E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSReuters: “A White House report says that if that Congress allows taxes to go up on middle-class families, consumers will spend $200 billion less in 2013.”
USA Today: “President Obama's economic team is combining Cyber Monday and the Christmas shopping season with a warning about the perils of the fiscal cliff. A report released Monday details what the White House calls ‘the impact to retailers and consumer spending if Congress fails to act to avoid taxes going up on 98 percent of Americans at the end of the year.’”
Mother Jones’ Corn argues that the notion that Obama “caved in” on the Bush tax cuts in 2010 is a myth. “Obama didn't wave the white flag in 2010. He turned a face-off over the Bush tax cuts into an opportunity to enact a second stimulus that he otherwise could not get past Senate Republicans. His failure at that time was not that he mustered insufficient mettle; he failed to convey to the world that he had ju-jitsued the GOPers.”
“After two decades in which gay rights moved from the margin to capture the support of most Americans, the Supreme Court justices will go behind closed doors this week to decide whether now is the time to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry,” the L.A. Times reports.
“The Obama administration faces major logistical and financial challenges in creating health insurance exchanges for states that have declined to set up their own systems,” The Hill writes, adding, “Sixteen states — most of them governed by Republicans — have said they will not set up their own systems, forcing the federal government to come up with one instead. Another five states said they want a federal-state partnership, while four others are considering partnerships. It's a situation no one anticipated when the Affordable Care Act was written. The law assumed states would create and operate their own exchanges, and set aside billions in grants for that purpose.”
“Vice President Biden took a swim in the frigid waters off Nantucket on Thursday as part of a fundraiser for the island's public library for children,” The Hill writes. “Biden, who turned 70 on Tuesday, was in Nantucket to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with his family. It is the vice president's 36th Thanksgiving on the island, according to the Boston Herald, and the 11th year for the Cold Turkey Plunge fundraiser.”
“Responding to violent protests over the last four days, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi insisted that he assumed control of the judiciary to stabilize the country – not to concentrate power,” per NBCNews.com. Protesters say that Morsi, who became the country’s first democratically-elected president on June 30, issued a decree of near-total executive power to elevate himself to Pharaoh-like status. They also worry that Morsi and his supporters will draft a constitution that will put Egypt on track to becoming like Turkey or religiously conservative Iran. Morsi’s supporters say his control of the courts is temporary – a necessary move, they say, because the courts are governed by former President Hosni Mubarak appointees who have blocked the country's transition to democracy.”
Leave a Comment:
Good point, Mr. President. The only problem I have with that is allowing taxes to go up is just as bipartisan as keeping them low. Putting the blame on congress for not passing a bill to keep taxes low, when it is in your power to pass a bill with House Republicans by not raising taxes on the rich, makes the blame for taxes going up spread pretty evenly between you and Congress. On the issue of taxes, Mr. President, I'd say you're a little unequally yolked.
Hey Todd,
Do yourself a favor and read the U.S. Constitution.
From Article 1, Section 7:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
@Todd-#'s:
I may have misunderstood your posting, but your assessment that "...it is in your power to pass a bill with House Republicans by not raising taxes on the rich..." is simply untrue. The President of the United States cannot pass any legislation, but only sign into law legislation that has been promulgated by Congress (meaning both the House and Senate).
With regard to our level of taxation our nation currently has the lowest level of taxation since the 1920's and while it is true that the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the federal taxes collected right now the reason why this is so lies in the very same tax law structure that provides those wealthy Americans with their loop holes, deductions, write-offs, and credits. Deductions like the EIC (Earned Income Child Credit) and AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) were put into place to provide relief to middle and low-income wage earners. And lest we forget, that when Congress eliminated the credit card interest deduction it disproportionately affected the lower- and middle-class tax payer.
Unequally yoked? I agree but only with respect to what taxes/deductions upper income tax filers are able to access versus the taxes/deductions that middle- and lower-income tax filers get in proportion to what they make.
I think you misread Todd's intent here, I think he was saying that congress would more readily accept and pass a bill that contained no tax raises on the rich. Personally I believe its time for the republicans to kiss the presidents azz a bit and pass a tax raise on the rich and if they don't, I think the president should stand his ground and let the sequestered tax raises on everybody happen. While it may slow down the economy I doubt it will. We are talking in the neighborhood of 3%, and actually the cuts to programs will offer more pain. However, we do need to make some cuts especially to the over bloated military who eats up a disproportionate amount of the GNP. Bottom line it is time for Americans to sacrifice and pay for the Republican trickle down economics that has never worked. Never.
Take back the veto treat and extend the cuts then, Obama.
Veto any bill that does not raise taxes on the under taxed rich. Do extend the tax cuts for 98% of the people.
This article rambles about 5 completely different things, and should be titled current events from a bias perspective. I'm not Democrat, independent, or republican, so I can see right through this stuff. Why is Obama worried about spending money? Oh, because our defunct FED levers still go by Keynesian economics, which refuse to let us save money or build interest on letting money sit in our bank. Which continues to kill the middle class whose incomes are taxed the most. Obama didn't cave, or save his fight, he compromised and did another stimulus, he has a long history of investing money in unworthy companies, like that solar one months after he took office with your half a billion dollars. Remind you of TARP all over again? Bad capitalistic (greedy) habits getting socialistic (government) support leads us to our future. Joe Biden got the balls to say 'Gay Marriage' in front of the public, and the numb public finally reacts positively like moral humans should, and suddenly everyone thinks Obama's always been for it now. He couldn't even mumble the words Gay Marriage 2 years ago, I watched him try.
Hater
OK Zack4Sense, don't come here and claim you are not a republican (which you are) or an independent or a Democrat. Liars get no respect on FR.
If we do go Off the cliff...the GOP/Teas will be held responsible. Not in their best interests
The Tea Party promised to cut, cut, cut and no tax increases.
Now that the rest of the GOP has discovered that if there are cuts, the people who give them
bribeselection support don't want their gravy trains derailed.Many of the cuts that are scheduled to take place directly affect the incomes of their idiot constituants, so most Republican congressmen are getting very worried.
It seems most people just don't get this issue of "Taxing the rich". First, you need to understand that all the members of the federal government, President included, make up a healthy portion of the rich. Does anybody in their right mind think that Congress and the President are really going to raise their own taxes? Second, SayitaintSo-628660 has an excellent point. It's not that the "Rich" are not being fairly taxed, or not paying their fair share. It's the system of taxation that has so many loop holes that the wealthy can use. And, even if you increase taxes and remove those loopholes on the wealthy, about half of the real wealthy (according to estimates from the CBO) are set up tax free to start. How do you increase taxes on someone who doesn't pay them to start with?
This isn't the answer. The answer is real simple, but will NEVER be implemented by the federal government. A flat rate tax system. Simple, easy, no confusion, no 5 different answers from 5 different IRS offices on the same question. You make so much money, you pay so much tax, period. No deductions, no loopholes, no nothing else. Make this much, pay this much. Unfortunately, like I already said the federal government will NEVER institute it. It's easier for them to be tax free and nickle and dime you to death when you can never understand what the system really is, and by the way neither does the IRS (5 different answers from 5 different offices on the same question).
The flat rate tax is not fair. The only fair tax is the progressive income tax, it taxes those the most that can spare the most. The flat tax unfairly targets the low wage earner unfairly.
Flat tax seems like a good idea on the surface but unless the tax rate is different for different levels of income the flat tax system will benefit the wealthy at the expense of those of lower and middle classes. Here's how... For convenience and ease let us say the tax rate is 10% of all income. Take a single mother rearing a couple of kids and she makes 36K a year. She may get some public assistance is working and may be going to school part time. Her tax burden would be 3600 a year dropping her actual income to 32400 with which she must feed, house and clothe herself and her children. Now lets take a look at a millionaire. He makes 36million dollars a year and pays 3,600,000 in taxes. Does he have a problem with food, shelter, clothing, transportation costs? Hardly! Do you think he can live on 32 million 400 thousand dollars? The former barely ekes out a living while the latter can still live high on the hog.
The problem with the flat tax system, or any system, continues to be " What is taxable income ?"
People like Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers and others do not simply pay a low rate on their income, on some of it they pay NO TAX AT ALL. Its not that the rate is low (it is) it is that the law allows them to avoid paying any tax at all. There should be no avoidance by having your income off shore. Tax all income, wherever it is located. If you are a US Citizen, a resident of the US, or your income is derived in the US, you pay US taxes. The IRS can certainly locate assets to take if you chose not to pay your taxes.
personally, all taxes should go back. social security , medicare and medicade should be strenghthen and caps should be raised. laws giving corps write offs for shipping companies and jobs should be repealed. stimulous monies should be appropriated to put public workers back to work and a massive infastruture replacement innitiated immediately. oil subsidies should be given to new energy and the commodity trading for fuels should return to the rules before bush era. this alone would drive down commodity cost, placing a large savings into every americans pocket. seniors as well as low income people would havea greater spending and the american middle class would be restored and the american economy would be thriving.