Obama: more tax revenue needed to address deficit - CBS

Comments (21)
astroz wrote:

Clearly, the game here is to threaten to totally destroy this nation with debt to fund unlimited spending unless Uncle Sam can pick our pockets even further. They finally got their tax increases on the rich…whose next? Where does this end?

Feb 03, 2013 10:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fedupaj wrote:

Has this idiot ever considered cutting spending. We no longer can stand Obama’s big spending ways and now he wants more. I guess it will end when we are all broke and are Obama’s slaves.

Feb 03, 2013 11:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

No one in this country is paying anywhere even close to the top individual tax rate of 39.6% except lottery winners. Capital Gains and Dividend taxes went to 20% from 15%. 47% (with some millionaires included in that group) paid zero federal taxes last year. Some families that adapted tons of kids got refunds in excess of $50,000 while they paid no where near that much to begin with. Apple has a 7% functional tax rate and GE (while making billions in profit) paid zero in federal taxes in 2010 and 2011. Then you have Wall Street brokers and Hedge Fund Managers who have all of their earnings classified as either capital gains or carried interest…taxed way below individual tax rates. The PURPOSE of taxes is to fund the spending bills that Congress has approved and other government expenses. With the current deficits you either have to raise taxes (get rid of some of the ridiculous loopholes), cut spending or a combination of the two.

Feb 03, 2013 11:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

fedupaj..Obama and Boehner had a handshake agreement to $4.4T in spending cuts (across the board) and revenue increases in 2010. The Tea Party Republicans and Gang of 6 shot it down. Obama has put together 3 different bi-partisan committees to cut spending. All failed. The sole reason for the “Fiscal Cliff” is because the bi-partisan “Super Committee” failed to agree on a measly $1.2T in cuts over 10 years. The “Fiscal Cliff” was the consequence if they failed. A repackaged version of Bowels Simpson (the tax increases were cut back) went up for a House vote in March of 2012. Of the 435 members of the House, only 24 voted in favor of it. Presidents per our Constitution have neither the power to spend tax payer dollars or cut spending on their own. Congress alone has those powers.

Feb 03, 2013 11:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

fedupaj wrote:
“Has this idiot ever considered cutting spending.”

Have the Republican idiots ever considered the consequences of cutting spending? If your knowledge of economics doesn’t extend to understanding how damaging spending cuts are to an economy, open your eyes and look at Europe, where spending cuts have resulted in 5 years of stagnation.

Right-wingers blabbering about spending cuts are either ignorantly bleating something they saw on Fox, putting religious adherence to their ideology ahead of the wellbeing of their country, or they are actively working to trash the US economy again.

Feb 04, 2013 12:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
PortlandME wrote:

astroz No, clearly idiots like you don’t understand that Obama is talking about closing loopholes so the government can balance its budget and reduce the country’s debt burden. That means we should stop providing loopholes for the oil industry which earns record profits without the loopholes, yet we still give them free government money through the tax system. I don’t get it: you conservatives/Republicans always talk about balancing the budget and reducing the debt but when Obama talks about ways actually do it you guys say no. Get a clue clown, closing loopholes is not about more government spending, it is about reducing government expenditures (spending) through the use of the tax system.

Feb 04, 2013 1:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Kuji wrote:

“Has this idiot ever considered cutting spending.”

Yes he has, many times – you would know if you actually read the articles posted on this site.

The question is: is there a budget the House GOP will accept that doesn’t just kick the can down the road a couple months so they can have this showdown over and over and over again? The answer here is no. I’m convinced the GOP thinks it needs the country to be on edge so that voters stay unhappy so they even have a shot at elections in the Post-Bush era GOP.

So don’t expect budget legislation. Just a lot of Congressional Resolutions.

Feb 04, 2013 9:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Oh, how I wish we had THIS Barrack Obama as President:

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next five years, between now and 2011, the president’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health-care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next five years. That is why I will once again co-sponsor the pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again. Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just five years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

- Senator Obama , March 16th, 2006

Feb 04, 2013 9:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

What happened to the “balanced approach” Obama campaigned on? I guess if you believed that I could sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

Feb 04, 2013 9:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

moonhill – I agree. Obama has thus far cut spending by about 4 times as much as he has increased revenue. You’re right, not very “balanced” at all…

Feb 04, 2013 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pavoter1946 wrote:

One can argue all one wants about whether spending is too high, but the idea that carried interest should get a preferred treatment is a poor argument to make. It basically is a fee for shuffling other people’s money, not a reward for putting one’s own money at risk. That should be taxed as ordinary income, just as the worker on the assembly line pays on his salary.

And let’s have real debate on taxation. Not the fictional rates that millionaires and billionaires and corporations really don’t pay, but based on actual taxes paid by them.

When GE pays a ZERO federal tax rate, and a competitor to them pays a corporate tax rate, that distorts the economy. A company should profit from what they make, not how they exploit loopholes with paid accountants.

In annual reports, corporations state their taxes for the current year, but they never go back and restate what was finally resolved with the government, which normally is considerably less, or even a refund.

Feb 04, 2013 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fedupaj wrote:

Hey libs, if Obama has cut spending so much, why are we 17 trillion dollars in debt. His idea of spending cuts is to cut a small portion off huge increases and calling it a cut or just slightly less than a huge increase. Do you libs think this can go on forever? Hello Greece!

Feb 04, 2013 1:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

jaham – I would gladly take the President Obama of 2006 as long as I got the economy of 2006 along with him. Obama was correct, spending trillions of dollars we didn’t have on wars, unfunded entitlements and massive new government bureaucracies when the economy was healthy was reckless and irresponsible, and we’ve been reaping the consequences of it ever since. Spending trillions of dollars we still don’t have to get our economy back on track is a different animal entirely.

Feb 04, 2013 1:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
todnwth wrote:

ALL LOOPHOLES FOR ALL PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE CLOSED PERIOD.
The more they make the more loopholes they buy from the republicans and we also should stop the waste in the military/industrial complex which has been going on forever, READ EISENHOWER’S SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT WHEN HE LEFT THE PRESIDENCY!!!

Feb 04, 2013 1:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
todnwth wrote:

All should have a little skin in the game and see what it is like, no one should be able to get a rebate unless they have paid taxes in the first place that goes for the poor as well as the corporations.
Loopholes for the oil companies are a crime and should be closed immediately, but the oil companies own the republican party and two many of the democrats to get anything done.

WHEN ROBERTS, ALITO, SCALIA, THOMAS, AND KENNEDY VOTE TO SAY THAT MONEY WAS SPEECH THEY HAVE NEVER LEARNED THAT MONEY IS BRIBERY PERIOD—DO NOT BELIEVE ME GO ASK A CHILD IN MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT IS BEING BULLIED AND ASK HIM WHAT MONEY IS– HE WILL TELL YOU A BRIBE TO KEEP FROM BEING BEATEN UP BY A BULLY!!!!

Feb 04, 2013 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
todnwth wrote:

All should have a little skin in the game and see what it is like, no one should be able to get a rebate unless they have paid taxes in the first place that goes for the poor as well as the corporations.
Loopholes for the oil companies are a crime and should be closed immediately, but the oil companies own the republican party and two many of the democrats to get anything done.

WHEN ROBERTS, ALITO, SCALIA, THOMAS, AND KENNEDY VOTE TO SAY THAT MONEY WAS SPEECH THEY HAVE NEVER LEARNED THAT MONEY IS BRIBERY PERIOD—DO NOT BELIEVE ME GO ASK A CHILD IN MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT IS BEING BULLIED AND ASK HIM WHAT MONEY IS– HE WILL TELL YOU A BRIBE TO KEEP FROM BEING BEATEN UP BY A BULLY!!!!

Feb 04, 2013 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Concernedcitz wrote:

All tax credits, tax exemptions and tax deductions are unfair. Just simplify and make a 10 tiered progressive flat rate income tax on all income including capital gains. That should lower everyone’s tax rate since all but those who make less than $7k will have to pay the tiered rate their total income requires. If 47% don’t pay income tax now 43% will under this plan. One exception is those on SS who earn less than $27k per year on SS may be exempt since anything under $27k is barely enough to live on per year. The rich will probably lower their rate from 39% to 22% being the top rate and the blottom rate , those making $7k > but < $60k pay only 9%. But this way everyone pays except the very very poor and poor seniors on SS. Simplify!

Feb 04, 2013 3:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ponder wrote:

Didn’t we just have a tax increase? With the kind of planning the WH is doing, who needs dunces? Trust is now non-existent. The boy leader needs to get his act together.

Feb 04, 2013 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lionprop wrote:

Carried Interest for single property real estate partnerships is not possible to obtain withour risking substantial capital and as such is a legitimate capital gains. So how is Obama being fair and transparent on this point?

Feb 04, 2013 4:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@concernedcitz

“All tax credits, tax exemptions and tax deductions are unfair. Just simplify and make a 10 tiered progressive flat rate income tax on all income including capital gains. That should lower everyone’s tax rate since all but those who make less than $7k will have to pay the tiered rate their total income requires. If 47% don’t pay income tax now 43% will under this plan. One exception is those on SS who earn less than $27k per year on SS may be exempt since anything under $27k is barely enough to live on per year. The rich will probably lower their rate from 39% to 22% being the top rate and the blottom rate , those making $7k > but < $60k pay only 9%. But this way everyone pays except the very very poor and poor seniors on SS. Simplify!”

A retired millionare on SS has plenty to live on in addition to the $27k. Income taxes are rarely fair. Consumption and property taxes are.

Feb 05, 2013 2:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@todwnth

“WHEN ROBERTS, ALITO, SCALIA, THOMAS, AND KENNEDY VOTE TO SAY THAT MONEY WAS SPEECH THEY HAVE NEVER LEARNED THAT MONEY IS BRIBERY PERIOD—DO NOT BELIEVE ME GO ASK A CHILD IN MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT IS BEING BULLIED AND ASK HIM WHAT MONEY IS– HE WILL TELL YOU A BRIBE TO KEEP FROM BEING BEATEN UP BY A BULLY!!!!”

You are saying the government is the bully, and those who spend money on elections are trying to keep from being bullied right? The government wants to take what is not there by force. How insightful.

Feb 05, 2013 2:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.