E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
UPDATED 11: 40 AM ET: There is an emerging deal to avert the fiscal cliff, led by negotiations between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden, but the key sticking point remains the sequester and deficit reduction, aides say.
Biden and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell exchanged phone calls until about midnight last night and aides continued beyond that, aides tell NBC News. Democratic Leader Harry Reid left Capitol Hill in the evening Sunday and was not directly involved last night.
NBC's Chuck Todd weighs in on the chance of a fiscal cliff deal just hours before the deadline, saying it "really depends on the political motivations" of the people at the negotiation table.
Aides say the Vice President and McConnell spoke at 12:45 am and again at 6:30 am this morning. GOP sources say the inclusion of the vice president has made a favorable difference in the talks, given his understanding of legislation and his personal relationships.
Two senior aides to McConnell continued with White House representatives overnight and again today.
GOP aides say they expect their party to likely defer its biggest fight over deficit reduction when the debt-ceiling debate takes center stage in the new year. Republicans say given the time left, there is limited, if no chance, to secure specific detailed alternative spending cuts right now.
Republicans would like to see the "sequester" across the board cuts kept in place to drive down the deficit, but Democrats are resisting that and offer a two-year delay.
But Democrats caution that the "emerging deal" which "creates another cliff in three months probably would not have the votes to pass the two chambers." That is a reference to the looming fights over the debt ceiling and the overall government budget deadline in March.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., talks about the latest developments on the fiscal cliff, and why she thinks Congress hasn't come to a resolution.
Democrats also argue the new revenue generated by tax increases, especially if reduced from the Democrats' earlier targets, should be used to cover the costs of delaying the automatic spending cuts for two years and protecting the long-term jobless with extended benefits.
Cuts that would go into effect as a result of the sequester would be deep and across the board. The discretionary cuts were signed into law in an effort law to compel Washington to address the long-term deficit. So far, the parties have been unable to agree on replacement cuts that would be targeted and therefore less arbitrary.
The most recent Democratic offer on taxes, presented on Saturday night, is setting the new income threshold at $450,000, sources say. That represents an increase over the president's original $250,000 threshold for higher rates and Obama's later offer to Boehner of $400,000.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., opposes any delay of the sequester, when steep, automatic spending cuts will slash budgets at the Pentagon and other government agencies. Flake says he'll take any fiscal cliff deal that prevents a tax hike for most Americans.
Senior Republicans say the GOP is looking for a figure at about $550,000, down from House Speaker John Boehner's $1 million and retaining current estate tax rates. That could mean, say various members, a split-the-difference deal at $500,000.
Significant progress has been made on the income tax threshold and estates taxes, but the figures will not be set in stone until all details are resolved, including unemployment benefits, preventing a scheduled cut to medical provider's Medicare payments (know as the Doc Fix), and a fix to remove millions of middle class taxpayers from the "alternative minimum tax."
The taxes being discussed, by the way, would be made permanent and not given a "sunset provision" in law, which is unusual. There would be no expiration date like the one that forced this debate.
Leave a Comment:
Want some history on deficits? Here you go.
Ronald Reagan decided that the power to start war lied solely in the hands of the President of the United States (as Commander in Chief). He considered what the Constitution said about "only Congress can declare war" was a pesky obstacle that could be ignored. He effectively ignored the single largest check to enter war that we have, and this resulted in all kinds of wonderful events.
Mr. Reagan (and his minions Dick Cheney) set a precedent that continued through the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies, and continues to this day (but to a less degree, thanks to Pres. Obama).
Our endless efforts to wage war on nations that are not invading or threatening us and are otherwise causing the United States zero harm have just about bankrupted this nation beginning in the early 1980's.
This is part of the Conservative Agenda; to rest the power to wage war solely in the hands on one human being (The President), and to privatize the war services to companies like Halliburton (Cheney's company), to the tune of trillions of dollars over the past thirty years.
This isn't rocket science people, this is history.
Our current fiscal dilemma is due to overspending on Endless Wars. The Defense Department and two wars have cost the U.S. debt holders (ie. We The People) over $10 trillion since 2002. That is "Trillion" with a big gigantic "T".
Look who is getting wealthy off of this war mongering? Is it the average Joe American Taxpayer? No, he/she holds less net wealth each and every year.
It is the well-connected top 0.1%? You bet it is, with a net wealth that is now approaching $50 trillion (again with a capital "T"), the top 0.1% own over 60% of the total wealth in this nation...and that number is increasing rapidly.
President Obama is trying desperately to get the wealthy-getting-wealthier to pay a reasonable tax rate that is all.
The rich pay far more of the total income tax bill than they did under Reagan. The middle class pays far less. My guess is that you pay no tax at all and the rest of us support your lifestyle.
Athiest, you have hit the nail squarely on the proverbially head. Keep in mind too, previous Pres Bush was funding the war efforts as a separate expense outside of the US budget. Pres Obama reeled that back in after taking office by putting it back where it belonged which immediately grew the budget and the deficit. Thank you Pres. Bush!!!
Obama's own deficit is over $1 trillion per year. Don't try to rewrite history.
@Jatty,
I own a business (that I started on my own in 2005 without "asking my parents for a business loan" as Mitt Romney would have recommended), and I paid around $25,000 in federal income taxes last year (I think I just heard your head explode from way over here). My marginal tax rate, including both sides of payroll taxes (ie. SS, Medicare, etc.) was 41%.
The projected budget deficit for the last Bush II fiscal budget was $1.4 trillion. Google it...
"The rich pay far more of the total income tax bill than they did under Reagan." Is this, perhaps, because our economy is twice as big...perhaps? Source please...
@Yankee...thanks for pointing out the "wars outside the U.S. budget" Bush shell game. Pres. Obama put the cost of the two (inherited wars) on the books.
If you only paid $25,000 in tax then you are safe from any tax increase. Congratulations. I wonder if you would feel the same if they were raising your taxes. Moreover, if you check the records you will discover that the top 20% of taxpayers paid about 66% of the total income tax in 1970, and it is over 90% today.
Let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy EXPIRE!!
NO increase in taxes on the middle/working classes!
NO cuts in SS and Medicare since those recipients had NOTHING to do with forging this debt crisis.
If you add the raygun/bush/bush tax cuts to the $1.3T deficit that bush left for Obama, you can see that this debt crisis is entirely the creation of the republicans. The rich and corporations benefit from those tax cuts. Let republicans figure out a way for they and their supporters to pay for the fix.
There are MANY places that the budget can be cut, including defense, with is LOADED with cost overruns, corruption, kickbacks, unneeded weapons procurement etc
That should be a bottom lines! And when the debt ceiling fight comes, there should be NO NEGOTIATIONS! Republicans can let the debt ceiling rise, as they've done MANY times since raygun, or they can block it. The choice is theirs!Keep in mind, the current gop leadership voted for ALL of the bush debt, some for most of the raygun/bush/bush debt. They're being transparently hypocritical!
Tom, why is it all you liberals are so ignorant to simple math?
Joe...please share with the rest of us your "simple math".
Thanks...
Another "it's Bush's fault" liberal.
Guess what genius, it's been FOUR YEARS since Bush left, and the Democrats have been in charge of the entire Congress for four of the last six years, and the Senate for SIX years. Democrats has an UNCHALLENGABLE majority for almost two years and could have, and did, everything they wanted.
If you check your FACTS, you'll find the companies and corporations, except for companies like GE, that supports Democrts and Obama, are taxed at a THIRTY PERCENT corporate tax rate and got NO tax cuts from Bush.
If you check, when Democrats STOLE their 716 Billion dollars from Medicare to pay for Obamacare they said that it would be made up by cutting "fraud, waste, and abuse" and then completely CLOSED THE BOOKS on cutting that fraud, waste, and abuse.
If you check, you'll find that it's OBAMA appointees in the Dept of Defense that are saying that the massive cuts Obama wants, to go along with the "cliff", will be devastating to the defense of this nation, NOT Republicans since NO Republican has been appointed to run the Dept of Defense in FOUR years now.
The problem that YOU don't want to face with your ignorant statement of "there are MNAY places the budget can be cut..." is that Democrats don't actually want to CUT anything, but instead are calling for even MORE SPENDING.
And yet you support that crap, don't you? And then blame Republicans because you are too ignorant to face FACTS!!!
People like YOU are the ones that are "transparently hypocritical".
And "Atheist", simple math is, we can't spend MORE than we take in and just keep on doing it.
I know it's complicated to someone like you, but generally most INTELLIGENT people know that 16 TRILLION dollars of debt, 1.2 TRILLION dollar deficits, borrowing 46 cents on every dollar spent, and DOING NOTHING about except wanting to spend more is STUPID!!!
Hey Joe-2849984, here's your simple math.
$250K/yr. is $20,833.33 per month. $400K/yr is $33,333.33/mo. Take any amount you want to over $250K and divide it by 12 - that's the reality of who these Republican terrorists are trying to protect. In many cases, these monthly amounts are more than many make in a year.
Athiest,simple math, when you are spending 1.5 trillion a year more than you take in and don't want to hear about cutting spending, which liberals don't want to hear about
TAX CUTS ARE NOT SPENDING. A tax cut can NEVER produce a deficit. Budget authorizations that call for spending more than the revenue that will be received causes deficits.
Under the Reagan tax cuts revenues increased by 70%
Under the Bush tax cuts revenues increased 39%
tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: 18.5%.
In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of 7.5% in 1979. That rate was cut to 3.3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.
In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was 8% for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts
@ Cheryl,
The projected budget deficit for the last Bush II fiscal budget was $1.4 trillion. Google it...
You say "And "Atheist", simple math is, we can't spend MORE than we take in and just keep on doing it." THAT IS WHY WE NEED BOTH SPENDING CUTS AND REVENUE INCREASES!!!
yankee, so success is now evil to people like you. Don't blame them because you are a under achiever. Look in the mirror. Or are you looking for that handout that you think you are entitled to.
please go over the ciff
They will make no cuts
Bankrutcy is the only way to help the nuts fix to much spending and giveaways
We need a different strategy, grow the economy! Here is a real solution, purpleintervention.wordpress.com/
We don't need to be so drastic. Over the last 4 years, unemployment has shiffted from 10.2% to 7.7%, GDP risen from -7% to +3%, DJIA from 6600 to 13,000, Deficit from $1.45t to $1.1 trillion, etc.
We are in a recovery. The only threat to our recovery and real prosperity in another 4 years is the GOP and the greed of a few billionaires like the Koch Brothers.
We are not in a recovery. New employment does not even keep up with young entrants into the job market. GDP is growing at less than 2% per year. 47 million people are on foodstamps. This is all a distraction from a dismal economic record.
noncoms,
I think that the recovery is meager at best. The real unemployment rate is over 14%. The 7.7% stat is mostly due to federal government hiring and people dropping out of the workforce.
$1.1 trillion per year deficits will add $4.4 trillion to the national debt in four years. The Federal Reserve has been keeping interest rates artificially low as they print money to keep Wall Street afloat. The interest payment on the national debt is about $250 billion per year. When interest rates are allowed to return to a more normal 4 - 5%, the payment on the national debt will grow to over $1 trillion per year.
Who will we tax more then?
Big Red: All accurate points and they prove that the left simply uses bogus statistics to mislead.
So, the Democrats are against deficit reduction and the Republicans are in favor of deficit reduction. Boy, that's new.
Military cuts are favored over entitlement cuts. Smart.
Liberals live in a fantasy land. They are delusional and most are cheap but will gladly spend your money.
If one million poor people, would form a group and invest one dollar each week, to be invested for the group they would become wealthy. If they decided to increase the amount to five dollars a week , it would happen faster! The same would apply to say ten million, middle class who might start with say, twenty dollars a week! With the right plan they could do anything, like at a certain point, pay off so many of the members debt with cash. With a plan to pay half of what they were paying back into the group. etc.etc.etc.! Or you could keep tracking this circus, going on over and over and do nothing, but whine about it and complain !
Gosh, why are you all so "concerned" about the fiscal cliff NOW?
Both parties voted on it, it was passed by a majority of each party, and the President signed it.
This IS the compromise, people. What is so difficult about understanding that?
If we go over, both parties will get some of what they want and some of what they don't want. Isn't THAT real compromise?
So we return to Clinton tax rates. Big deal. Wasn't everything grand under Clinton? It won't kill anyone to pay a little more in taxes. And since neither party has shown any aptitude for cutting spending, sequestration does it for them. Overall, it will end up being a win for the American people--finally a path toward a more sustainable fiscal policy.
I don't have any problem with the tax rates; it is the other things, especially the $600b in spending cuts. For all that spending cuts sound good, in fact, it is a -4% hit on our GDP, it would cause massive layoffs, massive spike in unemployment spending, massive loss of revenue, massive loss of consumer power, and, ultimately, it would increase the deficit instead of decrease it.
Meanwhile, going as we are, we've decreased the deficit by $300b in the last three years. That's the way to go, slowly and carefully making things better, all while we individually live pleasant lives.
The problem being of course that the democrat senate has not produced a budget in 3 years and they don't have one now. That means that, just like a household that spends out of control with no budgetary constraints, the president will continue to spend like a drunken sailor on leave, so the sequestration parameters mean nothing. And the other thing you failed to consider is that we also have the Obamacare taxes to add to the rest of the taxes. Even if these taxes don't apply to us as individuals, we all know that the businesses that are taxed just send it on down to the middle class, so it is the same as another tax on everyone. Happy New Year fellow schmucks, and a pox on our electeds.
Slowly reducing the debt simply adds to the longterm problems. By 2025, the ENTIRE federal budget will be consumed by just a few items: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the INTEREST on the debt, which by slowly reducing as per your suggestion will simply add more that we will have to pay. Interest on the debt is the least productive use of our money. By cutting 10% out of each and every government agency, I fail to see how that will result in "massive layoffs" or "massive loss of revenue". Spending over a trillion dollars more than we have each and every year for the next 4 years will only hurt us, not solve anything.
These right wingers squeal about which cuts the President has proposed but their collective bankrupt memories forget about the defense spending proposed, medicare spending proposed, etc...
You can't win with these people. They've gone off the deep end. There's no saving them.
Arguing with them is a monumental waste of time.
Then perhaps you can point to specific cuts Obama has targeted then. If he's actually proposed all these "cuts" you lefties are claiming, you should be able to point to specific cuts right?
Chip, all you little libs keep mentioning Obama's cuts. How come no one else has heard of them? Please list them for me. Good luck
Yep the President could say the sky is blue and theyd swear he just called the sky red. More obstruction in his 4 yrs as President and nothing ever even close to the hatred these old grouchy bastids have pointed in president Obamas direction. We all know what the root of the hatred is. Its the big pink elephant in the room.
Mega. READ his plan. It's out there. Obama CAMPAIGNED on it and easily DEFEATED the Mittens in the process!
Herron, because of mooches like your family and misinformed voters and the fairyland dreamers called liberals
One, cut the President put in place, is requiring vehicles to get twice the fuel mileage by 2025 reducing the consumption of gas. another is the health care will save a trillion dollars, in the second ten years, ending the war in Iraq, making billions bailing out banks, there are many other things he is doing to lower the budget deficit. His administration has created 5 million jobs! What has the congress done?
Over 70 percent of the people that voted for Obama do not know that there is a difference between the terms deficit, and debt. I find that amazing, and troubling.
No that would be Fox Noise viewer. The uninformed and clueless mass of low IQ clowns!
Khenk, are you really shocked. look at his base, mostly takers and liberals.
Nice made up statistic. Here's another one:
99% of the people who voted for Romney fail to understand that we are in a recovery, the DJIA has risen from 6600 to 13,000, unemployment has fallen from 10.2% to 7.7%, the GDP rate has improved from -7% to +3%, the deficit has shrunk by $300 billion in the last 3 years.
If we stick with common sense plans, we can continue these trends to 1990s-like prosperity.
joe, Obama WON the POPULAR VOTE by a LARGER MARGIN than GW had in 2000 or 2004!
You sad little minority!
And I am sure the ill-informed average GOP voter is much more aware of the differences of those terms?
Debt is a running tally of deficits.
To put this into a real-world scenario, the U.S. had a budget surplus (ie. a negative deficit) during the late 1990's. The projected U.S. debt was expected to fall over the next ten years (ie. as deficits were lessened especially relative to the nation's economic and therefore revenue growth).
But, along came Bush Jr. spending all of this "free money" left to him by the previous administration in the form of his Bush Tax Cuts I and II, unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, and his Two Endless Wars (that he didn't have the cojones to even include in his budgets, by the way), and here we are ten years later sitting on $16 trillion worth of debt, instead of around $5 trillion (as projected in 2001).
That is some real-world, "simple" math for you.
Enjoy...
Herron, you must of got tired playing with your dolls and back playing on your mothers computer again.
You should told that to Bush, from minus 5 trillion
to 10 trillion and another 3 trillion
to finish war in Iraq. Manages to destroy 2 countries with one stone, US and
Iraqis. Re[publican they remain with
looser Romney plan to cut Medicaid/Medicare and social; security
wk, you sound delirious, try learning something before you spew garbage.
w k you cost numbers are lies.
What countries were "destroyed". I guess you supported Saddam, with his gas warfare on his own people, mass graves, starvation, torture, and murders while he built new palaces.
And if you check the FACTS, you'll find that in 2003 that it was BUSH that said we'd have an "economic crisis" if the UNREGULATED practices of Fannie and Freddie, protected and CONDONED by Democrats, wasn't brought under control. And what did we get in 2008 genius, as a DIRECT result of Fannie and Freddie?
And it's NOT about "cuts" to Medicare and Social Security, it's about FIXING THEM before they go broke, but you don't much understand that do you?
You do understand that we've spent MORE in just two years on welfare/food stamps/subsidies/entitlements in the last TWO years than we spent on the ENTIRE Iraq war, right? And how's that worked out for this nation?
If we had just cut checks for the "poor" of this nation instead of spending over a TRILLION dollars on year on "helping" them, there would be exactly ZERO poor in this nation right now.
You think that as long as Bernanke just keep printing worthless paper, we keep borrowing, we keep spending money what we don't have, and simply raise taxes to cover LESS THAN 1% of our annual deficit that everything will just be 'wonderful", don't you?
you can blame Bush all you want, but you forget to add Obama to your blame list.
I say lets just go over the cliff, pay our bills and have some deep cuts. They are like children who didn't study for the exam and it is tomorrow.
Who cares ,all taxes should go back to,the 2000 rates
See post 142.1
I have to laugh when I see GOPers that supposedly "know business and the economy" but have a hard time understanding that when you take money away from the purchasing class, the entire economy suffers....including the small businesses they claim to care about.
I don't know of one business that believes they can grow without investing money in their business. The economy is the same thing....if you want the economy to grow, you need to invest in the economy. Throwing money at wealthy people then crossing your fingers hoping they dump it into the economy is hardly a wise investment.
The GOP decided to screw 98% of the people and small businesses to protect those that are already richer than god.
The rich are "entitled", they say!
Doctor no logic, we can see how well it's been working with Obama at the helm
Problem is the wealthy take that extra income and hide it outside of U.S. taxation. Therefore the money never makes it back into our economy. Just the opposite happens.
I have to laugh when I see liberals that prattle on about business and the economy, think that you can be successful by spending out more than you take in, and also believe taxing the 1% a couple of percent more is automagically going to erase our record debt and spending issue.
More revenue plus spending cuts. Simple math genius
Hmmm, let me see: 33 straight months of job growth and 6 million jobs in that time and GDP growth of 3.1%. Wow....what a failure. (sarcasm)
Megsta,
If you folks think this is such an easy formula for revenue/spending cuts.....why don't you put a full plan on the table that deals with the issue and have it scored by the CBO? You clowns are adamant you hate ALL of Obama's plans, no matter what he does....so propose your own. The main reason you won't is you won't go on record as saying you want to cut spending to programs like SS and Medicare because they are popular programs.....the Paul Ryan budget proved to be an abject failure for many GOP members.
Doctor Logic and another 6 trillion and counting in debt - and spare me about Bush that was 5 years ago - I know let's blame Clinton for the recession he created for to days issues. This President Legacy will be having increased the national debt by 40% and having divide the nation and that is all. - congratulations
What happen to his promise to cut the yearly deficit by 50% oh wait for wait wait for " it must be Bush's fault" what a joke!
Lameo123....
Blah, blah, blah. You keep coming with the same bull ****. WHERE did most of that debt go to? Unpaid for tax cuts (thanks Bush); 2 wars (thanks again Bush); Medicare Part D drug company giveaway (thanks one more time Bush).....those policies don't go away because Bush goes away.
Tell me what compromises have the Republicans made to get this deal done? Obama started at $1.6 trillion in revenue......lessened it to $1.2 trillion in revenue....added chained CPI....removed the debt ceiling demand.....what have the GOP done?
The GOP couldn't even pass their own phantom "plan B" legislation for God's sake.
Stop the out of control spending!
Ok lets start with the 900 billion a year for defense.
President Obama has done just that my man. You should thank him.
Slash the military spending by 70%. The US would STILL spend more than the next country in military spending! (we now spend more than the top 35 counties COMBINED)
GET IT TOGETHER!!! I can't believe that the "People" we elect into this Government of "OURS" don't see eye to eye when it comes to helping out us "MIDDLE CLASS" (if there is one left that is) As I see it it is only the "POOR CLASS" and the "RICH" left in this Country. I am one of the 2.1 million American Citizens that is going to be losing my benefits of money from Unemployment. I have been looking for a "JOB" for over "SIX MONTHS" now and no "LUCK" yet. So why don't you the "CONGRESS" and the SENATE" look out for all of us that will be struggling coming into the "NEW YEAR"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why should I as a taxpayer have to pay you for being unemployed? It's your responsibility, not mine to pay your bills and support yourself.
You think you're going to get a job if taxes are raised and they get away with spending even MORE money that they don't have?
You think that sitting on unemployment for ANOTHER 99 weeks is going to help you get a job? There ARE jobs out there, but you better be willing to actually settle for less than you want and WORK your way out of it.
There are 25 MILLION Americans under/unemployed in this country. The answer to getting them employed is NOT to raise taxes, spend more money we don't have, and then call it a "victory" for the country. The answer is to make sure that people can get JOBS in this country by cutting spending, cutting stifling regulations, NOT raising taxes, and making the is JOB FRIENDLY country instead of a job killing one.
Renee -
What about starting your own business? That's what my husband has done instead of collecting even one cent of unemployment.
Why don't you have some pride in yourself and build your own future?
Good idea! Kick the plan down the road another two years and then do it again. This is the pattern for multiple years and the deficit is getting larger, the spending is growing larger, and because it "offends" certain "ethnic" people groups, don't deal with it because then you won't get re-elected and that would be tragic.
Let's go over this cliff, pick up the pieces and move forward instead of going backward or not moving at all.
Blame either "party" you choose BUT "WE THE PEOPLE" elected ALL of them so the blame lies with US.
basically, government can raise tax, but just cannot cut 1 cent from spending, which has been the case for years. we have an ever expanding government, ever increasing pay for presidents and Congress members, but nobody wants any cut, even the waste spending. but instead, let Fed print more money and borrow more from to cover every spending programs out there.
people however haven't had enough of this yet, so that they elect Obama to continue the same. someday however, it will be the people who would eat the cake and suffer the mounting debt burden themselves. the question is when people will have enough of this, and is it when the debt reaches $20T or $30T, or when our country is ruined like Greece?
Why is it that the GOP still so clueless that they fail to understand they LOST in NOV?
This failed talking point again? I know you have been told over and over again that people also elected a republican majority in the house. Please don't be so clueless.
Herron, what exactly does the election have to do with this fiscal crisis?
The GOP retained the House. Big deal. Obama was re-elected. Big deal.
Now what?
In case you didn't follow the election, a major issue was the economy and taxation. Obama favored allowing the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250K (filing jointly) to return to the upper Clinton era tax rates. Romney favored an across the board 20% cut for everyone, with the loss of revenue being pafrtially made up by eliminating some deductions and credits, primarily by means testing.
Romney lost the election.
Further, exit polling at the time of the election showed that some 10% of those who voted for Romney actually preferred the Obama position on increasing taxes on the upper income brakets, before cutting into social programs such as social security and/or medicare.
Maybe you missed all of that and were "away."
Herron,
As I check the results, it appears that We The People decided to elect more Republicans in the House than Democrats. The Republicans now for the last 2 elections have WON not lost as you claim.
The people have spoken. They want to keep the President in check.
Perhaps, the best thing to happen now is falling off the fiscal cliff. That way, when we get to the National Debt debate, perhaps more politicians will understand this will not be easy. But, until the Republicans understand they must JUST SAY NO to the National Debt increase, our country will never begin to turn around. The deeper we go into foreign ownership of our National Debt, the closer we become to a third-world country. Already some jobs are moving back to the USA. That means we will be doing more manual labor for foreign owners.
Obama and Bush have destroyed the American Dream.
No spending cuts, of course not! Obama just gave Congress a raise by executive order! More money for the people who don't do their jobs. gotta love it!
Actually President Obama has made plenty of spending cuts. Thanks
Why can't you list them Johnny? Only a dozen or so people have asked you liberals to list all these spending cuts you claim Obama has proposed that are actual spending cuts and not double speak. Shouldn't be too difficult to propose a link to said cuts.
What facts Johnny? The deficit is over $1.1 trillion per year. It may be down from the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year, but that is a ludicrous argument. Moreover, Obama is still fighting his "good war" in Afganistan. Obama has engineered no spending cuts and he has no intention of doing so.
Johnny, so what government programs has Obama cut spending. One example along with the dollars spent last year compared to this year would be great.
Johnny, If Obama would cut his own spending it would be a big start for everyone else to follow but nooooo the man cannot stay off that plane.
yes, Obama should cut his own pay, and ask Congress to cut their pay as well to set an example. otherwise, where is the spending cut?
Does anyone know how to simply dissolve the congress as is done in many other countries?
i hope we could do that too, but US has a different system from Europe, a 2 party system which is corrupt and yet there's no mechanics to dissolve itself.
The whole military estab has to be thoroughly revamped because it has become a privatized money machine for corporate war mongers. First thing is first and that should be the first huge cut.
Fine! Take more of my money and just keep spending like a kid in a candy store. The Democrats will NEVER use extra money to pay down debt. They LOVE to spend my money.
Actually spending growth is down under Pres Obama but dont let the facts get in your naive way. G Bush spent your kids future on unneeded wars.
Wow, Johnny. Big deal. The spending RATE is lower. Does that really help, or are we just adding a trillion or so dollars to our debt every year?
Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and the GOP Congress did too. But funny thing is, that spending went UP after the Dems took Congress for Bush's last 2 years, and then has remained virtually unchanged over the course of the last 4 years. Is that spending sustainable?
So, since you like to brag about how the Dems will save us money, consider this: Under Bush, the national debt doubled, from roughly $5 trillion to $10 trillion. And under Obama, the national debt will once again double, going from roughly $10 trillion to about $20 trillion. So if under Obama, the RATE of increase falls to slightly lower than under Bush, are we better off now or then? Is $10 trillion better than $20 trillon?
Go over the cliff and not raise the debt limit. Force the hacks to pass a budget. That is the primary job of congress, which they havent done in how many years now? If we done our jobs the way DC does theirs unemployment would be 50%. People making a million a year didn't cause this. People on welfare didn't cause this. Hack politicians, who have been paying off thier voting blocks with our tax dollars caused this.
The debt limit is to pay the bills for money ALREADY SPENT.
It would be like if you failed to pay your own CC bill. But the GOP did screw america and and the US's credit rating drop already!
isn't that the reason to cut more spending before the debt limit is reached?
keeping raising the debt limit is like saying: spend more and we have no limit on spending anyway.
I want to go cliff diving,,,all you people need to get out of the bush,welfare ax cuts ,and the Obama pay roll tax
Both where temp and need to go.
I'm not even sure why the White house is speaking to McConnell. He's in the Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats. It will vote which ever way the president wants. It is getting the House to agree to something that is the sticking point. Boehner isn't even worth speaking with because he is just a puppet of the party at this point. Every time he announces that he has a deal with the president Eric Cantor and his buddies pull in the reins and show him who is really in charge of the house. Speaking to figure heads is a waste of time. Go straight to the source of the problem. Which in this case means the un-elected leader of the republican party Grover Norquist.
MOUGLI and his cabinet will do nothing but destroy america..
he is the biggest joke of a president....
hell obama makes bush and carter look like great presidents