Obama would veto Republican "Plan B" on fiscal cliff: White House

Comments (26)
Harry079 wrote:

What was “Plan A” again?

Dec 19, 2012 10:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

I’m getting a $16. increase per month windfall in my Social Security next year. What are YOU idiots in the Executive and Legislative branches doing to earn your stipends? So far, the word is nothing of substance. America and its citizens are offended and demand sane (if at all possible) leadership from our national leaders. At the moment stupidity reins in both the Senate and the House Leadership to match the Executive Branch on response to key issues affecting all of us. GET BUSY! WE HOLD YOU COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MESS OUR NATION IS IN.

Dec 19, 2012 10:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Plan A was move to plan B.

Dec 19, 2012 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

This is an empty offer from Boehner. Of the 1.2% or so that make over 1 million a year, most of that is carried interest or capital gains and not subject to the income tax rate increase. Most CEOs, due to reporting requirements put in place several years back on salaries over one million started to get most of their compensation in stock options and less than a million in actual salary. Hedge fund managers claim all of thier income to qualify under the capital gains rate. If you want to incease taxes on people earning over a million, you have to do it by increasing the capital gains rates.

I’m in favor of leaving the top tax rates where they are, and making all income including carried interest and short term capital gains taxable at that rate. Long Term capital gains, where investments are building companies and creating jobs instead of flipping fast trades for daily profits, should remain at the 15% capital gains rate. To me that’s a fair tax system. You invest in growth in businesses and job creation and you get a tax break, otherwise all income is income regardless of whether you dig ditches or manage a portfolio.

Dec 19, 2012 10:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Spruce wrote:

I will hold the GOP responsible if we go over the ‘fiscal cliff’. Mitch McConnell’s only goal for the past 2 years was to unseat the president. It didn’t happen. It’s time for Boehner and McConnell to help the president restore the economy devastated by two wars and failed GOP trickle down theories.

Dec 19, 2012 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

mikemm…most long term capital gains are in stocks, mutual funds or government notes. These investments don’t build companies. Companies that go public get their money the day the IOP goes public. After that it’s the holders of those securities or notes that make or lose money based on the market price.

Dec 19, 2012 11:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

If you read the full statement of the Republicans, they are claiming that when the Senate shoots down Plan B (which is guaranteed), then they can claim it isn’t their fault. They tried to raise taxes. WRONG! It’s the job of Congress to work together (both the House and the Senate) to write and pass legislation that benefits ALL Americans. And mikemm is right, if you don’t include raising Capital Gains, Carried Interest and Dividends the Republican’s plan B is smoke and mirrors. Because simply raising the tax rate won’t impact the richest in this country like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett. And lowering Capital Gains, Carried Interest and Dividends to the lowest rate in history was accomplished by the Bush era tax cuts. You have to eliminate those tax cuts (all of them, not just the lower tax rate) in order to raise any revenue of any substance.

Dec 19, 2012 11:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Although liberals like to say Obama won the election and has a mandate, have they considered that Obama’s proposal will only rectify about 6% of our spending problem:

$6.7T deficit projected over the next ten years

$16T in current national debt

and Obama wants to raise tax revenues of $1.4T

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 19, 2012 11:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Today’s Headline:

“GOP’s Bohner Flops, Obama Sees No Need For Plan B Pill.”

Dec 19, 2012 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
joecrabshack wrote:

This is abolute stupidity. We are borrowing $4M per minute. And the 2 parties want to argue over who to tax more,which amounts to a drip in the sea of spending. Why would the USA spend $10M to remake seasame street for the country of pakistan. Brace for impact!

Dec 19, 2012 11:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Jahmam and he, Obama, also has proposed very LARGE cuts in spending over the course of the next 10 years. But of course you do not mention that in your ‘analysis’. When you think everyone else is the problem, more the likely YOU are the problem.

Dec 19, 2012 12:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham…Like many who post here your ignorance of how our government works and who is responsible for what is at best embarrassing. This is why we have elected the same people to Congress over and over again while our economy goes to crap. IT IS NOT the Presidents job to write a plan to fix the problems we face. It’s Congresses job. While Presidents can present legislation to Congress for their consideration to address specific issues, Congress alone is responsible for writing laws that raise taxes, allocate tax payer money and accounting for those activities. Presidents can not spend 1 dime of tax payer money without Congressional approval and they can not enact laws on their own that cut or raise spending of tax payer dollars. THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL FACT!I ‘ve posted this several times…I’ll post it for you yet again. The following is from Republican Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013 and IT IS the House of Representatives Budget proposal for 2013. This is from page 4 of that document.

“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 19, 2012 12:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jimmy1977 wrote:

We are all being duped by our politicians (i.e. professional actors). The democrats will blame the republicans for their relentless pressure to lower ssn benefits and medicare. The Republicans will blame the Demos for their unwavering requirement that the rich pay more. Both parties are not held responsible for reneging on their campaign promises, we are all screwed and life goes on. Let’s just hope that our collective screaming over what is being done isnt misinterpreted as a request for an encore performance.

Dec 19, 2012 12:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..so the next time Boehner gets on TV and blames the President because to need to raise the debt ceiling or blames the president for out of control spending..realize that he is telling bald face lies. Congress ALONE is responsible. If you want to blame Presidents, blame them for not wielding the power of the Veto often enough to keep Congress in check. That’s the Presidents only real power. That and the “bully pulpit” when it comes to taxes and expenditures.

Dec 19, 2012 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

LOL I’m pretty sure this would be his third veto ever. This guy thrives on a congress that doesn’t function so he can always point the finger at them.

Dec 19, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Same old tactic. Throw legislation together with no fore thought and force the other guys to vote it down or veto it. You expect the President to negotiate with you and then you force a vote on your un-negotiated bill. Just to get on the air with “The President is the bad guy ’cause he vetoed down the best we have to offer. Why negotiate? Your only keeping up the farce to get your way. This time NO WAY.

Dec 19, 2012 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

BioStudies…in the past 2 years about the only thing that Congress has sent to the President for his signature is the renaming of Federal Buildings. That’s how dysfunctional this Congress is. Do you think he should have been vetoing those? Seems to me that it’s been the Republicans blaming Obama for problems that THEY ARE ACTUALLY responsible for.

Dec 19, 2012 12:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Pragamtist…good point, I forgot those paltry $400B in cuts over 10 years, LOL. I’ll let you run the math to see what a gigantic impact that will have on rectifying our spending problem.

xyz2055…good point…it is up to Congress. I then condemn the entire Democratic leadership for refusing to cut spending.

xyz2055…will do, I’ll also be sure to give credit for all the things like “saving GM”, effecting “stimulus that turned this country around”, PPACA and all other things Obama like to selectively give credit to Obama for to Congress.

Dec 19, 2012 12:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham…the Democrats are NOT in charge. We have a Republican House (435 members) and a Democratic Senate (100 members). There are more Republicans in Congress than there are Democrats. Bottom line, it is the responsibility of Congress (both Houses) to come together and solve these problems. This involves compromise. Seems to me the Democrats have been more willing to meet in the middle than the Republicans.

Dec 19, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@xyz2055 I’m not attacking Obama for being a low vetoer, even though that’s very possible. I’m pointing out something else. But thanks for attacking me only because I mentioned your messiahs name.

Dec 19, 2012 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..the fiscal cliff is a $700B per year in spending cuts and increased revenue and everyone is crapping a brick over it. Even with the fiscal cliff our debt will increase by some $3T over the next 10 years. This is a huge mess that isn’t going to get fixed in our life time.

Dec 19, 2012 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@xyz2055 show me one example where the dems are trying to meet in the middle here. Please.

Dec 19, 2012 1:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

xyz2055,

If I buy 100 shares of a compnay’s stock and hold it for a year or more that puts capital into the economy that has some residual effects until I do sell those shares and claim a loss or a gain. If I do a thousand computer driven trades in a day and walk away with a profit, that has no positive or residual effects at all. It takes money out of the system and drives up the overall costs by taxing the infrustructure with extremely high volumes and cancelled bids. Investment companies are spending billions to drive faster trades o beat their competitors and we end up paying for it by losses in teh market or higher fees or whatever.
If you’re willing to let your money sit in a stock or bond for a year or so, then we as an economy did get some benefit from it during that interim. I believe that we want to encourage longer term investments as working capital the same way we want to encourage savings in general.
Quick turn around sales, carried interest, salaries disguised as investment returns, and other tricks of the trade only benefit the recipients and they should be taxed the same as regular income.

Dec 19, 2012 2:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

mikemm,,stock trades is a zero sum game. There are buyers and sellers. Holding a stock for a year or more does nothing for society. There are thousands of buy and sell orders a day for every company in America. Your money is tired up for a year. Now if the stock continues to go up over that year..you reap the reward when you sell it. If it goes down..then you lose money. The only person impacted by holding a stock or mutual fund over ANY period of time, is the holder. Some stocks pay dividends. Which is simply dispersement of a companies profits. Steve Jobs for example, never took 1 dime in salary at Apple and never got a bonus and never sold any of his Apple stock. 100% of his income came from the Disney stock he got when he and his partners sold Pixar to Disney. He made $50M a year in dividends. The only person who benefitted from Jobs holding that stock, was Jobs.

Dec 19, 2012 6:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

BioStudies..Obama went from demanding taxes go up on everyone making $250k per year, to those making $400k per year. Can you show me were Republicans have compromised?

Dec 19, 2012 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055 said: “Seems to me the Democrats have been more willing to meet in the middle than the Republicans.”

Considering many Republicans are willing to concede revenues and not a single Democrat I’ve seen is willing to cut spending in earnest I completely disagree and perceive the opposite to be true.

Perhaps these problems won’t get fixed in your lifetime, but I’m 26 and will be bearing the brunt of the current generations fiscal irresponsibility. Does that mean I’m content to kick it on down the line? No.

I actually expect my generation to steer the political environment toward libertarianism: fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Dec 20, 2012 2:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.