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:
Although I think Obama is shaping up to be one of the worst Presidents ever, I think his plans for this issue have some credibility. The rate on the wealthy has to increase a bit to increase immediate revenue, but the economy needs to get moving as well and spending must be reigned in. Obama has showed that he is a taker, let's see if he is a giver as well.
Everytime the federal government has raised taxes, it has spent more. I don't see that changing.
When you consider that the taxes they want to raise will do almost nothing, consindering the deficit, then something is going to have to give.
Either we all need to pay more in taxes, spending most definately needs to be reigned in (and at a much larger rate than anyone is comfortable with), or before my generation retires, we'll likely see a economic colapse if we keep the status quo.
Obviously there needs to be a combination of revenue increase and spending reduction, but there needs to be vastly more spending reduction than revenue increasing. Dems want to increase revenue at a level that does almost nothing to the deficit, and it's questionable if they even really want to reduce spending.
David
You and I agree, and I think a deal that incorporates both a tax increase, as well as the reduction of tax deductions for those making over $X coupled with immediate spending cuts needs to be implemented.
The Obama plan of having the cuts take effect later is just another way of kicking the can further down the road.
Not only that Politico, but the cuts he wants to make are so insignificant, it's a joke.
Both sides need to accept that we need to make serious cuts across the board.
Don't get me wrong though, it needs to be done in an intelligent way. If our government just simply ran effeciently, we wouldn't have this problem today. So we need to look at making everything in, about, around, and through government more effecient!!!
Raising taxes by 3 percentage points on the Top 1% generates $40 BILLION in new taxes per year. With a $1.5 Trillion annual deficit, that would be 2.7%. We have to find another 97.3% of $1.5 trllion. Hmmmm???
RP
Again you are arguing that we should end deficit spending in one single payment when even republicans and their own budget don't call for that.
What's up with the strawmen?
That's not the argument David.
The argument is that not enough reduction in spending is going to happen to actually make anything that even looks like a dent in deficit spending.
We aren't even talking about the level of debt already owed. We are only talking about knocking down how much debt we add each year.
I don't understand how dems can't see this problem
Dougler - You nailed it. We must make a major dent in the $1.5 or so TRILLION annual deficit so we can STOP raising the total debt ceiling and hope the economy picks up enough to eventually begin to chip away at the national debt.
David, why do you insist in misunderstanding?
The misconception that too many that read only the headlines is that Obamas plan starts to cut the deficit immediately
Whichever plan you use, it is only a start as a lot more needs to be done.
The $4 Trillion deficit reduction plan is over 10 years, which means that the deficit spending will still average $800B per year, thereby potentially adding $8 Trillion to the national debt over that same 10 year period, unless there is significant and constant spending reductions.
poor doug inserting himself into a discussion assuming he knows the topic when he doesn't. That was not RPs one payment point.
However, your sidestep was jumped upon by RP who desperately needed a way out. Problem is that he fell into another hole.
Since a serious dent needs to be made now why did the republican budget kick the can down the road so it would not affect current seniors?
Your own budget plan wouldn't make a serious dent into the deficit spending and you hacks loved that and most republicans still do.
It's even the basis for the republican plan this article talks about and it will continue deficit spending but since it's your plan that's ok. LOL
Ask doug he said he read the letter were boehner focus on the "key reforms" that come directly from the "house-passed budget resolution" republicans are still pushing.
The most hilarious part about is that you are against obama's plan because you claim it kicks the can down the road but support your own plan in spite of the fact that is does the same and you can't even see it. LOL
Come on David, I know you aren't a crazy lefty, I've seen your posts, and I get the feeling you can be a reasonable guy. So if you're going to try to talk me down, you don't have to be a complete douchebag in doing it.
RP was making the point that the amount of tax revenue raised will do little to effect the yearly deficit in spending. You are the one that set forth the notion that anyone thinks that the deficit could be cleared out in one swoop. We aren't saying that at all. What we are saying is lets make a better effort at actually reducing our deficit, and in turn, eventually our debt. See you on the left like to think that the government just isn't taking in enough money to cover all the things the government tells us we all need. Meanwhile, we on the right understand, that you can't tax the American People enough to actually pay for all of the things the government tells us we all need, thus you have to borrow, and go further into debt.
There is no actual plan that's been set forth, only guidelines for discussion, but I don't think the guidelines go far enough either, or do the one thing that needs to be, making every bit of government on every level more effecient.
I think you've got our stand point all wrong David. But that's pretty common for folks on your side. You commonly mischaracterize our stand point, generally for your own political gain.
Simply put, we all understand that you can't clean out the deficit or debt in one swoop. You couldn't even clean out the deficit in one swoop without killing your economy. But what democrats propose does nothing to address the overlying problem SPENDING!!! Improve effeciency, reduce and eliminate waste and duplication, and we'll go a long way towards balancing a budget.
doug
He was trying to make the point that it wouldn't pay it off in one single payment. This argument has been used by republicans over and over again when NO ONE is arguing or attempting to pay off the entire deficit by only increasing taxes on the top 1-2%.
It's a strawman that serves NO purpose but to obfuscate but I am surpsrised that so many on the right use is as a fallback when all of their other propaganda fails.
As for the budget, my point is that republicans supported and voted for the Ryan budget even though it has the same negative aspects that make them oppose Obama's budgets.
1. It would have continued deficit spending.
2. It would have required increases to the debt ceiling.
3. It wouldn't have made a serious dent in the deficits.
It's a valid point even if you don't want to admit it.
BTW I am not defining your stand point just point out how inconsistent and contradictory it has been as it continues to shift to any position that is polar opposite to whatever position Obama takes.
Obama is reducing waste and duplication in Medicare by $700billion and republicans used it to try and claim he was raiding it.
revenue bills must originate in the house. If republicans want to get serious about it all they have to do is pass reasonable legislation.
Here is what he said
He's not requesting to have it taken out in one shot, but rather pointing out that the raise in tax revenue does damn near nothing to address the deficit problem.
While I can understand how you might come to your conclusion, it's just not the case, and never RP's intent.
Show me a plan that doesn't continue deficit spending, that doesn't destroy your economy and jobs. Fact is, we are so deep into this spending spree of the US government, that you can't let off the gas all at once without having adverse effects on the economy. I think in this area, you and I probably agree. However, where we don't agree, is the level to which the US government reduces spending, as they will have to have greater amounts of spending cuts than revenue increases, if we are ever going to think about getting rid of a deficit, and eventually the debt. Again, spending is the root of this entire problem, not how, or how much we tax our citizens.
That's because studies have shown that Americans spend 2.8 Trillion on healthcare as a whole and had $700+ billion in waste and fraud, not medicare alone. So they will be raiding medicare.
Now, understand, I'm ok with reducing waste and fraud, which is what I was talking about in making the government more effecient, however, I think the numbers were overstated.
If you read what he is saying, he is talking about making up the yearly difference between the 3% increase on the 1% and the total $1.5trillion deficit. Seems pretty obvious to me that by saying "We have to find another 97.3% of $1.5 trllion." he is talking about making up for the shortfall to pay off the remainder.
Furthermore, if you want to talk about budget shortfalls shouldn't you include ALL revenue and not just the 3% increase in taxes on the 1%? That seems a little dishonest to me.
And in come the sidesteps that don't really address the content of what you pretend to be responding to. Point is that republicans approved and voted for the ryan budget in spite of the fact that it has the same flaws they use to reject obama's budgets and his plans. It's called partisan politics.
Actually I think you misread that. CBO projected that the ACA would increase costs by 1% a year to 2.8trillion over 10 years but without the ACA healthcare cost would increase by 4% a to 3.5trillion. So the ACA saves 700 billion over that ten years.
However that has nothing to do with the $716billion in waste and duplication that obama cut from Medicare over the next 10 years. Nice try though.
David - Dougler has no problem understanding the points. I have nearly concluded that you read these posts to see how you can misunderstand them. If that is your game, I am done.
My point was exactly as Dougler explained. The tax rate increase on the higher income people is miniscule compared to the gap that EVENTUALLY (not expecting it this year or next) to be filled yet that is the part that is getting all the discussion. The heavy lifting therefore (if we are not going to find other revenue) has to come from reducing spending. Our discussion time and politicians negotiating time should be spent there.
I understand them completely If you didn't phrase it and contradict what you meant to say but failed to say I wouldn't have interpreted it the way you actually wrote it.
seems pretty straight forward to me that you were talking about making up the yearly difference between the 3% increase on the 1% and the total $1.5trillion deficit. Seems pretty obvious to me that by saying "We have to find another 97.3% of $1.5 trllion." you were talking about making up for the shortfall to pay off the remainder.
Now you want to take a look at the whole picture and not just the increases? Well at least you are making steps forward.
David - YOU - yes YOU - are the one that assumed a one year time frame. I did not say that. I said that we'd have to find the other 97.3%. Until we do, the National Debt continues to rise. There is a limt as to how high the national debt can go before it is unsustainable.
And this circus has only one reason to keep it alive: the mesianic and obscene refusal by the Republicans to let the tax cuts expire. It is like a disease to them and they don't want to be cured.
The revenue won't solve the fiscal problem but it will greatly help to ameliorate it, but the Republicans think that that is irrelevant, they prefer to sink than to row in order to protect their benefactors in the 2% of the population.
This should tell the american people what they really are for, in spite of their rhetoric about creating jobs and protecting the middle class. Their number one priority is to protect the rich with the excuse that they are the "job creators" and the rest of the country can go straight to hell, they couldn't care less.
That's because it is irrelevant. It only takes care of less than 6% of the deficit spending. So what are you going to do about the remaining 94% of deficit spending?
So tell me how taking care of only 6% of the problem "greatly help to ameliorate it"
Raising taxes by 3 percentage points on the Top 1% generates $40 BILLION in new taxes per year. With a $1.5 Trillion annual deficit, that would be 2.7%. We have to find another 97.3% of $1.5 trllion. Hmmmm???
Rasputin
That isnt the issue. The Republicans want cuts to be on par with tax increases, and Obama really is not too keen on cutting, in fact he wants to spend more before eventually cutting.
On this, I really dont blame the Republicans for standing firm. Enough of the government sticking its hand out only to say, Yes we are going to take more of your money, but No, we have no intention of spending less, in fact we are going to spend MORE.
That thinking is just stupid.
Doug
If you aren't attempting to end the deficit spending in one payment then why does it matter what you do with the TOTAL amount remaining after only accounting for the increased taxes on the 2%?
Furthermore, does that number take into account other revenues generated outside the tax inreases on the top 2%?
As long as enough TOTAL revenues come in to slowly reduce the deficit over time why focus ONLY on what the tax increases for the for the 2% will cover?
Same goes for your math RP. Does it include total revenues or are you only choosing to focus on the increased taxes on the 2%. Does that number even include the other ~35% that they are supposed to pay?
You republicans and your fuzzy math. lol
Because eventually you do have to make headway in reducing the deficit, and without at least a guideline for continued reduction of the deficit, and eventually the debt, then government officials are going to do exactly what government officials always do......whatever the hell they want.
It takes into account all current tax increases proposed by obama. Obviously, everything is still up in the air.
At the end of the day you can't tax the American people enough to cover current spending David.
If you taxed everyone making $1 million or more at 100% you could pay to run the federal government for 3 months.
Now you could tax everyone making $100,000 or more at 100% and create revenues of around 3.4 Trillion dollars. Certainly that would cover all of our spending for each year, but you really think that's going to be good for the economy?
Taxing isn't the problem, Spending is.
Your first response doesn't really answer the question that was asked. Plainly stating that the increase ALONE won't be enough to pay off the yearly total does nothing to comment on or address making headway in reducing the debt as far as the whole plan goes.
Shouldn't you look at the entirety of the proposed package for a more honest look at how deficits will be effected instead of ONLY focusing on the increased rates?
Let's talk honestly that we are walking a tightrope here. Increasing taxes and reducing spending are both bad for the economy yet we need the economy to grow if we are to make real progress year after year on getting back to an annual balanced budget. While we still run annual deficits, the national debt will grow.
I am optimistic yet very concerned. If the economy does NOT recover fast enough (so that it generates more tax revenue), then that is the Greece scenario where all your social programs get cut, defense spending drops to marginal levels and our lifestyle as we know it is destroyed.
And this is nothing more than the same type of scare tacitcs. There is no tightrope. If republicans really felt that way then they would make a deal and wouldn't have held the country hostage over increasing the debt ceiling when their own budget would have required it and cost us our credit rating.
David
So you are saying there is no critical balance to be struck between raising taxes, cutting spending and keeping the economy growing. Let's see how many of your colleagues will agree with that. I am surprised that this is where you chose to take issue. I thought most accepted this. How do you see it differently?
Obama Economics is Lets Make a Deal economics. Get a ton of people to work at making up some stupid costume and go down to the show whooping and cheering and hoping to get noticed by the lovable host. Out of the ton of people you pick out four to try for a prize. Out of those four, three make a wrong decision and get zonked and a heartfelt "sorry" from the lovable host. One crazy costumed person goes nutty winning a washer and dryer. After the show, the lovable host collects his check. The tons of people not picked have to wander home with their heads down being laughed at in their stupid costumes. The three who got zonked in a game that is fixed, become depressed over their bad decisions and blame themselves so they have to go into therapy. And the one who won the washer and dryer finds out the pawn shop will only give 40% retail and they owe 70% in taxes so they have to find a way to make up the 30% on their own or else the IRS will lock them out of their homes and sieze their other assets to get the money. Keep dressing up and cheering and acting goofy folks.
How is it that when a new article pops up on the NBC site, that Fiesty person is already up there with a comment and 200 "like" clicks so it stays at the top of the page? I think the fix is in there too.
I agree with most of what's been said, but I give you THIS as well: Even IF the GOP plan has merit partially or in total, there is ZERO justification to keep the tax cuts on the top %1 or %2 for that matter REGARDLESS. The last 8-12 years is PROOF ENOUGH that cuts for the wealthy DO NOT HELP THE COUNTRY or "create jobs". All it does is throw money away and add to the deficit! RESTORE THE TAX RATE OR GO OVER THE CLIFF! BRING IT!
You're mixing a lot of things, that aren't all directly connected.
The republicans are going to stand their ground for now, in an effort to try to get what they want out of the deal, just like democrats are doing. Republicans will eventually cave and allow some sort of increase in revenue. In fact, they are already offering increased revenue on the backs of the so called "wealthy".
Prior to 2008, the economy was booming. The tax rates helped this. The economy did not fall because of the tax rates. The economy fell because of a global recession, that whether people want to admit it or not, still continues today, though it is very slowly improving.
If you want to restore the tax rates, then lets restore all of them, because only restoring them for the top 2% does next to nothing to assist in deficit reduction.
I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion on this point. I'll just say - "How do we know?"
Tax rates/cuts are just one variable in thousands that impact the economy. Who is to say that we would not be in much worse shape had we not made the cuts and pumped billions back into an economy that was so weakened by 911?
40 pages of partisan crap. Shame on all of you.
Even the Democrats among you admit that the "2%" pay, on average 24% taxes, while each succeeding lower bracket pays pecentage points less. Explain, EXACTLY, how an additional hike on the "2%" is going to reduce deficits or sustain existing programs?
So, here's the simple solution, my fellow Americans: EVERYONE IS TAXED AT 15%. NO DEDUCTIONS, NO LOOPHOLES, NO WRITE OFFS.
You pay 15% on your wages (if you're fortunate enough to have a job); you pay 15% on your purchases.
Don't have a job, you say? Too bad. EVERYONE IS TAXED AT 15%. Including those who receive government payouts - Unemployment, Social Security, EVERYTHING. This means: If your benefit was to be $100.00, you get $85. Why should you get a C-note for not working when your neighbor who does only gets $85? It's called fairness.
Then, just to ensure solvency, 15% of all revenue generated MUST BE PLACED in a simple savings account. South Carolina automatically places 10% of it's revenue aside, to be used ONLY in emergencies, and must be replaced, WITH INTEREST. Call it a self-tax. Oh, just for giggles, all raises for members of Congress, the Court system, and the Executive Department must be submitted to the taxpayers; approval to be based on the number of COUNTIES voting for or against (not popular vote or electoral college).
Lastly, the Federal Budget must be approved for the next fiscal year NLT 31 MAY of the preceeding year. No budget, legislators, Mr. President, NO PAY, NO VACATION, NO BENEFITS for you. No approved budget by 30 JUN? NO JOB. NO RE HIRE. NO RETIREMENT. The States then convene, for the sake of argument, a CONTINENTAL CONGRESS specifically conjoined to establish a budget and appoint temporary legislators until a date can be set for a general election, which will be held no later than 31 AUG, to report the first Monday after Labor Day.
It's too simple, and will never be accepted by anyone in our country, I know. But, as Americans, we ALREADY pay the lowest taxes in the world.
There is no limit to their lies.
Nick
Now if you speak politicianese, that means he actually wanted to spend $1 trillion more than he did.
Here's the prediction.
Democrats and Republicans will continue to go back and forth.
We will go "over the fiscall cliff" which is what democrats really want.
Democrats will publicly blame republicans, as they already are setting up.
But don't be fooled, Democrats get their tax increases while at the same time acting like "it wasn't me"
Within the following year, democrats will reduce rates for the "middle class", but it won't be to the current rates the middle class pays right now, the middle class will be paying slightly more in taxes than they are right now, as democrats will argue that returning to current rates will hurt governments ability to provide services to the less fortunate, and I'm sure they'll find a way to make Republicans look bad in that area too. Meanwhile, Republicans will take any rate reduction at that point, because let's face it, in the real world who doesn't like lower taxes?
There will be some shifting in where and how much to cut, as some of the cuts that were made because of the fiscal cliff will be restored, while others will remain cut, but altogether there will be no real significant cut in spending.
So at the end of the day, we'll all have higher taxes. Probably more debt, and we'll be one year closer to looking like Greece.
Hmm? Who set up the taxcuts to be temporary in the first place all so they could keep future costs after they are due to expire off the books and make the budget numbers look good?
Oh right is was W and the republicans who set them up as temporary instead of making the permanent way back when they could.
Seems to me that since they were the ones that set them up as temporary when they could have made them permanent they should carry the blame. You know, personal responsibility and all.
Oh and love the scare tactic at the end there. Ties it up in a nice little bow. LOL
David - You chose to call Dougler's last line a "scare tactic". How is he wrong? I think that is a real concern. What do you see differently?
because greece is the new terror alert level chart for republicans. When in doubt or out of real arguments scare people into submission so you can get what you want. It's what republcians do.
DAVID (Yes in CAPS) - Answer the darn question that was asked.
How is Dougler wrong?
He won't answer it RP, he'll just dance around the issue, merely trying to point blame at anyone that he doesn't agree with. So while you and I are trying to talk about how to go forward from here, David is stuck in the past, doing nothing more than trying to point a finger.
It's not a scare tactic to say we will be one year closer to greece, it's a matter of understanding math. You simply can't continue to spend vastly more than you take in, and expect to keep all your services at their current level.
I know it's nothing more than political brownie points to crucify me and other 1%ers, as it won't amount to very much in the overall scheme of things. We do have very competent accountants and lawyers that will circumvent much of this, so why not pass something that makes sense. You want to raise capital gains to 25%. I paid 15% on quite a large sum this year. What many don't realize is I paid the highest tax rate in the country and bought stocks after being taxed. Now that a handful of investments paid off, I get to pay another 15% on the amount above and beyond what I purchased them for. Any idea what this will do to the stock markets, as far as speculation goes? Everybody screams and cries because Romney and other smart "wealthy" people (Libs and GOP) invest with money managers, all of which maintain offshore hedge funds in the Caymans, Bermuda, Jersey Islands and other less expensive places. Why not entice those same money managers to keep their funds here in the U.S. so the billions and billions they manage will stay home. Instead, you want to force companies to find reasons to move abroad. Why do you think a tiny country like Ireland has over 700 U.S. based companies registered their? Liberals need to learn how to give incentives not penalize excellence. They need to quit rewarding those who feel entitled to others hard earned dollars. Eliminate wasteful entitlement programs and help people become more self sufficient, but that might cost them votes if they are allowed off the government bottle. Don't forget, it's people like me who employ close to 100 people, pay millions in payroll tax, my employees who earn on average $75K a year pay a high tax rate, buy houses, cars, spend a good bit and pay taxes on their purchases. Might not want to keep biting the hand that feeds this country too many times.
I have so often said the same thing. The dems and liberal have removed the incentive and motivation from the public. They continue to want to punish those that do well and tell their supporters that those who succeed should share with those too lazy to go out and reap the rewards themselves. And then by giving to the lazy and malingering people to get votes the libs continue to keep them under their control. What a pathetic way to run our country. Are the dems and libbers really so blind they can't understand this or are they just so dependant on the government they don't now how to achieve success anymore.
Depending on where you live, there may be more incentive to stay on unemployment.
For example, as of 2011 if you qualified for maximum unemployment benefits in Mass (which is one of the highest states if I am not mistaken), you would get a weekly check for about $650. and I believe there is a provision that pays you an additional weekly sum for each dependent, so if you are married and have two kids, basically you are being paid $775 a week, or $40,000 a year to stay home.
No doubt this is the liberal way, or they would lose elections if too many people become self sufficient.
Aren't you guys tired of rehashing the same old arguments pitched over the years, including during this election cycle? Tax rates for the rich have never been lower. So how come jobs are not created? Higher tax rates have never stopped people from wanting to make more money and lower tax rates will not stop you from stashing your loots off-shore either. And if you're really as smart as you claim to be, you'll know you didn't build the infrastructures that you use to make your millions all by yourself. Come off this condescending, self-absorbing high horse you're riding on already.
What the hell is taxing the rich more and more and more going to do for you? Are the rich the reason we are in this mess? Some of you who use "plastic" to pay for everything you don't NEED but WANT... are a major part of the problem too. Every person who lives beyond his or her means is as responsible for our debt problem as the government. Until people stop feeling entitled to a better life that they are not willing to work for, we are gong to continue to have problems. Taxing the rich (who by the way control the job market) is not the answer. You are biting off the hand that's feeding most of you when you do that.
And, while I'm at it, ALL of you people whining about not being able to find jobs and who live in states with 11% or higher unemployment are pathetic. You have that high of an unemployment rate, and you still choose to reelect the same people to run this country and your state??
Good point Kari
Dont forget those that choose not to take a job because it only pays slightly more than unemployment.
Why work when you are getting similar money for nothing. This is what some in our society have evolved into.
Very good point Kari and very correct. Not politically correct, because you will never sell this those blind, bleeding heart liberal telling you the rich are the blame for everything, oh excuse me rich republicans, oh excuse me again rich white republicans, but none the less common sense and economically correct. Wouldn't it be nice if those who support the dems for these reasons ever woke up and it would be really nice if those dems that are promising these rewards for no work would stop doing it just to get re-elected.
The Rich who privatize the profit and socialize the losses ARE at fault. And there are many of them. And the way in which they "live of government" makes welfare paid to the poor, the elderly, and incapacitated look like a pittance.
How do the wealthy "live off the government"?
Rational Poster, Just one example: When was the last time a fully armed Nuclear aircraft carrier floated past your off shore oil rigs?? Do you send your profits to off shore tax havens so that you avoid paying US taxes on them?? Does the US Diplomatic Corp protect your world wide business interests?? If you want to cut trees in a national forest for commercial purposes will the government build the roads for you to haul the lumber out on?? Corporate Welfare is alive and well and its very very costly. About half the "government regulation " that the righties complain so bitterly about actual PROTECTS BUSINESS and/or defrays Business risk, or pays them directly to do nothing! Privatize the profit, socialize the risk---that's exactly what happen during the bank crisis--the banks already had all their profits, for years---the losses were passed on to the government and US the taxpayers!
You provide some good examples of businesses benefiting from government help. The questions was - "how do the wealthy live off the government?" I don't think your answers address that question.
When a business is helped - many benefit. The workers of the company, the economy as a whole in collecting more taxes from a more profitable company and the shareholders all benefit. The shareholders are not necessarily wealthy. Heck, I probably own some shares in some companies that you had in mine. Maybe your 401(k) owns shares in some of these companies. The Teachers or Public Workers retirement fund probably owns shares in these companies.
I think you are falsely painting a picture that implies wealthy people are somehow at fault.
So you are a believer in "trickle down", eh?? The profits flow up my friend, the real money rises to the top and ends up in someones Trust Account. Too often the so-called wealthy are gaming the system. Wealth in this country is now concentrated at the top and its not creating jobs, far from it.
Do you have examples? These assertions represent a point-of-view that my experience does not support.
I hate labels like "trickle down'. If you mean do I believe a rising economy raises all boats - YES, I do!
I believe that over time, most receive back in compensation relative to the value they create.
Mr. President,
In case you haven't noticed, it's not the Republicans who are going to ruin Christmas,it's your friends on the west coast. Yes,over there at the home of Pelosi, Weinstein,Boxer and a bevy of other beauties. It is your Long-shore Union friends out on strike, creating a billion dollars a day loss to the economy. No doubt you are trying someway to blame Republicans and if you cant, you will just ignore the problem because the main stream media will.
If you pay no income tax, you should not be allowed to vote on how those taxes are spent.
Romney paid no income tax.
Should your theory apply to running for president too?
ahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
CS=BS
While I don't agree with the "income tax payment equals the right to vote" your response is just as foolish. There is no question that Romney paid income tax and to put a pure fabrication just brings you down to the lowest level.
just no cure for stupid - Romney pays MILLIONS in income tax - every year
Soon, John Boehner's knees will need a new rug burn kit.
There are certain factions of the GOP that truly should be charged with domestic terrorism!
.
NO Tax Increases!!! Instead do something the US Govt has NEVER done before. Reduce Spending!
Reduce Spending back to the FY 2008 level and then limit annual increases to the budget to 2.5%
Yes. All the talk is about taxing the higher income folks. Raising taxes on the Top 1% by three percentage points only raises $40 Billion in taxes annually and the annual budget deficit has been running like $1.5 TRILLION. That $40 BILLION only closes the gap by 2.7%, so we sure do need to spend our time talking about what can make a serious dent in the deficit and that has to be spending cuts.
This proposal is just the same old crappy 'balance the budget on the backs of the middle class' rhetoric that lost the Republicans the election. Know what the MAJOR 'tax loophole' that they want to 'close' is? It's the mortgage interest tax deduction that would add thousands to middle-class tax burdens nationwide. If I get hit with this, my house goes on the market the very next day!! How far will Republican political leaders go to protect their rich supporters???? This is absurd!
spider - What I heard Romney advocating during the campaign that I expect the GOP to support are limits on deductions for home mortgages and charities design to have little impact on the middle class. Since they are negotiating and we don't know what is being proposed, why do you assume they are proposing something different than what I described? What have you seen?
Obama is lying to you.. Why cant you figure out the numbers.. All you Dems listen blindly to this man.. HITLER.. Look up the numbers yourself.. Get educated.. deductions being taken away would raise the money Obama wants, he just didnt think of it so he wont do it.. The tax on the rich will only pay for 8 days of govt. to be run.. 8 days.. WOW.. what a joke.. He is not trying to help the middle class.. WHERE are the JOBS? He isnt even thinking about jobs.. he is thinking about spending.. If you had to pay more taxes and ran a business, where would the money come from???? Less employees... Less hrs. for employees... Use your brain in you head and not the other end... GROW up.. Obama is playing you like a fiddle.. You are not very smart. And he loves it..
The GOP offered the solution in November it was called Mitt Romney. Voter fraud and the walking dead voters put the Barack Obunghole back in for four years. Enjoy those foodstamps scumbags! Obama in April 2013: "I didn't realize how bad it was when I was, ah, ah, reelected, the uh, uh, policies of the last administration have really, uh, uh what's that? That was me and that dumbass biden? Oh, uh, uh nevermind". A manchild will lead them. Thank MTV.
@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"
The Speaker of the House is full of "HOT AIR," and many not all of the other Republicans, too. The American public voted for what they wanted and one of the points was on higher taxes for the 2 percent rich which would include Romney and the Speaker. We know that Romney keeps his money in offshore tax havens that has been proven I believe through investigative reporting and so that will permit him to keep more of his coppers in his pocket.
It is my belief that Obama should stick to many of his guns with compromise where it makes sense and if the Republicans do not want to listen to the American people let everything expire. Obama, cannot be held responsible for the otherside who wishes to stand by a contract they made with one man many years ago that they had no business entering into to no tax hikes. That contract that was signed by the many still standing Republicans should be taken to court and made illegal and non-binding as this individual is not the head of the United States and even the President of the United States could not make binding what this individual is fluanting, did, and still trying to enforce.
Republicans need to be more specific in what they plan to cut in medicare and so those on it know what they have to face now and in the future. The public who voted has a right to know upfront who is for what..
tf - First, the voters never voted on the question of higher taxes for the Top 2%. If you are referring to Obama being re-elected, keep in mind that nearly half voted AGAINST him plus all but eight GOP House members were voted back into the House. The GOP House Reps mandate is to hold down tax increases and to cut spending. Their constituents sent them back to do that, so if THEY want to keep their jobs, they better do it.
There are surveys that show the people favor the Top 2% paying higher taxes. Everyone wants the other guy to pay more. I am surprised 98% don't vote yes for the Top 2% to pay higher taxes, so when I hear a majority wants it, I am not surprised. Someone once said, "Democracy has to be more than two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for supper".
The other issue with raising taxes is that raising tax rates by 3 percentage points on the Top 1% generates $40 Billion in new taxes - less than four days of Federal Spending and only 2.7% of the annual deficit of $1.5 TRILLION. That said, to make any real progress on our deficit, we MUST find either other revenue or other cuts.
As for Medicare, if the Federal Government had to account for programs the way corporations
are required to fund programs, the U.S. government would have to put in $31
TRILLION TODAY - yes twice the national debt - to fund the gap in revenue vs
spending over the next 75 yrs for Medicare.
The GOP talks of trying to address that issue and get ridiculed. To push this
issue further forward to our grandchildren and future generations without action
is IMMORAL!
RepubliCONs are bankrupt, they are so far away from the Republican past ... tradition ... of, one of (mabe THE) GREATEST Presidents EVER, Lincoln, that they have no idea of thier direction anymore. They have sold out to the 1% and their interestests when Ronald Reagan became President. Reagan will go down in History as the man that sold out AmericA and AmeriCANs. And Caused the near Colapse ... or Colapse of These United States.
What We the People do, what we stand for and stand behind from here on will determine that direction. Following the Neo-Con/RepubliCON path, the "It's not my job to worry about those people" (MR) "The Constitution is just a Goddamn piece of paper" (GWB) PATH is NOT the answer for These United States.
President Obama is the soldier we needed to fight a holding action against Neo-Con/1% principals and inititives. Now "We the People" need to rise up and support the Constitution and OUR Country like our FREEDOM depends on it ... Because it ... DOES!
Hey stupedaso, good to see you again.
Question for ya
How's life when you live it so misinformed?
stupe - You expressed several opinions which are inconsistent with the facts. I have read your other posts. You don't process facts well, do you?
stupe - Please share your take on the Medicare facts that I shared in #1058. It explains why the GOP are the only adults in DC trying to act in the interest of our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
The path that Obama & the other DEMs would take us down not addressing these unsustainable programs and dumping the debt on future generations is IMMORAL.
RP, you're an idiot....
Revolution suggestion should start by no one sending any taxes to DC, stop your withholding on your pay, companies don't send in employer payroll taxes, companies don't send in there quarterly tax estimates, just put it into a savings account, let it earn interest so you can pay your failure to pay penalties later, and wait for the bankruptcy of the USA to quickly occur, then maybe DC will get serious with cutting costs. Not enough jail space for all of us taxpayer hey!
Boy, talk about a non-solution! While you're at it, why not just burn down the entire country?
Charley, are you ever in fantasyland. That may work on television but there isn't any way to do what you suggest. You've been listening to too many Ted Nugent and Hank Williams jr interviews.
The only offer they have o avid the fiscal cliff is --do it our way or else.
I know. You'd think after the election, the GOP would change ther tune...
Asked by one participant why he insists on increasing rates on the top 2 percent of earners ,,, Because YOU can afford it . No one else has near a 300% increase in their income and works to hide their money in offshore accounts like the top 2 % ers do .