Republicans seek lower rates, new revenue through eliminating some tax breaks
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.
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.
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).
@Kyle loves BYU/JazzUh... 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.
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.
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
alt134kool 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.
@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...
Yes!A Reagan Democrat if there ever was one!Go-Bama!
apparently class warfare is a winning political tactbut it is still class
warfare (and despicable)
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 historyAtl134,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
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.
@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.
The tea party caused the shift of power in the Senate that gave the President
the mandate. Yell at them for a while.
Just like before he is willing to work across the aisle as long as it is his
way. His way has been so successful!!
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Yes! let's make it difficult for successful folks to hire. This will
create a more dependent country.After all, they build that.
@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?
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.
Liberals have proven time and time again that they're much more interested
in hurting the rich, than in helping America recover.Sad.
@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
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 mineThe
truth:according to the us treasury direct webpage, gross federal
debt at:January 19, 2009 $10,628,881,485,510January 19, 2010
$12,322,107,592,353an increase of $1,693,226,106,843 under a DEM
congressJanuary 19, 2011 $14,053,512,150,448an increase of
$1,731,404,558,096 under a DEM congressJanuary 19, 2012
$15,236,280,735,688an increase of $1,182,768,585,239 under a repub
congressI 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
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 weakEmajor,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
obstructionismPhranc,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.
@ 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!!
Obamas mandate which there is none would have come from the free grazers who see
Obama as Santa Claus. You know free stuff.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
@lost in DCWhen 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
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.
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.
Are the job creators getting together and holding a non-hiring strike for four
years? Who will man the picket lines? Hannity and Limbaugh?
mohokatOgden, UTObamas 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.
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.