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:
Hopeisgone
You are not patriotic .....pic of the flag flying upside down, the only one in distress is your brain
That was on my mind also. I've never been a flag waver but it really does bother me to see a an American flag flown upside down. An internet blog is not the place.
Maybe it bothers me as much as it does because of my occupation in the merchant marine. An upside down flag sets off all of my alarms.
Just another example of how much the reich wingers really hate America.
Hopeisgone is probably one of those same teabagges that want to pass a flag burning amendment.
The sad fact is that this type of "patriot" who is probably against burning or disrespecting the flag is probably one of the first to wear the flag depicted on an article of clothing which is also disrespecting it.
If you think our country is not in distress....you are dead wrong! credit crisis, fiscal cliff, middle-east unrest.....and our POS is going on a 20-day vacation...nice!
What did Bush Say
"Those that question the administration and believe in conspiracy theories are unpatriotic"
What a tool he was.
I remember being accused of being a traitorous, un-American, unpatriotic surrender monkey for daring to even question a sitting president during a time of war.
I was also accused of providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
I even remember Republicans on message boards attacking someone for posting a pic just like hopes.
Funny how dissent only became patriotic for republicans after a democrat won the whitehouse.
The U.S. Army pays $400 per gallon for fuel in Afghanistan. $30 per gallon for water. Thank you Halliburton!
The suppliers of these key military goods must be drowning their sorrow in tears after the defeat of their buddy Romney, who vowed not to reduce the defense budget.
High Impact Insertion Device aka "a Hammer"
Calcium Carbonate Recording Device aka "a Chalkboard"
How much do you think the government paid for those under contract back in the 80s?
I say we go over the cliff. If that's the only way we get to automatic spending cuts I'll give up the defense spending just to get to the entitlement cuts.
That's the spirit, Boehner! You're my hero! LOL
All this fuss about going back to the Tax Rates under Clinton? If we went back to the 91% Tax Rates during WWII when the Wealthy had real Skin in the Game, when their livelihoods were at stake along with the rest of America then I might fathom their angst.
Right now, these Unfunded Wars have got to be paid for and the Devastated Middle Class and Working poor who have had their livelihoods outsourced don't make enough money to foot this Tax Bill alone.
Even when this Deficit is balanced, the Destroyed Middle Class and the working poor will never return to a life of prosperity, but CEOs, Shareholders and the 1% will still be sitting pretty.
Let them expire. I want the bill Clinton tax system back in place. You remember that one when our economy was kicking ass.
Domewars, Clinton also signed N.A.F.T.A which has almost single-handed destroyed manufacturing in this country along with what was left of the middle-class.
And Dumewars,
Let's also go back to the Clinton era level of spending.
Let's also repeal all government regulations imposed on business since Clinton took office.
Let's also cut the number of government employees to the number in 1996.
But all that wouldn't fit your liberal socialist aganda would it?
Another Bill Clinton Myth.
Look at the Time Table please
Yes Clinton signed it but it was started by Reagan and negotiated by GHW Bush.
History reflects: “U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it on December 17, 1992.” And “Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
Headline should read, "GOP still trying to dismantle America"
Greed shall prevail as long as we live in a capitalist system. This country will fail someday like all the other capitalist countries before it. History doomed to repeat itself!
Hey tired of the BS...
How do you think we became the richest Country in the world?..It sure wasn't because of "fairness"..give me a break. If you want fairness...go live in China. everyone there is poor except the government folks.
The American dream is this.....you have the freedom to attain that house with the white picket fence....but oh yea....your mommy forgot to tell you...you will have to WORK for it. I guess work is a four letter word to you liberals....because it seems YOU are living in a fairy-tail......got something to tell you....There is no Santa Clause.
IMHO,
Nay...it should read...Obama is still campaigning....then he goes on to a 4 millions dollar vacation paid by the tax payers!....now that would be the truth.
Over the cliff...........with obama's 4 million dollar vacation coming up, how else can it be paid for?!
Hey hasn't anyone ever told this dumb President that life isn't fair.....if it were God would have destroyed us all a long time ago!
True....but obama is destroying America slowly.
I think he is doing it with great speed.....
Hey Genius (beanne),
Hate to burst your bubble, But the wealthy in this country got a helping hand from the government, in the form of tax breaks, and the military complex which enforces the economic interest of the wealthy in other countries. I love it when the 1% cry when they have to pay higher taxes. So go huddle in a corner at your country club and comment on someone who actually cares what you think.
Here's the response you get from an inner city Chicago uneducated idiot....
This snarky fister, never adds anything of substance too the discussion every thing that drivels off of her fingers is like popcorn hulls stuck up under your gums. nothing but hyperbolic partisan bovine excrement...
And most of the fiends on her friends list, "save a few"
are just as vitriolic & diametrically opposed to sanity as she is.
Oh, So President Obama won, good, the election is over, BIG DEAL can we please git on with the moving 4ward like he promised, even though I do not necessarily agree with his ideology being stuck in neutral is not moving the vehicle 4WARD now is it..........
Come on let us go! crack the whip! move it or loose it...=-----------> rt
Or should we just "get used too it"
A solid work for benefits program could be very helpful in eliminating so many on the government rolls probably.
We would get a lot accomplished if all who recieve are required to work on clean ups, and uncomplicated tasks that we either pay others to do or go undone.
It would make the country a cleaner, safer nation and help the economy
Make work or sacrifice of time a requirement for government assistance dollars
just like F.D.R. marcus,this is what we need,but the weasels in washington will be afraid to make people work.the money these azzholes take from us is what their concern is,not the good of this country.
What would the Organized Benevolent Association of Middle-class Americans charge for these services?
It is not always about the "here and now", but about our future. Hey Marcus...I like that!!!
you people are still pissing and moaning about the black and white guy winning,give it a break,lets get over the cliff,then all the people will have to be in the same tax boat,screw all the politicians,over the cliff we go,i wish it were today,the smokescreen is up while the pols have their greedy hands in our pockets,you people are blind to that fact.
And you, my veteran friend are either blind or ignorant. Too much napalm in the morning for you
You might have a bit of a racist thing going on also
I guess the right's support and respect for the military only applies to those who also happen to believe as they do. Typical.
Good idea too start with, let's go with it Marcus. I have advocated for that proposal for some time.
Along with education based advancement for re-tooling job skill-set & training to help people move in to a prosperous and mutually advantageous future for themselves and the country as a whole.
I cannot believe what I see. Obama promises unemployment will not go above 5 point something percent or he will be a one term president. He will not raise taxes. And all this while the economy is tanking and the housing market is at it's worst ever. So what does he do? He shoves a health care system down our throats. Unemployment goes over 8% and the liberal left praise him when it (finally) goes down .05%, just under 8%. His health care is ruled ok by the supreme court ONLY because it's a ANOTHER tax. Now he wants to raise taxes on the rich. The richest 1% already pay over 40% of all taxes paid but somehow that's what Obama has convinced his followers will save the day. On top of that I've seen next to nothing done about jobs except Obama's union buddies, they got some of my money to do what they were already doing. Oh, and that reminds me, Obama spent more of my tax payer money than all the previous presidents combined so my kids and grandkids will have fun with that. The DOW is at almost the exact same as it was 4 years ago when he took office. He bows to Asian leaders and tells the Russian president he'll have more "leverage" after the November elections when discussing nuclear arms.
Why do I not see more posts about this? He is a failure as a president. We are NOT much better off than we were and a good reason is Obama has failed at all levels of leadership. He blames when he should be leading. He separates when he should be bringing together.
All I see Obama doing is spending and spending.
Oh, and the company I work for is probably going to drop our good health insurance and after looking into it Obamacare will not cover my wife's rare cancer like our current insurance does so we will have to pay out of our pocket. And we will have to do that while paying for others insurance at the same time (remember the new "TAX"?????)
So why should I work or pay for my health care or house or give to charities? I can live for "free", get "free" health care and housing and won't have to give to charities because the government (liberals) are already taking anything I might make. Sounds like a great deal.
@Kennyboys. You do that, quit your job, and see how much free stuff you get. Then report back here how mislead you were by the pugbags talking points.
So yes, it is a great idea for you to do that. Just report back here how hard you really have it, and all that free stuff is just a joke. One big joke on you, and we can all laugh over your past and present stupidty.
Well there ya go folks. No "you're wrong Kenny, and here's why", from Sally. No argument that I made this up or that Obama is right. Just a "You do that, quit your job" and that I will be the joke.
You prove my point Sally. Obama is a joke as are the people that think he's a good president. Everything I posted was fact, NOT talking points which is why you can't argue them. He is a failure as a president. I don't care what color his skin is or his party is, or who was president before him, OBAMA IS A FAILURE.
Kenny all of your facts are right on the money. The Left just comes back with name calling and opinion...no facts.....I agree with you ...quit being so generous with your Heath Care ...put everybody on Obama Care. My guess ..you are a small business with a family attitude..and value your employees. Therefore ..you could not expose them to Obama Care.
Obama said if his plan was passed as it was originally written it would keep unemployment lower. However, it was not passed as it was written when those original estimate were made. So the plan changed therefore so did the estimates.
He said he would not raise taxes on those making less than $250k not that he wouldn't raise taxes.
The housing bubble burst in 2007 before he was even president but it's typical that the misinformed blame him. After all Republicans blamed Clinton for ruby ridge and that happened before he was president.
He passed the ACA which was based on a republican idea they supported until a democrat proposed and it is law. Deal with it.
As for unemployment, how low would it have been if states hadn't fired public workers? Funny how republicans refuse to accept responsibility for their part in the unemployment numbers.
Actually a balanced approach is what will bring down the deficit over time and that is what obama is proposing while republicans are just parroting the romney plan for closing loopholes with no specifics which has already been rejected by the American voter.
Fact is that obama has proposed jobs bills, budgets and many other laws but republicans in the house refused to pass them. They even went so far as to put forward a 65 page amendment meant to represent Obama's 2k page budget that no one voted for in either house all so they could argue that no one voted for Obama's budget.
Since Jan 20, 2009 the DOW is up by 70% So how is that "almost the exact same" as you claimed?
W bowed to the same leader and even walked hand in hand with him why didn't republicans have a problem with that? Oh that's right, it only matters when a Democrat does it.
A person can only lead when others are willing to follow and republicans are not willing to follow. The blame does lie with them.
Republicans are quite good at dividing they spent the past few years since 2010 dividing and pitting private sector workers against public sector workers.
Apparently you see only what you want to see.
You asked "Why do I not see more posts about this? and the answer is simple. Not everyone is as gullible and easily manipulated as you.
David,
Please do not bring common sense and the truth to this discussion....it just might confuse people.
Seriously good post.
David you fool few with your talking points becuase that is all they are. This nation was divide by this president and no one else. Everything he says or does divides. Has he had one thing that he has put forward that did not go so far left that he could even get one republican vote? You seem to quickly dismiss everything the other side has to say even they they represent 1/2 of this country. You want to divide this country as well if that is your opion. Everyone is an idiot but your side.. We have become a country of extreme and everyside is so far to the left or right there is no comprimise.
As far as the states adding to the unemployment rolls, how where they to pay for all of these employees, becuase they took the responsible way they contributed to them? If the federal gov't took the approach that the states did we would not owe 16 trillion dollars and counting. We seem to keep on borrowing however we have no plan to pay this back. How does one borrow with no idea on how to pay it back,, it is the same as the housing bubble people borrowed and borrowed with no idea on how to pay it back.
David ... I really dont have time to address everything. Yes the Housing bubble was traced back to the Clinton Administration and yes Bush got saddled with that issue. That is not disputed by the Left...only the uninformed.
The Left seems to have a conveniant memory when the Collapsed happened. Does the Left remember that they controled both the House and Senate during the big colapse? I am sure we all know that even if Clinton was President we would have had the Colapse. Bush could not go to the bathroom with the Dems signing off.
Jobs Bills...dont even go there with out looking up how many versions of bills for jobs were introduced by the House that would not even be allowed to hit the Floor in the Senate..... That argument does not float.
I guess you see what you want to see... and yes i do find the Electorate to be extremely gulible by the very friendly Left Media.
Ask yourself a simple question. Do you wonder why Obama got his head beat in on the first Debate? The answer is very simple...He really does not have a grasp of the Economy...never has.He did not know the answers.... he didnt know if Romney was stretching the truth or not ...because he does not know....
mike
nice BS but even if "saddled" with the bubble why did W not do something about them when the republicans controlled the whitehouse and both houses of congress?
You seem to have a convenient memory as to when the collapse BEGAN which was back in mid 2006 and Democrats did not gain control of congress until 2007. Furtheromre if the problem existed before then as you claim why do you refuse to hold W and Republicans accountable for their failure to act?
Jobs bills, I have seen the Republican jobs bills and an anti abortion bill has nothing to do with jobs.
I see the facts which you avoid and cherry pick as you spew fiction pretending it's fact.
I know why obama lost the first debate . He prepared for "extremely conservative" mitt and moderate mitt showed up. So yeah obama was shocked when romney began denying his previous statements and campaign rhetoric. Wouldn't you be shocked if your opponent started running against himself?
Thanks for cherrypicking and spewing nonsense. I am sure you will be back to engage in more of the same.
Well I do, so I'll address the housing bubble.
The housing bubble can be traced back to Reagan. He started the banking deregulation by appointing Alan Greenspan to the Fed in 1987. This deregulation kept going until completed in 2003.
In 1985, the adjustable rate mortgage started to really make it's debut. The adjustable mortgage is a loan with an low interest rate, bought down from the existing rate. It is the subprime mortgage. The rate was capped, meaning it could only go up or down 2% a year. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Well the trap is that at closing, the buyer paid points, usually 6, each worth 1% of the mortgage amount. These points made up the difference in the interest between the bought down rate (subprime) and the actual interest rate for one year. At the end of the first year, the rate was adjusted 2% from the real interest rate, at the time of closing. Most buyers never read their closing documents so they did not realize that the real interest rate was higher than the rate they were paying and that the raise in interest would be based on this rate. Many people could not afford to pay this without great difficulty.
It wasn't until 1989 that Beardsley Born started questioning what was going on in the banking industry, with the derivative market, and attention was called to something being wrong, but she was forced to resign by Alan Greenspan in 1999. The derivative market was not regulated and the banks were cutting up mortgages and repackaging the pieces. No banking institution had any idea of the value of what they were buying because there was no oversight.
In 2003 the banking industry was totally deregulated and started it's crazy ride that ended up with our worst recession since the Great Depression. Foreclosure became a huge problem, mainly because the original loan documents couldn't be found and many banks held parts of the mortgage, all claiming default. This mess was what Obama inherited and has been slowly reversing.
I am sorely disappointed because no one has been prosecuted for this fraud perpetrated against the American people. Yes, we are all victims of deregulation and the perpetrators are still running free. Businesses within the economy need regulation.
David ...I dont Cherry Pick for my reasons. I told you I didnt have time but I have no problem informing the uninformed ...here we go ....You can keep giving an opinion and lying to yourself ..that is up to you.
Forever it seems,banks exorcised prudent business judgement by refusing to lend to those unworthy,and unlikely of fulfilling their financial obligations(no down payment / collateral,bad credit, no job, refusal to pay on time or at all, convicted felon, etc) Transparent and logical enough. But for Bill CLINTON...HIS HOUSING STRATEGY WAS TO PROMOTE AND INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP AMONG THE POOR (read between the lines :minorities). Clinton contended that high levels of home ownership would yield less violent crime, better school performance, stronger enthnic communities , and more jobs. This sounds great on the surface . Who wouldnt want this? But what he really wanted to do was buy the Minority vote(dont they all), especially in highly contested political regions of the country. He was buying Power. The banks and their reasonable vetting were at direct odds with promoting the American Dream in such a reckless manner. Clinton turned to HUD to enforce penalties(in the millions) to banks which denied loans to minorities. The banks had to prove that racism did not play a role in their reasoning if a disproportionate number of mortgages were issued to non minorites.Often times, it cost less to grant the loan then it was to fight it out in Court. He also made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, in which banks receive ratings. Banks received favorable ratings based on the amount of lending they did in low income (minority) neighborhoods. These CRA ratings were necessary for bank regulators to approve mergers,expansions, and a new branch openings. Then Pressure was applied to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to help expand mortgages loans among low and moderate earners, and introduced new rules to permit and ease securitization of subprime loans. This all happened under Clinton.
I really do not have time for your other B.S AND OPINION YOU WANT TO BE TRUTHS ...
Bottom line this President does not have a Clue on the Economy and has proven it over and over ...the debate showed his true color and knowledge on this subject. You know it is the truth ...quit making up lies and other untruths about his performance...Dont blame a Community Organizer for not understanding the Economy.
Do your home work and look up the many bills proposed by The House ..DOA ...BEFORE ANYBODY COULD EVEN VOTE ON THEM.
Oh BTW ...Huskergal...yours again is an opinion..not fact.
mike
Sure you don't cherry pick for your reasoning and yet you post this lengthy diatribe that lacks in substance and tells me to do your work for you as you claim you don't have time.
If you have a point to make, make it, support it with something REAL. Don't tell others to go look it up.
So it's funny how you claim everything I and husker wrote was opinion even as all that you provide to support that claim is your own baseless OPINIONS.
Thanks for nothing if you want to debate substance then provide or respond to the substance provided if not please keep your baseless opinions to yourself. thanks.
David obviously this was a little above you.. you have not stated one item of subtance other than what you think....Really David you sound kind of young an uninformed ...What part do you need to google and look up? You obviously did not read this ....Like I said the Left does not dispute this ...only the uninformed.. Really what part of my so called Diatribe do you disagree with? I never asked you to look one thing up that I was explaining to you... I just do not have time to list Bills that were proposed by the House that never came to vote .
mike
Thanks for showing that you have nothing to offer except lame personal attacks as you attempt to attack the messenger.
Both of these are factual
and you turned tail and ran away from both of them. Typical
David .. Are you really not reading my post.?.. Where is the personal attack? Are you trying to re-write history.?.... I am sure you are very young...because you obviously either do not want to do your homework before you reply or Clinton goes back to far for you. Really ...What part do you disagree with ... come on tell me. Sure we can probably go back after the fact ...and find exactly when bubble started to burst...so what...what is the point? Bush didnt act? Really ....I never said Bush was free from this ... I never voted for him anyhow. I voted Clinton and liked him.... It still does not take the fact away that the "Housing Bubble was traced back to his Administration. At the same time it absolutely rediculous to think you Blame Bush for everything....Just like I proved to you about the Bubble.. Weather you Repub or Dem...They all had a hand in it.
Also ...If it was so plain when the Bubble started to break ...How come the DEM Senate and Congress sat there and did nothing when they were elected in 2006/2007..... I am not running.... answer the question?
TYPICAL!
It must be past your bedtime David
@Mike,
david is a cellar dwelling troll with sinus infections caused by handling his pak by the sump pump and not having the hygienic aptitude to keep from picking his nose lol
President Bush, warned about the need to rein in Fannie & Freddie on two official occasions to BOTH houses of congress and addressing Both parties that the bubble was going to burst. Economist's at the time were, screaming it at the top of their lungs, and all of this eminently went UN-heeded. The largest fraud perpetrated upon the American people was allowed to go nuclear. The resulting meltdown has caused a farcical reality in which there will be exponentially compounded repercussions cast into the future for many decades to come. If you feel that this fact can be refuted just keep one thing in mind 4ward...
History & the future were changed merely by the amount of suicides by so many people facing financial ruin alone. This being the greatest injustice, however not the only horrible consequence This has happened as a result and directly attributed to policies enacted by POLITICAL LEADERS who had no moral obligation or business too be meddling in the affairs of the private sector. No matter who is to blame, Our Great nations path was UN-necessarily altered forever... All this, can be attributed to mans free will, placing greed, animus of power and the need to place control over their fellow man.
Evil, bore out of perceived good... The ends justify the means, ideology, usually ends up hurting more than helping...
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
4ward@youdotcom
"GET USED TOO IT"
Convenient.. I agree... I had knowledge of the reigning in of Fanny and Freddie... I just did not have the link or back up handy... So I didnt use it. After reading what David had to say it was clear he was not even taking time to read my post... I think once he did ..he shut up. If he shows back up...all he will be doing is accusing and spewing B.S ...AND NOTHING TO BACK IT UP....
There are actually three very simple, but different solutions to the "fiscal cliff".
1. Go over the cliff. Let the tax cuts expire for everyone (they were a very BIG mistake in the first place), and just cut spending as required (use discretion to move the cuts around, rather than the blind cuts currently required.
or
2. Enact Simpson-Bowles; this was a result of a bipartisan committee; everyone should be able to sign on. Nobody gets what they want, but they get something everyone can live with.
or
3. Agree that the problem must be solved by a 50/50 mix of increased revenue and spending cuts. Then, since the Republicans are against tax increases, let them come up with the method to raise revenue. Since the Democrats are against spending cuts, let them come up with the most palatable cuts. Combine the two, and pass the bill with 100% bipartisan support.
Now what is so difficult?
40% pay cut for congress, senate and president. elimination of $1M/year office expense allotment, eliminate 50% of federal supervisory positions. then start working on taxes and spending reform. They do NOTHING we get NOTHING. Make them responsible for their inaction in the harshest manner possible. They work for we the people.
Two of the main reasons why President Obama was elected for a second term was his promise to "end the tax breaks for the rich" and his Healthcare plan. All the Americans who voted for him will be thoroughly disappointed with him and will think of him as a weak President if there's ANY KIND OF COMPROMISE on either of these two promises. They must be implemented to the fullest. The President must show the people that the Republicans are only interested in the 2% wealthy and not about the other 98% of the people. The reason why the Republicans are pushing to keep the tax breaks for the wealthy is that these wealthy people and businesses donated huge sums of money for the Republicans during the Presidential race. For them, its not simply donations - its "Investments" - and they were looking forward to the "Returns on these Investments" - which were blown away with Romney's defeat. Now they are breathing down the necks of the Republicans demanding they (the Republican dominated House) do something to recover their "Investments"! The President SHOULD NOT GIVE IN to the Republicans' stubborn demands - and needs to stand his ground in fulfilling the aspirations of the American people who voted for him which will consequently enable him to win the House in 2014 and pass all the bills benefitting ALL Americans thereafter.
Well DEVONECO, I don't see him breaking his promise on "ending tax breaks for the rich", and he has no control over what, if any, rulings the SCOTUS makes regarding Obamacare.
I have to laugh at the pugbags, trying their same old FAILED policy's once again. They come up with their plan, but has no specific's in it. Just like that 7 page BLANKED budget with no $ amounts. They were proud of that also.
Get over it pugbags, you own this fiscal mess, you fix it. Obama painted you into a corner, he's watching the paint dry, and the pugbags are whining.
If we do or don't go over this so-called finical cliff, the GOP/tea baggers own it, lock stock and barrel. Deny it all you want, but that is what the American people/voters will see. All that saying NO to everything, how is that working out for you now?
Even if raising rates isn't the most efficient way to raise revenue?
The new "2% tax Barackit" will bring in more revenue, but 70%+ of this will pay for the Payroll Tax holiday extension.
So at the end of the day, President Obama is tying the middle-class tax cut extensions to raising taxes on the 2% to net $30-40 billion in additional revenue. 98% of American's should be worth more than that in ransom, right?
Tell me something. The "rich" pay way more in taxes than anyone else. The 1% richest pay over 40% of all taxes paid. The 98% you speak of pay way less than the rich and a good part of them get more back in taxes than what they pay in the first place.
So please explain the "tax cuts for the rich" or the "tax breaks for the wealthy". If the "wealthy" 1 or 2% went away today almost 50% of all taxes paid would also go away. They already pay a way higher percent than anyone else yet we are still in a financial crises. So again, please explain these "tax breaks for the rich" to me.
Is it possible that the republicans are right? That SPENDING is the problem and not where the money is coming from? Is it possible that Obama and (you) his followers actually love and need the rich or he could not have forced a health care down our throats? Is it possible that "all the bills benefiting ALL Americans" has to be paid for by someone?
Is it possible that you like nearly all lefty liberals think of the government as a separate entity from the people and the current administration promotes that way of thinking? That spending and the way the 98% are treated are actually the problem? That our government wastes more money than it gets?
Why can't you "benefit" from what you make? Why is it the governments job to take it from the rich and give it to you?
SallyAnn
Didn't Sen. Obama claim those same old FAILED policies included Bush tax cuts and deficit spending?
kenny
Even at a flat tax the "rich" would still pay MORE than the poor because they have MORE. The "they pay more" argument is ridiculous.
We are in a financial crisis because the job creators are refusing to create jobs as they hide behind uncertainty/risk. However, the core of their argument is that they deserve be rewarded with lower taxes and loopholes because they take risks. However, they currently refuse to act unless there is no uncertainty/risk. If they won't act then they should lose the benefits they believe they should receive like lower rates and loopholes.
We didn't have a spending problem until W increased spending and cut revenues. now Republicans try to blame the left for their attempt to "starve the beast"
This must be fantasy land... He is not going to get what he wants and most of the people in this country don't want his health care. You are a very nieve person if you believe that the democrats are not for the 1%. The very health care bill is for them and there companies. The bill is written to have every company being able to opt out of health care all together by paying a fine of $200 an employee. The health insurance for a family plan at a company can run in to less use an easy number $1000 a month. That is an $800 savings for your 1% group... Than when they drop you depending on how much money you make you get a new tax which doesn't hit the 1% but the middle class hard long and continous. This is reality...
cu
who are you talking to?
If it was me you have a funny way of responding by not actually responding to the content of my post.
If so thanks for the sidestep. You be sure to let me know if you want to discuss anything i actually said.
David are you really that clueless.. Have you ever taken an Economic Class ...ever? I know you are right out of Highschool.. but every bit of your post proves you have not taken Economics 101.
Lets discuss your post ..
"We are in a finacial crisis because job creators refuse to create jobs and hid behind uncertainty and risk."
Yes it is riskier to create a job if you are not sure you will have the money to support the new job.
Yes if there is uncertainty created by the current Administration...they will not gamble their money away....In your mind ...is that their duty? You see when you increase taxes on the business owner ...what ever those taxes may be ...You take their profits away from them. When you take the profits away from them ...guess what...they dont have the money to hire more people... We are talking about the people who make around $250,000 small business who are going to get hit by the tax increase. The larger companies ...say for example Fossil Fuel Power Plants....First Energy...Yes they have boat loads of money...ready to spend where Economically feasible... The problem is with Uncertainty of Obamas Energy plan. Epa has Tightened resrtiction to the point it is not Economically feasible to keep plant open...In other words...to retrofit the Plant to meet the Epa restriction..it is cheaper to close the plant. You see David ... I am unemployed Insulator Local 2...The President is responsible for the Uncertainty in my Industry.
"We didnt have a spending problem until Bush cut spending and increased Revenues." Now Republicans blame the Left. Yes .. Bush spent too much and Obama ran on the fact that Bush's spending was UnPatriotic... I agree ..Bush spent too much..(again i didnt vote for him)... What Obama has done on the spending side was increase the deficit by the amount in 4 years (twice what Bush did in eight years ) .. I have to look up the exact amount ..but it is something like that. Spending is not a sickness or a Disease... Obama neeeds to quit spending...His spending is not Bush's fault...You like to blame everything bad today on Bush ..which is a major part of your problem to begin with. Obama ...never put a budget through because any cuts would offend his base...thus the lack of Leadership. With Obama"s spending out of control and his Super Majority ..thus the beating he took in the 2010 election and the Emergence of the Tea party.
So there again David ...take the time to read the Post...and quit trying to re-write history on how you see it. I know it is a little long for you ...and you may have trouble...
David ...stop the replies like people are afraid to talk about your posts.... They are very easy to prove how wrong you are... Look actually what you are saying... It does not make any sense what so ever.
"We are in a Financial crisis because Job Creators hide behingd uncertainty and Risk.....
That is the onkly reason why we are in a FinANcial Crisis...REALLY?
That easy Huh? That is the reason for Wall Street going into a Free fall and major Banks closing ...and everybody out of work. Also that is the Reason for the Housing Bubble ? ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID????
The Federal Government should do a better job of living
within its means. Stop spending more money than they take in. Most people with
any common sense do. A balanced Budget is not a bad thing.
Let all the 2010 tax cuts expire. The 2001 and 2003 taxes
cuts expired in 2010. The government decided to extend the program in
2010. Everyone should be paying some
Federal Income Tax. Not just the 2% or the 51 %. This is an all or none situation. Although I
do not think increasing the rates will stop individuals, the so called 2% will
still not be paying the taxes. Most get their incomes from Capital Gains and
Dividends.
Listed below are some alternatives to the expiring tax
rates.
Close the loop holes in the tax code. To many people and
companies are getting to many breaks with the current system
Increase the capital gains and dividend rate from 15% to 20
%. This is sure better than paying the current 35% rate in the tax tables the
most of the 2% would pay.
Reduce government spending 2-5 % in all departments, based
on the current budget 2012 or the last budget available.
Reduce defense spending / reduce the number of overseas
bases/ close them down.
Bring the troops home. The president can do this with a
simple Executive order. He is the Commander in Chief.
Put the troops on the USA borders. This will keep the troops
employed, should reduce the number of illegal aliens coming into the country
and reduce the illegal drugs coming into the country.
Then address Immigration reform related to the illegal
immigrates in the country today. We are certainly not going to send 20 -30
million people home.
Bringing the troops home should create favorable economic
conditions in the border areas. Housing, stores, jobs etc. are needed for the
troops and their families.
Itemize income tax deductions CAP at $40,000 - $50,000.
Those individuals that have multiple homes, etc. will have to pay some Federal
Income tax.
Raise the Medicare age to equal the retirement age 66 and 67
Raise the Social Security early retirement age to 63 and 64
NOT 62. This should have been done when they rose the retirement age in 1986.
Raise the retirement age for those 5 years and younger to 68
– 69, This also raises the early retirement age to 65 and 66 and the Medicare
age to 68 -69. We are living much longer.
Those individual that think this is too old and what to
retire early then I would suggest they take responsibility for saving more
funds so they can retire early.
Increase the dollar limit on Social Security from the
current 110,000 to $125,000 or 150,000(remember the more you put in the more
you get back.)
Social Security is already taxed for the baby boomers if
they have a pension and a 401K/IRA. Most likely they are over the dollar limit.
Retiring baby boomers will still be paying taxes.
Change the COLA (Cost of living adjustment). Make it the
same for government workers and Congress as is for Social Security and
Veterans. There should be no difference. Why is the government workers COLA 2.2
% and Social Security and Veterans COLA 1.7%?
This has some give and take on both sides.
Social Security and Medicare are earned entitlements that recipients have paid into for years. But you can bet the GOP plan will pretend they're just government handouts that can be sliced and diced any which way. Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is the defense budget: Bigger than those of the next 15 countries. As for the wealthiest 2%, they're paying less in taxes than at any time in our history. Bring them back to where they were when Reagan was in office and cut 5% from the defense budget, suddenly there's no ned to touch Medicare and Social Security!
Social Security and Medicare are "entitlements" because Congress made them so, not because you were taxed to pay for them. I can empathize that you feel entitled to see some of your hard earned money back, but that is an emotional definition.
It's a definition to be sure. If you feel better calling it "emotional: then by all means do.
The President wants to go over the Cliff. That way he will get all his tax money and blame the House of Reps and the Republicans. The only reductions in spending will be from the sequester. More and More Spending.
M.J. you are correct that the only reason these are entitlements is because of FDR and LBJ. Prior to FDR, it would have been unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in such programs. His threats to stack the Supreme Court are the reason we have these programs to begin with. And...they have morphed well beyond their original intent. The increases in dependence in the programs require modification to retain sustainability.
Luke Russert best be careful reporting what the opposition party is proposing to keep negotiations going. He may be blacklisted by the Obama WH and his fair and balanced colleagues at NBC News/MSLSD TV.
Another article stated No More Mr. Nice Guy forOBama....no more Mr. Nice Guy? LMAO! Shouldn't it be much more of Mr. Lazy Guy who won't hammer out deals because it's his way or the highway?
Or do they mean the nice guy who disrespected GOP members during the Obamacare "neogtiations" that Mr. Smart Guy devolved to "we have the House, the Senate, and this legislation will go through as written". Though no one seemed to know what the hell was in it.
President Obama is an elitist dullard when it comes to common sense. Anybody want to bet me he throws out his shoes when he breaks a shoelace to buy a new pair of shoes?
The lefties are such a bright bunch! Operncenter.org investigated campaign donation patterns for profs of several NE Universities. SURPRISE! 96% of profs donated to Obama!
Which means they only teach that which furthers their lefty tripe and indoctrinates dopey students into blindly following the lefty, dreamy, utopian fantasy of the perfect garden for all! Yeah!
.....and make no mistake about our fraudulent leader. He wants the same plurality of support and teaching dogma for K-12. Which is why he further bought K-12 teachers with a chunk of our $800B in stimulus cash that was supposed to be for infrastructure.
He made the Teacher's Union purchase. Another great president made the Louisiana Purchase. Which I am certain our lefty teachers explain as an example of U.S. imperliaism built upon a foundation of American arrogance that helped build what today is European dislike for the U.S.
Morons.
The only offer Boehner has is--Do it my way and the hell with yours
60s' vet - nice avatar and handle! Now go downstairs mommy is calling you'll miss the bus Harold!
I believe Boehner offered the Presidents Simpson-Bowles agreement. Which the President originally discard. Not sure why it was his bipartisan committee that put it together.
Same as Obama. That goes both ways.
Hang tough, Mr. Boehner. Obama and his cronies seem intent on driving America deeper into the ditch. Don't help them do it. Do the right thing and continue to focus on the runaway spending problem.
This non-specific, non-proposal was floated by Republicans to make it look like they have a plan.
The only content in it are some proposals that were soundly rejected in the recent election.
If John Blamer wants to take America over the cliff, the Republicans will pay the price.
Harby OBama wouldn't read the Obamacare Bill what makes you think he would tax his sensitive lefty craium on psecifics for the GOP counteroffer?
That is how you neogtiate fool. You present a proposal with trget numbers as an outline then work together to get there. It's called striving for the win-win deal.
What part of that do not you and other dopey leftys not get? Quit wasting our time with your misinformation and rubbish.
I believe Boehner offered the Presidents Simpson-Bowles agreement. Which the President originally discard. Not sure why it was his bipartisan committee that put it together