"Fiscal cliff" talks turn sour, Obama threatens veto

Comments (129)
JoeObserver wrote:

Boehener shouldn’t give in. This government is spending more than it earns, and not to mention the unlimited printing press thanks to Bernanke and Fed.

Dec 18, 2012 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

How is this pointless political theatre by the Republicans putting the squeeze on Obama?

@speaker12 ~ Obama is ignoring the Republican’s panic because it is not his problem. Republicans created the fiscal cliff, thinking they would be in power to stop it, it has backfired on them in a big way, and now they are running around scared.

Obama has no problem. He can let it happen, and then present bills to cut tax for the middle-class and increase military spending to a level he likes.

That is why Boehner – who is getting very scared now – is willing to agree to raising taxes on the wealthy now. It is not a concession because he can’t stop it anyway. It is offering something Obama has anyway. Boehner is just trying to save face.

Because it is not a concession, and Obama knows that taxes are going up for the wealthy no matter how much Republicans rant, he is not particularly interested in it.

Dec 18, 2012 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Barry has outmaneuvered the GOP at every turn since he got elected in 2008. No reason to think the results will be otherwise now. Sterling Greenwood/AspenFreePress

Dec 18, 2012 10:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TScarfone wrote:

Boehener, we do see it as your fault, as your parties fault. Stop trying to increase the already larger gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Raise the tax rate. Stop letting CEOs hide their income as capital gains. True capital gain should be at a lower tax rate, gambling on the stock market, and CEO bonuses should not. Tackle these and we then will believe you know how to handle finances.

Dec 18, 2012 10:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sandman839 wrote:

speaker12 wrote:

Come on, how can you squeeze an egotist like Obama? His puppet, Reid, will stop any attempt by Republicans to get what they want. OB will just stay on the golf course and claim the opposition is at fault. This is only the beginning. Four more years folks. Get ready for chaos.

I love how the right thought it was OK for bush to spend the majority of his time in texas, but when Obama does things outside the office in D.C. he is not working on the problems. The fact that what the dems want has actually shown to get the country running, i.e. the great depression, the Reagan recession.
JoeObserver wrote:

Boehener shouldn’t give in. This government is spending more than it earns, and not to mention the unlimited printing press thanks to Bernanke and Fed.

It is spending less that it “earned” in the Clinton years. Had bush not started two wars and medicare part D without funding they would still be “earning” more than they were spending. Not to mention the fact that the president does not controle what the fed does.

Dec 18, 2012 10:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bunker555 wrote:

The Washington Post reports: “The House of Representatives will not formally adjourn for the year ‘until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found,’ House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said Wednesday. The House was originally scheduled to adjourn and formally end the 112th Congress on Dec. 14. But Cantor’s announcement means House lawmakers likely will meet the following week and possibly right up to and beyond Christmas Day.”

Is there a graver tragedy in the entire world? Has there been a crueler fate to befall anyone, ever? Yes. Barack Obama is now teasing Congress about having to possibly pantomime doing their jobs over fake-Christmas. Per ABC News: “When a reporter at the White House noted that Boehner is waiting to hear more specifics from him, the president simply smiled and said, ‘Merry Christmas.’” Obama knows it is not going to be a merry Christmas. It’s going to be a stupid Washington Christmas spent inside the Capitol while members of the Senate crowd the windows from outside, their freezing breath making circular clouds on the icy glass as they watch members of the House kvetch about the national debt. Later, Mitch McConnell, Prometheus-like, will step away from the Capitol building to light a fire in a trash can, but the other Senators would rather catch hypothermia than hang out with him, and so he stands there alone, suffering forever as a metaphorical eagle pecks away at his liver.

Dec 18, 2012 10:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bunker555 wrote:

The Republican Brain Trust of Limbaugh, Rove, Priebus, and Norquist has now screwed the GOP for good. No way the party is going to recover from this spit in the face and kick in the arse on their way out.

Dec 18, 2012 10:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smallpeople wrote:

GOP proposed a “plan B” while their “Speaker” is negotiating with White House. Wait! Is Boehner really GOP’s “Speaker”?

Dec 18, 2012 10:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dc2ndtest wrote:

Joe observer, you’ve failed to consider the following:
1. 93% of all increased US income goes to rhe top 1%
2.After Bush’s “taxcuts for the rich” as McCain so accurately characterized them, the rax es on the rich became obscenely lower(i.e.top margonal rate under isenhower was 91%; Top matginal rate under Bush 35%) almost 2/3rds lower than ike’s take from the atistocracy of wealth. They should be as ashamed of this revenue rape as publicly as watten buffet.

The republicanbought and paid for pol’s are a disgrace to this nation.

Please Mr. president; take us over the cliff. I paid in at Clinton’s top 2 brackets. It’s time for the wealthy to step up again.

Dec 18, 2012 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dc2ndtest wrote:

Joe observer, you’ve failed to consider the following:
1. 93% of all increased US income goes to rhe top 1%
2.After Bush’s “taxcuts for the rich” as McCain so accurately characterized them, the rax es on the rich became obscenely lower(i.e.top margonal rate under isenhower was 91%; Top matginal rate under Bush 35%) almost 2/3rds lower than ike’s take from the atistocracy of wealth. They should be as ashamed of this revenue rape as publicly as watten buffet.

The republicanbought and paid for pol’s are a disgrace to this nation.

Please Mr. president; take us over the cliff. I paid in at Clinton’s top 2 brackets. It’s time for the wealthy to step up again.

Dec 18, 2012 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dc2ndtest wrote:

Joe observer, you’ve failed to consider the following:
1. 93% of all increased US income goes to rhe top 1%
2.After Bush’s “taxcuts for the rich” as McCain so accurately characterized them, the rax es on the rich became obscenely lower(i.e.top margonal rate under isenhower was 91%; Top matginal rate under Bush 35%) almost 2/3rds lower than ike’s take from the atistocracy of wealth. They should be as ashamed of this revenue rape as publicly as watten buffet.

The republicanbought and paid for pol’s are a disgrace to this nation.

Please Mr. president; take us over the cliff. I paid in at Clinton’s top 2 brackets. It’s time for the wealthy to step up again.

Dec 18, 2012 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeSwiss wrote:

There is no need for the Republicans to put the squeeze on.

Obama is a ”self-squeezer.” :-}

Dec 19, 2012 2:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
elfenstar wrote:

The only one’s feel a squeeze is the GOP. Lets get real here.

Dec 19, 2012 3:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The only reason that Obama is even in this discussion anyway is that they are trying to craft a bill that he won’t veto. So intentionally passing a bill that they absolutely know has no chance in the Senate and even if it did that Obama would veto is asinine. Simply more political theatre by the Republicans. AND it doesn’t appear that they’ve even worked out the spending cuts portion yet. Obama compromised to $400,000 as a cut off. The Republican’s need to meet the President on that number and let’s get on to what the spending cuts will be. Hoping America remembers all of this next election cycle and doesn’t vote ALL these jack wagons back into office…AGAIN. Like we just did. Einstein’s definition of insanity is alive and well in the American voting public.

Dec 19, 2012 4:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

And folks…it isn’t Obama’s job to come up with the bills for taxes and spending cuts, that’s CONGRESSES JOB. The House and the Senate. If those two bodies write legislation that has enough support by those two bodies, it’s doesn’t matter what Obama wants. They simply have to have enough votes to override his veto. Congress can have any bill they want and there’s nothing the President (any President) can do about it.

Dec 19, 2012 4:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
yrbmegr wrote:

Shut down the “talks”. Discuss tax cuts after the holidays.

Dec 19, 2012 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Gopernooper wrote:

The government is inept, irresponsible, incompetent, and self-serving. This isn’t about ‘the people’, this is about them (all of them – both parties) being lazing and not putting the country ahead of their own self interests. This is another shining example of kicking the can down the road. The entitlement programs were issues when I started voting in the 80′s. I am deeply saddend by state of the country my children will inherit…

Dec 19, 2012 8:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
FedUP71 wrote:

They need to pass a balance budget admendment that keeps the goverment from over spending what they do not have.

Dec 19, 2012 9:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
cocostar wrote:

Its a waste of the presidents time to even consider negotiating with the republicans and the special interest that control them. Even if an agreement was reached they would come out in the new year demanding all kinds of off the wall demands in an attempt to obstruct the tax hikes that are a necessity. The loopholes that several of the big companies are using need to be controlled by new laws that you can guarantee the republicans will object.
When verizon and ford are paying their executives more in salary than their paying in tax’s we have a big problem with tax evasion.
There’s nothing patriotic about it thats for sure!

Dec 19, 2012 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

Sorry John, we the people WILL hold you responsible for going over the cliff because you continue to play games with a bill that doesn’t stand a chance of passing. YOU decide to wait to the last minute before getting serious about working on the problem so no, we don’t feel sorry for you that you might have to work through Christmas.
You’ll lose control of the House in the next election, bank on it.

Dec 19, 2012 10:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Dump discriminatory taxes,like the “progressive”(envy) income tax and go to a flat tax.A flat tax doesn’t punish success/good behavior or reward failure/bad behavior.Also would be better to go to consumption taxes and away from taxes on investments.This country is too dependent on mindless spending and needs more investment in productive assets.Maybe a VAT tax,like Europe has,would be best.Envy taxes don’t make sense and are immoral.

Dec 19, 2012 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

There is no fiscal cliff. It’s the Simpson-Bowles plan. And it’s what we should have started 10 years ago. Let’s do this.

Dec 19, 2012 12:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gordon2352 wrote:

America NEEDS the “PRESIDENT” Obama we elected on the promise of change we can believe in.

Thus far, much to the consternation of the nation, that “president” Obama has “gone missing”.

It is NOT too late for “PRESIDENT” Obama to assert himself.

The American people have given him as second chance to do what is right for this country.

NOW is that time!

We NEED “PRESIDENT” Obama to stand fast against those who would destroy this nation for their own benefit.

Dec 19, 2012 12:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GLS4Freedom wrote:

So, basically, Obama wants unlimited taxes for thoses he hates, unliimited spending for those that voted for him, no cuts to the deficit and no budget to worry about since he cannot write or pass one. Does that about sum it up?
Gee, why not, Let’s all just go on a spending spree and run that debt up as far as the eye can see. Oh, you mean it’s already there, no, no, no, Obama can run it up much farther. Let’s shoot for 24 trillion by the end of his term. That will show those conservative jerks what fore.

Dec 19, 2012 1:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Lets talk the real issue here. Obama states $250,000 a year for a household makes you wealthy. Not the millionaire, or billionaire, that the press likes to state.

Dec 19, 2012 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GSH10 wrote:

Put Congress on Medicare, cut their pay, and Social Security for their pensions as part of the deal.

Dec 19, 2012 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@cocostar

Corporate tax rates aren’t even being discussed right now. How did you get sidetracked on that. Raising the rate without closing the loopholes accomplishes nothing. This is just political grand standing by Obama and the Republicans. You can bet Reid is getting very jealous with not being in the headlines, and if Obama and the Republicans make a deal Reid will promise to veto it. The idea is to raise taxes on everyone, and then blame the Republicans for it.

Dec 19, 2012 1:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Eric93 wrote:

Let the misnamed Fiscal Cliff (fiscal staircase) happen. It’s a good thing since both sides will never do anything useful otherwise. Then add two more ‘steps’ to the tax rates, namely, for incomes over $1M @ 45% and for over $5M @ 50%. Back before Regan screwed things up the rates went up to 70-90% and we had unemployment down around 4-5%. And, of course, we also had much less spending by government as a percent of GDP. And pt a cap on mortgage and interest deductions to about $15K – no need to subsidize the mega-houses (McMansions) of the wealthy.

Dec 19, 2012 1:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Donnatello wrote:

The Republicans are out to protect the rich. End of story. If you don’t believe me consider that they only want to start a tax increase on any dollar earned over $400000. You also need to consider that no matter what plan is decided upon even the best outlook continues to run up the debt by $800B per year. Both sides are hoping and wishing on an economic recovery to pull themselves out of the frying pan.

Dec 19, 2012 1:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
acd wrote:

If I remember correctly it was Barry who wanted to hide all this tax stuff till after the election. GOP has passed a number of bills to address this. It is Reid and Barry who have not done their job, the president to lead and Reid to actually bring something, anything to the floor. This debate should have happen before the election. If the president got a mandate because he won so did the GOP as they won the house by a larger margin than Barry won the White House. They don’t call it the people’s house for nothing.

Dec 19, 2012 1:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dmanning wrote:

Since Republicans are so worried about spending, why doesn’t Plan B have any spending cuts?

Dec 19, 2012 2:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mikon wrote:

The article makes this false statement, “Obama and Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, have each offered big concessions in talks.” Obama has only offered to raise the tax threshold from $250K to $400K, but he DOUBLED his demand for new revenues to $1,600B from $800B, and INCREASED his “stimulus spending” plans fron $50B to $200B. In contrast, Boehner has agreed to raise taxes on those above $1M and has increased the revenue target by $200B.

An opinion showing bias and speculation by the author, and NOT honest reporting, “The plan is also a way of providing political cover for Republican lawmakers who could afterward tell constituents back home that at least they voted for it and, in doing so, did their best to try to block Obama’s agenda.”

Dec 19, 2012 2:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LarsHampton wrote:

We should talk about something else. This is going nowhere. How about that snow!

Dec 19, 2012 3:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gideon_71 wrote:

He is irrational. He’s been irrational. He scares the tar out of me, because he seems to not care if it’s legal or not, if it’s the way it’s supposed to be done, or even if it’s correct. It has to be his way, and ONLY his way.

Dec 19, 2012 3:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GQ222 wrote:

My bet is they will reach a deal before Christmas. At the end of the day, Congressman will put their personal priorities ahead of everything else and want to be home opening presents. I can’t wait for mid term elections to throw this group of bums out.

Dec 19, 2012 3:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
patrickjane wrote:

When are these clowns going to learn, we don’t care if they voted against it before they voted for it. This political posturing is a waste of time. The GOP needs to wake up and see what the American people have been saying for months. They are so out of touch. No more games

Dec 19, 2012 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jeff81201 wrote:

We need to raise revenues and cut spending. So why exactly is a 10% across-the-board spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts such a bad thing?

Sure, the economy suffers from a lack of stimulation. But it then benefits from more confidence, because we realize we are doing what we need to do. I don’t know about you, but the more the deficit problem remains unaddressed, the more I hunker down and the less confident I am.

And just about anything with Bush’s name on it is probably best gone.

Dec 19, 2012 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
patrickjane wrote:

When are these clowns going to learn, we don’t care if they voted against it before they voted for it. This political posturing is a waste of time. The GOP needs to wake up and see what the American people have been saying for months. They are so out of touch. No more games

Dec 19, 2012 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tuscar wrote:

@jrj906202 – A flat tax rate would be a HUGE increase in taxes on the rich. Most of their income is hidden in capital gains taxes, so they pay a considerably lower actual tax rate than the average tax payer.

If Washington was serious, they would be talking about raising Capital Gains back to the 25%-35% range that it has been at when our country has been most prosperous historically.

Dec 19, 2012 3:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Wonder what would happen if there was a law-you have to be a legal citizen, employed and PAYING taxes to vote. Well obama just lost about 70% of his base.

Dec 19, 2012 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Curly wrote:

Now is the time that the left, progressives and democrats have to destroy the republicans, every last one of them. Them and each and every idiot that don’t support much more spending to get this nation up and on the track to recovery. Not to support this spending the rich will have to pay taxes at the rate they have had to when the US was in trouble in the past. The top tax rate under Truman was in excess of 90% and that is the rate that it should return to now. Even so the rich were getting richer and if they are as smart at the rich of Truman’s day they could today also.
Some of the additional spending should be to provide health insurance for everyone through a single payer system. Another area that spending should increase is a guaranteed basic living income even if the person dose not work and a guaranteed minimum standard of housing for all people to live in.

Dec 19, 2012 3:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Curly wrote:

Mikon wrote:
The article makes this false statement, “Obama and Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, have each offered big concessions in talks.” Obama has only offered to raise the tax threshold from $250K to $400K, but he DOUBLED his demand for new revenues to $1,600B from $800B, and INCREASED his “stimulus spending” plans fron $50B to $200B. In contrast, Boehner has agreed to raise taxes on those above $1M and has increased the revenue target by $200B.

Mikon, the point is is that Obama should get all he has ask for. We are in this state because of the republicans (which need to be destroyed). when Obama get what he is asking for, tax increase for the rich (those making over $250K) and the ability to change the debt without having to go to the republican house and without limit he will be able to put the US on a sound financial footing.

Dec 19, 2012 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
skyraider wrote:

Eliminate “tax expenditures” which are mostly corporate welfare and the problem is solved. This is roughly equal to the deficit.
How easy can you make it?

Dec 19, 2012 3:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

Why are Republicans wasting everybody’s time having Boehner negotiate with Obama if they’re determined to ignore any fruits of that effort? And they have the nerve to call others “irrational”?

Dec 19, 2012 3:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
.lollyikens wrote:

I am disapointed that the President agrees to cuts for seniors. Even tho I support him and have high respect for the President I am very upset with his decision.

The increase every year is certainly not that great, and it will be just another blow to us seniors. The increase for 2013 is 1.7%, not enough to get rich on or help with the groceries that keep going up.

If he does this to present Social Security recepients which I am one, it will be a great harship.

Dec 19, 2012 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

Boehner shouldn’t give in. Obama and Bernanke are following a wrong path. If printing money were the solution, Zimbabwe would have been richest country in the world. More debt will endanger future generations only. I am now a fan of Republican party and their policies.

Dec 19, 2012 3:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jetsoni wrote:

Remember when the debt limit fiasco took place. Obama reacted to boehner’s demands by compromising, then boehner showed he couldn’t deliver the votes. Negotiating with boehner is a waste of time. He is not sincere and even if he was he cannot deliver.

Dec 19, 2012 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@ acd
yes, you are wrong on several points.

1) http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns

President Obama did in fact release his tax returns. All you have to do is google “did president Obama release his tax returns” to find this information.

2) Reid can’t bring bills to the floor because the GOP minority filibusters them.

3) The GOP lost seats in the house in the last election, the opposite of your assertion.

Dec 19, 2012 3:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@ acd
yes, you are wrong on several points.

1) http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns

President Obama did in fact release his tax returns. All you have to do is google “did president Obama release his tax returns” to find this information.

2) Reid can’t bring bills to the floor because the GOP minority filibusters them.

3) The GOP lost seats in the house in the last election, the opposite of your assertion.

Dec 19, 2012 3:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ernst_Blofeld wrote:

So The President and Boehner almost reach an agreement then the republicans propose something completely different.. Brilliant!

Would somebody PLEASE take Grover Norquist out of the picture? He has not pledged to serve the country like our elected officials have and it seems clear to me that he is doing our country a disservice.

Dec 19, 2012 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

If one truly wanted to solve our budget problems, one would talk about either lowering or straight up eliminating the difference in way ‘normal’ in come and capital gains income are taxed. I have seen estimates that simply taxing capital gains at same rate as other ‘normal’ income would bring in an extra 5-6 Trillion over course of next ten years.

Dec 19, 2012 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

I hope there is no deal. I find the sequester to be fairer than any alternative suggested so far. Please, take us over the cliff! You all know that congress will do some measly effort to posture for their perceived constituency and in so doing dilute the effectiveness of cuts and revenue increases, and all with an eye toward pork barrel efforts for their state. It’s the way it works for them. It’s why we are here.

Speaker12: Chaos? Really? You don’t have clue do you.

Dec 19, 2012 4:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
voelker1 wrote:

Sen. McConnell, I am a fellow Republican. I work hard and stay late, usually 6 days a week. All on salary and definitely not for something as distinguished and honorable public service once was.

So spare us the veiled sacrificial appeal at the end of your statement next time and just please get something done already.

Please.

Dec 19, 2012 4:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@acd
You do not remember correctly. Obama tried dealing with the Republicans in good faith which is why he renewed the Bush tax cuts. That was a Republican plan. Afterwards Boehner produced nothing. The Republicans have spent four years stalling believing they could capture the White House if they stalled and created this fiscal cliff believing they would be in the driver’s seat. McConnell’s only 2008 pledge to defeat Obama failed. Republicans taking the White House failed. Republicans failed to take the Senate and lost seats. The Republicans lost seats in the House but maintained the majority because of gerrymandering.In the “people’s house” as you call it the Republicans received overall less popular individual votes than the Democrats. To sum it up, in all branches of the executive and legislative branches of the government the Democrats received the majority popular vote of the people and thus have more of a mandate than the Republicans may try to claim or Bush Jr ever had in his 8 years.

Dec 19, 2012 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@Abulafiah: Excellent point.
There appear to be lots of thoughtful remarks here…

Dec 19, 2012 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FastCheck wrote:

This issue is about real leadership by former social worker Obama, who won a popularity contest (w 4M fewer votes than 2008). This never meant he knew how to lead. He has never held a real job in a real business, so he doesn’t know what real leadership looks like.

Burning taxpayer money on jet fuel to do some blamestorming isn’t solving problems, and it sure as __ is not what real LEADERS do.

Trying to solve financial problems with social solutions (the only way he knows) also doesn’t work.

Real leaders take charge in times of crisis and pull everyone together and work until a solution is reached. 45 minute mtgs and phone calls demonstrate he has never really learned how to lead.

Dec 19, 2012 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist

I would be surprised if it was actually that much, but I it would be much more significant than move the tax tables up 2%. The wealthy will still find ways to maintain their wealth. And the average American thinks increasing Federal Income Tax 2% is going to make the rich pay their fair share. Wake me up when we start talking about real fair taxes (Property taxes, Estate taxes, Consumption taxes). Until then, the wealthy in this country are just making sure they keep their power by placing road blocks in the way of everyone else. The Kennedy’s, Rockefeller’s, Koch’s, Gates’, Buffet’s, etc. are in no hurry to give away their money despite what they tell the media. Actions speak louder than words.

Dec 19, 2012 5:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Boehner seems to be jockeying for position now to look better than Obama in the public’s eye. This seems to be less and less about the so-called “fiscal cliff.”
Sterling Greenwood/AspenFreePress

Dec 19, 2012 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LarsHampton wrote:

Silly republicans wasting our time and money again. Voting on issues that will be vetoed, so they can say on record that they voted. One week vacation for every two weeks work, and they do nothing meaningful during those two weeks. This was how the Roman empire fell apart.

Dec 19, 2012 5:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Saywhaaaaa

“To sum it up, in all branches of the executive and legislative branches of the government the Democrats received the majority popular vote of the people and thus have more of a mandate than the Republicans may try to claim or Bush Jr ever had in his 8 years.”

That is why we have a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives next year right? Sorry, you are wrong. Romney was a bad candidate, he lost. Not the GOP. The House is up ever 2 years, and they maintained their control of the house. No one trusts Democrats to run the budget. There is no mandate. If the DNC doesn’t stop claiming that, they will lose again in 2014 like they did 2010…

Dec 19, 2012 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Poster8080 wrote:

If the politicians want a tax bill, it must be bad.
They won’t pass anything unless they are getting cash bribes.

Politicians don’t represent us, rather, we are their sheep to be sheered for their contributors.

Spendicans use the bait of not as much increased taxes, DemocRats use the bait of more goodies, to be serviced in perpetuity by those who pay the bribes.

Dec 19, 2012 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dmanning wrote:

The House Republican Caucus has all the internal logic of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

Dec 19, 2012 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
papatty wrote:

This is a time for all parties to get off their duffs and get something accomplished for the good of all Americans. Cooperation? Anybody? Somebody?

Dec 19, 2012 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

The Republicans offer nothing of substance, and the “compromise” by Obama leaves far too much of the burden of running the “rich man’s State” to the little people who have almost no influence on it. An income of $250,000. is about 5 times the median household income in the USA. For those poor folk who cannot live on $250,000. per year, try living on what the 50th percentile American household lives on — $50,000. per year. Just give it a try. Moving the tax hike upward to $400,000., or 8 x the median income, is an obscene gesture to the vast majority of the people who supposedly rule this land.

No compromise! Over the cliff! Then back off the working & middle classes. Also ensure that percentage cuts to the mandatory retirement and health plans, Social Security and Medicare, are matched by the same percentage reductions in all Federal service-related benefit programs, including those for former elected officials.

Dec 19, 2012 5:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dmanning wrote:

You know, I’m not sure I believe this, but is there just a slight chance Boehner is bringing this up,knowing that it doesn’t have the votes to pass? The assumption is that Boehner and Cantor have counted the votes or they wouldn’t be bringing it to the floor; both are smart enough pols in that way. However, all estimates say that the vote is going to be close. If no Democrat crosses over, Republicans can only afford to lose about 17 of their own members to “NO”.

With the bill failing to pass, a majority of the Republicans would have now voted for a tax increase–granted, a tiny one–and then would essentially be in a position to break off from the more extreme portion of their caucus and vote with Democrats on something close to the President’s proposal (which is actually quite close to Boehner’s proposal).

Again, I doubt it. But such a tactic actually makes as much or more sense to me than what Boehner is seemingly trying to pull now. Plan B passes, but is killed by the Senate. That is inevitable. And such a move won’t take the heat of the Republicans in the polls–honestly, most Amerioans look at only the broadest strokes of a deal and don’t pay much attention to procedural gamemanship in Congress.

Oftentimes, I think those Americans have the right idea.

Dec 19, 2012 5:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Romney 44% of the popular vote, President Obama 52% of the popular vote. President Obama, 62% of the electoral vote.
Apparently some here don’t know that…….
Forget fiscal cliff, President Obama will handle that as the American people who elected him want him to.
I saw the press conference today. I thought President Obama was going to do a smack down on that reporter when the reporter brought up the killings last week, and blamed President Obama for people owning guns and asked “where were you?”.
Based on his reaction, President Obama was about one second from putting that guy in intensive care. After President Obama put the guy in his place with the truth, the reporter tried to start it again. President Obama just turned away and pointed to another reporter, then left.
Typical stupid Republican paid for stooge, trying to make political points with lies. Most so called reporters now would sell out their mother for a dollar. I bet if I gave the guy $20.00 he would ask President Obama if it was true he was from Mars.

Dec 19, 2012 5:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@theNewWorld
What I said was the Democrats had a popular vote majority in the House which they did. Overall more US citizens voted for Democrats in the House of Representatives than they did for Republicans. Because of gerrymandering the Republicans were able to maintain control of the number of seats they had in the House. The point remains. The Republicans lost seats in the House which means the people are moving toward Obama and away from Boehner’s and other Norquist pledging Republicans. The fact is Republicans and Bush Jr claimed a mandate with a much less popular than Obama’s and for some reason today they deny that same comparison to Obama’s larger than Bush Jr’s margin. You should have told Bush Jr he had no mandate in 2004 and especially not in 2000. If you had your attempt to make a point would make more sense.

Dec 19, 2012 5:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

In case the point on the Democrats winning the popular vote in the House is missed:
“Democrats led Republicans by 56 million to 55 million votes nationally, according to unofficial tallies from the Associated Press. It’s the first time since 1996 that one party won more House seats while winning fewer votes, according to data compiled by the House Clerk’s office. The outcome is the product in part of Republican-dominated redrawing of House seat boundaries after the 2010 census and of population shifts.”

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164936.0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/republicans-can-t-declare-mandate-with-more-democrat-house-votes.html

Dec 19, 2012 5:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

We are troubled, very troubled by Mr. Boehner’s Plan B. And we will not support it. Raising taxes on Americans that make a million dollars a year – the job creators, the engines of growth – forsakes our most basic conservative principles (read: cutting taxes, running huge deficits, feeding the bloated military industrial complex, starting trumped-up wars that have nothing to do with American interests, obstruction, government by lobbyist whores).

We are dealing with a president who is “irrational” and acting accordingly. We are drawing a line in the sand, on the slippery slope of the fiscal cliff as we fall into the black pit of European socialism, communism, vegetarianism, organic food cults, anti-Chevy-Tahoe bias, and the evil liberal quest to obtain our precious juices for stem cell research. This has nothing to do with extortion, sequestration, or Grover Norquist’s tax pledges.

It is the dawn of a new day in America, crystal clear, eternal, pure as the driven snow, a land of opportunity, freedom, the Constitution, the right to bear arms, Mom’s sacred recipe for pickled pigs feet. Be afraid…be really afraid.

Dec 19, 2012 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@TheNewWorld, I am with you with regards to this issue, I just wish ONE politician would propose taxing capital gains the same as ‘normal’ income.

Dec 19, 2012 6:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
linn35 wrote:

Maybe if he would do some real spending cuts he might get someone to cooperate with him.

Dec 19, 2012 6:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist

I agree with you. I would be happy to go back to 2000 levels of taxes and spending, and then adjust from there. The way Republicans talk, it was like the end of days during the horrible years of Clinton’s taxes. I don’t remember it being an issue at all. But like I always say, the wealthy is smart enough to buy both candidates. Why take the chance of losing?

@Saywhaaaaa

Gerry mandering is always used by the party in power. And due to the largest states in the country by population being heavily Democrat, you are going to see more majority votes in the House for Democrats. That doesn’t give the Democrats a mandate. Obama’s win in 2012 is 14th from the bottom for margin of victory (popular vote). Bush’s win in 2004 is 11th from the bottom for margin of victory (popular vote). The country is still very divided. Obama got 50.97% of the popular vote. But go on, and keep on stating you have this mandate to go further to the left. If you didn’t learn from 2008, you are doomed to eat crow in November 2014.

Dec 19, 2012 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“You should have told Bush Jr he had no mandate in 2004 and especially not in 2000. If you had your attempt to make a point would make more sense.”

How did that work out for the Republicans in 2006? BTW I am libertarian, not Republican.

Dec 19, 2012 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
trasisi wrote:

i can handle the $400K compromise by obama. i can’t STAND the repub attempt to pass something they KNOW won’t pass. what does that accomplish? what? they KNOW it will get shot down? why aren’t they instead coming up with ways to equalize the rates paid by everyone? why are capital gains taxes so low? i have to pay sales tax on what i buy and i pay income tax and all that other junk. and that junk doesn’t give me more money. repubs had my vote 8 years ago. i can’t condone ANYTHING they do now. all posturing, no solutions.

Dec 19, 2012 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Someone is either not serious about the budget (you know, the budget we haven’t had for four years), or is too stupid to understand the difference between campaigning and governing. My bet is on the latter.

Dec 19, 2012 6:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Peertoperr wrote:

QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO WANT CUTS – Which one of YOUR benefits are you ready to cut???

Dec 19, 2012 6:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Today’s Headline:

“GOP’s Bohner Shows Spunk Under Pressure, Comes Up Short.”

Dec 19, 2012 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballen wrote:

Social security will soon be paying out more than it takes in and will go bankrupt. According to the 2012 social security trustees the unfunded liability is $8.6 Trillion. SOmething has to be done or it is finished as a program. MEDCIARE is the killer with over $40T in unfunded liabilities and cannot exist for much longer in its current form. Until Obama starts acting like an adult and starts working with Republicans to fix these entitlements, we are doomed to more meaningless political rhetoric.

Dec 19, 2012 6:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

The Republicans can’t govern. They just can’t. They’ve wound themselves up in political knots and they can no longer govern. So now they’re nothing but an impediment to progress and must be removed by the American people, by any legal means necessary, including putting an end to the gerrymandering problem and the way the plutocrats pay for our elections. But we must organize and apply the pressure. We have to stop wasting time with the GOP. They have no intentions of changing. They are like a cancer to our government and must be removed.

The wealthy need to pay more in taxes. It’s a must. To not ask them to pay more is simply irresponsible. At this point Obama should just let the chips lie where they fall and go with the sequestration. After that we can fix what we need to. Bohner and the GOP are worse than useless and need to be sidelined.

Dec 19, 2012 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballen wrote:

Peertoperr: I am 65 and ready to accept a voucher and to by my own insurance. I refuse to burden my kids and grandchildren with debt from the Chinese. I am ready to pay more and use insurance less to make the system solvent.

Dec 19, 2012 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballen wrote:

Peertoperr: I am 65 and ready to accept a voucher and to by my own insurance. I refuse to burden my kids and grandchildren with debt from the Chinese. I am ready to pay more and use insurance less to make the system solvent.

Dec 19, 2012 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dmanning wrote:

Boehner’s Plan B has absolutely no provision in it for entitlement spending. None, no cuts whatsoever.

To those who rail about entitlement spending, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid–are you supporting this plan? It addresses none of your own concerns. What is the point? Why are Republicans supporting a proposal that cuts no spending? Is spending not your issue? Even by John Boehner’s own math, Obama’s proposal cuts the deficit $625 billion more that this (and CBO has the figures at closer to 2 trillion). By every mathematical approximation, Obama’s is the better deal for deficit reduction and for entitlement spending.

Or has the point never been about the fiscal cliff, deficit or debt reduction, or cutting government spending? Hasn’t it always really been about trying to defeat Obama?

I think we now have the final proof of the answer.

Dec 19, 2012 7:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The most accurate statement made in this article was when Obama said “At some point you have to take me out of it”..meaning the negotiations. The House and the Senate should be the two parties involved in negotiations and crafting a bill they can send to the President for signature. IT IS the job of Congress to solve these problems. Not the President.

Dec 19, 2012 7:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@TheNewWorld The country is divided but is moving away from the Republican position. If you can’t see a loss of seats in the Senate and the loss of seats in the House and a re-election of Obama as a majority of the country moving more to Obama’s position by simple math deduction, then you simply don’t like math. The fact that the majority of Americans in the House, the Senate and for the Presidency voted for Democrats over Norquist Republicans translates into the preferred direction of the country whether you like that as a libertarian Republican or not. That is math. The Democrats and Obama have not been half as arrogant coming out of the last election as Bush and the Republicans have been since 2000 claiming a mandate every time they edge out a win or even a loss. Romney lost and the GOP lost as well as the popular vote and loss of seats point out but you still deny.

Dec 19, 2012 8:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrStrangehair wrote:

Boehner is ignoring that Geithner and Obama are backed up by the automatic tax on Jan. 1. Boehner no longer can take the Middle class hostage. Obama has stretched the middle class to $450,000 joint income. That stretch was to get a Debt ceiling change. to about 2 years.

Dec 19, 2012 8:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gohuskies wrote:

It’s always about Obama. can he not just work with the republicans & share the glory. he will look better in everyone’s eyes imo. does he not know that he’s been known to make a few political points in his time also? get it done & go on your vacation.

Dec 19, 2012 9:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
randall22000 wrote:

I am sick and tired of the denial and deception. Will my Republicans just stand up in public and call Obozo exactly what he is? He is a committed Marxist/socialist bent on bankrupting our country by running up a crushing debt under the deception of “fairness”. Further denial is just laughable. Obozo has zero intent to cut any spending or to reform entitlements. He has to be forced by the House to get our finances in order one way or the other! He has zero mandate to urn us into Europe! You Obozo takers who think you are going to swamp the makers better recalculate. We will stop you one way or the other!

Dec 19, 2012 10:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@saywhaaaaa

It is the way you are intrepeting it that I don’t agree with. Bush and the Republicans did the same thing in 2004. Obama and the Democrats did it in 2008. The American people are fed up with both parties. Romney failed to impress and seemed like a worse option. Then you had the Tea Party loons that lost offices they should have won. That isn’t the same as everyone going Pro-Democrat. It is people choosing the lesser of two evils. The Tea Party was the Republicans worst enemy in 2012. But that does not mean the country has moved to the left or that the vast majoriy is behind Obama. 63 million voters voted for him. He won with a 3% margin.

You keep bring up Bush in 2004 and his “mandate”. Again, how did that work out for him in 2006? The Democrats took Congress. Remember 2008? There was a “mandate” then. Remember how that worked out for the Democrats in 2010? And here you all are again in 2012, claiming that you have a mandate.

Here is a little secret that the GOP and DNC doesn’t want you to know. About a third of the voters are dedicated to their party no matter what. They have you, you are the rabid supporters who sees no wrong in your party. It is always the other parties fault, no matter what. That is two thirds of the voting populace, maybe a little more. There is also a good chunk of the population that sees through both parties, and their spokespeople. We don’t wantch Fox, we don’t watch MSNBC. We despise the likes of Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly. We are pretty much fed up with politicians in general. People like me who didn’t vote for Romney, we didn’t sign off on the Democrat agenda. Personally I voted for Gary Johnson.

I think we have hit a brick wall, if you don’t get it, you will be crying again in 2014, just like you did in 2010…

Dec 19, 2012 10:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

Then we’ll simply disagree. I don’t see people going pro democrat or pro republican per se but two options were put on the table in 2012 and the people chose who they chose. I am not a goose stepping Democrat but I definitely don’t see the Norquist Republican party of today moving in the right direction and nor do the majority of Americans by simple math of the votes. Without calling the election a mandate the majority of Americans voted against Romney and his positions. Romney’s position is what the Republicans are still trying to force on the American people even though Romney lost. Obama made the concession of renewing the Bush tax cuts once and that got him nowhere. So we are where we are today and the Republicans are still trying to hold the country hostage to their Norquist pledge. I think the wall you are seeing is the one the Republicans are knocking their heads against because the majority of this country,whether you feel it is a mandate or not, voted against these same ideas the Republicans are rehashing. I didn’t cry in 2010 as I saw as many others did that Obama was negotiating with the Republicans maybe too much and getting too little in return. He lost part of his base. You don’t think an extension of the Bush tax cuts was a major concession Obama made in his first term which yielded nothing in return? In the two years since the mid term elections the Republicans have accomplished nothing but obstructionism and voting no. So two more years of no passage of bills,no jobs bills, record number of filibusters and becoming the party of no will show even more Americans where each party stands. I’d rather have tax and spend in a recovering depression than the Republican alternative of cut taxes more and spend even more of the Bush years that brought us to where we are today. In the end it is a question of which way the wind is blowing and the reduction of seats in the House, the Senate and the loss of the presidency show it is against the for Norquist Republicans.

Dec 19, 2012 10:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@TheNewWorld You stated:
That is why we have a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives next year right? Sorry, you are wrong. Romney was a bad candidate, he lost. Not the GOP. The House is up ever 2 years, and they maintained their control of the house.

The problem with that statement is one, you either missed the point or ignored the fact that I stated that the Democrats had won the overall popular vote in the House. That is the Democrats as a party received over a million more votes than the Republicans even though gerrymandering, a long stupid tradition abused by both parties, had a hand in that. Romney lost and despite what you state, the Republicans lost by the mere fact they lost seats in both Houses.

Secondly you stated:
“No one trusts Democrats to run the budget. There is no mandate. If the DNC doesn’t stop claiming that, they will lose again in 2014 like they did 2010…”

Which again is simply not true because again the majority of Americans voted for Obama and voted for Democrats to vote against the Romney/Ryan and the Norquist Republicans. So evidently they trusted Obama more than they did the Republican opposition whether you want to admit that or not. You may not trust the Democrats but as I posted earlier not crazy about taxes but I’ll take tax and spend over cutting taxes and spending more which has been the Republican stance over the last three decades barring Bush Sr. Not a rabid supporter because I do watch Fox and MSNBC and Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly. I try to find a little something in everything.

Dec 19, 2012 11:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@TheNewWorld You stated:
That is why we have a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives next year right? Sorry, you are wrong. Romney was a bad candidate, he lost. Not the GOP. The House is up ever 2 years, and they maintained their control of the house.

The problem with that statement is one, you either missed the point or ignored the fact that I stated that the Democrats had won the overall popular vote in the House. That is the Democrats as a party received over a million more votes than the Republicans even though gerrymandering, a long stupid tradition abused by both parties, had a hand in that. Romney lost and despite what you state, the Republicans lost by the mere fact they lost seats in both Houses.

Secondly you stated:
“No one trusts Democrats to run the budget. There is no mandate. If the DNC doesn’t stop claiming that, they will lose again in 2014 like they did 2010…”

Which again is simply not true because again the majority of Americans voted for Obama and voted for Democrats to vote against the Romney/Ryan and the Norquist Republicans. So evidently they trusted Obama more than they did the Republican opposition whether you want to admit that or not. You may not trust the Democrats but as I posted earlier not crazy about taxes but I’ll take tax and spend over cutting taxes and spending more which has been the Republican stance over the last three decades barring Bush Sr. Not a rabid supporter because I do watch Fox and MSNBC and Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly. I try to find a little something in everything.

Dec 19, 2012 11:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
noseitall wrote:

Don’t bother passing a bill. Don’t give Obama the opportunity to cast a veto. Just have a nice holiday and see how Obama likes his Inauguration Day spoiled.

Dec 20, 2012 1:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Goobermom wrote:

interesting that Obama is so narcissistic that he thinks the Republican opposition to increased spending is personal. It’s always all about him, isn’t it? The national debt has doubled since he took office, and he just wants to keep spending more & more money, and doesn’t understand why anybody has a problem with that!

Dec 20, 2012 1:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
Purp wrote:

burn it

Dec 20, 2012 2:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

Randall, Randall, Randall 22000
You are projecting what you refuse to face about your party of choice. Republican President G W Bush is the one who went on the spending spree. Wanting to balance the budget with taxes on those who avoid them the most is not Marxist or socialist. It’s what Simpson and Bowles recommended as a fiscally sound approach to fix Bush’s lack if regard for the American public The panic in your message shows your desperation. FYI President Obama has already cut costs in entitlement program spending in his first term, without cutting benefits. You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face.

Dec 20, 2012 3:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
kingdad wrote:

Vote on it then Let Obama Veto it. That way all the Blame falls on him when taxes on the Poor go up 50%. I guarantee you that Obama won’t veto it and cause that increase upon the Working Poor. If he does the GOP has a Cudgel to bash him and the Democrats for decades to come.

Dec 20, 2012 3:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
kingdad wrote:

Vote on it then Let Obama Veto it. That way all the Blame falls on him when taxes on the Poor go up 50%. I guarantee you that Obama won’t veto it and cause that increase upon the Working Poor. If he does the GOP has a Cudgel to bash him and the Democrats for decades to come.

Dec 20, 2012 3:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
kingdad wrote:

Vote on it then Let Obama Veto it. That way all the Blame falls on him when taxes on the Poor go up 50%. I guarantee you that Obama won’t veto it and cause that increase upon the Working Poor. If he does the GOP has a Cudgel to bash him and the Democrats for decades to come.

Dec 20, 2012 3:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@Goobermom

Mitch McConnell made it all about Obama. But poor Mitch lost the fight. You need to check your figures, and maybe read up on the fact that President Obama has actually lowered the Deficit by billions. Read up at : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955561.html. He’s actually spent the lowest amount in 50 years.

Dec 20, 2012 3:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

Boehner has bend and twisted in every direction for Obama. Obama needs to act like a leader and compromise. The Obama plan does nothing to repair the financial situation the USA is in. Tough decisions need to be make. Obama is a coward.

Dec 20, 2012 6:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

Even with the OBAMA plan to raise taxes on those making $250,000 it only raises 80 Billion per year against a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Its meaningless. America needs real solutions. Obama is nothing but a political hack

Dec 20, 2012 6:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

The fact that Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts shows how willing Obama has been willing to negotiate. He compromised and then got burned by Boehner and the Norquist Republicans that offered nothing in return. The Republicans really thought they would win the Presidency and take the House and Senate so stalled for the last two years. The record number of fillibusters and the obsession with repealing Obamacare in the House show the Republicans only objective over the last few years has been obstruction as they waited to take power. Boehner and the Republicans need to act like Americans and compromise and abandon the Norquist pledge and act in the interest of the country. Boehner spending these last few weeks offering the Romney/Ryan plan which was defeated at the polls show how slow Boehner has been willing to negotiate. The fact that the Republicans lost seats in the House, the Senate and lost the presidency you would think they would be more compromising and less the party of “no” that they have become like a spoiled child sulking in the corner. For once, listen to the American people and not Norquist.

Dec 20, 2012 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

The fact that Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts shows how willing Obama has been willing to negotiate. He compromised and then got burned by Boehner and the Norquist Republicans that offered nothing in return. The Republicans really thought they would win the Presidency and take the House and Senate so stalled for the last two years. The record number of fillibusters and the obsession with repealing Obamacare in the House show the Republicans only objective over the last few years has been obstruction as they waited to take power. Boehner and the Republicans need to act like Americans and compromise and abandon the Norquist pledge and act in the interest of the country. Boehner spending these last few weeks offering the Romney/Ryan plan which was defeated at the polls show how slow Boehner has been willing to negotiate. The fact that the Republicans lost seats in the House, the Senate and lost the presidency you would think they would be more compromising and less the party of “no” that they have become like a spoiled child sulking in the corner. For once, listen to the American people and not Norquist.

Dec 20, 2012 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
ra44mr2 wrote:

I think what i find most fascinating and why i will never understand democrats, is they few the money that the so called “rich” have as not belonging to them. Does your money that you make not belong to you? Are you just holding on to it for the govt? Are you some kind of slave to the govt now and thats OK with you? What you all dont realize is the rich wont pay these taxes, the poor will, in higher prices less opportunities, fewer jobs. The simple fact is the rich will simply pass down most if not all of these tax increases to those they sell their product to or those they employ. Or do you not believe that if you could suddenly give yourself a raise when your costs went up you wouldnt do it?

Dec 20, 2012 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
ra44mr2 wrote:

I still contend the GOP should just vote present on any bills put before them, let Obama run it into the ground and take full responsibility for it.

Dec 20, 2012 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
reaper0221 wrote:

Go ahead and veto the bill just out of spite. When the idiots that re-elected this moron stop getting their government checks because everyone working and paying taxes throws in the towel it is going to make me smile while the world is buring down all around me.

Dec 20, 2012 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
anti0 wrote:

Zero’s arrogance is continually STUNNING!
Yeah . . . it’s ALL about him.

Dec 20, 2012 9:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
RattStone wrote:

You folks out here supporting Obama you must not have any kids, or land, or a 401, or a house, or pay for your own Health Insurance, or even have a job. If you did you wouldn’t have voted to continue the destruction. Bush had us $480 Billion in the hole after 8 years, after 4 years Barry has us $16 Trillion in the hole, 47 Million on Welfare, Disability and Food Stamps, $890 Billion in TARP, gone, $5 Trillion in two Q.E.’s gone, $98 Billion in ‘green companies’ gone, $1.4 Trillion in loans to Fannie and Freddie Mac gone, and Bernanke is pumping out $85 Billion a month buying US Treasury Bonds. Just, exactly, how long do you think we can survive at this rate, definitely not another 4 years, and sure as hades not another 8 years under Michelle when she runs in 2016. You Obabots voted for our destruction and dayyam if it ain’t coming, forget the Maya catastrophe the American Dream is dying.

Dec 20, 2012 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
toledofan wrote:

If anyone actually thinks Obama wants a deal, well, it’s obvious he doesn’t. This whole debacle could have been fixed or at least addressed a year ago, but, what’s the point. It’s all about the spending, the Democrats don’t have any other plan, so, for everyone in the media to be hyping this up is just nuts or maybe a little insane.

Dec 20, 2012 10:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
TexasChris wrote:

We don’t need to let the government take more in taxes. We need them to slash spending.

Dec 20, 2012 10:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
Cogs wrote:

You can’t have a give and take with “My Way or No Way” Obama.

Dec 20, 2012 11:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
batmanRox wrote:

Veto it… automatic spending cuts. That’s the ONLY thing that will make any difference at all. Screw Obama and the leftist fools.

Dec 20, 2012 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
taekwonman wrote:

I thought Obama wanted to tax millionaires and the rich? All Obama has to do is sign and he will have his tax on the rich.

Dec 20, 2012 11:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
winstongalt wrote:

It’s amazing how many pathetic, envious losers there are on this string demanding that taxes go up on “the rich”, and whining about so called “inequality”.

I’ve got news for you – “inequality” exists because some people have skills, intellect and services to offer the market that others see value in, and some don’t. It’s that simple.

Do some people start out with an “advantage” because their parents worked hard to set them up? Sure, so what? That’s not a bad thing, that’s a GOOD thing. It’s each of our God given individual right to do so. The US is the Land of Opportunity not the Land of Equal Outcomes. You can easily find many Land of Equal Outcomes by taking a look at 3rd world and socialist/communist cesspool nations.

The government’s purpose is not to redistribute income. In fact, forcible redistribution of income by a governing elite represents everything that this nation was founded to avoid. To all of the non-American posters mocking the unwillingness to confiscate addtional income from high earners – you can go back to your loser nations and bury your heads in your bread pudding. To the American posters of similar opinion, you are free to join the non-American posters, wherever they are.

If any of you slackers had any sense at all you would understand that taxing those “high earners” at 100% of their income would produce about a week and a half of government spending. So there is absolutely no argument whatsoever that can be made that tax increases are necessary to fix the debt and/or deficit. Massive spending reductions are the absolute only possible solution.

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

Well, I see the brainwashed supporters of the do nothing for two decades republican party has showed up to show us what little they know about everything.
Thank god the gop is in serious decline.

Dec 20, 2012 11:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Obama was the biggest liberal in the Senate.What do you expect from him.He worships govt and wants more govt.Best is to let the middle class pay more taxes.They voted for Obama and more govt and they should be willing to “contribute” their “fair share”.

Dec 20, 2012 11:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tarmangani wrote:

Abulafiah has things a bit off.

The democrats created the recession in order to win the WH. When they took control of congress in 2007 they doubled the deficit and refused to let Bush invvestigate Fannie and Freddie. They won the WH but have no clue how to stop a recession. Reagan stopped his one and it was worse, by doing nothing. It worked itself out in 2 years.

When they ran in 2006 and 2008 all they could talk about is the Bush tax cuts being only for the rich. Now that they are in charge they can’t repeal all of the Bush tax cuts because it would hurt the middle and lower class.

Dec 20, 2012 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
cebva wrote:

We have a spending problem that no amount of taxation can fix. OwweBama is being totally disingenuous to suggest the Republicans are at fault because they won’t cave to his demands for an unlimited checking account.

Republicans should vote “present” (like he did so many times) and let the Democrats own the mess they have made.

Dec 20, 2012 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
dave148109 wrote:

Taxes are going up regardless. We need to go over the fiscal cliff so at least we cut spending.

Dec 20, 2012 12:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dave148109 wrote:

The solution whether we vote for it or not will be to cut all non-military spending by half. Boom! Balanced budget and we’re still protected. Whether this happens voluntarily or it’s forced on us by economic and/or political collapse remains to be seen.

Dec 20, 2012 12:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
minfxbg wrote:

I would have offered Obama a single plan that had 1 dollar of tax increases for every 5 dollars cut.
Had Obama rejected the plan – which he would have — I would have publically excoriated him, thrown a brick on the accelator, and let the entire mess fly out into the fiscal abyss, all the while listening to the DNC screaming as it dashed itself upon the debri of their failed fiscal policies… while clearly pointing out that it was Obama that is responsible for this mess.
Yes, Obama fault. He is looking for the US taxpayer to bail him out.

Dec 20, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@minfxbg, to quote you ‘all the while listening to the DNC screaming as it dashed itself upon the debri of their failed fiscal policies… while clearly pointing out that it was Obama that is responsible for this mess.’ Consider the following facts…

1. Since the 60′s the year to year deficits have gone UP under GOP administrations and DOWN during Democratic Administrations.

2. Obama has presided over the LARGEST decrease in year to year deficits (from ~1.6 Trillion in 2009 to ~1 Trillion this year)

So please explain your justification for blaming the Dems and/or Obama for our fiscal recklessness?

Dec 20, 2012 6:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Duke717 wrote:

Agree with the comments made about preserving the future for the grandchildren. We need to make sacrifices – spend less and pay down the debt. We need to do both to reverse the trend. If the president does not pass the budget cuts then do not raise the debt ceiling. He wants the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval, sounds to me like they already plan to overspend. GOP has to stand fast even if we go over the fiscal cliff.
The problem is when government subsidizes healthcare or any other industry cost go up for the rest because they only pay half the bill.
Everything from medicine to elder care is through the roof because the government plan encourages gouging those who pay.These policies will fail in the long term , and we will be in a worse boat than Europe.

Dec 20, 2012 7:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Apparently Obama, Democrats and the liberal media have ZERO reverence for the fact that taxing the rich will not nearly solve our fiscal problems:

$6.7T deficit projected over the next ten years

$16T in current national debt

$1.4T of tax revenues Obama wants to raise

1.4T / (6.7T + 16T) = 6.16% of the problem resolved
by taxes over the next 10 years and that doesn’t include the unfunded
entitlement liabilities accruing that are set to make Medicare go
bankrupt in 2024.

Don’t you think it’s about time Obama put forth a plan to address the other 93.84% of the problem?

Dec 21, 2012 9:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
lawgone wrote:

I say let Obama and the Democrats have their way. When it fails (and it will) they will be held accountable. Everyone will suffer, but the country has to (apparently) learn the hard way. After the lesson(s) are learned then we can get back to making this country better.

Dec 21, 2012 9:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@Jaham

Learn some basic economics. Projected doesn’t mean what you imagine it does, and you completely ignore both economic growth and inflation. Your argument is complete nonsense.

You might as well sit on an aeroplane and starts shrieking “OMG! If this plane carries on on this course and speed, the fuel will run out and we will all die!”

Dec 22, 2012 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
ssilv48 wrote:

Just like anyone else that writes a bad check, all of congress, president and vp needs to be put immediately in jail until the books are ballanced, then sit back and watch just how simple it gets done.

Dec 22, 2012 3:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Abulafiah

You are the person who has no understanding of macroeconomics. You think that the government doesn’t have to pay its debt back, and that we don’t have to pay interest. If you were in control the dollar would be worthless in a year.

Dec 22, 2012 7:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“You think that the government doesn’t have to pay its debt back”

I don’t think it. I know it. It is very entertaining the way you right-wingers imagine that a sovereign state, with a sovereign currency, is taking out bank loans in the same way that an individual does at a high-street bank. Like jaham, you shouldn’t post on a topic you know so little about.

Outside your Fox fantasy world, sovereign states can indeed roll over their debt as often as they like, for the simple reason that they are a sovereign state so nobody – nobody! – has the authority to force repayment. A sovereign sate may *choose* to pay down debt, and it is a good idea to do so when the economy is strong, but your right-wing notion that they *have* to? Utter nonsense.

Dec 23, 2012 5:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.