Quantcast
U.S. & World

White House: President Obama will veto any bill extending tax cuts for those making more than $250K

Republicans seek lower rates, new revenue through eliminating some tax breaks

Comments

Return To Article
  • Kyle loves BYU/Jazz Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    No we don't Mr. President. Your approach is don't bother to create a budget and when you want to increase spending say "the rich Americans don't pay their fair share".

    Obama's approach to the deficit is ignore it and act like he didn't say in 2008 that running such large deficits is immoral to pass on to our grandchildren.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    Sadly, I think the President is right. The majority of us seem to believe that the deficit can be solved simply by making someone else feel the pain. Many in the middle class will insist on keeping their tax cuts. Others will insist that not one penny can be cut out of the entitlements. Republicans will insist that not one person will have to see their taxes go up. That's why I'm losing faith that we'll ever solve this problem. We all seem to believe that the problem of our deficit can be solved soley by taxing another group or only cutting somebody else's government program.

  • Madden Herriman, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    I don't think Obama has been a very good President, and I didn't vote for him. However, the Republicans of Congress had better figure out that political negotiating requires that two parties be willing to compromise in order to achieve a better solution for the country as a whole. It seems clear that the GOP has no interest in that, which is inexcusable. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little, and instead this group of GOP leaders seems more interested in driving off a cliff to prove a point (and a dumb one at that - I'm all for lower taxes if we have lower spending, but a progressive tax system makes plenty of sense given our current tax structure).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    @Kyle loves BYU/Jazz
    Uh... we're talking about a debt reduction bill, not a bill that increases spending. And he hasn't ignored it, our annual deficit has gone down each of the past three years. The 2012 deifict is 200k less than the 2011 deficit.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    You'll never make a dent in the deficit unless you increase tax revenues.

    The top 1% of income earners in this country have seen their net worth grow dramatically in the past 20 years, and they did great when their taxes were much higher than they are now. Letting the Bush tax cut expire, as they were intended, is necessary.

    Returning our tax rates to what they were at the end of the Reagan presidency would be a smart, effective approach to deficit reduction.

    If you told me that my taxes would return to the rates of the 1990's, but that in return we'd start to see serious debt reduction, I'd sign on with that plan in a heartbeat.

  • Rebe Herriman, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    For an average family making $70,000 a year, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, that family will see their tax burden increase approx. $3500 a year. That's almost $300 a month. How many of you can afford that? Gas prices are much higher than they were when Bush was president and how many of you have seen your grocery bill greatly increase this past year? That would make it even harder on the average family. Something has got to be done before the end of the year or you will start seeing the housing market tank again, and foreclosures and short sales on the rise. The economy will fall into a recession once again. Our leaders have got to come together and must compromise!!!

  • goodDr. sandy, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    alt134
    kool aid, get your kool aid here. The deficit is 200k less than 2011. WOW!!! That only leaves 1.99999999998 trillion for this years deficit. Let's see quickly 17.5% property tax increase (thank you Corroon), 2.5% medical supply tax increase (passed directly on to you the patient) and a 4.5% income tax increase in all of 4 days. Yep, sounds like lots of decreasing in spending going on in DC. Well, they did spend 200k less than last year and will be raising billions more (all the while the stock market drops 5% and business owners are already laying people off). Enjoy America.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 3:18 p.m.

    @goodDr.
    "kool aid, get your kool aid here. The deficit is 200k less than 2011. WOW!!! That only leaves 1.99999999998 trillion for this years deficit."

    The deficit was ~1.3 trillion in the previous fiscal year and ~1.1 trillion for this fiscal year. I'm sorry that you don't have a real response to the fact we've seen the deficit drop about 15% relative to the previous year.

    "Yep, sounds like lots of decreasing in spending going on in DC."

    The fiscal cliff includes the sequestration spending cuts, remember that trillion dollars Romney said Obama wanted to cut from defense? This is where it is. Of course, Republicans want to avoid those cuts. Shows how serious they are about the deficit...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    Yes!

    A Reagan Democrat if there ever was one!

    Go-Bama!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 3:36 p.m.

    apparently class warfare is a winning political tact
    but it is still class warfare (and despicable)

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 4:25 p.m.

    Madden,
    how is drawing a line in the sand as BO has done "negotiating"? harry reid said there would be no line in the sand - I guess BO is not going along with it.

    I think BO and the dems WANT us to fall off the financial cliff and spiral back into recession. They and the lamestream media will blame it all on the repubs and the dems see that as their path to regaining the house. Who cares what it does to the rest of us as long as the dems solidify their power?

    Blue,
    increasing rates does not necessarily increase revenues. Reagan increased revenues by decreasing rates, as Kennedy did in the 1960s. I guess BO's not smart enoiugh to learn from history

    Atl134,
    the deficit decreased when the repubs regained control of the house - BO wanted to spend MORE than they were willing to spend. to give BO credit for reducing the deficit is the worst of political spin.

  • luv2organize Gainesville, VA
    Nov. 9, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Yes, lets punish those that have worked hard and make more money then us! If I can't win nobody can! Such the Robin Hood mentality. Statistically even by upping the taxes on the so called rich it will not make a dent in the problem.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 5:02 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "the deficit decreased when the repubs regained control of the house - BO wanted to spend MORE than they were willing to spend. to give BO credit for reducing the deficit is the worst of political spin."

    That is a fair point, if it were true. However, I left out that the 2009 deficit was around 1.6 trillion, the 2010 and 2011 deficits were around 1.3 trillion and the 2012 deficit was the 1.1 trillion. So the trend started in Obama's second year, when Democrats were still in control.

    Besides, if Obama had his way we'd have passed that 4 trillion dollar debt reduction deal he was working on with Boehner til Boehner bailed on it and we'd have increased taxes on the rich in 2010. It's not just Democrats preventing deficit reduction.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    The tea party caused the shift of power in the Senate that gave the President the mandate. Yell at them for a while.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    Just like before he is willing to work across the aisle as long as it is his way. His way has been so successful!!

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:13 p.m.

    luv2organize:

    This is just returning the tax rates to what they were before Bush implemented that tax cut. If you are rich, you will still be rich. What is so hard to understand about that?

    "Statistically even by upping the taxes on the so called rich it will not make a dent in the problem."

    You apparently don't know much about statistics. It will make a heck of a lot bigger dent than cutting funding for NPR will.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 8:47 p.m.

    What has his first term taught Obama? He couldn't get a single vote in the Senate to support his budget, but now he's demanding that Congress, a co-equal branch of government, do exactly as he tells them.

    The American people told him differently. They told him that they liked the ideas that the REPUBLICAN House had and that they agreed with the principles that the Republican House stood for. They told Obama that If they agreed with his tax and spend policies that they would have elected Democrats to the House.

    If anyone cares to look, the House, that body of government that initiates all budgetary bills, is still controlled by Republicans because the PEOPLE. chose to elect Republicans as those who have the authority to tax them.

    Obama had better re-read the election results. No king was elected. There are still three branches of government. The Presidency is only one branch. His job is to enforce the laws passed by congress.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 9:24 p.m.

    @mike richards
    the people also told him that they did not want him or the democrat senate to buckle under to the congress Mike you seem to forget the GOP lost sets in the senate and the presidential election. The GOP controlled congress is going yo have to learn to compromise.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:19 p.m.

    Boehner and congressional Republicans are correct: small business owners will be hurt again by Obama if his tax increase plan (increasing taxes on those making over $250,000/year) is adopted. Many small business owners show earnings of $250K, but in reality much of their "profit" is principle debt payments, which cannot be written off.

    To run a business, financing expensive equipment purchases allows for important expansion of business, and/or better services. To penalize such reinvestment into a business will definitely lead to another recession as business owners slow reinvestment in order to pay the increased tax liability. Also, when a business owner is faced with a failing business or laying off employees, they must lay off the employee in order to remain servicable to the customers.

    I predict if a tax increase is adopted that our economy will slow, and unemployment will increase. Why would Democrats want this?

    Republicans have the right idea: expand the tax base by eliminating deductions, lower the tax rates to maintain federal revenues, and do more to help small business owners. This will general more federal revenue and decrease unemployment.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    Yes! let's make it difficult for successful folks to hire. This will create a more dependent country.

    After all, they build that.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:13 p.m.

    @mike richards
    Not only did they lose the presidential race and seats in the senate they lost seats in the house. what is it going to take for you and the gop to understand they people want a balanced approach that must include budget cuts AND increased revenue?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 11:58 p.m.

    Obama got 9,000,000 fewer votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. 14% of.those who selected him in 2008 did not select him in 2012.

    There is no "mandate". If a anything, Americans clearly let Obama know that he has lost faith with America.

    The Senate is 55 to 45. Nothing has changed. The Democrats cannot prevent a filibuster.

    Republicans still control the House. Obama lost significant ground. Democrats in the Senate gained no significant ground.

    Look at the results. Obama is captain of a sinking ship.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:09 a.m.

    Liberals have proven time and time again that they're much more interested in hurting the rich, than in helping America recover.

    Sad.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:17 a.m.

    @mike richards

    Romney lost and the gop lost 5 seats in the senate and 10 in the house but Obama is the one that lost significant ground?

    Obama won the election based partly on his promise to push for a balanced approach that included raising revenue through raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and reducing spending and you think he should just abandon those promises and just go along with what ever the gop wants despite the fact they lost across the board?

    do you really not see the failure in your logic?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    atl134,
    why do dems have such a problem with the truth?

    you said,
    "the 2009 deficit was around 1.6 trillion, the 2010 and 2011 deficits were around 1.3 trillion and the 2012 deficit was the 1.1 trillion. So the trend started in Obama's second year, when Democrats were still in control."

    I don't know where you got your $1.6 or $1.3 numbers, must have been msnbc. I used a federal source for mine

    The truth:
    according to the us treasury direct webpage,
    gross federal debt at:
    January 19, 2009 $10,628,881,485,510
    January 19, 2010 $12,322,107,592,353
    an increase of $1,693,226,106,843 under a DEM congress

    January 19, 2011 $14,053,512,150,448
    an increase of $1,731,404,558,096 under a DEM congress

    January 19, 2012 $15,236,280,735,688
    an increase of $1,182,768,585,239 under a repub congress

    I don't know where you learned math, but $1.18 trillion is considerably less than $1.73 trillion or $1.69 trillion.

    Why you would say that is not true is beyond me

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    Atl134,
    You show more problems with the truth. Boehner didn’t bail; BO did after his handlers told him the deal he’d worker with Boehner made him look weak

    Emajor,
    Just returning tax rates to where they were before the bush cuts?
    OK, return them for everybody, including BO’s payroll tax cut that robs SS of about 1/6 of its funding. And you say $88 million is a dent in $1.1 trillion? Not hardly. More leftist problems with the truth.

    Spring street,
    The people have also said they don’t want the house to buckle under BO and harry’s obstructionism

    Phranc,
    I see you only read Mike’s conclusion but chose to ignore his supporting statements.

    Since when is losing 9 million votes gaining?

    How can the GOP lose 5 seats and still hold the same number?

    taking $88 million more from job producers and thereby crushing job creation will close a $1.1 trillion deficit and balance the budget? Really??

    Read David's comment from last night about what that "income" to small business owners really is.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    @ Spring street "GOP controlled congress is going yo have to learn to compromise". Would that be like Obama did in his first two years? "Republicans can come along but they gotta sit in the back of the bus" or as he told the Rep leaders "I won". Obama is great at compromising as long as it it his way.
    Remember Bengzi!!

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    Obamas mandate which there is none would have come from the free grazers who see Obama as Santa Claus. You know free stuff.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    There's something wrong when I pay twice the tax rate of Romney. I'm not saying the rich should be treated unfairly - they just need to pay their fair share. Those of us in the middle class should not be subsidizing the rich.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Funny, the election was just earlier this week, but it appears many people still do not get it.
    President Obama won because more voters agreed with his policies, one which was that the wealthy in our society need to pull their weight.
    Time for the Republican party to realize Karl Rove was way off the mark, and work towards balancing the budget and healing the country.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    No fit in SG, Obama didn't win on his big ideas. In fact this morning on msnbc a poll showed 49% of Americans disliked Obamacare and wanted repeal and replace, 44% liked Obamacare and wanted it to remain.

    Obama won by depicting Romney falsely. Americans chose status quo because they felt there wasn't a better option. The media helped Obama in the campaign and Romney lost.

    When you speak of taxing the rich as a policy Americans support, you are correct to a point. Americans do want an increase in taxes for the wealthy...but only if the federal government will also reduce spending. Americans are fearful of $20 Trillion in debt, which is where we will be 4 years from now if spending isn't reduced.

    Simpson-Bowles was a good compromise. Obama shelved their proposals. Lets see if he will lead out and pull off Simpson-Bowles rather than simply tax the rich and increase spending.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    @ Utah Bill When Romney has ordinary income he pays almost the same rate as you do. Keyword Ordinary income. His tax return shows investment income which has already been taxed once. How many bites of the apple should the greedy givernment get? You have bought Obamas class envy hook line and sinker.

  • RH2011 Payson, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    I think the compromise is in redefining the lower limits of rich. I know several small business people who fall into $250,000 and being nothing but struggling to break even. Maybe begin at $500,000 or $600,000.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Nov. 10, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    as a working middle class person my family enjoyed the tax breaks of Bush. It just wasn't the rich. Cut big bird, planned parenthood, and other non essential things and then start talking about raising taxes.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    When you still get 3,206,106 more votes and 126 more electoral votes then the guy you are running against. who by the way got 1,426526 less votes then McCain in 2010. You can try to spin this into a lose for democrats any way you wan but the simple fact is that Obama is your president for the next four years.

  • md Cache, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 4:46 p.m.

    The people who make over 250K already pay 35% of their income to the Feds. Is it fair that they will soon pay 42%? Remember, these are the people providing jobs to the rest of you.

    Another failed attempt to solve the fiscal mess.

    Obama is the worst president ever.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 11, 2012 12:11 a.m.

    Of course the rich can pay more! So can the half of those who pay no income tax.

    Obama is the commander of coveting, and division.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    Are the job creators getting together and holding a non-hiring strike for four years? Who will man the picket lines? Hannity and Limbaugh?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    mohokat
    Ogden, UT
    Obamas mandate which there is none would have come from the free grazers who see Obama as Santa Claus. You know free stuff.

    8:14 a.m. Nov. 10, 2012

    ===============

    You know -- Ditto-head,
    you hero,
    El Rushbo,
    the Maha-Rushdie,
    the great-Truth-detector,


    The guy the Republicans squarely blame for loosing the election.

    Keep at it,
    you'll keep loosing.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    I think there should be a cap put on the personal spending of the President, his wife and family. That means millions of dollars available to citizens, who work hard, go without while the Obama Administration continues to live their lavish life styles. It's not right and it hasn't been right for a long time. It is our money they are wasting on frivolous desires and needs. We have needs too and are unable to jump on a jet anytime we feel like it, go on expensive vacations....what is good for one is good for all. There is too much freedom in spending our money by the elite. A salary should be set up for all senators(all of them including the President) that way we will have a healthy budget to lean on when the times demand.