E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter a weekend that generated skepticism about a possible deal to avert the 'fiscal cliff,' House Republicans presented a plan that includes $800 billion in new taxes, which is half of what the White House asked for. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Updated 4:50 p.m. ET -- Republicans offered up their own proposal to avert the impending “fiscal cliff” on Monday amid Democratic demands that the GOP match the Obama administration’s plan with one of their own.
In a letter to President Barack Obama, House Republican leaders outlined the contours of a deal they said would achieve a net savings of $2.2 trillion. The plan, which is based on fiscal commission Democratic co-chairman Erskine Bowles’s proposal to the super committee, would achieve these savings through revenue from tax reforms, health savings and discretionary spending cuts.
Recommended: Income tax rates just one piece of Obama proposal
"Going over the cliff will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country. It’s one of the reasons the day after the election I offered a concession to try and speed this process up. Unfortunately, the White House responded with their ‘La-La-Land’ offer that couldn't pass the House or Senate and was basically the president’s budget from last February," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill at a briefing detailing the plan.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Speaker John Boehner speaks during a news conference, Nov. 30, 2012, on Capitol Hill.
"We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that. What we’re putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way," the Ohio Republican added.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the plan "does not meet the test of balance."
"Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve," he said. "While the president is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates ... Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs."
The counter-offer coincides with Democratic demands that Republicans produce their own proposal to match the deal offered last week by the administration. That plan, presented to Republicans by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, called for $1.6 trillion in new revenues, savings from entitlement programs and new spending on unemployment insurance and investment projects. GOP leaders rejected the plan out-of-hand.
Still, the GOP proposal on Monday appears to move no further toward compromise on Obama’s central demand that tax rates be allowed to increase on the wealthiest Americans. While Republicans have agreed in principle that richer Americans can shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, they insist this must be achieved through ending loopholes and deductions, rather than raising rates.
The Republican plan, which is also backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., achieves its $2.2 trillion in several steps.
rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., talks about the key points in President Barack Obama's fiscal cliff negotiation that are making Republicans wary.
As Republicans put it, they would raise $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, $600 billion in health savings, $200 billion from changes to the Consumer Price Index, $300 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $300 billion in savings in mandatory spending. Many of the health savings track closely with the changes to Medicare first proposed in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets.
Republicans say the plan, using the Obama administration’s math, would achieve $4.6 trillion in savings.
It’s unclear, though, whether the Republican plan would move toward ending the stalemate around the fiscal cliff negotiations, with less than a month remaining until the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to snap into place on Jan. 1.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pummeled his GOP colleagues earlier Monday afternoon, arguing that their failure to produce a counter-offer would only exacerbate the situation.
The new GOP plan reflects the posturing that has come to characterize these negotiations, separated just a month from an election which awarded Obama a second term and which kept Republicans in control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate.
Also on Monday, the president continued his messaging offensive on Monday with a glossy campaign-style video highlighting the cost to families if the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of this month. (Obama has argued they should be extended for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of U.S. households.)
Benjamin Myers / Reuters
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrives at Capitol Building before a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 2012.
The president also took to Twitter to make the case for his own plan, answering questioners who used the informal 140-character medium to ask about the fiscal cliff negotiations.
Asked by one participant why he insists on increasing rates on the top 2 percent of earners rather than limiting deductions in order to raise revenues, the president replied that capping deductions alone would not raise adequate revenue.
"Not enough revenue, unless you end charitable deductions, etc. [L]ess revenue=more cuts in education," he wrote.
The president also dismissed the GOP notion that lower taxes for the very wealthy have a trickle-down effect in terms of new hires and a larger tax pool. "High end tax cuts do least for economic growth & cost almost $1T," he wrote. "Extending middle class cuts boosts consumer demand & growth"
Obama also argued that his administration cut spending by $1 trillion last year and that he is open to further "smart cuts" as long as they don't affect education or job growth.
NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Republicans were liberal until the railroad and oil barrons decided they wanted it all. They want to own America. things havent changed much since then.
What baffles me is the support the ultra wealthy get from those whom the ultra wealthy receives their wealth. The wealthy are quite contemptuous of those less fortunate than they. Yet, we see posters here that insist the wealthy should have even more at the expense of the middle class and poor. WTF?
Wel said and so sad.
So now we're stereotyping wealthy people? That's narrow minded. I know lots of wealthy people and they are not contemptuous at all. The ones I know are very down to earth people who got educated and worked hard to build their wealth. You should get out more, and spend less time on liberally bias media outlets.
And the ones that I know that would approach being in the Top 2% are extremely giving. One that I know would tithe to his church plus has 19 other charities that he supports.
That does not describe one that I know personally. Quite the opposite. How many do you know? Is this an assumption or do you have personal experience?
We have a entitlement spending problem. If Obama wants 1.6 trillion in new revenues, then 1.6 trillion in deficit spending cuts over the next 10 years should be on the table.
He wants 50 billion in additional spending, he wants no congressional oversight to the debt ceiling? Why? Why does he want these things when we're 16trillion in debt?
I quite agree. An entitlements program that awards the wealthy individuals and corporations.
Because Obama is an arrogant PRICK who is bent on transferring wealth instead of allowing America to function under our Constitution.
Becsue the wealthy have the money, wallstreet screwed America, The 6 top banks own 73% of all wealth. The rich steal from the midlle class, pay hardly any taxes by income. The list goes on and on.
I guess you can agree jcc, but that is factually incorrect.
Auster - Do you really believe that? really? Come on man, either you don't get out enough or you have been brainwashed by spending too much time on MSNBC, or there is an element of jealousy here. Steal from middle class and pay no taxes, lol?? Really? You seem quite polarized.
Auster - So according to your sentiment, all wealthy people are republicans and the democrats are not wealthy and they do not have wealthy friends, and they're not elitists? C'mon man...that's reality whether you believe it or not.
How? What are you talking about?
The rich steal from the middle class??
How about making employees work the job of two or more employees for low wages under the threat of being fired because they are easily replaced?
lol David, come on man. You're doing yourself no justice. Be happy you have a job and quit complaining, that is assuming you have a job of course. There are a lot of unemployed people out there who would gladly do the job of two people. I would do the job of two just to show my employer how valuable I am.
Actually I am a veteran who is about to graduate with a degree in biology. Currently looking but thanks for your concern.
Other than that thanks for the BS response. It's the typical RW nonsense I have come to expect. Just be happy that you have a job? I bet that sentiment has been uttered many times throughout history when someone was being taken advantage of but it's sad that it still exists today. Just shows how far back some of us have gone.
David....How is that stealing? If you are worth more, go get a job being paid more. If you still are not happy, then start your own company and start hiring people. It is your choice. You don't have to take what they pay you.
Exactly. If you are worth more - adding more value - change jobs.
RP and PAF
You two have a completely unrealistic view of the world around you. For most people such choices are not real.
Yeah joe doesn't like working in a factory slaving away so he will become a doctor tomorrow so he can earn more money. It's not like you need any real training or anything. Oh or perhaps he will start his own business even though he doesn't have access to the startup captial necessary he is certain everything will work out fine. LOL
That is how ridiculous you two look right now. LOL
You need a basic economics 101. A transaction where a consumer trades $10 for an item from a seller means the buyer feels they are getting more than $10 of value in return. If not, they don't buy. EVERY sale is like that. So, billionaire Bill Gates EARNED every dollar - one dollar at a time. If he earned $500 billion, that means, people thought he added more than $500 billion to society or they would not have bought his product.
Same with your job. You are being paid what you are worth. The job market is an auction over time. At an auction, if there are lots of lamps and few buyers for lamps, the price of lamps will be lower. If there are few chairs and lots of buyers for chairs, the price for chairs will be higher.
Through education, skill development, geographic relocation, etc - you have to find a place in the job market where your perceived value is higher - if you expect to be paid more. You can remains an angry victim your entire life or you can accept this simple truth and get moving.
Finally in the last paragraph you catch on but I still feel as though based on the drivel that came before it you are still confused.
Nice sentiment but training, skill develop, etc. take time and money that most people don't have access to. They have to work to live and training/education is not cheap and is very time consuming.
Not everyone can just get up and move to a better geographic location.
This is part of why your view of the world is completely unrealistic.
P.S. I find it funny coming from a hack who describes the wealthy as victims would try to project that status onto others. LOL
Be especially aware of the few greedy individuals that would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nest. FDR
Who exactly is trying to clip any wings?
What I see are good people trying to make entitlement programs sustainable and trying to get us headed toward a balanced budget without killing a weak recovery.
Obama and the leftist army have no intention of compromising. They want to railroad a 1-sided agenda at all costs.
If Boehner is smart he should get the House to pass a 10% cut in all tax rates below $200k/$250k (from current Bush levels) and leave the $200K/$250K at Bush levels. Then he should pass a spending cut on discretionary spending that is 2.5x the amount of the tax cut he just gave the middle class and the poor. Nothing more.
I dare Reid or Obama to reject it.
You right wingers act as if Obama campaigned to not raise taxes. He told you exactly what he was going to do and 5 million more Americans voted for him over his opponent who said he would cut taxes if elected. What is it about this you don't seem to comprehend?
You can't be serious! The RepubliCON offer is the EXACT same RoMany plan, "pass our plan and "ThEN"we'll tell you what it is", that was rejected when he was DEFEATED by the President.
JCC - And nearly half voted against him.
And right now 67% of AmeriCANs are for the Presidents plan and AGAINST the RepubliCON planl.
Funny "RP" but as we write the National Debt is going down the economy is recovering and ALL AmeriCANs "ARE" better off than they were four years ago ... FAR BETTER OFF!
And all Bonner and the RepubliCONs offer is the same Myth RomMany economics that were rejected when The President was re-elected!
Looking back over the last 30 years our national debt has increased exponetially faster under RepubliCON administrations than Democratic ones. And Twice as many jobs were created under Democratic Administrations than RepubliCON ones with less years in office.
If RepubliCONs don't relent they will become extinct.
No, Obama campaigned on raising taxes on 250K+. He never said we would raise the captital gains tax to 25%, he never said he was going to raise dividend taxes, he never told us about all of the tax increases rolled into Obamacare. He never campaigned on attempting to stop congressional debt ceiling oversight.
Hey Stuped - Debt is not going down, and the economy is stagnate at 0% growth with all things considered.
RP
Nearly half means that you are still in the minority and your guy LOST. It's time to accept it and move on.
Alabama is going to the title game no matter how close UGA got they still lost. Arguing that you were close is just sad.
We have accepted Obama won, but this isn't about the election results. Obviously you're still blindly revelling, while Obama is still over spending, and asking for a blank check. It seems you don't have much experience winning because you don't do it very well.
All but eight (short coattails) of the GOP House members are returning. Their constituents sent them back telling them to hold the line on taxes and to cut spending. How is that less valid in your view than Obama winning the WH. Most of these GOP Reps won with a higher percentage than Obama.
RP
Gerrymandering saved them but overall republicans lost seats and would have lost more if not for redistricting.
How is it less valid? Based on the republican argument from 2010 that elections have consequences. They won ONE house of congress and believed they had a mandate.
This time around they lost seats in BOTH houses and failed to win the whitehouse in what should have been a cake walk based on the economy.
The majority of the American voters rejected republican ideas.
Hey CVP you rail against Obama but you do realize that even if the ryan budget plan were passed we would still be engaging in deficit spending right now and continue to do so until 2040?
You try to define me as a sore winner but it's republicans who are sore losers. They lose and still try to get their way by declaring the moral victory of maintaining control of the gerrymandered HoR. LOL
David - The only thing that you can claim is that Obama is a very popular President that won by a slim majority. I know you want to claim more but you can't rationally stretch his slim win into a mandate. Nearly half the voters voted against him. At the local level, constituents sent people back to the House from their respective districts with records of standing for lower taxes & spending cuts.
RP
republicans won ONLY the house in 2010 and claimed they had a mandate. So why doesn't the fact that Obama was handily re-elected with an economy that should have made it a cakewalk for republicans give him a mandate?
Republicans lost seats in BOTH houses and are NOW acting as if they have a mandate.
I know these FACTS frighten and confuse you but there is little to do about it but accept them
Democrat plan Republican plan, all I know is they better stop playing games with the American people's future..
In a vain attempt to appear relevant and knowledgeble the Republicans have - once again - advanced a plan filled with vague rhetoric and the general framework of all-for-the-rich and take it from the middle class.
Who is taking anything from the middle class? OR are you just spreading left propaganda?
CVP the RepubliCONs are still offering vauge "potential" tax revenue by "closing (undefined) loopholes. But want any bennifits the Middle Class derives and leave open tax increases on the 98%.
Robin Hood in reverse, Obamas grass roots is still out there itching to oust the obstructionist RepubliCONs.
"Entitlelments" usually means Social Security, MediCare, Medicaid and other programs aimed at - and paid for - by the middle class which the Republicans want to cut so they can not only continue to enjoy historically low tax rates for themselves and their wealthy friends but continue to lower the taxes they pay. Sounds like YOU are the one listening to Flush Limbaugh and the Republican Propaganda Machine.
Well, since that is all the democrats did during the entire campaign why should the republicans offer anything of value. Democrats continue to avoid the issues and problems with our nation. They do nothing for the middle class.
Time for Truth isn't intelligent enough to know the difference between fact and fiction. That is why most of the posts he spreads a lies.
I don't care if they do, the RepubliCONs will be un-elected come 2014.
I got an idea. We kill em all.
Isn't that what people do when there is no compromise?
No, that's not what people do when there is no compromise. We vote out the obstructionist RepubliCONs in 2014. That's how AmeriCANs do it.
Why not vote out the obstructionist democrats? They have no interest in getting things done for the American people.
If you equate American people to the 1%.
Democrats are protecting the interests of the 100% not the 1%
The grand scale BS has been going on for 12 years. How come the obstuctionists are still obstructing? Should we wait two more years beyond the fiscal cliff to act? Don't take me wrong but an army of people like you is the reason why things are the way they are.
You get raped, you call on the justice system.
I get raped, I grab my shotgun.
Good luck to you all,
We didn't get in the position we are in from policies of just the last four years. Since Reagan lowered taxes we have been the lowest taxed citizens among the world's industrialized nations, yet we spend more on military spending than the next 17 nations combined. The right wing thinks taxes should be lowered even farther and military spending should be increased. That's f'ing insanity.
That isn't true. Don't be so foolish.
What part of what I posted do claim to be not true?
Since Reagan lowered taxes. When Reagan lowered tax rates, he cut loopholes. We paid the same. The effective rate stayed the same.
PAF that is Horse Sh!t. Since Reagan and voodoo economics the wealthy have gained an ever increasing controll over available wealth. Some say it's gone form 40 to 80%, some 30 to 60 ... whatever. Since Reagan the wealthy are wealthier, the middle class has shrunk and the poor have increased.
Stupe.....look it up. It is widely accepted fact. Yes, the rich have been getting richer, but maybe it wasn't from the tax rates. Have you ever considered the other possibilities?
If cutting taxes is so good for the economy, then why not double taxes on all people? That would really make the economy grow. Right?
Wrong, raising taxes on the Middle Class and Poor shuts down the economy because the are the ones that buy Stuff. The wealthy, while they buy expensive stuff, don't have the puchasing power of the Middle Class and Poor. A Strong Middle Class made These United States great.
The wealthy, before Reagan, paid more than 70% on income over 3 million dollars. Now they pay less than 30% and that savings, for the most part, is kept in Tax Free off shore accounts where they do no one but the wealthy any good.
I agree that a strong middle class made America great, but raising taxes does nothing to help the middle class. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Most of the savings is not kept in tax free off shore accounts. The rich never paid 70% (that was the rate, but they never paid it). Get educated on this. Do a little research. What you say isn't anywhere close to accurate. Besides....if the wealthy keep money in off shore accounts now, why wouldn't it get worse if we raise taxes? Use you head.
Yes I actually do know what I am talking about. Milton Freedman Economics is ruining this country at an ever increasing rate. It's your blind Neo-Con view that is lacking in knowlege.
My son IS an economist and will tell you that lowering taxes on the Rich does NOT create jobs. Many studies have proven that.
And I agree we need to re-regulate money, to pre Reagn rules, so that it can NOT be offshored.
Why is math such a challenge to democrats? Why are so many on here blind the massive problems facing our entitlement programs? I would think that they would be interested in saving them, not letting them fail. Unfortunately, they are like ostriches and put their head in the ground to ignore the problems.
Especially with Dali-Bama's continued stimulus spending, and his attempt to block congressional oversight of the debt ceiling. The senate democrat's proposal not only exacerbates the spending problem and fed debt, but it also does not have one meaningful solution to solve the core problem. REFORM!!!! We are in this position because our entitlement programs are BROKEN. Its not rich people folks. Its goverment programs that are terribly inefficient, bloated, and broken, and some of it is an extended military.
It's not the entitlements that is the problem. Many industrialized nations have many more and greater citizen entitlements than we have. The problem here is a concentration of wealth among very few. This is exactly what makes for a third world country. A few extremely wealthy and the rest poor. You saps arguing to take from the less fortunate and give it to the wealthy are not now, nor never will be among the wealthy. You'd better come to the realization that the wealthy are not on your side. They want to lower wages, eliminate benefits and rollback regulations protecting workers.
Many more industrialized nations like Spain, Greece, Portugal, UK???? How is that working out for them? Ya the wealthy make a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money, and pay a lot of taxes too.
Obama is an not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That much we should all agree on.
While the economy sank- he focused on health care. When he wasn't focused on health care he blamed only banks for the real estate collapse. When he was not scolding banks, he was ripping into wealthy Americans. When he took a break from all of the above, he jumped to conclusions on both Treyvon Martin and Henry Louis Gates- betraying police in both instances.
Well the economy still sucks, and Obama is focused on forcing higher taxes on the wealthy. He is focused on continuing to give money to people who refuse to look for work. He is focused on taking from wealthy and expanding programs for low class.
Then, as is now...the problem is the economy and he refuses to address it. Where is corporate tax reform? Where are incentives to hire? Where is and attempt to repatriate overseas profits? Where is any effort (other than a BS program to keep overpaid school teachers employed--which only worsens underfunded pensions). Where is the work to improve the economy for all of us?????????
Why is the democrat idea to fix the economy to make it more difficult for businesses to hire people and to send jobs overseas?
Right now, according to the Commerce Department, corporate profits are at an ALL time high while wages are below 2000 levels.
I agree we need to start enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust laws, get out of treaties that encourage outsourcing jobs and put up protective tarrifs that protect AmreiCAN jobs here at home.
That is because they adjust wages to inflation, but don't adjust that for corporate profit. Not to mention, that most of the profit growth is coming from sales overseas and not in the US. Look at all the facts.
Seems like a reasonable compromise. An increase in taxes while not increasing tax "rates" for anyone, providing revenue which is desperately needed while simplifying the tax code which is also desperately needed. Cuts in spending which too are desperately needed. Meeting a lot of desperate needs in this desperate hour.
When a liberal wins the lottery he gives a party. When a conservative wins the lottery he complains of the taxes he has to pay.
Wow the hatred for the people that take care of the hand outs you get...amazing. They pay 80 percent of the taxes and you are mad at them.. pathetic! Get up off your ass and go to work!!!!
Mike, I love that attitude ... it's EXACTLY what got RomMany's @ss beat and what will make RepubliCONs the Minority Party in the House come 2014 ... well that and their obstructionist Bull$hit.
Keep up the good work and you could end up the Democratic poster boy.
I am a Democrat ... I am unemployed Union Insulator(local 2 Pittsburgh) trying to make ends meet. If that is is a poster Boy so be it .. I get up off my ass everyday and try to do something (side jobs )..... I dont wait for hand outs like you! I have a little pride in myself.
What got Romney's ass beat was a very friendly Main stream Media ... and people who are already on Hand outs(47 percent). People like you will destroy this country and keep making it easier for others to receive their hand outs!
I am a big boy ... I can accept what Industry I got into ...it has run in my family for years.
I am glad you love the attitude....maybe you and your buddies should try working for a living.
Republicans do not want change and it is inevitable because Americans voted that way. YOU laughed but the punt is on the GOP. Democrats or Republicans, we will all be impacted by inaction or no compromise by both parties and the agreement need to be towards Democrats as "Change" is plausible and will work. Corporate greed is not good for the country nor fair to smaller wage earners cushioning the well to do on tax breaks. Sure we have tax cheats, folks who create LLCs, Corporations to gain advantage in tax loop holes, adverting taxation on income actually earned by-passing under the table income or real income; and Republicans can't offer specifics! Bull.
How is someone a tax cheat by legally using the tax code?
By the way, what are the democrat specifics for creating jobs (long term), fixing the budget (there proposal does virtually nothing), fixing entitlements, stopping jobs from overseas. Heck, forget specifics, how about any ideas? Corporate greed isn't any worse than consumer greed. Who is more at fault, the consumer who buys the cheap goods from China because of the lower price, or the corporation who moved the manufacturing to China to offer cheaper goods to consumers?
The buy the cheap goods from China because they are poorer because good paying jobs were allowed to go to China by trade agreements and droping protective tarrifs that protected AmeriCAN jobs.
We "allowed" them to go because of trade agreements? They were making things in Taiwan long before the trade agreements. Tariffs won't help that much. It might save a couple of jobs, but it will also mean an increase in the cost of living.
Why are tax increases being talked about so much when our problem is obviously spending. Right now were are spending record levels.....including WWII. Next year we are projected to bring in the most tax revenue...ever and we still have trillion dollar deficits. 2012 will be the third highest year ever for tax revenues. Since we have had such massive increases in spending this past 5 years, shouldn't we be talking about cutting that? We are much closer to Clinton tax rates, than Clinton spending rates.
Yes we need to cut military spending, we spend more than the next n (dependint on who you read 10 to 20) governments.
We should be looking at everything but the RepubliCON plan bennifits the wealthy and hurts the Middle Class and Poor. That just upside down no matter how you cut it.
RepubliCONs want to go back to Bush economics that got us into this mess in the first place.
Whoa, wait once. The debt increased 200% during the previous Republican administration. The rate of increase during the last four years is not even close to that. Not to mention much of the debt during the past four years was the result of two wars entered into by Bush and a recession that clearly was the result of failed policies of Bush and Republicans.
The nation's debt has, by far, increased more during the administrations of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II than Clinton and Obama. Reagan and Bush I pushed it up by 300%. Bush II by 200%. Where did most of the debt come from? Tax cuts, along with big increases in military spending.
Did you notice that most of the increases didn't happen until the democrats started writing the budget? Only a fool says that the current recession is because of Bush and his policies. He played some role, but it was much bigger than that. And no, the tax cuts didn't create the debt. Most of the debt was from government spending too much.
Firstly, if inflation is taken into account, the 2012 won't be the third highest in tax revenues.
Secondly, the following are the last few years' tax revenue as a % of GDP:
2008: 17.61%
2009: 15.10%
2010: 15.06%
2011: 15.40%
2012: 15.74%
We quickly see the dire effects of the Bush tax cuts.
Thirdly, ".. Most of the debt was from government spending too much.." -- You tell us how much of the 2012 spending is due to Bush's unpaid wars!
Candy......That is true. Of course, those tax numbers are much closer to our historical averages than our current spending. How do we quickly see the dire effects of the tax cut? They were in effect for all the years you show. This next year will go back up to around 17% even tax cuts were extended because of the way losses are figured.
How much of spending was due to the unpaid wars in 2012.....about 3%....maybe less. The wars are really not that much....especially when you consider we have been paying for them for years.
From what I saw, the two wars cost $170B just in 2012, which is a lot more than 3%, assuming the deficit to be about $1.5T. Regardless, it's no small change.
As to the tax revenue as % of GDP, they are all closer to 18 or 19% prior to the Bush tax cuts.
PAF
Actually we didn't have a spending problem until W and the republicans cut revenues while increasing spending in an attempt to "starve the beast" so republican lemmings could make the spending problem argument while refusing to address the revenue problem their own party created.
Furthermore, I find it quite telling that you blame a democrat congress under W in spite of the fact that you do not hold the current republican controlled HoR who controls the purse strings to the same standard and only blame obama for the current situation.
If the GOP continues with the regressive tax policies, repression of women and minorities, insistence of religion in government, they will be swept from power in 2014.
Why do you insist on lying? Everything you said is a complete lie. Either you are deliberately lying or just completely ignorant and gullible. Which one is it?
The only lie is you trying to ignore basic RepubliCON planks in their platform.
And quit calling everyone you disagree with ignorant ... when with every post you prove your ignorance with lack of facts and name calling.
That is all propaganda, cliche left talking points. All stereotypes and lies.
CVP, no they are exactly RepubliCON principals. Just ask the "Ligitimate Rape" guy.
I don't mind disagree with people, but when they blatantly lie like that it is pretty pathetic. At least attempt to look at the truth. Part of the problem is the lies perpetuated by left leaning media, like media matters who only tell you half the truth. There are right wing sites that do the same. Educated people have to see the truth.
PAF
blatantly lie? Then you must be pretty pathetic.
This past election and how Republicans tried to block the votes of minorities is proof that republicans are "repressing minorities"
Their invasive anti choice stances are proof that republicans are "repressing women"
The DOMA which uses the federal government to define a religious institution and all of the anti same-sex marriage laws republicans are passing are proof of "religion in government"
BTW did you miss the fact that the MSM called the election correctly while foxnews lied to their viewers? It was hilarious to see rove have that meltdown on live television. LOL
It is now all clear for everyone to see. Obama and the Democrats have never been serious about addressing runaway spending. Their proposals are just laughable.
The Presidents proposals are better by far than the non-proposal of the RepubliCONs.
The RepubliCONs are still harping on "pass our ideas and will tell you what they are ... later".
We the People are by FAR, 67%, more in favor of the Presidents plan than the RepubliCONs.
Laughable is the fact that Boehner didn't take the offer that Obama had for him a few years ago when the President was willing to cut Social Security and Medicare.
The percentage of debt during Obama's tenure has been far less then the percentage of debt accumulated during the Republican administrations of Saint Reagan and the Bushies. Look it up.
Sarah - Very clear. Thinking Americans are seeing this.
So where did the surplus that we had under Clinton go?
1. Bush tax cuts
2. War in Afghanistan and Iraq (one of which completely unnecessary)
3. The Great Bush Recession
If Bush had just continued the policies of Clinton he would be one of the most well liked presidents. Instead he is becoming a political pariah, even among his own party.
just in case some dolt doesn't know this:
Social security is not part of the problem.
Social security has not contributed one single dime to the deficit.
There are two TRILLION dollars in the social security trust fund.
All we need to do is to remove the cap on contributions and social security will be funded forever.
Stop talking about cutting social security!
The only reson the gop'ers are talking about it is because they want to privatize it.
The only reason they want to privatize it is so their banker buddies can STEAL IT.
But Medicare is an economic hurricane on steroids coming at us. If the Federal Government had to fund benefits programs the way that corporations are required to by law, they would have to put in $31 TRILLION TODAY to cover the Medicare shortfall between projected revenue and spending over the next 75 yrs.
To not address this and send this forward is theft from our grandchildren and their grandchildren and is purely IMMORAL.
The same issue on a smaller scale exists for SS, but it can be fixed if we do it now and don't delay.
TIme to slash the DOD budget.
So, RP, be rational. Let the wealthy pay a little more to pay the difference, cut their tax breaks, loopholes, and political policy favors. Curtail their accumulation of the percentage of wealth that has risien steadily since Regan's voodoo economics and caused the Middle class to decrease and the poor to increase.
Don't take from the people that are most in need, take from people that are most in greed.
The wealthy cost These United States more in favors than the poor ever will.
Owen....Unlike democrats, republicans actually like to look out for our future. You are correct. At this present year, SS hasn't contributed to the deficit. Of course, by the time I die, it will have contributed about $30 trillion to the deficit. A blind man can see this problem coming from a mile off. Why can't democrats?
Wow, such ignorance. The Democrats must love you.
Republicans claim they want to address deficit spending and yet they spend so much time wasted on SS and Medicare which are not currently contributing the the deficit.
Yes they need to be addressed but they are not part of the current problem with the deficit.
Oh and RP I have already pointed out the flaw in your $31 trillion claim.
Corporations are only required to cover the ANNUAL funding of benefit programs. They only have to fund a YEAR not 75 years. So your 75 years claim is just more of the typical RW bs.
David - Absolutely false. Corporations don't fund one year at a time. Where did you hear that? They fund to a projection for future pay-outs. Don't mislead folks - or yourself.
Regardless, the $31 TRILLION IS the GAP that will have to be funded. Where will that come from? BTW, the $31 TRILLION is in today's dollars which means when we get there - due to time value of money - the dollars then will be larger.
stude - Do the math. OK. You aren't good at math, are you?
$31 TRILLION is needed today for no change in Medicare to meet the 75 yr projection.
Raising taxes on the Top 1% by 3 pts generates $40 Billion. That would take 775 yrs to generate $31 TRILLION. Not a typo. 775 yrs. I guess we need another plan.
Let's take EVERY dollar from the Top 400 richest families in the U.S. That would generate $1.3 Trillion. Now we are talking. We just need $29.7 TRILLION more.
Stupe - Talk is cheap. Real effective change is hard. Don't throw out nonsense. THINK!
Bottom line. Why should the middle class pay per individual 30% income tax and the upper 2% earners per individual pay 15%. Republicans like to spread their BS , which is that the wealthy pay more in aggregate taxes. True. Truth is it should be a hell of a lot more, at least as much or more per individual then the middle class. The Republicans have got things a$$ backwards. A fiscal cliff? Thank Ronny and his trickle down voodoo economics. Don't even mention Grover.
The bottom line is that the middle class pays about 4 to 6% while the upper 2% pay about 20%. At least check the facts. Ignorance like this is the problem with the current situation. I bet you actually believe your post, but the facts are not accurate. Research the facts. Check out how much people pay in federal income tax after deductions. Research it. It is call the effective tax rate.
So, what's wrong with the upper 2% paying 20%? Does this overburden them? Are they losing their homes? Driving 20 year old cars? Receiving assistance to feed their families? You do realize that many WORKERS in the country are experiencing those very same things?
PAF, research this! The Percent of National Wealth controlled by the "wealthy" has grown steadily since Ronald Reagan introduced Neo-Con, Milton Friedman voodoo trickledown economics.
Taxes on income over 3 million dollars have been cut by more than half. Deregulation has encouraged outsourcing of jobs, allowed money to be offshored in tax free accounts, dropped protective tarrifs that protected AmeriCAN jobs and quit enforcing Sherman Anti-Trust Laws.
During those 30 years the wealthy are wealthier, the middle class has deminished and the poor are poorer and more pleantiful. Democrats have increased the National Debt FAR less than RepublCON adminstrations but have created twice as many jobs with fewer years in office.
From what I hear, Mitt Romney paid 14% on his income. Warren Buffet says he paid 15%. Capital gains & reduced tax entitlements for the very wealthy as well as large corporations like General electric pay as little as ZERO by the time their tax attorneys are done.
Stupe......You are taking 1 + 1 and making 3. We both agree that the wealth of the "wealthy" has grown steadily since Reagan. That is true, but there are also many, many other factors to consider, but before that, you need to get your facts straight.
1. Tax on income over 3 million have not been cut in half. It has gone down, but not 50%.
2. Deregulation had nothing to do with outsourcing or off-shored accounts. Absolutely nothing to do with them. Protective tariffs are a wash at best. And since when did they stop enforcing anti trust laws? Give me an example.
You are looking at presidents only when it comes to jobs and debt. Now look at who controlled congress. When republicans were writing legislation, they lowered the debt and generated millions of jobs. When democrats wrote legislation, our debt drastically increased and we grew very few jobs. You can't be so narrow minded. At least admit both are right.
Just.....When you give more than 20% of your income to charity, you pay less taxes. My guess is that you paid about 5% income tax, so why are you complaining?
PAF, 'but the facts are not accurate'. Now that's a tad more or a bit of a stretch even for a typical Faux News brainwashed Republican who usually dispute the facts. A little rattled there, ain't you, pal?
PAF, I've got to go but when it comes to fact cherry picking I'm afraid you have me beat hands down. You are blind to the injustice of what has taken place since Reagan and you will NEVER convince me that it's OK.
"...We both agree that the wealth of the "wealthy" has grown steadily since Reagan. That is true, but there are also many, many other factors to consider,..."
-- Can you please enlighten us on what are these "many other factors to consider" that have made possible the sharply increased disparity between the wealth of the "wealthy" and those of the "not wealthy"? Like they work harder, are smarter and so on?
Candy....Sure....
Massive influx of illegals which have depressed wages of the middle class. Globalization. The invention of the internet. Massive increases in government. Massive increases in regulations. Increased trading overseas. Poor savings and buying habits of the middle class. Automation of the assembly line. etc. There are many factors.
Stupe....I am not blind. I see the entire picture. You guys have some points, but you lack all of the facts.
PAF, you clearly throw out a lot of factors, a few that I agree and a few that I don't.
Clearly most people think strongly that they deserve to keep as much as they can of what they earned, but the fact remains that a society short of a dictatorship or oligarch simply can't function peacefully for a sustained period of time when the wealth concentration goes beyond a threshold. The threshold to me defines when a tax rate for the people who can afford to pay more is no longer "fair". The GOP think we haven't reached that point but Obama clearly thinks we have. When the ratio of CEO pay to regular worker pay is reaching 400, ten times that in other industrialized countries, I think we've reached a dangerous point. The fact that Occupy Wall St. happened is an omen for worse things to come if the Democrats fail to break Norquist's hold on the GOP folks this time around.
PAF
How does an influx of untrained immigrant workers drive down wages at most companies or professions?
Massive increases in government? Republicans didn't seem to mind it when W and republicans were increasing the size and we were told to trust the government. Funny how that changed when a democrat won the whitehouse.
Massive increases in regulation? And yet one of the primary defenses of W that republicans throw out was that he wanted to increase regulations on freddie and fannie before the housing crisis but minority democrats blocked it (even though they didn't).
Increased trading overseas? Are you actually complaining about the free market?
Do republicans even think about this type of drivel before they spew it out?
HOw bout instead of bashing the two parties, and they both deserve severe bashing, we all get a clue and become Libertarians? Their the only party that gives us ANY chance of having a prosperous future. They believe in Non-Interventionalism (not attacking other countries unless we declare war on them first like the constitution says), Balanced Budgets (Ron Paul NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget in his 30 years in congress), Individual Freedom (legalize pot and let all the non-violent offenders go free after they were convicted for a VICTIMLESS CRIME), money backed by GOLD (as the constitution SAYS it SHOULD be), no welfare (welfare is BANKRUPTING US, plain and simple. Those in need of help should be helped by CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS. ONce we gave the government the right to TAKE money from one group of people and just GIVE it to another group of people, our financial house immediately began to crumble.) Ron Paul really was our only hope. When this house of cards collapses, and it WILL collapse, then MAYBE Americans will WAKE THE F UP and put people in charge who actually FOLLOW the G.D. Constitution.
This is part of the flawed design of our democracy. It allows the 50.3% to impose its will on the other 49.7% through the winner take all voting schemes. Sadly, it makes it nearly impossible for an ideology like libertarianism to grow and demonstrate the wisdom of many of its policies.
I can't help but laugh & cry at the same time from the comments made by some right wingers. They've been led off into a world of delusion & fear through mind control. Like sheep being led to slaughter. Rush Limbaugh is their poster child and Fox News is their God.
Why do you remain so ignorant. Most of what you probably believe about republicans and about democrats is a complete lie. Why are you so gullible? If you think I am telling lies call me out on them. My guess is that you can't find a lie. Don't be so delusional.
Like I said, some right wingers are so delusional they think everyone is crazy but themselves. And in truth, they allow fear to control their thinking. If someone doesn't agree with them they think they're under serious attack..... so sad.
I guess you agree that you can't find any lies and you are proving me correct. At least try to come up with something. You can't be that ignorant are you? You called us delusional, but can't provide a single bit of evidence to prove your point. How do you think that looks?
PAF, in your mind, everybody is out of step but Jock. lol
No......Jock seems to be the only one that actually uses facts and logic. I am waiting for you to use a little bit of either one. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. That is fine, but at least disagree for a reason, not because you believe a lie. After looking at these vines for a couple of years, I am convinced that most democrats don't have a clue about what republicans want. They also don't have a clue about the problems that our nations faces......worst of all, they don't seem to have a clue about how democrat policies actually help or hurt them.
"Obama also argued that his administration cut spending by $1 trillion last year and that he is open to further "smart cuts" as long as they don't affect education or job growth."
If Obama cut spending by 1 trillion dollars last year, why did we have another 1 trillion dollar + deficit. Grow some integrity Mr. President. It will help you lead if we the people can trust you.
It is the way Obama does math. Since he didn't increase spending by $1 trillion and he kept spending the same, he cuts spending by $1 trillion.
Obama wants to spend 10 Trillion a year but takes in only 1.5 trillion, so he spends 5 trillion and in his mind he cuts the spending by half saving the taxpayers 5 trillion. It is the new fuzzy math they teach now.
PAF, did you hear what 300Michael said. Take heart, you got one believer.
"I am convinced that most democrats don't have a clue about what republicans want." -- PAF, so tell us exactly what does your fellow republican 300Michael WANT with his articulate comment?
Rex
Depends upon what you are talking about. Since there is no real quote to address I will make the assumption that the $1trillion Obama cut was over the next 10 years which is the typical budget strategy.
Although I do find it amazing that Republicans would respond with definite answers to such a vague comment presented by rex.