E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the debate over how to avoid going over the “fiscal cliff” of tax increases and spending cuts, much rhetoric has focused on what President Barack Obama is proposing to do on income tax rates, but that’s just a part of the overall revenue total the president proposed raising from higher-income earners in his budget blueprint.
Obama wants the top two marginal income tax rates to be 39.6 percent and 36 percent, instead of the current 35 percent and 33 percent.
Susan Walsh / AP
President Barack Obama speaks at the Rodon Group, which manufactures over 95 percent of the parts for K'NEX Brands toys, Friday, Nov. 30, 2012, in Hatfield, Pa.
But increasing the tax rates that apply to upper-income people is only a part -- less than a third -- of his longer-term tax proposal.
In the short run, Obama is urging the House to take up a one-year tax measure which the Senate OK’d earlier in the year on July 25.
“The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families,” Obama said in his weekly radio address on Saturday. “Democrats in the House are ready to do the same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, I’ll sign this bill as soon as Congress sends it my way.”
He said once that bill is signed, then “we’ll have more time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way – including by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more.”
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner elaborates on the details included in the administration's fiscal cliff spending cut proposals.
That Senate-passed bill which Obama wants the House to pass would do the following for one year, 2013:
- Extend income tax rates enacted in 2001 for individual taxpayers making less than $200,000, for heads of households making less than $225,000 and for married couples filing a joint tax return who make less than $250,000 a year.
- Raise the top income tax rates on taxpayers above those thresholds to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
- Increase the tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent on dividend income and capital gains income for taxpayers whose income exceeds the threshold amounts above.
- Extend for a year the American Opportunity tax credit, a temporary tax break to offset college expenses which was enacted in the 2009 stimulus law, and extend for a year several tax breaks for low-income people which were part of the 2009 stimulus.
- Extend for one year the $1,000-per-child tax credit.
Altogether, the Senate bill would reduce tax revenues by about $250 billion, compared to the amount that would be collected if the current tax law expires as scheduled at the end of the year.
But as Obama said Saturday, he wants to enact longer-term tax changes.
And his most detailed public offer on tax policy can be found in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal and the July update of that proposal.
If Congress were to enact the Obama tax rate proposal, that is, reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income tax rates for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and for married couples making more than $250,000, the president's Office of Management and Budget says it would reduce cumulative budget deficits over 10 years by nearly $430 billion.
To put that $430 billion in perspective, the deficit for fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So the ten-year total of revenue gained from raising income tax rates on higher-income people -- $430 billion -- wouldn't eliminate one year's deficit, much less the deficits for the next ten years.
NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the latest on the fiscal cliff negotiations now that the Democrats have presented their plan.
The Obama budget proposal calls for a much bigger tax increase on single people over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 -- a grand total of $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten-year budget period.
The tax rate increases account for only about 30 percent of the $1.4 trillion in revenue that the OMB says would be gained from Obama’s proposed tax increases on higher-income people.
Where would the rest of the $1.4 trillion come from? From limiting deductions and other tax preferences for upper-income people and from increasing taxes on dividends and capital gains.
Obama would limit the ability of married taxpayers filing a joint return with income over $250,000 and single taxpayers with income over $200,000 to benefit from a wide assortment of tax breaks: not only itemized deductions but also tax-exempt interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, and retirement contributions to 401-k and other retirement accounts.
If more revenue is the goal, could this same principle – limiting tax preferences – also apply to taxpayers who make less than $250,000? Many Congressional Democrats – especially those who represent states such as New York with high state and local taxes -- are opposed to that idea. For taxpayers in such states the ability to deduct state and local taxes is an especially valuable tax break.
Although it doesn’t seem to be part of the current bargaining between Obama and GOP Congressional leaders, there’s another tax increase on upper-income people that the president will get on New Year’s Day: the new broadened Medicare tax which will raise $20 billion in 2013 and nearly $40 billion by 2019.
Leave a Comment:
Promised cuts in spending don't materialize. Tomorrow never comes because when it gets here, it is today. Show the proposed spending cuts or at least a draft of them and a drop dead time table for getting them in place or no deal.
Um...did the GOP show up with any specific suggestions in spending cuts last week? If not, then the President is essentially negotiating against himself.
Unless the GOP is willing to make an actual proposal, it tells me that they aren't willing to do any of the heavy lifting.
Okay, how about we cut the pork to the Red States?
Noooooooooooooo!
Amy, already going to add 3.5% penalty to the cost of insurance premiums if the states don't institute their own "pools" for carriers and use the federal version
Bush and the Republicans caused the Bush tax cuts. It's up to them to fix this problem. Assuming the President get's his tax increases, which is what the public essentially voted for, it's now up to the Republicans to propose what spending cuts they want to see and where. It's not up the President to negotiate against himself? What happened to the idea of voucherizing Medicare. Bueler Bueler? Anyone? Now they want cuts in Medicare? Wow, last month they were blasting the President for"cutting $712B in Medicare? Can you say hypocrite? This is why the Republicans have lost credibility.
what do the Republicans want in terms of spending cuts and where?
What makes you think that the Bush tax cuts are a problem? We had massive increases in revenues after the tax cuts. As with the cuts in medicare, we are not being hypocritical, we were only pointing out that Obama's was being a hypocrite when he complained about the cuts in the GOP plan. Why didn't Obama lose credibility?
This time it is LEAD , FOLLOW , or GET OUT of THE WAY !!!!!
If congress doesn't act then steam roll them. Hold their feet to the fire. If they still don't do anything then we will be able under the Constitution to RECALL CONGRESS and throw them all out. Congress must learn ( real fast ) that they work for all of us not just the 1%.
Congress has been acting. They have been blocked. Democrats are purposely putting in things that they know republicans don't want just to stall things and create the fiscal cliff. They are dishonorable scum.
ladies and gents. The revenues from higher taxes are important, but on a scale basis somewhat symbolic. 400bill is the 10 yr total, we borrow 1.2 trillion every year. We have to cut if we ever plan on controlling debt.
So for starters, lets cut everything 10% across the board. Military, entitlement, pork barrel, foreign aid - everything - no exceptions.
I get why the President doesn't want to go first - its politically very hard to cut anything. Even the most far fetched of programs has its followers. The only politically feasible answer is to cut everything. Everything.
If he wants to delay raising taxes on everyone until the economy improves, I'm OK with that. But in the long run the revenue side needs to include everyone too.
I've reconciled myself to the idea my taxes are going up. But I'll be pretty unhappy if it fails to do any good and we just waste it.
I think the president is misreading his mandate if he thinks he's supposed to raise taxes but not cut spending. I think if he does, his second honeymoon will be brief.
It's a case of SOSDD. Obama and the Dems are taking the same stance as the last 4 years as are the Repubs. I am so fed up that I'm at the point of not caring one way or the other. Obama will still get his way whether or not the Repubs agree with him, as he always does. He's still going to find a way to raise ALL taxes even if the Repubs give in to him. That's the Dem's motto - tax and spend - and it's always been their motto.
And... CUE the complicit, Liberal, traditional media to support Obama's plan AT ALL COSTS.
Here's their playbook: Taxes good, deficit spending good, debt good, Obama good -- Republicans bad.
Let's follow this economic illiterate (with his sole private sector experience as a six-hour-a-week law lecturer) off the cliff and into another recession, just as long as we can shift the blame to Republicans!
@ PutAmericaFirst
The only revenues that were gained were corporate profits while jobs were shipped overseas to take advantage of those same tax breaks you speak of. The Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars by the republicans is what got us into this mess they are fighting every step not to let us get out of. In no way was these tax breaks good for our deficit or the majority of Americans.
Obama was elected President ... he was NOT ELECTED DICTATOR as you Obama leg-humpers would desire ! The last time I checked, Obama has never had a budget during his first term of office ! Now, the financial moron in Chief wants to raise taxes aggressively .... only he has yet to offer any solid plan for reducing expenses and the related MASSIVE annual deficits !
Liberals swallow this crap hook, line and sinker ... bowing to the altar of Obama ! Before Obama is done, he will have DOUBLED the National Debt of ALL his predecessors combined !! Of course, only fools believed he actually intended to keep the tax cuts on the other 98% anyway.
PutAmericaFirst ....
Fixed it for you. The Congress has been "acting" like the idiots they are.
Oh more than one piece to the plan....The Empty Suit doesn't just want your money....he want's your soul as well.........1st born children....etc...etc.....etc....Ya gotta laugh at this...if not you'll scream yourself to sleep every night.....
Absolutely - why should 'we the people' compromise on taxes when the POTUS won't compromise on spending. It cuts both ways and to get ourselves out of this mess, we have to have compromise from BOTH sides.
What I don't understand is why is a single filer's cut off $200k, but a married/joint filer is $250k. Married/joint should be $400k, otherwise why file jointly if you are married and making $250k combined. And let's be honest, in today's world $250k is NOT wealthy. Well off, yes. Comfortable, very. Especailly if you are 1) single, 2) have no kids. But wealthy...I don't think so.
Obama said he wants millionaires to pay more...$200k/$250k does not a millionaire make.
And don't blast me because you think I'm making these claims because I fall into this category. I don't. But there is some serious missing logic to these caps. If they raise the rates AND cut loopholes for people in the $200k/$250+ range, you'll have a lot fewer so called millionaires in this group and you'll see consumer spending by this faction go down.
Haven't some of you ever negotiated before? Offer/counter-offer??? You always ask for more then what you think you're going to get, or even what you'd be willing to accept. The GOP won't counter, because they don't want to be the party that proposes the "entitlement" cuts, which at this point they'll have to do since they're bitching about Obama not doing enough in that area.
So basically, what they want, they're too chicken @!$%# to ask for. So they're playing chicken instead of just countering, which would start the ball rolling. It's disgraceful really. Obama put on the table what he campaigned for. The GOP was willing to campaign under the "reform entitlements" banner in order to play to the "We hate the poors" crowd, but now won't live up to it because they knew all along the public isn't really down for it. Since most of those "We hate the poors" are on entitlements themselves.
Joan,
You made the statement Obama was going to raise EVERYONE'S taxes. Any evidence or sources for that???
How about we end subsidies to Big Oil, the most profitable industry in the history of the world?
Big Oil is also the chief promoter of burning fossil fuels, which causes the greenhouse effect that is destroying the stability of Earth's climate.
You're kidding, right? If you think that 'consumer spending' by this group can have any meaningful effect on the economy as a whole, please prove it. Yeah, it might put a crunch on the yacht and Ferrari dealers, but for mainstream business I doubt it....
Oops ! If you read the last little "snippet" from the article, there is a tiny little nugget waiting for you !!
Obamacare has ALREADY RAISED TAXES on the wealthiest Americans making over $200k/$250k !!
When do the "writers" of this website actually acknowledge and discuss the Obamacare tax increases that raises taxes on the "wealthy" and the "not so wealthy" ???
Obamacare also is quite antagonistic to middle-class people with regular medical expenses and seeks to reduce the ability to take a deduction. One of these hits me in January, and I am nowhere near the $250k level of income !
What a crock. The uber-wealthy aren't putting that money back into the economy. They have enough to continue to spend at the rates they already are. They're putting that extra money into complex, high risk markets or off shore tax havens.
Why no mention in this article about the stimulus spending Mr. O wants along with unlimited unobstructed power to raise the debt ceiling? Oh wait it's MSNBC and the sheeple blindly following what the left talking points and drain stream media give them. Go fetch your bone fido's.
Dottie,
Then why doesn't the GOP put forth an offer cutting the stimulus? Why don't they put forth anything? Oh, that's right...
See post #1.16
I live in New York, my wife and I both work, we have both been at our jobs over 30 years. Yes together we make more than $250,000. I am still paying for my kids college education because I didn't qualify for any financial aid. I own an average house that I pay $14,000 a year in property taxes on. I pay my own bills and I am not rich. I am tired of paying other peoples bills. I am tired of our welfare country. Work or starve I don't care but stop begging like a street urchin for other peoples money.
American,
Where's your disdain for corporate welfare? That eats up a lot more of your money on people who DON'T need it.
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/five-media-myths-about-welfare/
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
I have a few suggestions
For taxes:
As for spending issues:
Thoughts?
Great links, Sarah. I hope American (and others) takes a moment to read them.
Layton,
I just find it so disengenuous and ungracious to disparage those who have it worse than us. I dare anyone who complains about "welfare" to try living for a month on what those families have. I'm willing to assume they wouldn't last a day.
We're all going to pay taxes anyway. Either we can feed kids with them, or bomb kids with them.
Sarah - who is disparaging peolpe who have it worse?
Ask,
Those who vilify poor people. See them as having "entitlement" issues, or complain about the minimal amount of tax money spent on programs to help them. Yes, there are those that abuse the system, but they're the minority. The majority of people on those programs are hard working and could be anyone of us if circumstances were different. People buy into these "welfare myths" without ever having spent time among that population.
I hate corporate welfare also. All welfare is wrong. But this country nurtures dependance. Everytime you give someone something for nothing you degrade them. We should all help the weak become strong but welfare holds the weak down. The hungry will work
American,
Just a little toss back to the election. When Utah tried to beef up their welfare requirements, Congress had a snit so they (Utah) went directly to the Department of Health and worked with the President. The Republicans made that a HUGE talking point when in fact, it was doing exactly what your post is about. By stalling creative efforts such as these, the GOP makes themselves look very foolish.
Talk to the Hand - We have that it is called the Fiscal Cliff.....
Sorry, but it Boehner that coined the phrase "fiscal cliff." He wants you to be afraid --- very afraid.
If you knew anything about negotiation, you'd know that you go in asking for more than you want. That what negotiating is all about Since the Republicans are not putting forth anything concrete then they are negotiating in bad faith.
I am going to sit back and watch the GOP self destruct.
How about a liberal tax?
Unconventional, I'm with you. Cut the Federal budget 10% - everything, every department, every agency, including Social Security - the geezers on SS can tighten their belts, too - they're not sacred cows. Cut everything 10% and eliminate the Bush tax cuts, raise the capital gains tax to 25% - do those things and we'll be close to a balanced budget.
Ooooooops....the author left the following out of Mr. Obama's proposal:
And whatever else the Progressives can add as riders to support their causes in their home states.
There should be NO COMPROMISE on this issue. Our "elite" elected representatives should take off the (D), (R), and (I) off their name tags and do what is best for America and NOT just for their PARTY......PERIOD.
1funnygirl....."How about a liberal tax?"
Already implemented.
The DSHS has placed a "TAX (they are calling it a FINE") on States (mostly Red) who fail to set up their own ObamaCare exchanges.
The Middle class might be next since this Administration is pumping out thousands of new regulations every month.
When I graduated high school some 35 years ago it was easy to find a job. The manufacturing base was strong and the jobs paid well for that period of time and our economy was booming, companies were making huge profits. Factory jobs payed eh 9 to 15 dollars an hour an you could raise a family on it without to much difficulty. Fast forward 35 years, 35 years worth of inflation, 35 years worth of blue collar wages held the same. Companies still make their huge profits but where did the increase in wages go to.....the top. Ceo's making 20 million dollar bonuses and the ground floor making 9 to 15 dollars an hour.
Here we are today arguing with each other about which one of our political parties actually has the best plan for resurrecting the middle class, which party actually aspires to do the right thing for America's future. We all know America is strongest when it's economy is strong. What is the top driver of a strong American economy?....A strong middle class.
We all know our government needs to make some spending cuts. Which party in these supposed negotiations is trying to protect the middle class and suggesting the cuts be made at the upper class level i.e. by going after cuts to subsidies given to Big Oil, the energy consortium, farming conglomerates, the drug industry, and the others receiving corporate welfare?.....Which party is doing this I ask?......NEITHER PARTY
This dog and pony show will end up with the cuts going to middle class and poor 'entitlements'. It's in the bag already in some form or another. WHY?........
35 years now I've watched as corporations have grown in their influence over our politicians. It's hard to even consider most of them American companies anymore, they are multinational monsters controlling our politicians who continue to claim they're patriotism. They are no longer American patriots. One party in particular has no bones with showing where their allegiance lies.
We have no choice but to support the other and pray for it's success in it's attempts to keep the middle class at least solvent. As far as the Republicans go, let's hope for a swift death for their party in 2014.
@ heyitschuck
It'll be a slow and painful one and they will take Pyrrhic victories happily over sensible defeats if it means that they score a few more points before hitting the floor.
They feel as though they have nothing to lose.
It still amazes me that the Party of "No" doesn't understand the problem that they have when their election victories only come when there is a low turnout at the polls. This is truly a party that has walled themselves up on a sinking island.
The Democrats need to get their act together and make sensible changes...it seems that they are left making the unpopular decisions.
Good, Obama needs to have his rich buddies taxed at least 70% of their income.
Why is Obama so afraid to say the words, "cut spending".
Just because Obama was re-elected doesn't mean that Americans don't mind paying more taxes. The majority of the people who voted for Obama don't know how the government works. They only voted for Obama because he was Obama.
A family member voted for Obama. She's in her early twenties with no mortgage, no car payment, no major bills and has a part-time job. She lives with her parents. I asked her why she voted for Obama and she just shrugged her shoulders because she didn't have an answer. She is so clueless.
Why stop with raising taxes on the top 2%. After taxes are filed all people get a tax rate card. If your card identifies you as a top 2 %er, then you pay extra for everything and the extra profit goes to the government...airfare, hotels, merchandise, food...yeah everything. That way the top 2% really pay their share. And the government can spend, spend, spend. The top 2% need to pay their share, really, how about everybody pay their share...how can that be defined as anything but FAIR.
American,
Except those programs don't hold them down, they've been shown to HELP them get back on their feet, which would be near to impossible with no assistance...
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=40e5ffdc-0c3a-4498-bc0b-ae0b106725db
you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you're building.
he wants what you all make.
he'll tell the 47 per cent.
that being rich is a mistake.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
...
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he’ll tell you to be thankful.
to bow down and give thanks.
or he’ll send you to a FEMA camp.
to get your thinking “straight”.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he'll give you a free cell phone.
say Obamacare is great.
he'll tell you being a success.
is something you should hate.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coooming tooo tooown!
WAIT....!!! I read that whole thing and didn't see one sentence with any spending cuts???? Pathetic MSNBS.
@ Bruce Dammon
"Unconventional, I'm with you. Cut the Federal budget 10% - everything, every department, every agency, including Social Security - the geezers on SS can tighten their belts, too - they're not sacred cows."
How about we find out who your employer is and have him cut your paycheck 10%?? Before you start lopping off other peoples income who worked a lifetime for it you accept the same you try to impose on them...
@MireV03 1.11
I guess you forgot that the Democrats voted for these wars too. Also, I keep seeing this "unfunded" war thing, maybe I am a bit dull, being a dumb farm boy, growing up in the country, maybe you could explain how they were "unfunded".
I don't generally nit pick someone's grammar, but shouldn't it read "In no way WERE..."
Also, I would argue that the general pittance that the Bush Tax cuts would have generated in Federal Revenue, pales in comparison to the spending glut that Obama and Congress went on after his election.
If my numbers are some what close we would only be $15.4t in debt instead of $16.3t. (and I used the most conservative number out there, the real number is probably closer to $400B, instead of $900.
Et.Al
My plan would be to raise income tax on the entertainment industry (since Hollywood and TV seem so intent on all the social programs) to include sports, pundits and other reporters who don't qualify as independent Journalist, to 75% of everything over $200K.
Funny thing, I just noticed, there seem to be many more conservative views being posted here tonight.
During the day, these vines are filled with liberals and very few conservatives. Could be that is because conservatives are at work? just a thought?
I am self employed and work at home, which is why I noticed.
Hi, I'm a Democrat. I think that if we raise taxes that congress will put that money toward paying down the deficit...because i'm an idiot and I believe in fantasies.
Oh wait...now I'm a Republican. You can't let anyone pay more taxes, even if they have a billion dollars because I also believe in fantasies.
Now I am a rational human. The rich paying some more taxes is not a serious issue. Congress will never balance the budget no matter how much we give them, because they need all the money they can get to buy votes.
Lets all solve this and go over the "Fiscal Cliff", together. Mandatory tax hikes, mandatory spending cuts. Give America what it deserves.
Nah, lets not cut the waste and fraud first.
Lets not consolidate a bunch of agencies that do exactly the same thing.
Lets not eliminate a bunch of outdated programs whos only reason for existance is to supply some politicans loser family member a high paying job.
Lets not stop borrowing billions from china only to turn around and loan it to some country that despises us.
Lets keep all that and raise taxes first. Then if the current adminstration feels up to it then maybe, just maybe, Obama just might locate that scapal he talked about the first time he ran for president and surgically cut out the waste.
Right, and I got a rainbow unicorn I want to sell you for cheap.
If Congress were to enact the Obama tax rate proposal, that is, reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income tax rates for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and for married couples making more than $250,000, the president's Office of Management and Budget says it would reduce cumulative budget deficits over 10 years by nearly $430 billion.
To put that $430 billion in perspective, the deficit for fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So the ten-year total of revenue gained from raising income tax rates on higher-income people -- $430 billion -- wouldn't eliminate one year's deficit, much less the deficits for the next ten years.
$43 billion per year on trillion dollar deficits ........lmfao.....and that's the solution,,,,the top 2%.....we are going off a f'n cliff all right. An educational cliff. We have became to dumb to remain a country.
Those who vilify poor people. See them as having "entitlement" issues, or complain about the minimal amount of tax money spent on programs to help them. Yes, there are those that abuse the system, but they're the minority. The majority of people on those programs are hard working and could be anyone of us if circumstances were different. People buy into these "welfare myths" without ever having spent time among that population.
Sarah,
I have had friends on welfare, have seen how they live, what they buy, etc. The average person on welfare does not live as a poor person. This is all dependent on what you classify as 'poor'. If you think poor is having a big screen tv, game machines, nice clothes, eating well, then yes, that is the average poor person in this country. I do not, and would never, vilify the REAL poor people, that IS why I support welfare (not entitlements). But, the average 'poor' person in this country lives just as well as a working middle class family. I realize that welfare hand outs vary state to state. I live in Oregon and it just @!$%#ing ridiculous what they give out here. If only the truly needy received it, I would have absolutely no problem with it. But I see who else gets it, and I all I see is the fraud, the waste, the dependency on the government, and the laziness.
I would never say get rid of welfare, but I do say reform it drastically. There is a lot of savings to be found in the welfare programs if the government was more interested in helping the poor, and less interested in buying votes. Not only that, but if you make sure the help gets to those that truly need it, then there will be more help available to them.
Also, dump corporate welfare also. This country was founded on working your ass off to get some where. That goes for the individual, that goes for businesses, that goes for corporations. If you cut the corporate welfare, that in itself will deal with some of the cronyism that crosses party lines.
Alex,
Your personal experience means nothing. Why should I even believe you? Even if true, you've encountered at best a tiny minority not a representative cross section, have not studied them using any type of methodology, not tested for reliability or validity...
Give me some credible sources like the ones I posted above.
My favorite post here has been Geronimo's, but I just have to say, "We are to dumb to remain a country!"
Joan - you are a moron! The fact is, everybody's taxes are going up the first of the year when the tax cuts expire. That is, unless and until the Republicans actually come to the negotiating table and do something about it!
So you know what, quit blaming Obama, get on the horn or email or whatever, and tell your Republican Congress-critters to stop with the stupid grandstanding!
Feeding and housing the poor is a responsibility of our Citizens, not Governments. It just doesn't work, never has and never will. I own a very small business with 11 employees, my payroll liabilities are over 9 thousand dollars a month. Think about? Just to keep the Government Happy I have to generate 9 thousand dollars in cash a month for just that one liability! Why? Entitlements, Wars and bloated Governments.
Sarah - did that article actually even discuss "helping people get back on their feet?" It talked a lot about public education, and then it discussed the amount of money we spend on it, and the fact that it's actually going DOWN in rankings.
In regards to "welfare" "helping people get back on their feet" in reality, I think if the welfare system is designed to "help people get back on their feet" and it WORKED, more people would be getting back on their feet, and we would therefore need LESS welfare every year instead of MORE welfare, right? I think American was just trying to point out that if people stay on welfare, and more people get ON welfare, welfare is not doing what it initially set out to do.
As opposed to being a safety net now, it is seen more as a perpetual poverty enabler by many.
How pathetic that anyone is even giving air time to this Obama plan. This does nothing but let massive spending and our national debt skyrocket. It is nothing but kicking the can down the road. This is no more serious attempt then his first term promise to cut the annual deficit in half. But it does seem to work on liberals, maybe gullible is the new liberalism. Of course stupid works as well.
Ask,
I was addressing AmericanLabor's post. In reality, the majority of people are off welfare within five years. Only 19% stay on for longer than that. Also, the number of people on welfare is projected to drop. We had a spike in the bad economy, but as we come out of it you'll see those numbers fall again. You also can't just look at "how many" people are on it, because our population is growing every year. Of course there's more people on it now than there were in say 1970 or 1980, or even 1990, there are more people in general. In fact, the percent of both dependency and recipiency has remained fairly flat.
Of course I'm not saying we couldn't do better, things like better job/trade skills, education, contraception, but that would probably mean increasing spending in this area, not cutting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/03/15647710-income-tax-rates-just-one-piece-of-obama-proposal?threadId=3622167&commentId=72353924#c72353924
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Your personal experience means nothing.
That is about as liberal as it gets. Don't believe what people see with their own eyes, believe the doctored reports put out by politicians with an agenda. You're no better than those liberals that tell me I'm full of @!$%# when I talk about how ACA is already raising health insurance premiums on the middle class since I've watched my wife's go up 20% two months ago, and is set to go up again Jan 1st. We've already been warned at my work that ours are going up drastically next year. I assume you're going to tell me again that my personal experience means nothing?
I didn't say get rid of welfare, in fact I said I supported it. But since my real life experiences don't fit into your rosy little 'all welfare people are completely destitute we need to pour more money into them' mentality, you say I'm full of @!$%#.
I will believe what I see with my own eyes before I believe a damn thing any government corporation tells me.
You just displayed your typical 'bury my head in the sand' liberal mentality.
I pity you in your ignorance. I won't be responding to you on this topic past this post because you've proven that you only believe what you chose to believe, even though it might not be set in reality.
Alex,
Well I guess, because academics tend to be more liberal.
I saw a Yeti once, do you believe me?
And 9/11 was an inside job!
Most likely. I can give you the legal argument, but the rates/premiums confuse me. Ergo, I'm probably NOT better than those folks.
That's a safe assumption.
No I say you're full of @!$%# because you have no credible evidence of any thing you say and then get SUPER defensive when called out on it.
And I will believe academic studies and statisticians before I believe any damn thing a stranger tells me via the internet.
Only if your the be all, end all of welfare information.
Thanks?
Yeah, I didn't take candy from strangers when I was a kid either. Run away, little boy. Come back when you have more than your "personal" experience.
Pork doesn't go only to the red states. You couldn't have made it more obvious that libbies want everything for themselves - deny the other party while claiming everyhting for themselves.
Sarah,
Hello there,I have been on Welfare many years ago while going through a Divorce,I was 20yrs with 2 small children and Had gone back to get my Highschool completion at 18 because I knew I wouldn't get far without it.Now that being said,Welfare sucks,it was meant as a hand UP,not a Hand out,they give you just enough to make it about 3of the 4 weeks a month,that was before free housing,I had to pay regular rates to live in lower income Apts,but still at $600-$700 a month,I found that going to a class at the community collage for $60 would allow me to work as a Flagger making $15 an hour to start(really good money back then for a 20 yr old with no Collage degree,and it supported my family till Obama got into office and now all those shovel ready jobs never showed up,at least not enough as we were promised,My point is,I used the system as it was intended,As a Hand up,because I didn't want to live like that anymore and was raised to not be a burden to society,especially being young and able to work for a living,sure I had to work my Azz off and didn't get much TV Couch time or get to go to my kids Field trips,but we all must sacrifice.There are many who supplement their welfare by working under the table and or sell drugs,I've seen it with my own eyes,Illegal Family's driving 2 brand new Escalates growing Pot under their free houseing and popping out baby's every 5-8 months between the 4 women living there with 5 or so kids....And I saw it everyday carpooling on my way to a Construction job,If I can get a real job why cant they?so Yep I don't think it works and too many Take advantage of the system and many should not even be here in the country because they got here illegally.
Sarah - WHOA. There are some seriously high paying welfare states! 7 states pay higher than the average U.S. teacher makes? Basically all pay higher than a minimum wage job? Is that what that report is saying?
That is actually an extreme disincentive to work, I would think. Don't you agree? Isn't that like saying you could either go to work and get paid X dollars, or not go to work and get paid the same amount? It's like someone who has worked and saved up for retirement, living off a fizxed income deciding they would prefer to have to work for their income instead of living off their savings... (in my mind)
Democrats are great at superficials. They latch on to 'bandaid' solutions derived from clever slogans like a bunch of dumb rabbits mesmerized by flashing lights.
On the surface Democratic ideology sounds good. People buy into it because it feels compassionate and caring, unfortunately it never works because its not grounded in solutions that really work. They don't care about the details. Seriously with comments from Pelosi like "We have to pass the bill to find out whats in it." They know that the only thing they have to do is sell the idea to you dopes with a bunch of clever lines, a flashy dumbed down ad, and some pretty speeches on TV.
What a joke.
Ask,
Except that those states like HI, have extremely high rates of inflation. It also doesn't change the fact that the majority are off within five years, and they're shown to have POSITIVE effects, not negative ones.
Huh... it looks like there is actually a 5 year maximum on welfare. I did not know that - what do people do after that if they CAN'T find a job and have a bunch of kids to support?
me1234567891 - I actually agree. I've been leaning more and more towards your stance over the last 5-10 years.
Ask,
I'm willing to assume the kids end up in the system and they end up on the street and/or jail. Kind of a shame when you look at how much we spend on the DOD and give away to corporations.
Ya - I guess... the argument could probably go both ways. That's pretty crazy though about the 5 year rule. Apparently it was signed into law under Clinton's term. I feel like there MUST be something more than just 5 years, right? Although it's probably unrelated to housing assistance, and then people probably try to claim social security disability or something? hm.
Ask,
If we were to stop demonizing these programs and invest in them to produce more long term solutions, it'd benefit us greatly AND save us money in the long run. Too bad we can't do that with the misinformation spinning around about them.
If they end up in the system it's the parents fault Period,I would do anything to care financially for my kids,It is not the responsibility of the Federal gov or States or anyone of my fellow Tax payers to pay for my family Period,there have been kids who have broke the cycle of their welfare family legacy,got an education and got a good job,anyone can do it,people especially the poor have a better chance to make something with their lives than ever before,but we have allowed a victim and entitlement society,if welfare was made uncomfortable enough maybe they would be forced to get a job.Those with disability's are not those Im speaking of or the elderly(even though many elders would rather work than collect the dole)Even jobs for disabled are available and they Love to work(Safeway is great about hiring Disabled as well as other Co.) Anyway the System is being used and I stress USED,I have said it before that those that collect the dole and or housing,it should be mandatory they GIVE their time to run the whole system As well as homeless shelters,roadside cleanup,Babysitting for those who are working ect we could cut costs NOT employing Government workers(of course we would need a few to train but Small numbers of them) to do the job,these people could learn a new trade to take into the real world and earn the "free" money they are getting.
Also we need to limit all state and federal political jobs,and stop with their Golden Parachutes,and pay them no more than $30-40k a year and no special medical or extra benefits,we need Honest people that are not there for the money,they should do it for the good of America or not at all.
me,
yeah, just like John Kyl, “not intended to be a factual statement,”
republicans(and those that watch fox) are the dumbed down crowd
Every dollar that the government takes in taxes is a dollar that doesn't get spent somewhere else. This trillion dollars or whatever the number is in new taxes is supposed to stimulate the economy because the government will spend it. However, that same trillion dollars is being taken OUT of of the economy in order to give it to the government to put it back in the economy. (just the government spending it instead of the citizens).
Government likes doing the spending because then they can use it to reward friends, punish enemies, and buy votes. But make no mistake that a trillion dollar tax increase will take a trillion dollars of consumer spending out of the economy and hurt it.
He isn't. He calls it savings and if you read the budget, there is quite a lot of savings (spending cuts) in the his proposal.
alex
I have to agree with you. I know alot of people on welfare and most drive a better car than I do,all have cable and all have games. I also believe we need welfare but it is really out of control. some even talk about having kids for more money. I did not believe people were like that untill I seen and heard it for myself. Not saying all are like that but I know more than eight that are. maybe we should police the recievers and make sure they are using the aide as intended.maybe the new irs agents could add that to their job. the other day I heard a man turn down a job because it paid to much and he would lose his check, it was in the construction field.
@okie,
It's 'fairly' common here in oregon for females on welfare to use kids to get more money. The limit on the 'baby' money is 3 or 4 years, so they spread them apart. There is one lady in the county here that just had her 7th kid, they all have the same spread in age, and are all on my tax dollars. What makes it sickening is all the welfare benefits that she receives while I know other families that truly need the help and are trying.
My wife works for a company that deals with the medicaid authorizations from the hospitals and doctors. So she gets to see the nice cars and spendy clothes, and the complete crap 'I deserve this' attitude day in and day out.
I'm not sure what the solution is without invading privacy rights, but there is a ton of money to save by reforming welfare. Also, I know that a lot of that is up to the state, so I'm not sure how much federal money it would save.
Nice to see other people have their eyes open though!
Good day.
@ Geronimo_
I'm with you, +1
We aren't going to be able to expect politicians to make the sensible decisions so long as they can always operate with these serious conflicts of interest
Frankly, the Fiscal Cliff is going to suck in the short-run, but it is largely necessary to get this economy back on the rails, though arguably still not enough, and the cuts are not all in the right direction.
In Louisiana they are trying to help the POOR out of POVERTY by offering school vouchers so the POOR can attend BETTER SCHOOLS and get a BETTER EDUCATION, so they can succeed on their own. But the TEACHER'S UNIONS are AGAINST IT. I guess Liberals talk a good talk,but when it comes down to them losing a cushy Government job because they can't perform, then that is a different story. Keep the POOR DOWN, that way they can KEEP CONTROL!
We have vouchers here in Indiana, too, and the private schools are growing like crazy. Of course, the teachers unions HATE them and think they are killing education. What they are killing is tenured teacher positions in the public schools. If you cant compete, stifle the competition!
@ #1.46
So nobody is going to tell this Dumb farm boy what an "Unfunded War" is?
.
double post glitch, mea culpa
Vouchers, what are they? They are taxpayer funds going to send children to private school. How long do you thing that private schools are going to remain private? They are getting money from the government and it won't be long before the Department of Education is dumming down the private schools, just like the public schools.
@ huskergal
Agreed, there's a 'b' in dumbing btw...LOL
But back on subject, I also don't want public funds going to private religious schools. Vouchers for non-religious private schools is already not a very good idea since it basically doesn't support any downward pressure on prices...thus private schools that are high in demand can just arbitrarily raise their prices and STILL remain outside of affordability for many parents.
Vouchers for private school is just a bandaid over a bullet wound.
Teachers Unions pouring money into lobbying in the state governments (and on a federal level) needs to be better monitored. Look at states like CA with some of the highest paid teachers in the US with the poorest student performance (hovering right around 49 of 50 states).
Principles need to be better able to control the staffing in their schools, parents should not be ignored when they bring legitimate complaints against a teacher/administrator. Teachers need to be fired for poor performance (based on a combined metric of teacher CBEST scores, student performance in their class and student performance in the subsequent grade to gauge marginal improvement), routinely under-performing students need to be put into customized learning programs, bullies need to pulled out of standard schools and enrolled in far more regimented academies out of the parents full custody.
Believe it or not, I spelled it that way on purpose - to make a point.
Why look at the unions? They are not the reason this is happening. Programs like No Child Left Behind have led to this. Our children are suffering in the education department because government, state and federal, is lowering standards.
Our parental education of children is at fault Parents play a role and the earlier the child is exposed to things to more this child will learn throughout life. How many parents take their children to museums or cultural events? How many parents have the time to sit down and read to their children? From personal experience, I learned parents will not drop their kids off for "story time," but will for "daycare."
What you are implying here is that bullies should be taken out of their home as wards of the state and sent to juvie?
Oh, LOL, I missed the joke...I'm too used to trolls on the vines, so I take misspelled words not italicized typically as being unintentional ^_^ and I enjoyed the irony of complaining about schools while misspelling "dumbing"
It's been a problem A LOT longer than no child left behind. That program is indeed awful, but is only the most recent on top of a host of other issues.
Indeed, ever since the first salvo of parents were able to successfully sue a school/district because their precious snowflake might have to repeat a grade for being an idiot with negligent parents, things have certainly been taking a turn for the worse.
Parents ABSOLUTELY play an important role in their child's education as well as their attitude towards learning in general. But I also can speak first-hand to both a public and private education and there is a TREMENDOUS difference between the caliber of teachers and conduct between the public school I went to by comparison to the private schools thereafter where I completed my junior through highschool education...there was better accountability, better discipline, more subjects taught with less homework and all-around better caliber teachers compared to their public school counterparts.
No, not juvie. But repeat-bullies that cannot be straightened out can ruin things for all the children around them. More often than not, the problem starts at home. I'm suggesting something along the lines of putting serious money into military-style academies with a more regimented learning environment and specially trained teachers and administrators that work on helping such children both develop a proper ethical and social fiber as well as become highly educated.
...anyway...
This is indeed a multifaceted issue and I readily acknowledge that there isn't an easy/simple fix or one party that's entirely to blame.
Iit's not just bad teachers and or powerful and corrupt public-service unions; there's the bloated and inefficient administrations siphoning money/resources away from the teachers/children, cuts to funding and prohibitively-skewed student:teacher ratios combined with negligent/over-worked (single) parents also play a GIGANTIC role on top of poor/ineffective/detrimental federal and state initiatives.
What are your thoughts to fixing the issue?
Okay, GOP---the ball is in your court. You have a proposal from the President--if you don't like it, let's hear what you want to be done. That is how negotiating works, and it leads to that word you have so much trouble with: compromise.
Right Steeler Fan. All your side ever offers up is tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. It's a broken record. And you can seriously with a straight face say that was an offer? Lets raise the amount we spend and then negotiate back down to what we've been wanting all along. You sound like a used card dealer.
obama wants NO LIMIT on the debt ceiling, and he wants to be the one to raise it, ie, congress no longer will have any say at all...he wants to add MORE stimulas money, and he has NO plan to pay the debt, or lower spending,.,out of control and over the cliff.... and, if he makes us pay taxes on our 401k retirement savings, all that does is make us pay the tax now, instead of when we retire which = ZERO.. he wants more and more programs,, extend unemployment, and take away from medicare, ie, dont pay those darn doctors what they are due! see any problems??
OK Steeler, so when the GOP Replies with No Tax hikes, No stimulus and $1.6 Trillion in CUTS, you'll be OK with it, because this is how negotiations work.
Right?
Nobody likes it. I am not a 1 or 2% er, but even I can see Obama is going out of this way to hit only one very small slice of Americans with a tax increase...while being unwilling to make any serious spending cuts.
This is not a proposal, it is a joke and unworthy of a response. He should be ashamed for even floating this BS.
As opposed to the others side whose only solution is to; borrow & spend, borrow & spend, borrow & spend?
No kidding Steeler Fan!
They flunked basic negotiating 101! lol
Why don't you get the democrats to work and then they'll actually pay a few taxes. Oh yeah, I forgot...you have a plan for that...big government.
The President won the election and made a proposal. I'm not saying the GOP had to like it but they haven't come back with anything. They expect the President to negotiate against himself and I'm glad to see he isn't doing that. I hoped the GOP would compromise---give up something they wanted to encourage the Democrats to do the same.
I agree a compromise needs to be made. I disagree with what you're calling a negotiation. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game and say that's fair. He's proposed increased spending rather than cut spending. How is that negotiation?
OK Tex, I am in the 2% and I can't wait to go over the cliff. It will force "weak" players to forfeit assets cheap such as homes, so that those of us can pick them up on the cheap! I can assure you, its best for you to have your side compromise. What do you want cut? Your social security, your medicare or your defense. Don't say welfare and foreign aid those are just a drop in the bucket. You need to cut among the big three.
@Steeler, the republican proposal has been out for weeks now. Increased revenue through closed loopholes. Turn off Huffpo and msnbc for once...
Will all you republicans tell us if you think just cutting the loopholes is going to fix the problem?
Answers Please!
Which loopholes would those be?
Can we get a source to back up your claim, please?
Smitty.....We think that none of this solves the problem. Only spending cuts can solve the problem. The tax year 2012 is the third highest tax revenue year in history and next year is expected to generate record revenues......and we still have trillion dollar deficits.
Read the article, folks---the President ran on this plan and even people who didn't vote for him agreed that tax rates on the wealthiest 2% have to go up. The President campaigned on raising rates, not closing loopholes, although I'm sure he would welcome that as well.
putamericafirst Good more record amounts of money coming in. So with increased taxes and spending cuts thats more money going to bring down the debt. Its going back to the Clinton tax rates. How bad is that?
Why is that bad to have record revenue coming in?
B707320C
OK Tex, I am in the 2% and I can't wait to go over the cliff. It will force "weak" players to forfeit assets cheap such as homes, so that those of us can pick them up on the cheap! I can assure you, its best for you to have your side compromise. What do you want cut? Your social security, your medicare or your defense. Don't say welfare and foreign aid those are just a drop in the bucket. You need to cut among the big three.
Lets cut Defense then, so China can come and take what you gain off the 98% from YOU. No country is going to invade the USA so why all this spending on defense?
Hey Feisty - wasn't it last year that our leaders here in Illinois raised the corporate rate? Companies like CAT threatened to leave - so the state cut special deals for the too-big-to-leave crowd. So our tax code in IL is a pile of special loopholes and subsidies too. If we closed all of them, I'd wager we could increase revenue. Maybe enough to lower rates on the business that didn't get a sweetheart's deal. I'll bet the US tax code is rife with old political favors that are still on the books.
If youre not sure, then end them now, with automatic triggers to lower the rates later if (and only if) the increased revenue materializes. You'd agree with that wouldn't you?
Any idiot (i.e. Obama) can just say take more taxes - there comes a point where taxation and overspending destroys economies and we are now well in it. Look at California, Europe - why is everyone leaving NY? The democrats and liberals want to overspend and then blame the republicans for cutting. Ain't going to happen. Thanks to Obama and democrats our GDP has been cratering and government props have run out. Watch the unemployment numbers later this week. We will be in a recession next year and our credit will be downgraded. When our economy is in total collapse - which will now happen - remember who did this - Obama grew our debt by 60% in his first term, our GDP is dropping like a stone and more and more useless dregs are living on welfare and disability because the government hands out money. This equation has failed everywhere in history.
Here is one of the best ways to raise revenue Cut some of the farm budget and take the tax-exempt status away from churches. The churches have been on welfare long enough.
The "tax cuts for the rich" are all that is discussed because that single take-it-or-leave-it sentence before Hawaii is all you guys play. The class warfare taxes on upper middle class are damaging -- the rest of the stupidity is devastating. What exactly do you think will happen to investment in growing America after we institute the highest capital gains tax there is? How many more seniors do you think will die because after stealing $716 billion to pay for Medicaid, these bozos propose another half trillion dollar kick to the groin of Medicare patients? Oh and pensions -- notice the dramatic lowering of pension contributions -- Except for unions! And Public Service Unions -- Cadillac healthcare, six figure retirement -- and if the investments run out -- the Feds will kick in (with our tax money).
NBC is right -- the "tax cuts for the rich" (which is of course a lie -- they are just not having them increase) were bad enough for the economy -- the rest of this will cause a depression. But it will be a FAIR depression.
@brendan: Which tax loopholes are the Republicans offering to close? I'm betting they'd close the loopholes that benefit the middle class and leave in place those that benefit only the rich. That doesn't lower taxes on the middle class or raise them on the rich...quite the contrary.
Prove to all of us that's not the case.
Well okay then!
Brenden can't back up his claim on loopholes so does anyone else want to share with us which ones would be closed?
Supposedly, this information has been available for weeks, shouldn't be too difficult to provide, now should it?
You guys DO understand that the debt ceiling is only authorization to pay the bills for money congress has already spent, don't you? You sound like the President is asking for the okay to spend more money. He is not. The money has already been spent by congress. If you are worried about the actual debt, don't criticize Obama for wanting to pay the credit card bill, criticize congress for maxing out the card.
Oh Feisty, you are a hoot. Keep blowing it out of your A$$.
You couldn't negotiate your way out of a gang-bang. But then again, you'd probably enjoy it.
John Doe, I already am an investor in China--I have a global economic perspective. I am not worried about the Chinese. I'm a boomer who grew up with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us by Russians and Chinese. We need each other more than ever. This is how the right scares you.
Easy there smitty.... you want to cut the churches tax exemption you better be prepared for them to want more biblical study in the education system. You better believe the churches will scream for it louder than they do now if you take away the tax exemption. What's that the libs always say to the cons when it comes to biblical study in school??? Ah yeah.... seperation of church and state.
funnylookinggirl - you prove daily that crude and classless are requirements for Republican membership. Your comments to Feisty were lowlife at best and say more about you than they every do Feisty.
Mr. Obama's plan in a nutshell:
Tax + Spend + Redistribute in addition to more regulations.
And Mr. Obama and his surrogates ask: "What Fiscal Cliff" when the National Debt exceeds $ 16,000,000,000,000. Yep, let the rich pay their "fair share" and let's continue to hit everyone with MORE REGULATIONS.
seekingsanity, Feisty has been the main source of crude and classless postings here for a couple of years now.
They were working and paying taxes. Then along came George W. Bush...
What a bunch of bozos. I can't believe you lefties get so easily sold on these continued campaign 'one-liners'.
The GOP has submitted a counter proposal...ok great, now let's keep the ball rolling. Get off TV for 5 minutes Obama and lets get this thing figured out before your dumba$s goes on a 3 week $4 million vacation to Hawaii on our dime. Really shows how devoted you are to the American people...
The SPENDING has to be dealt with. The Government sucks at managing anything they touch, so I don't get why you Dems so eager to give them more money and more power to do a bad job.
We bitch about Bush all the time, about how he spent too much, so I don't get why you guys don't hold Obama's feet to the fire for spending a TRILLION more EVERY SINGLE YEAR of his presidency than even Bush spent.
OBAMA, Democrats, Republicans, For Fu*)'s sake STOP SPENDING!!!
There is no fiscal cliff. If the Bush tax cuts expire everyone of us will be paying a higher tax rate. No a big deal, we paid this rate before Bush cut taxes. What will the spending cuts be? Cuts such as veteran affairs, homeland security, the state department; cut that effect the people, not the industrial military complex. As for regulations, the businesses inside the economy need regulation. We already learned what happens when regulation is entirely removed as this is the cause of the recession that we went through.
@husker
There were regulations...they just weren't enforced.
"You'll get nothing and Like it!" - Judge Smails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6l1QljpMo
Oh please, why should there be a 50/50 compromise here? In case the conservatives didn't notice WE WON. WE got the White House back, we INCREASED our Senate majority, and though the Republicans still have the House, their lead DECREASED this election. The fact that given these results Boehner still thinks that Obama is going to keep giving in to Republicans is the JOKE. He's lucky the President is taking his phone calls.
Again, the democrats are refusing to compromise. Yes you won, but so did the republicans in the house. They were elected to stop Obama from policies like this that will probably hurt our country. Republicans are willing to compromise, but it looks like Obama wants to hold the American people hostage.
You should accept a 50/50 compromise because the electorate is divided. The most recent numbers are 51.8/47.7% vote breakdown between the two candidates.
You make it sound like it was a landslide. A difference of 4 million votes in a country where there are 310 million, AND more people didn't vote this time around than in 2008 and you think you have a mandate?
I find it hilarious that Bush defeated Kerry in 2004 and you liberals whined saying Bush couldn't have a mandate. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..
Your lead in the House shrank. YES you still hold it thanks to the gerrymandering of the districts right before election time but by a narrower margin.
Let's return to kindergarten, folks how compromise works is Obama makes his opening bid....which he did. Then the republicans make a SPECIFIC proposal of the spending cuts they'd prefer. Then the two sides negotiate.
It isn't where President Obama negotiates against HIMSELF until the Republicans get everything they want without even proposing it! Anyone who thinks this is how "compromise" works HAD to have been a playground bully in grade school.
You're lead in the electoral college also shrank. Obama has yet to truly start negotiating on this. Last go around, the republicans compromised a bunch and Boehner and Reid were able to reach a deal. That deal fell through when Obama refused to compromise.
What about the deal that Obama and Boehner made which feel apart because Boehner's caucus wouldn't back him? Nice try.
@GO_Obama
Aparently you don't understand how negotiation and compromise works. You don't start with something that you know the other side sees as a non starter, which is exactly what obama has done.
Republicans put out a basic outline over two weeks ago. No increase in tax rates, no stimulus, no bailouts, no additional spending.
Comrade Obama counters with 1.6T in tax increases, 50 billion in stimulus, more bailouts, and more spending.
Who is the child again? Who really cares about our contries future when we are 16T in debt and he wants to spend MORE?
Obama is a 2nd grader....
Go-Obama is typical of the problem on both sides. They let ideology overrun basic common sense and prevent things from getting done.
@brendan-4, you must be high. You just said Obama put out a plan that the House would not accept and said that that is not how negotiation is done.
THEN you countered by saying the Republicans put out an outline two weeks ago that Obama said CLEARLY he would not accept.
So which is it? Did each side put out a real plan or is the House in second grade? :)
Common sense would be to forget the taxes and cuts and have some real stimulus.
More "shovel-ready" jobs ? Even Obama laughed about that but you libs swallowed it anyway !
@Brendan - You may have got all that but why has 60% of Americans polled said they're against increasing taxes and for cutting spending? What percentage of those who voted for Obama even knew (know) what is on the table? I'd say probably more than half. So why did he get so many votes? I'll leave that up to you to figure it out.
PutAmericaFirst . . .
WHAT????? Excuse me but who WON the election with the majority of electoral college votes?????
Oh right cuz the LAST thing that would boost a lagging economy is more jobs!
Sorry, Brendan, my prior comment was intended for Go_Obama and not you. Wish they had an edit button on here.
It depends on which polls you look at. I've seen polls where 2/3 of Americans want taxes increased on the wealthy. I am sure they will compromise because the country is split, but I am glad Obama isn't negotiating with himself any more and making Boehner sit at the table.
Obama has had 4 years to work on jobs ... the unemployment rate is the same as when he took office !
@Jim, when none of your proposals even get a real hearing in the Congress thanks to blockage, the four years doesn't get you much. God willing both sides come to the table and if they can't work a 50/50 deal maybe one side'll settle for a 60/40.
The House has passed quite a few bills to stimulate jobs development. They went to the Senate where Harry Reid has been sitting upon them ! Harry has his "butt-prints" all over them.
Besides, Obama had 2 years with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate ... so you are merely making EXCUSES for his failed leadership !
You mean the two years when the minority in the Senate sat on everything resembling a stimulus bill? Oh please.
The Dems controlled the Senate. If they had ANY leadership at all, and their legislation was worthy, then they surely could "buy" the vote of a RHINO or two for needed passage.
Obama was totally wrapped up in passing his health care legislation to actually focus, as promised, on jobs !
That makes no sense at all! The Republican minority has filibustered so much legislation this term that it broke all previous records for a "do nothing Congress". Everyone knows this. Harry Reid even threatened to change the rules just to put an end to this. And no one on either side EVER wants to eliminate the filibuster just in case they land in the minority again!
Jim - what the House has passed are bills to repeal Obamacare, to cut taxes on the wealthy and to make it harder to get an abortion. If you want to say those bills stimulate jobs development you can, but that doesn't make it true. The president has proposed several actual jobs bills that WOULD create jobs, but the House refused to pas them.
Go O, Its all how you ask the question. If you say - "do you think we should raise taxes on others or on you?", you shouldn't be too surprised that people will pick "others". That's kind of a set up question. Now if people vote to raise taxes on themselves - you've got yourself a mandate
Unconventional, both sides do that.....it's a split electorate but both the popular and electoral votes broke for Obama and he ran on these policies. That's the poll that counts.
Obama bought the union vote with the GM bailout.
Obama bought the Hispanic vote with his executive order not to deport many illegals.
Obama bought the "Stupid vote" with his continued vagueness about reducing any expenses.
Obama ran on a number of policies. To say any one gives him claim to a "mandate" when he only won by a few % points .... is entirely FOOLHARDY !
Other than whine, what do liberals do with their free time?
Republicans are screaming for spending cuts, and I agree, but they need to say exactly what they want to cut ! Military ? Medicare ? Medicaide ? Government Payroll ? Government Pensions and Benefits ? Come on, tell us exactly what you want to cut and lets do it ! You can't say " foreign aid" because that is a drop in the bucket and saves us more in military expenses than it costs ( ok, cut it anyway, but it does not solve the problem ). Medicaid, Medicare, the part of Social Security that was never funded ( prescription drugs and Disability payments ) , Military, and Government payroll and retirement benefits are the only items big enough that cuts will make any difference, but Republicans are afraid to mention any of those. Just be specific and name the cuts and the amounts.
Go_Obama - you are right. The President proposed more than 7 bills to increase jobs and the Republicans in Congress wouldn't let even one get to the floor for a vote. It was all part of their plan to make him a one-term President. The bills included proposals they were all for before the President proposed them - then they were against them.
They tabled one as late as October of this year. No pork was added to it - totally jobs but the Republicans blocked it.
It's time to go to a flat tax with a lifetime cap so that it can't be upped from time to time.We need the cap raised on Social Security and Medicare contributions.Lastly our government needs to stop spending money on non essentials like giving aid to other countries,giving grants to anybody no matter the reason,give only essential money to the states for infrastructure repairs and stop all of our elected government officials travels abroad including our president.They need to cut that budget to the bone and start living within our countries means.
Go Obama, Do you work for a living, or do you depend on the Government? It sounds like you are ready to freely spend other people's money. Why don't you throw some of your own into the pot.
Funny,
Being a liberal and a Democrat.
In my spare time; I buy really crappy houses cheap, fix then up and rent them.
Been doing that for 17 years...I'm 51 Work a full time job as an Engineer and every outstanding loan I have will be paid for by the time I'm 55.
Then I retire.
Live on my Rental Income
Then I build my dream boat sail away and drink beer all day....because at that point all my time will be spare time.
We still have the same problem. Our government is spending too much. Without serious cuts, all these tax increases are worthless and do virtually nothing to help.
The Libs are awfully quiet this time around as to who to blame for the debt the President-elect has inherited.
Joan .... this time around? Are you kidding me? I do believe we still have Bush's two little wars going on that are continuing to increase to the debt daily. Who do you suggest we blame those on?
Blame those on all who voted for them ... that would include a great number of Dems.
Well the Fiscal Cliff will give us the CUTS along with Increased Revenue..... That is the only way these CLOWNS are going to get anything done.....
Uh Oh. This still doesn't talk about the other 600 billion deficit that obama is running.
Hold onto your back pockets middle class, Obama is coming for you!!
brendan This doesn't talk about the other 600 billion defect that Obama is running.
brendan Why don't you tell us about the other defect? Some facts please. Like where is this 600 billion going.
Is this the President's secret or yours?
Agreed Brendan, the government is going to screw up our 401k's just like they did Social Security, borrowing against it losing out and then making my generation suffer for it. I've worked too damn hard to earn the little bit I have in my 401k's to have some idiot hell bent on Socialism screw me without the courtesy of a reach-around (not that I would want either). I say buy gold or diamonds, the only things of value these days, oh wait...the government is watching that too.
@Smitty
What about it? Defense, medicare, medicaid, social security, social spending, foreign aide... take your pick? What does that have to do with anything?
Simple fact is you can only spend more than you have for so long. Liberals seem to miss the fact that at some point you always run out of other peoples money.
brendan What about it?
You never answered my question. What is that other defect your talking about?
Defense medicare and the all the rest go in the same budget.
@Amy - Biden and the Dems voted aye on the resolution to enter Iraq and Afghanistan.
@smitty
you are making no sense. defect? where did i ever mention a defect? i mentioned a deficit, which everything i listed above contributes to.
brendan Post 7 go back and read it you wrote it. Here it is again. This doesn't talk the other 600 billion defect that Obama is running. My question was what's that other 600 billion defect? How many defects do we have? Just like a typical republican you can never admit anything.
Going over the fiscal cliff can't be worse than what the President is proposing. Pehaps if we do, evey one is on a level playing field to start over with a flat tax rate and spending cuts. We are a nation of ONE! Not rich vs. middle class vs poor. We either all sink or swim together.
Obama has had four years to work on this and hasn't done a thing. He wants to increase revenue without dealing with cost reductions. This is the same thing the Dems did with Reagan and guess what - after the tax increase was passed nothing was done on the cost side. Obama doesn't have a workable plan. 86 billion in addition taxes is not going to solve a trillion dollar deficit. His only hope is that we go over the cliff and then he can blame the Rep. while at the same time taking credit for decreasing the deficit.
skava, selective memory, there. During the Bush administrations, we engaged in two costly wars, which, at the very least, will increase our spending on veterans for years to come, not to mention enacting the drug prescription plan pushed to win votes from seniors.
But, you thought Obama should follow Bush with an austerity plan. During a recession. With two wars still on his plate. It's not like Obama inherited an orderly financial situation, then f'ed up. (Unlike what Bush inherited from Bill Clinton.)
Amy ignores that it was a bipartisan resolution to enter Iraq and Afghanistan under the UN guise.
But hey, when convenient, always blame the republicans.
Bu Amy, the guy who just got elected In Nov, 2012 has inherited a FAR WORSE MESS than the guy who got elected President in Nov, 2008 !
About this time a year or two ago, Obama said you should not raise taxes when our economy is struggling. The economy still sucks and unemployment is still high. So was he LYING THEN or is he LYING NOW ? Obama contradicting Obama always gets you libs busy with the spin machine !!!
brendan-4
yeah, those Democrats, doing the whole compromise thing-y instead of fighting with the President during a national crisis. What did they know?
jim-1455434
The economy is improving. I know you don't want to believe it, because Republicans hate good news, but we are far better off than we were in 2008.
Republicans LOVE good news .... that is why we were hoping for a new President, someone that would actually have a BUDGET, a PLAN, and a CLUE about how to turn our economy around !! Obama strikes out !!!
By the time Obama's second term is up, he will have DOUBLED the national debt of ALL HIS PREDECESSORS COMBINED !
Don't pass anything Obama wants unless there are massive spending cuts to go along with the tax increases, don't let Obama talk you into doing the tax increases now and the spending cuts later, the man lies like a rug and would never do the spending cuts.
President Obama has never lied. He ran on a platform of getting universal healthcare in 2008, and that is what the Democratic Congress did.
Obama ran for re-election on the proposal to raise taxes for the wealthiest, and he is following up on that promise.
Where are the lies, istsnotatax?
You are correct. He never lied when he promised that we wouldn't have 23 million Americans unemployed, that immigration reform would be legislated his first year, that Guantanimo would be closed, that terrorists would be tried in US Courts, that he would picket the streets with the unions, that we would all be better off now than we were then. He did keep his promise that everyone would be covered by healthcare, but he forgot to mention that healthcare professionals would leave the profession in droves, and that employer plans would drop many covered things, and that our health care would become like Europe - everyone covered but nothing provided.
oh my goodness, manny, the country must be falling apart after four years of Obama's policies, but, wait, what's this?
The economy is improving, consumer confidence is up, the wars are winding down, and Detroit is back! Maybe this Obama guy knows something about governing. Maybe we should listen to him.
You asked what Obama lied about, well manny gave you some examples.
@Amy B - The lie is he repeatedly said Obamacare is not a tax when the SCOTUS has declared it is. That socialist medicare bill is one of the biggest reasons we will be forever in debt and why January 2013 will see the most massive tax increase on taxpayers ever seen in the history of this nation. Then watch out when January 2014 rolls around - if we're not totally bankrupt by then. Oh, and don't forget the 10,000 new EPA regulations that are rolling out. That should be a barrel of fun once they're all enacted.
And don't forget that more than 23 million Americans are unemployed, that immigration reform is still unresolved by the Obama Administration, Guantanimo is open, that terrorists are not tried in US Courts, that he didn't picket the streets with the unions, we are in worse debt than ever every year and that health care professionals are leaving the profession in droves, and that employer plans are dropping coverages and raising premium due to Obamacare, and that more people have a desire to defect this country than at any time in US history. But I am glad that you offered no rebuttal to the many lies Obama has told. You will always be a good Democrat because you can change the subject faster Obama's teleprompters can.
manny-2297093
Let's not forget who opened Guantanimo, which party lost the support of Latinos in the 2012 election, which party blocked trying terrorists in US Courts (or housing them here,) and which candidate the National Association of Teachers endorsed.
answers: a)Bush b)Republicans c)Republicans and d) Obama.
There you go, changing the subject again. Can't you stay on point even for a second? Did Obama lie? We all know Bush did, but you said Obama never lied.
HE DID LIE>>> HE SAID HEATH CARE COSTS WOULD GO DOWN! MINE HAVE GONE UP 60%!
"Income tax rates just one piece of Obama proposal"
Government greed gone wild!
I'm so sick of the child tax credits. Sorry but if you wan't kids be prepared to pay for them. If anything we should be encouraging people not to have kids.
we already do, it's called abortion!
King,
Go watch "Children of Men". I thought like you. But I now think of it this way. The value of one human is limited. But what value has anything if we as a species couldn't reproduce. We wind down to extinction in about a hundred years, and there's no one left to watch infomercials.
Our ability to reproduce as a species and a society is worth every single thing of value ever made, and that ever will be made. Society exists ONLY to enable reproduction. That's why it developed. Without it, society does not exist.
If you chose not to reproduce, so be it. Society still needs you and everyone else in it to support some segment making the replacement models. And yes - you will pay - even if you don't chose to make any yourself - which is only sane from a biologic and societal basis. If you don't understand that 100% of everything - including the value of your very life - is to support other people having children and continuing our species, then you perhaps should reevaluate your sense if importance.
Not being mean. Just practical.
I see. Democrats want to tax and spend and the Republicans want to borrow and spend. I see a common thread, called irresponsibility. Neither side wants to fix the problem. And we keep voting them back to Washington to pad their own pocketbooks with free health care for life, insider trading without oversight, pensions worth many times what other Americans get, and lots of free trips and other perks no one talks about. What a system it is when we call this "serving our country".
like i continue to say...mcconnel and boehner and cantor need to step aside and let the liberal socialists run this country in the ground. the sooner its done the better. then we can hopefully pick up the pieces and rebuild what theyve destroyed. there is no stopping it so i say let the country get what we've unfortunately asked for. except this time maybe the blame will lay where it belongs....liberals doorstep
Wrong ......If you do not fight this administration tooth and nail every step of the way ....their will be nothing left to rebuild.....and Obama may just be our President(dictator) for the next 25 to 30 yrs.
weve already shown insurmountable ignorance as a country....do you honestly believe there is any stopping it??????????????? let it play out
Just let the cuts expire on everybody and then start from scratch. Why extend it piece-meal? If it's good enough to extend, do it. If it's not, don't. If you like some things but not others, then try to pass new legislation for what you like. If you can't get it done, that's politics.
You libs must have flunked 2nd grade math. The proposed tax increases to the 'rich' would only pay enough to run the government for 8 1/2 days. Obama insists that this tax increase to the rich is needed to pay down the deficit. 8 1/2 days! Let's face it, this ploy is not fiscal in nature, it's ideology. Take from the rich because they have the money. Spend the money that they give to continue social give-aways.
The fact that Obama also included his wish to raise the national debt limit without congressional approval is very telling. Oh yeah, congress with 2/3 vote can override his national debt moves if it see fit. Good luck w/2/3 of congress doing that! We condem Moresi of Egypt for his attempt at grabbing power? Yet Obama wants to be Pharoh of the USA!
Everybody knows that SPENDING is the 'elephant in the room' We can take all of the assets of the 'rich' and not put a dent in the deficit. If we did that, who would we take the money from then? Who would captain our economy without the 'rich'? Would low and middle class be able to make up the loss from the rich no longer being rich? NO WAY.
We need a flat tax. The low income spender would pay 15% and the higher incomes would pay 15%. Simple and fair. Only the truly indigent would reeive government assistance of any kind. Illegals would not get a cent. They are not incapable of work, they are instead, not paying federal income taxes and should not receive a dime unless and until they become citizens OR have a government issued work visa and W-2's that show that they pay income tax to the US Govt.
A flat tax as proposed isn't going to do anything but shift the tax burden back onto my kids and their families. I've offered Huckabee and Reagan all my kids tax returns so that they can show all America how much more sense the flat tax makes because it will lower the taxes of poorer Americans and raise the taxes of more wealthy Americans. They run from the challenge like spooked boars, because they know all too well that they are smoking some good stuff. But if puts a microphone at their lips and money in their pockets to lobby and chatter. I ask again, please take bunch of examples of real tax returns and work them out under your proposed 'fair tax' and show us the results. It doesn't do what you say it does for most average Americans, just the hand-picked ones.
Chuck
Great Post, Hard to understand but the liberals just don't get it. They run around saying pay your fair share while 50% of them pay nothing.
Great education or what?
I think the situation could begin to improve, only, and only if Congress completely curtails high deficit spending. We can no longer borrow our way out of this!
We need to also come to agreements!
I am getting tired of this; Liberals? It has been proven that Liberals pay more taxes and take less welfare and conservative pay less or no taxes and take more welfare.
Yes, people should pay their fair share. If the Bush tax cuts expire on the 31st, on January 1 all of our taxes go up. In a slowly recovering economy, this means that it will recover at a slower pace, if people do not have money to spend, but it will still recover and our deficit will be lowered substantially by more revenue coming in.
Where cuts need to be made in spending is to the discretionary spending in the military industrial sector. This money is going into the pockets of the defense industries corporations.
Your posts spouts two of the most common GOP Talking points.
Neither reflect the whole truth.
Yep ....just the tip of the iceberg ....the best is yet to come America. Just wait and see ....
Bring on the cliff !!! And let's ALL go over !!!
Yep, that's right you morons that voted this guy into office can expect YOUR taxes to go up by thousands of dollars. And guess what ? That's exactly what your friend in the oval office knew would happen so now he CAN raise YOUR taxes AND blame the Republicans at the same time. Pretty convenient huh ? ;-)
He is the most divisive president I've ever seen in my lifetime. Pitting one class of Americans against another class for political gain.
the right-wing whacknuts have always lived in an alternate universe. You accuse the left of being "tax and spend" when the right are "borrow and spend" and act like drunken sailors in a tittie bar the way they spend irresponsibly attempt to run govt. Spending is just fine when they are in power but when they get booted out they act like they're the disciples of responsibility. What a joke.
The President has given his plan. If the house whacknuts don't like it, then make a counter-proposal. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. And over the last 4 years they've been a huge problem. The right-wing party of irresponsibility.
As President of the United States, his DEFINED JOB is to see the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court are CARRIED OUT !! Nowhere, does the Constitution give our President the right to MANDATE what HE thinks the laws must be !
Obama has already violated his oath of office and refused to uphold duly-passed legislation he did not personally like ! Obama is power crazy.
And the republicans claim that we're being burdened by high taxes? Really????
The relatively low tax burden on Americans is, in part, an illusion that results from heavy reliance on hundreds of billions of dollars of so-called “tax expenditures.” To make government spending appear lower than it really is, the U.S. tax code is larded with givebacks, deductions and exemptions.
For example, the government lets you off the hook for paying taxes on the cash your employer pays to cover your health insurance coverage - income by another name. The cost of those uncollected taxes would show up as spending if the Treasury paid you a direct subsidy for health care. (That tax break, by the way, is the biggest single giveaway the government provides.)
Or take the earned income tax credit, which issues payments to low-income households. This giveback costs the Treasury just as much as if it collected the money from all taxpayers and then turned around and used it to write checks for those with the lowest wages.
“It doesn’t really make much difference whether the government taxes people - and spends the money in order to redirect it - or whether it gives a tax incentive that encourages people to spend their own money in the same way,” said Bruce Bartlett, who served as a Reagan administration policy adviser and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush. “Economically, it's exactly the same thing.”
oh, the blame is on the liberals doorstep? That's the thanks we get for keeping the country from going into a Depression following the financial crisis of 2007. That's the thanks we get for winding down the Iraq War, responsibly. That's the thanks we get for improving America's reputation across the globe. That's the thanks we get for doing something about the huge number of Americans without health insurance.
Be careful, socialism sux, or calling Democrats socialists might give socialism a good name.
no danger of that...lololol no doubt republicans have done plenty of damage to the economy. however king hussein wants an unlimited debt ceiling...why would we need that if spending and the deficit will be brought under control? tax and spend.....get used to it amy. 20 trillion in debt is coming but hey look at the bright side...all the illegals and dead beats will be living well
Amy, Have you ever used your education to investigate healthcare in Canada and Europe? If you did you might see startling numbers of people who die on waiting lists for needed healthcare, or those who come to the United States to get needed treatment, because they don't have the health care professionals to handle the healthcare needs. Have you ever taken a look at the numbers of doctors and nurses who are leaving the US healthcare profession because of Obamacare? It's one thing to brag about the 30 million more Americans covered by healthcare, but it's another thing to talk about the eventuality that Obamacare brings - everyone is covered, but nobody can get treatment. Please share your Obama-provided answers to that. I smell another change of subject coming!
manny ....
You really shouldn't make things up ...
Read up ....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/
and get back to us when you have.
add to that the cost increases imposed by EVERY single business affected by obummercare. do you think theyll absorb the costs or pass it on to john q american? think theyll ask at the checkout counter how much you made last year? poor ....middle class..2%ers ....every single person in this country is about to get hammered in every single thing we purchase
I'm not making things up. I know dozens of Canadians living and working here in the US because they couldn't get health care in Canada for their families, due to the lack of professionals and the demands made on the system due to the 'free' healthcare and coverage. And a friend of mine recently died after 3 years on the list for the transplant - in Canada. I don't need to read an article to know real people and real circumstances. The article speaks of 'benchmarks'. If everyone is covered and everyone gets treated timely, why is the word 'benchmarks' used instead of facts and figures? Supply and demand of the free enterprise system can be compared favorably to socialism any day.
The U.S. federal tax burden, relative to gross domestic product, is lower than it's been in half a century. Americans pay lower taxes in relation to the size of their economy than all but a handful of developed countries, including Chile and Mexico.
As a percentage of their total income, though, Americans are paying less than they have in more than a half century. Since 1960, the government's total take has been remarkably steady at about 18.3 percent of gross domestic product, give or take a percentage point.
And the repulbicans want us to believe that by raising the rates by a few percentage points on the highest earning 2%-ers the economy will implode? Give me a break!
Out ! Out !! Go away advertiser !!
Jack B. When you quote an article,it si usually a good policy to note where the article is found.
well tell us what that $43 billion a year in increased taxes on the rich is going to buy us, or cost us Jack! How is that going to effect the trillion dollar deficits we run? It sure made good divisive politics. Pitting one group against another. Ask 52 wolves and 48 sheep what's for dinner, and Lamb chops will win every time. Ask people who to tax, and it's anyone that makes more than them.
All exit interviews during the election and polls prior to the election have shown that a significant majority of the American people (including Republican voters) favor increasing taxes on the super rich, whose tax rates are at 60 year lows now. Polls taken this week by ABC News also show that a significant majority of voters favor increasing taxes on the wealthy. All polls and exit interviews show the American people favor keeping the Bush tax cuts in place for the 98% of Americans.
Furthermore, the vast majority of economists note that raising taxes slightly on the wealthy, especially during a recessionary period, will have virtually no effect on job creation. On the other hand, tax cuts for the middle class and below will have an immediate effect on job creation because the money will be immediately spent.
My hope is that Republican members of Congress who are being held hostage by Grover Norquist’s anachronistic anti-tax pledge will do what’s right for the country and abandon this pledge as many Republican congressmen have already done.
We need Congress to quickly extend the tax cuts for 98% of Americans so the middle class isn’t hit with a tax hike, and to leave our crucial safety-net programs intact.
I would NOT call someone 'super rich' who makes around 150/250k a year and lives in a high cost of living area like CA or NY.
People that are TRULY wealthy are making 1 million plus after-tax a year, not 150/250k BEFORE tax.
Of course the "majority" favors raising taxes on a "minority" of the population as long as it's not
their taxes that are going up !
The FAIR thing to do is raise taxes on EVERYONE AND cut govt spending.
Do I agree that people making millions, perhaps billions, should pay more taxes? Sure. However, I doubt a couple living in CA or NYC making $250,000 would consider themselves "super-rich".
Half a trillion here, half a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money!!
wait til interest rates go up then we will see real money....the debt will balloon beyond rreason. 430 billion wont cover the interest on 16 trillion
I'm sorry, if that were not so ignorant it would be funny. That's $430 billion over $10 years, not one. One year we take in an extra $43 billion dollars on these trillion dollar plus deficits. And the kicker - The President proposed new spending.
What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin. ~Mark Twain
And "Who" exactly does President Obama think is going to pay this "Extra Income Tax"?
We do not need more taxes. What we need a "Much Smaller Federal / State / Local Government" an end to the War On America (oops Terror) and No More Federal Reserve Bailouts.....As is when you count all of the "Hidden" Taxes (like Accumulated Taxes on Necessities & Endless Inflation) we are the Highest Taxed Country on Earth and get the least benefits of any civilized country in the world for our money! Maybe the Citizens of ZIMBABWE pay more Taxes than US...But I doubt it!
As an example a loaf of bread cost $0.33 to raise. The farmer pays 33% in Taxes adds a 10% profit and passes it on, the Miller pays 33% in Taxes adds a 10% Profit and passes it on, the Baker pays 33% in Taxes adds a 10% Profit and passes it on, the Distributor pays 33% in Taxes adds a 10% Profit and passes it on, the Grocer pays 33% in Taxes adds a 10% Profit and passes it on.
Next when we buy our daily "Bread" the Government adds an additional 9% sales tax and that is how we end up paying $2.00 or more for a Loaf of Bread that costs $0.33 and the 2% who own all of this process will just "Tack" Obama's extra "Income Tax" on to US too!
The "Poor" of Amerika pay ALL of these "Taxes" everyday!
If President Obama wants more money, let Bailout Barry Lay-off 33% of the Federal Employee's, Release all Marijuana Prisoners from Federal Prison, stop Bernanke and the Federal Reserve from printing all of the money Wall Street wants to steal, and bring Our Troops Home TODAY!
Then Bumbling Barry will have all of the "Money" he could possibly need for the Democrats and their Special "Obama Phone" and "Not War" Projects"....Otherwise please do not have our Masters on Wall Streets Corporate Mouth Pieces tell US how "Lazy & Stingy" we are and how "Lucky" we've got it in your NEO Amerika!
Impeach Obama in 2012 for the Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up Murder, Secret CIA Prisons, and aid to Al Qaeda in Benghazi-Gate!
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ~Thomas Jefferson
Nature, through evolution and natural selection, created us all unequal--with different gifts, yes but unequal.
Let see, they want to go back to the Clinton tax rate for the wealthy, anyone >$250K..ha..ha and get this, the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. If things were so good in the Clinton years, why not go back to his tax rates for all!!
Actually RickPerry, that is Obama's plan ... he has no intention of extending the Bush Tax CUts to the middle class. But Obama has already increased taxes on the wealthy AND the middle and lower classes through Obamacare.
whats going to be interesting is when we go over the fiscal cliff and all the tax rates climb.....and we still have deficit spending...will that finally wake people up to the ignorance of socialist liberalism? somehow i doubt this country is smart enough as a whole to see that. we will probably elect billary clinton next to further destroy our economy
Billery (hitlery) Clinton could be the Democrat choice, but there's also the possibility of that fat-bottomed Moochie will run too.
BJ had the Internet bubble that gave him his one-shot "surplus".