Obama says he's ready to work with Republicans to avoid "fiscal cliff"

Comments (81)
tracing wrote:

wekk, hes a well known liar that says the exact opposite 100% of the time, so I guess he is now saying he has zero intention of working with them at all, they may as well go on vacation, like obama,

Dec 08, 2012 7:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
sicofitall wrote:

Obama intends to work with Republicans…..as long as they agree with him.

Dec 08, 2012 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
TimoB wrote:

Mr. Boehner and his fellow republicans created the “fiscal cliff” by not being able to compromise in the past, and now he is complaining about it, and not willing to compromise to avoid it.

Dec 08, 2012 8:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
tractorman wrote:

What is wrong with the idiots in Washington. It is very simple to cure our economic problems. Let every citizen of the USA pay his fair share for the privilege of living here.Do away with the income tax all together and put a VAT on everything we buy,everyone would then pay their share. If you have more to spend ,you pay more.

Dec 08, 2012 8:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrnichols3 wrote:

If the country goes off the Democratic Cliff, will the tax hikes apply to the Prez & Congress?

Dec 08, 2012 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
derdutchman wrote:

Boehner wants more sacrifice from those who can’t. Obama asks more sacrifice from those who can. Where is the compromise? Asking sick people to take less medical care is not the same as asking rich people to drink less latte.

Dec 08, 2012 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrg wrote:

Fiscal Responsibility is a good thing.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 is a win for everyone. Congress passed the act to be effective after the recent elections and with possible contingencies so they would not be punished by their electorate for doing the right thing. Notice the lame duck congress and the Republicans are now to blame for not resolving it. Note that the actual legislation only reduces government spending.

The tax cuts which are expiring is a good thing since most of the money not going into taxes from the upper middle, is going into the equity bubble via 401k plans and will all evaporate shortly. It is better to use this money to pay down each household’s portion of the national debt.

As to the economy, no amount of stimulus money can affect the fact that many manufacturing jobs have been exported to other countries with lower standards of living. This is a fact of the global economy.

Dec 08, 2012 8:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
neilc23 wrote:

Obama clearly has the “upper edge” in this Kabuki dance because his base is primarily composed of illiterates, sycophants and/or liberal demagogues.

Let’s look at the history of our fiscal problems.

Obama established the Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. But when their bipartisan recommendations were made, he all but ignored them.

Next, he had a “mano a mano” compromise with House Speaker Boehner that called for revenue increases of $800 billion. But when confronted by Senate Leader Harry Reid, he reneged within 40 hours and demanded revenue increases of $1.2 trillion.

Now he has “upped” his demands by a full 100% of his agreement with Boehner to $1.6 trillion.

The question that I have: “Is Obama a Man, a Mouse or a Weasel”?

Dec 08, 2012 9:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

neilc,

If Republicans are intelligent and Democrats are illeterates, sycophants …, then you are clearly the exception which confirms the rule.

Dec 08, 2012 9:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Republicans stand to lose every seat they have in the house if we go over the cliff. Between the rich withholding their money and the middle and working classes outraged at ever higher taxes, they are doomed as a party. The Party of Wars.

Military spending must be cut, cut, cut! Deployment overseas must be cut by at least half. Foreign bases, including “base agreement” and “joint use” bases, must be reduced by half. America is not an Imperial country but is instead a country in domestic crisis. No more military deployments to countries whose governments have not directly attacked US non-diplomatic territory. Enough! Require a nationwide popular confirming vote every year after the deployment of troops to a “hot” zone. No more police actions. No more nation building, except in our 50 States.

Everything important in this country will be crushed in “avoiding” the fiscal cliff and none of the evil things averted. Over the cliff !!

Dec 08, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Actually Boehner said “Obaaaamaaa if pusssin uf ofer a fiisssal cliss.”
Maybe if Boehner was not stinking drunk for one minute, something might get done. He can’t even remember what he says or does two minutes later. He breaks down into a crying jag constantly. Everyone in Washington knows this. The perfect Republican representative.

Dec 08, 2012 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
carolo43 wrote:

If these Republicans had to vote on ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, everyone of them would have both hands in the air voting yes. When it’s time to end Tax Cuts for the rich that they had already enjoyed for 11 years or to pay our Bills, then it’s HELL NO.

Dec 08, 2012 10:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Raelyn wrote:

I just saw Boehner again on television. For weeks now, he always stands in front of at least one American flag and repeats the same things that he has been saying for weeks. He is like a puppet. Stand him up in front of several American flags and push a button, and he gives his little speech.

And the conservative “think tanks” smile and nod and think they can fool the people. Well, we’ve been down that road and lost our shirts!

Dec 08, 2012 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
KDupre wrote:

Our president is lying again. The Repubs did what he asked and gave him a bill raising taxes on the rich and cutting spending. The president turned them down and changed the goal again.

The pres. is lying again, how predictible.

First of all, I think this pres. likes to play mind games, 2nd, he’s looking for anything he can find to blame on Repubs. because he’s determined to destroy them.

Of course he lies about what he’s doing to the public but the gullible public believes him because they don’t check on what he says and what he’s actually doing. He’s playing the public like a violin and they let him.

Dec 08, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse

I sure hope Barry sticks to his plan to tax the greedy rich. I’m sick of them taking and taking and taking out of this country and putting NOTHING back in. That is not the American way and never will be.

Dec 08, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
dmanning wrote:

And in recent news, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday filibustered his own motion.

That’s Republican know-how and compromise for you. Bravo– the GOP continues to evade being the party of smart people.

Dec 08, 2012 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
Malloy wrote:

Lets start in the beginning. Romney lost. Obama won. Obama said he would raise taxes on the top 2%. Now he wants to raise taxes on the top 2%. Surprises, change in plans, socialism? No. He should do what he promised before the election. I know that’s a strange idea to most Republicans, actually doing what you say. Let’s also get it straight: No investments are made based on tax rates; No jobs are created based on tax rates. Raise taxes on the rich and get it over with.

Dec 08, 2012 11:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bunker555 wrote:

Obama has Boehner by the gonads, and needs to squeeze a little more till his eyes pop. Where are Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor hiding?

Dec 08, 2012 11:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Politicians; can’t live with ‘em, can’t leave ‘em by the side of the road. We’re doomed.

Dec 08, 2012 12:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Fiscal cliff” is a mis-characterization.

I like to think of it as the Advent of Fiscal Responsibility. It’s long overdue.

Dec 08, 2012 12:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LoveJoyOne wrote:

KDupre,

Exactly what bill would that have been?

Dec 08, 2012 12:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
arithmetic wrote:

Repubs like the idea of limiting deductions. If you look closely, most high-income people get their $ from interest and dividends (think Mitt). Although they may have a modest amount of deductions, this pales in comparison to the dividend income. Currently dividend income is taxed at a very low rate (again, think Mitt). Limiting deductions as a way to get higher revenues is a backdoor way of protecting the big elephant of extremely low capital gains and dividend rates.

It appears to me that the Repubs only real interest is insuring that their rich supporters get to keep more of their not-so-hard earned money. The rest, “protecting jobs”, “helping the job creators”, “avoiding job-killing tax hikes” is just a smoke screen and sales pitch for a selfish constituency.

Dec 08, 2012 12:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Mitch McConnell – weekend at Bernies III.
Every time I see that guy, he looks like someone who has died and been made up for the casket viewing. His makeup is so heavy you would need a putty knife to remove it. His movements are so ridiculous, I think he might be one of those robots from Disney World. No joke, something is not right with that guy. And I am not talking about his messed up Republican views.

Dec 08, 2012 12:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

From the Congressional Research Service, September 2012 (Bi-Partisan), requested by Republicans:
“The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.”
The Republican response to their own research?
“With this report released, John Boehner’s congress promptly… erased it. Attempted to wipe it out, removed it from the CRS website and pretended it never existed. After all, it undermines their entire argument to expand tax cuts for the rich.”

Dec 08, 2012 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Trailfan1 wrote:

Here are the Bush Tax cuts that will be eliminated or reduced due to the ‘Fiscal Cliff’.

The Bush Tax Cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire in 2010 (extended 2 yrs by Obama) to avoid the ‘Byrd Rule’ which blocked legislation that significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term.
The 10% bracket ($6000+) increases back to 15%
The 25% bracket increases back to 28%
The 28% bracket increases back to 31%
The 33% bracket increases back to 36%
The 35% bracket increase back to 39.6%
Employee portion of FICA (Social Security) Payroll Tax increases from 4.2% back to 6.2%.
Earned Income Tax Credit rates are reduced to 2000 levels.

The personal and child deductions for all filer’s decreases back to the 2009 rates. Example; for married in goes from $11,900 back to $7.100. ‘Catch-up’ IRA contribution provisions are eliminated. We go back to taxing collectibles and dividends at Capital gain rates.
The child tax credit amount decreases as does the credit spent for dependent child care. The limits are back on for itemized deductions and personal exemptions for the higher income taxpayers, and the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax decreases (this will catch 21 million new taxpayers alone!). The depreciation deduction for qualified property owners is eliminated. Capital gains tax increases from 15% to 25%. The Gift Tax exclusion decreases from $3 million back to $650,000. Estate taxes return at 55% for those estates $1 million or over AND you will resume paying capital gains on estate values.
All extended unemployment and emergency unemployment benefits (typically 73 and as much as 99 weeks) revert to 26 weeks. Dividends become taxed at personal marginal rates again.

The American Opportunity Act, Small Business Jobs and Credit Act and 179 deductions are eliminated as is special tax treatment for paying State Income Taxes.

The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Sequestration Affects

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) authorized an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. It was done to avoid a Sovereign Default of US Debt. The Act does not reduce the spending over the next 10 years, only slows down its growth.

The BCA required a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose and Congress to enact, legislation reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion, half of which were budget cuts. Failing to do this, the BCA requires Sequestration Cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years to be done instead. Domestic and Military spending would each be cut roughly $55 billion in 2013.

The OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155) gives in depth details on over 1200 budget accounts (897 affected) the Obama Administration must reduce after Jan1, 2013. Note that, the United States has not had a formal budget passed by Congress during the past four years of the Obama Administration. The Federal Departmental budget amounts being used have been established by Congressional Continuing Resolutions (CR’s) instead. CR’s are typically computed as certain percentage increases over the Bush 2009 base-lines budget.

For Sequestration, roughly $109 billion in spending cuts must occur each year over the next ten years. The cuts are work out to be a 9.4 percent cut for defense function discretionary appropriations and 10.0 percent for defense function direct spending. For nondefense functions the reductions will be 8.2 percent for all discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. Nearly all Federal Budget line items are affected including Congress (excluding Congressional Pay). Medicare is limited to a 2% overall spending reduction (but is assumed to be taken from the providers of health care). Nothing limits this or future Congress(s) or President(s) from changing these cuts.

Dec 08, 2012 1:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

how about this for a compromise, make it simple….

1. The Dems/Obama can come up with the tax policy.
2. The GOP can come up with the spending cuts to be implemented.

Then see what happens…..

Dec 08, 2012 2:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
neilc23 wrote:

On December 1, 2011, Obama’s handpicked Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued their much awaited bipartisan recommendations. The final document was approved by 11 of the 16 members (69%)

Focusing on the contentious “Tax Rate” increases that President Obama wants vs. the “Tax Revenue” increases that the Republicans want, I suggest that objective Americans actually read their report.

In summary, President Obama’s Commission recommended the six existing tax-brackets, ranging from 10% to 35% be changed to three tax-brackets: 8%, 14% and 23%. These tax-rate reductions would be made possible by eliminating and reducing many tax deductions, credits and loopholes.

To totally ignore the recommendations of this Presidential Commission is “beyond the pale”, i.e. outside agreed standards of decency.

Dec 08, 2012 2:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

The smug liar speaks.

Dec 08, 2012 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

So I guess the tantrums he’s been throwing the past two weeks blaming everyone else didn’t work.

Dec 08, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CharlesReed wrote:

Not sure how we have a debt debate when Ginnie Mae is not in the discussion with the $1.1 trillion dollar Ponzi going on over there. We the people own Ginnie Mae and under the system they have sold Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that have absolutely no underlying collateral to support what been sold.

We already gotten 800,000 loans that have already been identified that should have received HAMP modification but instead were foreclosed. Somebody is financially responsible for the 800,000 illegal foreclosures, and as Ginnie Mae orchestrated this mess government got a problem even going forward with the rest of that portfolio.

Why do you think FHA lost $70 billion in loan losses and is short $16 billion to $32 billion right now? FHA has sold a batch of 20,000 loan and is set to sell 40,000 more, but folks there is a problem with the titles on every single government loan that was in or is still in a Ginnie Mae pool.

Dec 08, 2012 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse

“The trouble with liberals is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Ronald Reagan

Dec 08, 2012 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SHARRALD wrote:

Boehner, it is not our President who is standing in the way, it is you are your house. I’m not buying the BS about Boehner being divided with his fellow Republicans. Everyone from CEO’s to business people and the vast majority of Americans want what our President has proposed. Get out of the way and stop obstructing what is best for our economy.

Dec 08, 2012 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

The Republicans need to work with the President. They need to raise taxes on everyone by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. If it is good for the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy, it is good to raise it on all of us. We need to balance the budget, and that is not going to happen without raising taxes.

Dec 08, 2012 7:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Just when you thought Republicans couldn’t get any more ridiculous, they always prove you wrong. Their tired old worn out arguments have been proven wrong and a majority of Americans know that. Bohner and the other Repubs just look like ridiculous liars futilely trying to protect the richest Americans from having to pay a few percentage points more in taxes. It won’t hurt job creation. Even business owners say that. And what Bohner refers to as Obama’s ‘my way or the highway’ attitude is simply Obama finally drawing the line on an issue that has the full support of a majority of Americans. He’s willing to work with Republicans on the whole package, but it must include raising tax rates on the highest tax bracket, and the Republicans knew this. A responsible party would recognize once the election results were announced, that tax rates would have to go up on the rich. Anything else is plain irresponsible. Bohner and the Republicans think that if they don’t get their way on everything, then it means Obama is unwilling to compromise. As one Republican running for the Senate said during the election, his idea of compromising with Democrats is for them to agree with him. That’s exactly how they think. (He lost, BTW.) It’s all gotten so absurd. Just let the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire already, and let’s get on with doing the people’s business. Geez, how long is the majority going to have to put up with these incompetent fools?

Dec 08, 2012 7:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Malloy

“Lets start in the beginning. Romney lost. Obama won. Obama said he would raise taxes on the top 2%. Now he wants to raise taxes on the top 2%. Surprises, change in plans, socialism? No. He should do what he promised before the election. I know that’s a strange idea to most Republicans, actually doing what you say. Let’s also get it straight: No investments are made based on tax rates; No jobs are created based on tax rates. Raise taxes on the rich and get it over with.”

The Republicans won the house this year. Sorry to burst your civicly ignorant bubble, but Obama can’t make that promise, because he can only sign a bill to raise taxes, he can’t raise them himself. You idiotic Democrats think that Obama getting elected means the country supports Democrat fiscal policies. If that was true Democrats would have a majority in the Congress. They don’t because they did from 2006-2010 and destroyed the economy during that time and couldn’t put out a budget. If they had, this wouldn’t be an issue now.

Dec 08, 2012 7:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Sharrald

No the vast majority of Americans do not want what our President has proposed. Just because Romney is an unelectable loser does not mean the majority of Americans support Obama or his policies. If that was true Democrats would have won the House and the Senate out right.

Dec 08, 2012 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: If our government had been steering our economy in a fair and balanced way, including its policies on taxation, regulations, and just the general rules necessary for a capitalist system to function best for the most people, and we found ourselves today standing on an even playing field, so to speak, then you’d be absolutely, unequivocally correct in suggesting that taxes should go up on everyone. Unfortunately, that’s not how our economy has developed over the last several decades.

Trickle-down economics is a failure because the idea is to create the best environment for the wealthy to increase their wealth as easy as possible and then they would, in turn, use that wealth in ways that benefits all society, primarily though the development of businesses which would, in turn, create copious well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, those who have been benefiting from those policies have discovered that they can make more money bypassing business decisions that would benefit American works. In effect, we gave them the keys to the car and they’ve run us over.

Business leaders have organized in a way where they now call most of the shots in our government and they use their vast wealth as leverage to do it. So instead of creating a society where America benefits, they’ve focused on getting away with paying as little as possible in the way of wages, compensation, taxes, regulations, and any other way that might benefit their bottom line, all this while increasing their own personal wealth. So my point on taxes is this: The Middle Class is tapped out. The barons of industry has raised costs on everything while keeping wages stagnant. Healthcare costs alone are enough to break the backs of millions of Middle Class Americans, and we have those same wealthy plutocrats to thank for our expensive healthcare. So it’s anything but an even playing field.

Now, raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy from 35% to 39.6% won’t affect the economic/government structure I just described, but it is still the right thing to do, and the least the very wealth can do. It’s a small, positive step. If it will help, think of it as them paying for the wars they avoided paying for when Bush was President. After all, most of our tax dollars spent on those wars went into the pockets of the very people Obama is trying to raise taxes on. Now they can pay for their wars.

Dec 08, 2012 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: According to you, elections have no meaning, no consequences. The Republicans kept the House thanks to gerrymandering. The truth is that a million more voters voted for Democrats in House elections than Republicans. A majority of Americans agree that taxes on the wealthy should go up. If you can prove that this is not the case, please offer that proof.
This article is from one of our best living journalist: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/08/fiscal-cliff-is-latest-symptom-of-unfair-redistricting.html

Dec 08, 2012 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dkbaz wrote:

Lower taxes on the rich! They need more money. Attack Syrian and Iran now! More wars means more employment for the military forces and armaments industry. Finally, eliminate Social Security and Medicare which are just forms of welfare/giveaway programs that make the old folks dependent on the government.

Dec 08, 2012 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flashrooster

I think you are both correct and wrong about trickle down economics. The correct thing is that it doesn’t create jobs directly. Lowering taxes puts more money in their pocket. If they own a business that doesn’t need to hire anyone, they aren’t going to hire just because they have more money. A smart business person is going to keep their costs as low as possible, and labor is a cost.

However, trickle down economics is correct in an indirect way. Taxes takes money out of the economy, and then puts it back into the economy in one way or another, but inefficiently. Trickle down economics really is private investment, versus public investment. Taxes basically take out of the private sector and put it into the government’s hands for public sector investment/services. Making money is not a goal of the government. It is a goal of the private sector. So every dollar you take out of the private sector is put towards an endeavor that doesn’t effectively grow the economy. You will never get rich from a government job, there is no opportunity in government jobs or their various organization to get rich, because there is no goal to make money. You can be well off as a Congressman, Senator, or President, or another government job, but you wont ever hit the levels that you can achieve in the private sector.

Many of the rich in the country are heavily involved in investments to get more and more money. They do take a risk of losing that money. They also get an opportunity to make a lot more money than they invested. Their money trickles into other businesses which will higher labor as needed, those pay checks get used by workers to buy and raise demand for other goods and services. The money cycles through, trickles down, whatever you want to call it. If you take that money out of the millionaires hands, they don’t invest it into growing new businesses, creating more wealth, etc. Instead you put it into the hands of the government which will go to the poor/middle class through jobs, handouts, benefits, or whatever. You can have a successful socialist economy where the government is the source of everything, however it will never match up to a healthy capitalist economy as we saw in US vs USSR. The government’s business is not making money or entreprenuership.

I 100% agree with you that the wealthy has too much power in our politics. I am all for publicly funded elections combined with term limits of 2 terms across all government sectors, to limit the influence in our elections, and to limit life long politicians that will represent a company for their entire career. I am not for completely taking away the ability for a company to lobby though. If I work for a good large company, the company lobbying in its best interest is lobbying for my best interest. Of course there are cases where businesses are lobbying against the interests of our society, and as citizens, and consumers we should be more active in lobbying against them and not supporting them with our dollars.

As far as the problems in our economy and the rich vs the middle class and poor, you have a lot of valid points. The wealth disparity in our country is very bad and getting worse. But, as the rich have grown richer, we have all seen our quality of life increase as a whole in America over the last 30 years. One of the many reasons I don’t like income taxes is because it is a gaurantee that those who are wealthy keep their power by limiting the opportunity of others to become wealthy. Capping income at $1 million a year means that the wealthy families in America keep their power forever. Taxing income over $1 million at 90% guarantees that the wealth hold their power. Instead I prefer estate taxes, property taxes, and consumption taxes. Corporate taxes are costs for a company and generally just limit possible wages, and are transferred to consumers. If you eliminate corporate taxes entirely, the costs will go down in a free market (monopolies and price fixing aside) as companies compete to deliver the best deal. Instead have the companies paying taxes on their property, and on the items they purchase again through property and consumption taxes. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon though as the wealthy has convinced the poor and middle class that a progressive income tax is the way to go, thus keeping them in power for ever.

Dec 08, 2012 9:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CharlesReed wrote:

If taxing the rich would solve are problem I am in, but taxing the rich just does not solve the problem and is just something to make the poor think Obama is doing something. However like Obamacare it not a completely functioning program that would save citizen money.

We got a modification program that foreclosed 4.4 million borrowers. We spent trillion of dollars fighting a few hundred Al Qaeda member that were suppose to be almost wipe out and Osama was dead and GM was alive. However GM lost $6 billion, and the US Post Office lost $16 billion last year while the FHA since 2009 lost $70 billion in loan losses and is currently between $16 billion & $32 billion short and the US Ambassador was murdered on 9/11 along with 3 former US Navy Seals.

Now somehow simply raising taxes on the wealth a few percentage that amount to keeping the Federal Government for a little over a week does not fix a $16 trillion dollar debt. Now letting all the Bush tax cuts expire and cutting program and American cutting back and saving might work. Because just paying welfare and giving out food stamp is not teaching a man to fish and is not fixing the economy, its just masking the problem.

Dec 08, 2012 10:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

There has been a stealth strategy to get rid of (or privatize) Social Security, and end Medicare for the last thirty years – the Reagan legacy to America. And it’s interesting to see how many middle class older Americans who can’t make money in the market, are buying bonds with negative yields, have little or no savings, support this idea. Last time I looked it was about half.

Call it a disconnect, cognitive dissonance, or just plain stupidity, there are consequences for being wrong about everything. And when I survey my idyllic suburban enclave, being wrong seems like the only game in town – smugness is running a close second – we’re very comfortable with it. Stay tuned for the consequences.

Dec 08, 2012 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flashrooster

Gerrymandering is going to always sway from one party to another based on who is in control of the states every ten years. Yeah Republicans benefited right now, because their states elected the Republicans to control those states. It is still the will of the people. And obviously you are going to have higher numbers of Democrat voters for representatives because the most populous states for the most part are Democrat. I do think the majority of the country favors raising taxes on the rich. Most everyone regardless of political affiliation knows that we can not continue to run deficits and grow the debt like we are doing. Increasing revenue and reducing expenditures has to be done, and it is no secret that promising to just hit 2% of the population is going to be popular with the other 98%.

My point to Malloy is probably better stated that the majority of the country doesn’t whole heartedly support Obama like the rank and file Democrats. Thinking that because he won the vote with 51% to 48% means that 51% of Americans love Obama is just wrong. Just as it would be wrong to say the majority of the country fully supported GW Bush because he won his elections. This was in no way, shape, or form a landslide. His Margin percentage was 3.64%. Unfortunately with our two party system we have very limited choice when we hit the polls and choosing between douchebag A and douchebag B is somehow seen as most of the country suppors a douchebag. Obama got 62,040,610 votes. That is less than 1/5th of the country, granted not everyone is elgible to vote. In reality the majority of the country doesn’t support either party, or any of the politicians.

Dec 08, 2012 10:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

So where are the long term spending cut proposals that will balance our deficit? Seems like the only “negotiation” was how much more tax would be could be raised. If cuts are not linked with revenue, President Obama will not reform entitlement spending in such a way as to keep our most basic programs viable for future retirees unless forced to do so through these negotiations.

Dec 08, 2012 10:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TheNewWorld…you give way to much credit as far as importance goes to the President. By virtue of the way the candidates ascend you are almost guaranteed to have the unsavory choice between douchbag A and douchebag B. Congress has all the real power in this country. The Constitution is constructed that way. But it’s easier to focus on the one than the 535. Congress had an approval rating of 4% going into this election cycle. Yet we virtually voted them back in in toto. Gerrymandering certainly plays a role. But in reality it’s much more heinous than that. While Americans complain about Congress…it’s never their Congressman (by state) that’s to blame. Boehner, Reid, McCain and DeMint are 100 times the douchebags of either Obama or Romney…yet those states have continued to vote these bozos into office. The electorate are the real losers in this mess. I blame the voters!

Dec 08, 2012 11:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Where is the balance Mr. President? Where are the entitlement reforms that will allow these programs to continue to exist for those of us under 55? Extra taxes on the rich as proposed will raise eight days of spending at current levels. I’m ready for the balance you speak of.

Dec 08, 2012 11:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@foiegras

Social Security is a massive ponzi scheme and it is unsustainable. As a retirement account it has a very poor return. Contributions by both and your employer are around 15.2% of your paycheck. If you put that into a 401k you would get much, much more than what you will get out of social security. The government is horrible with money, and yet you find not supporting the forced investment into their little ponzi scheme stupid. Due to the way our health system is currently set up, medicare is a necessity. Social security however is a travesty. We will either be forced to work well into our seventies, or it will go bankrupt.

Dec 08, 2012 11:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
axion137 wrote:

A shared balanced approach from a moderate person who believe in balanced budget:

There is a more simpler logical method to reduce the deficit simply raise tax rates on people paying 35 percent by 2 percent, raise rates on everyone else 1 percent except those in the 10 percent tax bracket of wage earners making 35,000 or less. Cut all departments funding by the percentage amount that we have a deficit after revenue increase. That would mean that approximately 5 percent cuts across the board would take effect on all departments in the federal government. Industry when they are in the red have to raise more revenue, increase prices, for their services with making cuts as a result they get more leaner than this to keep a clean balance sheet or they will go bankrupt.

Dec 09, 2012 3:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

The president should put out this idea to have Boehner go back to his caucus with a larger medicare saving than he proposed. The GOP does not care about the poor at all in any of their proposals. The age going to 67 to retire, no COLA increases is over a decade a 50 billion cut in medicare for the 2 years, 15-20 billion more in no COLA adjustments mainly social security which does not affect the deficit. A far better way to cut the deficit in medicare is to have every senior income tax filer with income above $25,000 have 10% of that amount as a deductible before medicare payments are made beginning every June. Keep the maximum social security payable benefit frozen but have no income cap with the extra money extending the fund for decades. These changes would extend both medicare and social security for decades while not hurting those that can’t take the hit.

Dec 09, 2012 5:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

@TheNewWorld

It would appear that you are another one of those people who is wrong – and comfortable with it. The salient point of my post is that you can’t do better than Social security (return on investment). The idea that you can do better with your 401k is a myth promulgated by investment advisers who make their living by reaping the front end and back end loads, trailer fees, that they get for selling mutual funds that don’t do better than index funds – and more probably lose money – to credulous investors who are told they will be getting a 7% return on average. The yield on the 10 year Treasury is 1.62%. I defy the average investor to do better than that with funds, or – God forbid – individual stocks. The hedge funds can’t do it – they lose money.

There are also consequences for living the myth. The New Normal appears to consist of being wrong about everything.

Dec 09, 2012 8:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

folegras….Dave Ramsey vehemently disagrees with you. I can only assume that you are not an active participant in a 401k plan. My company gives every employee 3% of their basis salary every pay day into a 401k. I have been contributing 15% of my pay for years (pre-tax) and my company gives me an extra 3% of my annual salary once a year. In my plan, finding a good growth mutual fund that averages 10% a year over 10 years or more is easy. I also have the option to move my funds into either the Money Market or Bonds or diversify. I have never had a down year. It is amazing how much money I have accumulated over the years. I’m up 11% for this year. And I avoided mutual funds for most of the year. I’ve had years were the value increased by 30% and 1 year where I made 0%. On average I’m earning more than 10% a year over the past 20 or so. The compound of bi-weekly contributions, company match and increase money from the interest earned on the profit over 30 years will make your jaw drop. The problem with Social Security is that Congress has spent that money. As the debt gets higher and higher and Congress who keeps spending more and more, they will eventually get to a point where they can no longer pay out Social Security. If you are relying strictly on Social Security for your golden years, you are foolish. If I had what I contribute to Social Security to invest in my 401k (Dave Ramsey ran the math on this) I would be far far better off and that money would be controlled strictly by me and the government couldn’t spend it and drop an IOU slip in my account. In addition, contributing on a pre-tax basis, lowers your tax bill each tear.

Dec 09, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

folegras…in my 401k plan there are no loads and no fees. If I take money out (and have the check overnighted to me) or I move money in and out of certain funds without holding them for a specific amount of time you can incur some SMALL fees. For 2012 (by doing some of those things) I have paid a total of $120 in fees. While putting more than $20,000 into our accounts (with a balance far in excess of that that has made a return of 11% so far this year). Investing in individual stocks is ignorant. Even Dave Ramsey says this. Good growth mutual funds smoke the return you earn on treasuries. If I were to post my 401k account here for you to see…I’d make you a believer.

Dec 09, 2012 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Batman_is_mad wrote:

Let me put to the Republicans straight. Theirs is a dying and some say a dead party because of the change in our county’s demographics. What was once the minority, the Blacks, Hispanics and many other disadvantaged peoples are rapidly becoming the majority and THEY control the votes. The good old white man’s party are dying off and that is a fact.

Mitt Romney was right with his comment that the 47% of minorities will vote for Obama no matter what. We saw this in Ohio and in Florida on election day vividly that gave Obama the presidential victory along with several congressional seats for the democrats.

Now conservatism does have it merits but complete polarization from either side is wrong, dead wrong!

Dec 09, 2012 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: Though I don’t agree with all of your points, you give a thorough description of supply-side economics. Problem is, it still doesn’t work. Never has and I don’t see how it’s possible that it ever will. You seem to be ignoring the fact that profit accumulation has become a science, and that top business execs know have to squeeze every penny available into their profits. The result is not good for the American worker, from wages to benefits to retirement plans to, and perhaps especially, the cost of living.

I’ll give you a good example that involves the business community’s usurpation of our government. During negotiations behind Bush’s Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan Republicans, at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry, insisted on including a ban on allowing Medicare officials from negotiating for lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. So here we have this big expansion of drug entitlements for what I assume is the largest buyer of prescription drugs–Medicare–and the pharmaceutical industry, through the Republicans, got government to REQUIRE that tax payers pay top dollar. Crazy.

I think the connection you’re failing to make is that with trickle-down economics what we’re seeing with business exerting overwhelming influence on our government, is an inevitable result. In a capitalist system money is king. The more “free” the market is, the more laissez faire, the more this is true. So when you have economic policy that channels all the money to the top, expecting it to miraculously drain downward in any way remotely equitable, where money it the primary, and usually the only, determining factor, and those at the receiving end of the wealth, who have been trained to extract all possible profit, you’re bound to get exactly what we have, a small wealthy class ruling the country in a way that is structured to pad the ruling class’s bottom line at the expense of everyone else. There is no room in this equation for patriotism or a desire to sacrifice in order to build a society with a more equitably-distributed economy. To much of our industries the American worker, taxation, and the country’s regulations on their industries are nothing more than annoying, profit-interfering obstacles to be avoided, and oftentimes they do this through legislation.

You also mentioned how money is inefficiently spent when spent on government, that being your rationale for lower taxation. Actually, the division that matters is not government vs the private sector. The relevant division is between the wealthy and everyone else. People who aren’t wealthy spend roughly 90% of their income which goes back into the economy. This is true whether they work for Boeing or the University of Wisconsin. The rich spend roughly 60% of their income.

If all the money the rich invested went to growing industries and building things, you would have a point. Certainly investment is important. But increasingly, investment is going into everything from derivatives to offshore investment accounts. Once again, it’s because the plutocrat are in a position to get, shall we say, creative in how they make their money, regardless who how it effects the world economy. in the meantime you have a dynamic where the wealthy are lowering taxes, cutting healthcare, education, etc. for everyone else, raising the cost of living, while freezing or lowering wages. It’s squeezing the Middle Class out of existence.

Furthermore, it’s also wrong to assume that private companies will automatically be more efficient than public institutions. Why? Because of the same factor that drives everything else: profit. Take our healthcare. As long as private companies are in charge of our healthcare, we’ll never be able to lower costs because they’re in business to make as much profit as possible, so they aren’t focused on trying to lower healthcare costs as much as possible, and if they do develop ways of being more efficient, that savings will go to profit, not to make things cheaper for us. Government could administer healthcare much more efficiently because they don’t have to make a profit and they’re big enough to do more for less, like buying prescription drugs for a lower price. Of course, the problem is that the same plutocrats who have designed our trickle-down system for their maximum benefit are utilizing our government to make sure government isn’t efficient in a way that would save us money at their expense. The plutocrats are employing the same practices in our government as they do in the business arena, which does not include looking out for our best interests.

Dec 09, 2012 2:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

@xyz…

Glad to hear that you’re doing so well with your 401k…never lost any money (in 2008?) and are making 11% a year. Bernie Madoff only claimed to be able to make 10% and he had the smart money beating down his door. I guess they never heard about Fidelity.

No, I do not rely on my SS, or invest in t-bills, or am I suggesting that anyone should. Perhaps you missed my point. I’m an investor, a trader, and options trader, who made a few million in the market back in the days when it was easy. What I’m saying is that the average buy-and-hold guy can’t trade – and I think it’s a trader’s market now – and he’s lucky to break even on funds (load or no load). 75% of funds don’t beat the index. And until fairly recently the index was flat for ten years.

What I see is a market that goes up and down or moves sideways. The S&P averaged 11% over the last three years, but those were good years comparatively. So is it possible to make 11% with actively managed growth funds? Should be if you could do the same thing with an index fund. Problem is that most people lose money on funds in the long run – they’re not sophisticated like you.

Some people go so far as to say that the market is a Ponzi scheme. But you need the market to provide the stocks for options bets, which is where I think the real money is today, and where I make my money.

Dec 09, 2012 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

I want to make sure I’m clear on one of the main points I make in my post above. When I say government can be more efficient than private business, what I mean is that it can ultimately cost less to do the same thing because the costs don’t include profits. If you put aside profits, then I’d agree that private businesses can run things more efficiently because they have a greater incentive to do so. However, that incentive is also the problem, profits. Private businesses are always looking for way to increase profits and being as efficient as possible is one of the primary ways of doing that. But of course we can’t ignore the fact that private business is profit-driven, so the efficiency only benefits company owners and, in the case of public companies, shareholders. Sometimes consumers benefit for a little while as a side effect of a company’s efficiency, but people running businesses could care less about consumers and their finances, except in how it might effect the businesses bottom line. And with international companies, worrying about American’s finances isn’t even on their radar screens. Without proper taxation, regulation, and governing, a profit-driven economy will leave only a few extremely wealthy people standing.

The ideal thing is for government to utilize the best ideas in the business world, but only in those areas that people can’t really do without, like healthcare, education, and national security. The rest should be left up to private business. There are a few other areas that can be debated, but these are the 3 biggies. Now, this shouldn’t be interpreted as a Mitt Romney endorsement because he, and Republicans in general, believe that everything should be run by the private sector, which leads us back into our discussion about trickle-down, profits, and a plutocrat-run government.

Dec 09, 2012 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

folegras…check out ACRNX. I’ve had money in this fund for a number of years. It averages 10.97% a year over the past 10 years. It’s up almost 15% for 2012.

Dec 09, 2012 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onus1 wrote:

Obama playing “my way or the highway”? What in the hell do you think Bonehead Boner and his tea nuts have been doing and still are doing? It’s about time Obama stops caveing in to these jackasses. The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for how lomg? And just doing the same old…same old is going to spur the economy? It didn’t, hasn’t!! worked. The money doesn’t trickle down, it doesn’t get reinvested into producing jobs! It just continues to line these asses pockets!

Dec 09, 2012 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@foiegras

The wealthy in this country are growing their money at 9% a year. Trust me they aren’t doing it solely on government bonds. Not everyone depends on the government for everything. Normally it is just the poor. You can eliminate a lot of risk in investment like xyz said by choosing good mutuals funds with long established companies. You can choose high risk funds if you want, or safer funds with lower more stable yields. Investing in bonds isn’t going to barely keep up with inflation due to yet again our government keeping the interest rate impossibly low. The problems with social security are well known. It is unsustainable in its current state and getting worse. I am 36. I am planning on not getting any social security benefits until I am in my mid 70s.

Dec 09, 2012 8:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flashrooster

I don’t disagree with your views about our current state of the economy and the problems with it. The government has been lax with monopolization in America. Too big too fail should never happen. That is called a monopoly. In my opinions the big banks should be broken up. They are a national security risk, and can throw our fiat economy into disarray at any time.

Yes the rich tend to hold onto more wealth than the middle and poor class. However, what you are proposing is that the economy is better off without the rich. If we never had a Bill Gates, Bill Clinton probably would not have presided over the greates economic expansion in America. If you take the top 1% out of the economy, you remove 36.7% of our income tax revenues. You remove over a trillion of the GDP. When you remove the ultra wealthy, the country as a whole gets poorer, not richer.

Our system is not perfect by a long shot. But it has made us the wealthiest nation in the world for decades. Yes, we were in an ideal situation after WW2 to dominate the worlds economies after every other major player had been bombed into oblivion. I think that played a huge role in our rise to power.

NAFTA and the growth of the world economy is mandating a lot of the business practices that you are describing. We have to compete world wide. There isn’t a choice for large corporations any more. We could go back to a Mercantile system, and I am convinced that we could survive it and have a more equitable economy.

I find China interesting because it is a capitalist economy in a communist nation. They government is reaping the rewards of capitalism, however the people are not. The people are just cogs in the machine and seen as easily replacable. No matter what system you look at throughout history there is always going to be an elite class. In a communist system it was the government elite. In our “free market” capitalist society it is the wealthy business owners. In the feudal systems it was the lords and the government elite.

What we can see though is that capitalism produces the most wealth by far. The problem we are identifying is the accumulation of the wealth and the wealth disparity. Again I think that would be better addressed by consumption/property/estate taxes. Use the estate taxes to remove the wealthiest people’s desire to establish power families like the Kennedys and Rockefellers. We also need to address the tax sheltering that goes on as well. On the corporate scene

Finally, I agree that there are aspects that should be government ran as a public option, however I would allow private organizations to also exist. Police, fire, education, health, parks and reserves, transportation, communications, energy, water, sewer, financial markets, disaster relief, defense. And when I say government, I prefer to have as much ran as possible on the local and state levels. They handle local population needs much, much better than the Feds. I think that is also a sticking point that many Democrats don’t understand when a person takes a position against the Federal government running things like Education. Being against big government, is not the same as being against all government. The USSR crushed themselves with their centralized government planning inefficiencies. It can work and does work on smaller scales, but with a country as large both in land area and population as the US, it would be a disaster.

Dec 09, 2012 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: “However, what you are proposing is that the economy is better off without the rich.”

Whoa, wait a minute. Where in god’s name did you get that from? Nowhere in anything I’ve posted suggests that I think we’re better off without any rich people. Where do you get this stuff from? You make a big long argument on a very faulty conclusion. I don’t feel that way at all, nor do I understand how you could interpret my posts that way. Just because I’m strongly opposed to our government being bought out by corporate interests and just because I think less wealth disparity is a good thing, doesn’t mean I’m a socialist or anti-rich. Geez, we have the widest gap in wealth between the rich and everyone else among ALL developed nations. The WIDEST. We have to stop pretending that that’s not adversely affecting the Middle Class or that it’s because suddenly the rich are working 300 times more than everyone else and everyone else has gotten lazy. It means there’s a canyon of inbetween that we could strive for without eliminating capitalism. It’s not an all or none proposition. Our history has demonstrated that.

Let me be clear, I don’t think there’s a country in the world that did a better job of utilizing capitalism for the greater good of the most people. My complaint rests in that we’ve strayed too far from that paradigm that served us so well in the past. Our tax structure is an example of how we’ve gone too far in serving the rich, which, again gets us back to my opposition to trickle-down economic policies. It’s not a coincidence that the growth of the American Middle Class stalled out at the same time supply-side economics was implement. And I’m not saying we should return to a 92% tax rate on the rich either. But 35%? Come on. Especially since very few of the rich pay even 35%. Romney paid less than 14%. That’s more the norm.

Dec 09, 2012 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Guys..no one in this country ever ACTUALLY paid 92% of taxes on their total income. And about the only people paying 35% in federal taxes today are Lottery winners. The IRS Tax code is something hysterical like 10,000 pages. GE has an separate department made up of ex-IRS people whose full time job is to scour the tax code looking for deductions. I read somewhere that GE’s tax filing for 2010 was something like 27,000 pages. GE paid zero in taxes in 2010. Apple has a functional 8% tax rate. Buffett pays about 15%. All of this is from special deductions in the tax code. The Pay rates are a joke. There was an article a few years ago that shows how you can sell a multi-million dollar building and pay virtually zero taxes on the sale. The code is loaded with accounting tricks that keep taxes artificially low for the richest in this country. Also keep in mind that on a percentage basis the Middle Income people pay the highest amount of Social Security taxes as you stop paying additional S.S. tax on income above $106,000. BUt the real bottom line of all this talk about the fiscal cliff and Bush era tax cuts are, with the massive deficits we have. We can’t afford them. Taxing the 2% more will not solve our deficit problem. It will simply help lower the deficit, not eliminate it. And that’s just 1 piece of the puzzle in solving our economic dilemma.

Dec 10, 2012 6:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Of cours ehe’s willing to work with Republicans, IF he gets to control the purse strings of the country so he can add to the deficit unencumbered and raise tax rates on the rich so as not to even put a dent in our fiscal problems.

The only problem: If the GOP display equal intransigence we won’t find compromise.

I am content to go over the “cliff” because it’s a far better option than Obama’s bogus proposal, but it sure would be nice for our “leader” to actually further this country towards addressing its most pressing issues.

Dec 10, 2012 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

xyz2055…with your recognition that the tax code is neither transparent nor efficient, why are you content with Democrats refusal to reform the tax code?

Republicans have openly conceded that they would be willing to raise REVENUES from the rich via pro-growth reform.

Why are you content with Obama’s tax the rich “solution” when it won’t even begin to rectify our spending problem and will add further layers of convolution to the code?

Regardless of party, I want a leader who isn’t afraid to tackle our most pressing issues for fear of political repercussions; one who will effect sustainable solutions for the long term. Is that too much to ask? Should I too be content with a farcical and political proposal to tax our way out of this spending problem?

Dec 10, 2012 4:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

xyz2055: When I and other refer to the historical 92% tax top rate we’re actually making a rhetorical point. We have to have a point of reference to refer to. Geez, I’m long-winded enough as it is w/o having to explain that every time we’re referring to marginal tax rates on the wealthy, that those rates were 92% in the past but those were marginal tax rates, not effective tax rates, etc. etc. etc…. It’s a point of reference, and I think this holds true for Obama’s position as well.

As you well know, Obama knows that the wealthy won’t be paying 39.6% of their income in federal taxes, but it’s a good place to take a stand because the American people can understand Obama and others when they say that the wealthy must pay their fair share in taxes. Referring to anything besides marginal tax rates will necessarily require an additional explanation and will defeatingly muddle the message. That’s just our reality here in the US. We’re political simpletons.

But there is a practical aspect to this as well. It’s not like raising marginal tax rates on the rich won’t effect how much they are ultimately required to pay. Many will pay more than their current effective rate, and the others will at least have to pay their accountants a little more to come up with additional ways to avoid paying taxes.

However, and I think more importantly, raising marginal federal income tax rates on affluent Americans has to be just one step in a multipronged process of reforming our tax structure. By both historical and international standards, America’s richest don’t pay enough in taxes. Taxes are necessary if we want America to remain a strong, competitive, thriving economy. I’m afraid one of the problems we’re running into is wealthy Americans who could give a rat’s butt about this country except in keeping a strong military to protect their means of amassing wealth. Everything else they could want or need is available to them for cash. Those who feel that America isn’t worth paying more in taxes for are free to leave. Overall, the only developed countries that pay a smaller percentage in taxes as a percentage of GDP are Mexico, Chile, and Turkey. Personally, I don’t think they make for good role models.

Dec 10, 2012 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham…the Democrats aren’t refusing to reform the tax code. The Republicans want to eliminate some tax loopholes rather than close the Bush tax cuts given to the top 2%. The counter proposal they sent to Obama’s plan actually cuts taxes further for the 2% and pins the costs on the middle class. This argument is about special interest. The Republican’s are fighting tooth and nail to protect the 2%. Is that who you think our government should be working for…the 2%? Grover Norquist and his big money backers (like Karl Rove) have the Republicans by the short hairs. That’s what the argument is about.

Dec 10, 2012 6:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

flashrooster..I agree with you. Just wanted to make sure that everyone realizes that the tax rates have ALWAYS been deceiving.

Dec 10, 2012 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham said,,,”Of cours ehe’s willing to work with Republicans, IF he gets to control the purse strings of the country so he can add to the deficit unencumbered”

I’ve posted this several times. I’ll post it again for you. Per our Constitution, the president (any President) can not spend 1 dime of tax payer money without Congressional approval. That is a fact. Obama simply said that the debt ceiling should not be used as political tool. We spent the money, Congress approved it. The debt is the result of that. Therefore, why would there even be an argument about the ceiling? That’s what Obama is saying.

This is from Republican Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013 page 4. It is the House Republicans 2013 Budget proposal.

“STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate funds from the Treasury, pay the obligations of and raise revenue for the federal government, and publish statements and accounts of all financial transactions.

In addition, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 requires Congress to write a budget each year representing its plan to carry out these transactions in the forthcoming fiscal years. While the President is required to propose his administration’s budget requests for Congress’s consideration, Congress alone is responsible for writing the laws that raise revenues, appropriate funds, and prioritize taxpayer dollars within an overall federal budget.”

Dec 10, 2012 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TimoB’s comment (3rd one from the top)..is the most concise and most accurate post I’ve seen to date. He nailed it!

Dec 10, 2012 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flashrooster

I apologize for my misunderstanding of you. Maybe that is where the big disconnect between fiscal conservatives and the current fiscal liberals is. I don’t want to lump you into the OWS crowd, it seem like I am labeling you as a Marxist. We have never have never had such a climate in our country where the rich has been so demonized. I take that blaming of the rich and the proposed solutions of punishing them, or taking everything from them as a desire to eliminate them. A redistribution of wealth effectively does this. Putting 90% income tax with no loopholes prevents anyone else from becoming rich. Isn’t that the goal? Eliminate economic disparity? Put caps on how much you can earn? Level the playing field?

Again, if I’m wrong there is a serious disconnect in the way I am interpreting the current rich vs poor fight and the goal of those who want to eliminate the plutocracy. I guess I am lumping everyone into the most extreme positions. Which is sad, there is common ground between us. I blame the media for dividing us so harshly, and the father of this division is Limbaugh. We need a moderate party in America, one that looks at both points of view and debates the merits of each. Not saying Libertarians are that party, their positions tend to be extreme as well.

I know you and Pray, Xyz, are very intelligent people. And I often take adversarial positions. I have my pet peeves as does everyone, and I am often out of line, trolling, being trolled. Maybe we just need to stop with our political prejudices. I used to like hannity and combs. Both sides had very opposed views but respected each other. Fox of course had to eliminate that opposing view. Hopefully we get a President that can rrespect and consider opposing views soon. Our country needs it sorely.

Dec 11, 2012 1:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@xyz

Yeah Congress has a lot of power. As it shouldvbe in a representative Republic. I am firmly for two terms limit on them, maybe three. We do send the same a holes up there over and over while we are unsatisfied as a whole. Moreover our representatives are beholden to their party rather than their state. If we eliminated the party system we would see huge change. Try getting that suggestion past a Republican or Democrat.

Dec 11, 2012 1:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@xyz

I would go further on Tim’s point and state the Republicans created the majority of the deficit, and then debt over the last 12 years. Bush spent money and expanded the government like no republican or democrat before him. Yeah FDR could give him a run for his money short term, but long term it is all Bush. And all of our monetary issues can go back to Nixon. Took us off the gold standard and gave the government a blank check to do what they want. And again grewbtye government enormously. JFK was a conservative and antiwar. I wonder if he could make it past either parties primary teacher today. Reagan wouldn’t have a chance. I have my doubts about Clinton too. He was pro capitalist and knew how to cross than party lines.

Dec 11, 2012 1:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TheNewWorld…good posts! Looks like we have more in common than we are different. I like the term limit idea as well. But I don’t think you’ll get this crop career politicians to give up the “gravy train”. Be good if both sides played nice. Give Obama the 2% and Obama needs to yield to Republicans on spending cuts that Boehner can sell to the House.

Dec 11, 2012 9:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

What has he been doing with all the meetings with political leaders?

Dec 13, 2012 4:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.