I just dont get it

[RIJIMMY]

He had over a year to work on this. there are no follow up meetings scheduled to work this out. He is going on a publicity campaign?
There are no elections for 2 years, this needs to be worked out in DAYS. Please tell me how this guys is a leader of this country. I feel like Im in a bad dream.

Washington (CNN) -- It helped get him re-elected, so President Barack Obama is again employing campaign-style tactics to increase pressure on congressional Republicans to compromise to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

Failure to reach a deal means tax increases and deep spending cuts take effect in five weeks, a scenario analysts fear could push the country back into recession.

While aides on both sides have been talking, no follow-up meeting between Obama and congressional leaders has been scheduled after their initial post-election discussion on November 16.

Instead, Obama met Tuesday with small business owners, the first in a series of events this week intended to highlight his push for raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans while maintaining current rates for everyone else.

[striperman36]

He's trying the Reagan to the people approach.

[RIJIMMY]

the people dont matter at this point, a solution does.

[ecduzitgood]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS.

[Jim in CT]

It's also been amazing to me, how much energy Obama puts into his notion of increasing the taxes on those making more than $250,000. Obama is obsessed with this. Yet, the CBO says the revenue from those tax hikes will pay for - wait for it - NINE DAYS of federal spending. Nine days. Problem solved??

The GOP should just let him do it, and when absolutely nothing improves as a result, we can say "I told you so. Now let's talk about what will actually address our problems."

Republicans say raising tax rates alone will hardly put dent in budget, deficit | Fox News

[ecduzitgood]

It's not the do what is best for the country mentality, it's what's best for the party mentality. How else can entitlements and amnesty be explained.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

What is the process for negotiating? Are they currently doing that and if so, who?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's also been amazing to me, how much energy Obama puts into his notion of increasing the taxes on those making more than $250,000. Obama is obsessed with this. Yet, the CBO says the revenue from those tax hikes will pay for - wait for it - NINE DAYS of federal spending. Nine days. Problem solved??

The GOP should just let him do it, and when absolutely nothing improves as a result, we can say "I told you so. Now let's talk about what will actually address our problems."

Republicans say raising tax rates alone will hardly put dent in budget, deficit | Fox News

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

It's not the do what is best for the country mentality, it's what's best for the party mentality. How else can entitlements and amnesty be explained.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Imho, it's what's best for HIS mentality and the socialstic agenda he brought with him.

Look at his past history, before he ran, and you will see that a leopard dosen't
change his spots.He still has a lot of sheeple buffaloed.

He insists on taxing the rich, which would bring in an estimated $68 billion, against an expected 16.3 trillion $ debt, and won't entertain entitlement or spending cuts. All points to mediocracy and socialism.

[striperman36]

Or he's waiting for the republicans to cave

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is the process for negotiating? Are they currently doing that and if so, who?

While aides on both sides have been talking, no follow-up meeting between Obama and congressional leaders has been scheduled after their initial post-election discussion on November 16.

I'd get fired if I worked like this.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

He will have to make 12$ in cuts for every dollar confiscated from people and couples making 250k or better just to not increase the deficit
When has giving the government more money ever improved anything ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Has Pres. Obama's said that he only will agree to raising taxes and not cutting spending?

A fair and important question...

Obama is spending an incredible amount of time talking about these tax hikes for "rich people". The tax hikes are meaningless, they will have no impact, and Obama knows this. Not nearly enough impact to justify the amount of energy we dedicate to discussing them. And Obama does demonize those who oppose those tax hikes. And that's dishonest. My opposition to those tax hikes doesn't stem from the fact that I hate poor people, it stems from the fact that we need tens of trillions of dollars in relief, not $80 billion.

Second, Obama hasn't proposed any significant, specific, spending cuts - his most specific idea, as we all know, is the tax hikes. OK, so what will Obama cut? We don't know. But yet again, that doesn't stop Obama (and many liberals) from attacking guys like Paul Ryan who have the integrity to propose significant, specific cuts.

Paul, the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to get out of this mess with tax hikes - do you agree or disagree with that? I answered your question, perhaps you could shoe me the same courtesy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

He will have to make 12$ in cuts for every dollar confiscated from people and couples making 250k or better just to not increase the deficit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct. These tax hikes will account for about 1/12th of this year's deficit. They will not provide for one cent to pay down th eexisting debt. If these tax hikes were 12 times higher that what he is proposing, it would still go towards reducing next year's deficit, not one cent would be left over to pay down the existing debt.

It's meaningless. It sounds great, because Obama can tell his base that he's taxing those who can afford it. But it has no meaningful impact. None whatsoever.

[FishermanTim]

Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have run away and the barn has burned to the ground!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to get out of this mess with tax hikes - do you agree or disagree with that? I answered your question, perhaps you could show me the same courtesy.

I totally agree w/your statement and have stated so before. I thought when they had the "great compromise" months ago, the Dems. agreed to $10 of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. Buckmans says $12 - either # shows that Pres. Obama doesn't believe tax increases alone will solve anything.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be. Tax hikes are a small part. However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

PS - I changed a typo when I quoted your question so as to not make people on the site call you out for a simple typo.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

.

it can wind up hurting the economy more.
If I make 300K, pay a mortgage, save for kids college, pay all my bills and my taxes go up 3K per year, will I

1- save less for my kids college
2 - pay less for my mortgage
3 - spend less money on non-essentials?

Obviously its item 3. That hurts the Starbucks on the corner, the car wash place, the corner deli, the dvd rental place and every other non essential place "rich" people spend their cash. Mimimum wage people get laid off, business close, tax revenues go down, government dependance goes up. Our economy is based on consumers, why screw the consumers who spend the most money?
Tell me how this helps our economy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I totally agree w/your statement and have stated so before. I thought when they had the "great compromise" months ago, the Dems. agreed to $10 of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. Buckmans says $12 - either # shows that Pres. Obama doesn't believe tax increases alone will solve anything.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be. Tax hikes are a small part. However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

PS - I changed a typo when I quoted your question so as to not make people on the site call you out for a simple typo.

Paul, you agree tax hikes will play a much smaler part than spending cuts. That's a huge thing we agree on.

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes? Everyone who voted in this election knows that Obama wants to hike taxes on those making at least $250k. That was a cornerstone of Obama's message. If you have a bullet wound to the head and also smoke cigarettes, don't you deal with the head wound before you quit smoking?

So, where are the details on the spending cuts? Maybe I'm missing something, but when I hear Obama talking about cuts, it's usually to attack the conservative who is proposing cuts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

g.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be.

So I believe you agree with me that "where we have to be" is a leaner, more efficient place than where we are now.

Is Obama moving us towards that? Seems to me we're a lot further away from that "place where we have to be", than we were 4 years ago.

Where would my observation be wrong?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes?

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

According to Obama this was going to be one of the most transparent administrations. I haven't seen much but I have seen through them, perhaps that is what he meant. Lets keep playing politics while the country goes down the drain. I wonder when repairations will start.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

According to Obama this was going to be one of the most transparent administrations. I haven't seen much but I have seen through them, perhaps that is what he meant. Lets keep playing politics while the country goes down the drain. I wonder when repairations will start.

exaclty, were playing politics instead of solving problemS. In the old days they'd all be pulled out of office and tarred and feathered.

[scottw]

this guy sums it up pretty well....


All about Taxes
By Michael Tanner
November 28, 2012

How many times have we heard that the only thing standing in the way of a grand bargain to reduce our growing national debt is Republican intransigence on taxes? If Republicans would only agree to dump Grover Norquist, Democrats will agree to cut spending and reform entitlements. Then, we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya as we usher in a new era of compromise and fiscal responsibility.

Except that now that Republicans have agreed to raise taxes, er, revenue, as part of an agreement to avoid the looming fiscal cliff, liberals appear to have decided that there really isn’t a need to cut spending after all.

“Suddenly the clear and present danger to the American economy isn’t that we’ll fail to reduce the deficit enough; it is, instead, that we’ll reduce the deficit too much,” warns Paul Krugman. All this worry about debt and deficits is “an entirely contrived crisis,” writes Robert Kuttner in the Huffington Post. After all, as the New York Times explains, “deficits are actually a good thing when the economy is deeply depressed, so deficit reduction should wait until the economy is stronger.” “So,” sums up Robert Reich, “can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They’re distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about — jobs and growth.”

Congressional Democrats already appear to have successfully taken Social Security reform off the table. This, despite the fact that Social Security faces $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Democrats may be willing to trim Medicare, but both Harry Reid and #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin are opposed to structural changes, such as raising the eligibility age. Of course, anything resembling Paul Ryan’s premium-support plan is beyond even discussing. Democrats are more inclined to rely on the type of reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act. Yet the administration’s own actuaries project that, even if all of the ACA’s reforms work exactly as hoped, Medicare will remain $42 trillion in the red. And that’s the best-case scenario.

Yet the media still seem obsessed with Republicans and taxes: Will they stick to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge or not? Will tax rates go up or will loopholes be closed? How much new revenue will Republicans agree to?

But there is a profound lack of curiosity when it comes to the other half of this supposed bargain. Remember that hypothetical deal of $1 in tax increases to $10 in spending cuts? Republicans are still being asked about it and criticized for rejecting it. But balancing the budget under that formula would require $9 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. When was the last time the president or a Democratic congressman was asked whether or not they would agree to such a deal?

For that matter, it’s worth noting that more than half of Democratic congressmen and eleven senators have signed a pledge to oppose any changes to Social Security or Medicare. If pledges are the root of all evil, couldn’t we pause for just a moment in our attempts to run Grover Norquist out of town to work up the tiniest bit of outrage about this one?

In fact, many Democrats actually want to spend more, at least in the short term. The president’s most recent budget calls for $2.6 in increased spending between now and 2022. That’s $1 trillion more than the $1.6 trillion that the president has called for in new taxes. Therefore, the tax hikes would not be used to reduce the deficit, but to finance new spending. And, according to news reports, the president has already floated the idea of still more stimulus spending as part of the fiscal-cliff talks.

That’s not a “balanced approach.” That’s simply old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics.

The time may someday come to parse the exact meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. But for now, Republicans are simply negotiating with themselves and with the news media. Democrats haven’t even come to the table.


probably don't want to show their empty hand...

[RIJIMMY]

lets be clear as I know the media will confuse this as will 99% of Americans. The fiscal cliff is a reality, The one and only item on the table right now is the senate proposal to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for people less than 200/250k. that is the only thing the house republicans are being pressured to pass. This does not avoid the fiscal cliff, does not solve the budget or defecit. Its on item. period. please obama supporters, tell me what your leader is doing in this time of national crisis?

[PaulS]

Predictable - and sad.

[striperman36]

Talking to children

[PaulS]

Some people shouldn't have children as they'll grow up as petty as them

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

lets be clear as I know the media will confuse this as will 99% of Americans. The fiscal cliff is a reality, The one and only item on the table right now is the senate proposal to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for people less than 200/250k. that is the only thing the house republicans are being pressured to pass. This does not avoid the fiscal cliff, does not solve the budget or defecit. Its on item. period. please obama supporters, tell me what your leader is doing in this time of national crisis?

please see below. Im not nuts.

Senate Passes Tax Measure With Election in Mind - NYTimes.com

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

When Paul Ryan makes a proposalto cut Medicare (which we all know is necessary), and Obama demonized Ryan by saying that "he wants to end Medicare as we know it", I'd say that Ryan is trying to solve the problem, and Obama is politicking.

I hope the mortgage deduction isn't taken away, as that's something that a lot of middle class folks benefit from. If that goes away, it sure won't help home prices.

Has Obama personally agreed to $12 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good points. Personally, I hope th emortgage deduction isn't taken away, as that's something that a lot of middle class folks benefit from. If that goes away, it sure won't help home prices.

Has Obama personally agreed to $12 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

the one and only thing being discussed right now is for the house to pass the senate bill eliminating the Bush cuts for those over 200/250k. That it, period. That is what O is pushing for.