weakness. It shows leadership and a genuine desire to govern. Somehow, Republicans and their spokespersons have convinced people like you that refusing to compromise is a good characteristic. That’s only good if you live in a country with authoritarian rule and you support those in power. To embrace that attitude is to reject democracy, an insult to those brave US service men and women who gave their lives trying to bring democracy to Iraq.

You’re right that Obama has been insisting on ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy since he first started running for the Presidency. The Republicans were holding him over the barrel when Obama reluctantly agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, but only for one more year. Otherwise, taxes would have gone up on everyone and unemployment compensation would have ended for millions of Americans, both at a time when the fragile economy couldn’t take the risk. Obama did the right thing, under the circumstances. The Republicans did not. Holding the economy hostage was not the right thing to do. The time is up. He’s upheld his part of that agreement. Now it’s time for the Republicans to do the same.

It’s just silly for the Republicans to play this game. Their stand is clearly not in the country’s best interests and clearly not what a majority of Americans want. It’s so absurd because the wealthy won’t be paying 39.6% anyway. It’ll be closer to 20%, their effective tax rate. But they’ll still be paying more, and it has to be just one step in a process that must included other tax reforms.

So why are they doing this? The only explanation is that they’re afraid of Grover Norquist, one man; they’re letting one man override the wishes and best interests of this country. This will only deal, and yet, another blow to the Republican brand. With each passing year they’re making themselves less and less relevant. But it’s okay for you to deny that, because that’s why it continues to happen. Too many Republicans are in denial about reality.

Dec 10, 2012 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

You know to all the super rich who pay absoutely no taxes, all this talk of a tax increase is absolutely meaninglous.

Dec 10, 2012 5:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

All the Republicans can spew manure until they are blue in the face, but there is one FACT that remains:
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS PLAN TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY WON THE MAJORITY OF VOTES. Forget the electoral college, President Obama won the MAJORITY of votes. Period. The MAJORITY of Americans want to end tax welfare for the wealthy. They spoke during the election, we don’t even need polls.
Now PROVE me wrong Republicans in Congress, Limbaugh, Boehner, Beck, etc. etc. etc., prove that the MAJORITY of Americans DID NOT vote for President Obama knowing his key point was increasing taxes on the wealthy, and that the MAJORITY of Americans DO NOT WANT tax increases for the wealthy.
PROVE the majority of America supports the Republican position on the tax increases for the wealthy, or shut up.
In America, we are supposed to be a democracy.
Guess the fascist dictator Republicans and their lemmings don’t believe that.

Dec 10, 2012 7:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

flashrooster said: “What you are incapable of understanding is that governing requires compromise”

I digress; compromise is essential. My question, then, is why won’t Obama compromise on the spending cuts and entitlement reforms we need; it shouldn’t even be called compromise because everyone knows it’s needed.

Lets try some math:

Obama’s original proposal was expected to net about $80B in tax revenues per year.

And as a baseline let’s take Obama 2011 deficit of $1,590B

$80B / $1590 = about 5%…that means Obama’s tax proposal represents a “solution” to about 5% of our spending problem.

If the goal is compromise, why do Dems refuse to address 95% of the problem?

Dec 12, 2012 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Americanguy…I will not prove you wrong, however, I will prove you incapable of comprehending the big picture.

Let me start off by conceding all these relatively unimportant points: Obama won, the GOP lost, Obama has a mandate, and ALL of America’s fiscal problems are due to Bush, and Americans want to end tax welfare for the wealthy.

that’s all good and well, but if Obama gets his $1.4T in tax revenues over the next ten years it won’t be enough to even repay the $1.59T he blew last years budget by….why are you content with a “plan” that will not fix our fiscal problems and a POTUS who refuses to address sour spending and entitlement problem in earnest?

Dec 12, 2012 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.