Obama: Boehner’s cliff counteroffer is “still out of balance”

posted at 3:31 pm on December 4, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Echoing the sentiments delivered by his communications director after the GOP sent over their fiscal-cliff counteroffer yesterday afternoon, President Obama personally dismissed the Republicans’ proposal out of hand during an interview with Bloomberg TV.

OBAMA: Well, I think that, you know, we have the potential of getting a deal done, but it’s going to require what I talked about during the campaign, which is a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction that can help give businesses certainty and make sure that the country grows.

And unfortunately, the speaker’s proposal right now is still out of balance. You know, he talks, for example, about $800 billion worth of revenues, but he says he’s going to do that by lowering rates. And when you look at the math, it doesn’t work.

And so what I’ve said is that I am prepared to work with the speaker and Democrats and Republicans to go after excessive health care costs in our – in our federal health care system. We’re going to have to strengthen those systems, and I think we can do that without hurting seniors, without hurting beneficiaries. I think that, you know, there’s probably more cuts that we can squeeze out, although we’ve already made over $1 trillion worth of spending cuts.

And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney of course had his own bit of spin on the matter during the press briefing Tuesday afternoon, after some grilling from Ed Henry (click the image to watch):

Photobucket

It’s a couple sentences — it’s not a plan to say that we’re going to magically increase revenues through loophole closures and deduction caps with not a single element of specificity. So we don’t know who pays, we don’t know what we’re talking about in terms of actual legislation to increase revenues. It’s magic beans and fairy dust. The president has put forward specific proposals. Look, I acknowledge that not with any great specificity, there’s a little more meat on the bones in terms of their proposals on the spending cut side. When it comes to revenues, it doesn’t meet the test of balance or the necessary test of specificity.

This is getting ri-gosh darned-diculous. The White House is full to bursting with more excuses than you can shake a stick at, but the fact remains that the Republican leadership has officially taken a step toward Democrats’ (completely absurd, reality-defying) demands in expressing a willingness toward increased revenue, and President Obama is relentlessly just throwing it back in their face. It is getting all too obvious that this is not about the money or the math, as Chris Stirewalt explains:

Not only would the additional payments by those families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 be a relatively small sum – something like one week of federal spending next year – but the president is turning down proposals that would provide similar revenues by closing loopholes.

For Obama, this is in part about principle. He believes income inequality is a huge problem facing the nation. The president also seemingly believes that by knocking down the income of the top 2 percent of earners by an estimated average of $36,000 per household, and then taking that money and spending it on government programs aimed at lower-income Americans, it will help narrow the gap between the rich and the middle class. …

But again, the president is rejecting plans that would provide similar reductions in net income for top earners, so he pretty obviously isn’t as concerned that this particular deal comports with his goal of wealth redistribution.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The easiest way to decrease the gap between the rich and the middle class is to confiscate money from both groups and send them all to concentration camps. Obama is currently working on the first bullet point.

Archivarix on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Out of balance?

Wow

cmsinaz on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Lets all say it together:

Obama doesn’t care about reducing spending or aiding the economy.

Joey24007 on December 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

This is pure politics, Obama doesn’t give a damn about the country and he’s getting his “revenge”. Unfortunately, all the rest of the neutered politicians, including Democrats don’t give a damn either. We are the poor slobs that suffer from their egotistical showboating and childish behavior.

rplat on December 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

All of this b.s. would be hysterical if it was another country.

rollthedice on December 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Obama should just say “Unless Republicans come back with the rich paying their fair share at, ummmm, 70% percent, their offer is not legitimate.”

I am truthfully surprised liberals are able to contain themselves and “only” ask for Clinton level taxes on millionaires and billionaires (or as I like to call them, middle class people who make 200k a year). If France can impose a tax of 70%, they should ask for 85% as a start to negotiations.

milcus on December 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Let’s be honest – the Left is living in a fantasy world where just a little more from the rich will make everything all better again.

The Marxist Moonbats actually think that their wacky ideas from dear old Karl will somehow ‘Work’ this time.

Why do they think this is the case?

Maybe because they’re just not putting the label of socialism, communism, fascism, Stalinism or what ever ‘ism’ you want to apply to their moronic concepts.

So you leftists, why don’t you step on up and explain how wealth ‘redistribution’ will somehow work THIS TIME – when it’s failed every other time your idiotic ideas have been tried.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

We got the point yesterday, so why is Obama still campaigning?

Offer Obama a 7% tax hike on over $200,000 a year with a commensurate 4% across-the-board cut in spending. And leave it right there. Any other matters can be dealt with the Democrat way: incrementally.

If Obama refuses, then the Pubs just walk away and let Obama, Reid, and Pelosi go right over the cliff.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Sick of this crapola

Vote present and be done with it

Why jump thru the dems hoops

Pointless

cmsinaz on December 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Evil Incarnate …

Seven Percent Solution on December 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Without a budget there is only “unknown” to cut.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

It is not the function of government to address income disparity. In a free economy, a product or a service or a job is worth what the consumer of that product, service or job is willing to pay.

Suck a rotten egg, Obysmal.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Translation: Anything they bring to me is wrong. Bend to my will. Or I will destroy you.

portlandon on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

C’mon, Lester. Name who you want to punish.

Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Out of balance?

Wow

cmsinaz on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

One of the things I loathe the greatest about Obama’s personality is that he reads criticism of him and then captures the words used in that criticism and flips it to represent his perspectives.

“…balance” and “out of balance” here used by Obama to represent his criticism of reality while it’s been being said about him in critical observation about his abnormalities and excesses, that very nomenclature used.

He does this very often…I notice because I pay attention to these buzzword uses he engages in. He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

And $0.00 in spending cuts from the Democrats amid continual trillion dollar deficits created by hiking spending?

Fiscal sanity, of course!

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Did the Republicans cap deductions in their offer or not? What exactly was in it? A tax cut?

DeathtotheSwiss on December 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Obysmal does not have the right to determine when a person has made enough.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Spot on Lourdes

cmsinaz on December 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Yep.

Yet he’s “Lord and Savior” to Jamie Foxx.

Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Obviously, Obama assumes the Presidency is about remolding human society to accommodate his whims.

I don’t know when this monstrous personality disorder he has was deemed attractive to the Presidency by those who still fawn over this man, but, it’s truly a twisted attraction to a twisted personna for twisted reasons.

As to the Presidency, it is all that.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The Dem playbook is and has been that they really believe that the way to prosperity is for the government to spend its way to our prosperity. In their fantasy world, the more the politicians/government spend the more equal we all become. They are total morons with a clear lack of understanding of anything related to economics or history.

The Dems and Obamasite remind me of an addict in denial. Too bad they are going to take us and the rest of this country down with them. And, our Republican leaders seem to be on the verge of being addict enablers. It is a very sad time in our history.

rsherwd65 on December 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Yep.

Yet he’s “Lord and Savior” to Jamie Foxx.

Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

And, of course, what does that say about Jamie Foxx.

/ Rhetorical question.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

It’s obvious that it’s about class warfare and envy. For one, the Republicans should throw out the foreign policy and foreign aid issue but most of them are such huge supporters of redistribution via foreign aid it won’t happen. Just in 2010 the United States government took over $52 billion dollars from the American taxpayer and gave it to foreign governments in the form of military and foreign aid. Every single penny of that should be on the table before we start talking about doing away with deductions or increasing taxes on individual Americans. But these two parties love foreign aid.

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Careful – that is going to be deemed to be a racist code word or something soon.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I always love the “war savings” offer. This is at least the 3rd time they’ve used it. It must to be infinite.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Without a budget there is only “unknown” to cut.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

And so what I’ve said is that I am prepared to work with the speaker and Democrats and Republicans

“Just as soon as I get back from my month-long, 4 million dollar vacation in beautiful Hawaii. Good luck everyone, see you next year, Happy Ramadan!”

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Huh?

WTF kind of answer is that?

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

And we had a booming economy when goverment spending was over a trillion less.

The economy has sucked every single day under Obama. No arguing that.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

How do you know considering they haven’t seen one in over 3 years.

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

We’ve passed 2 budgets in the house. Go talk to Harry.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Careful – that is going to be deemed to be a racist code word or something soon.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Ohh, right, I shoulda’ said “he’s a nasty boy.”

Then we’d have Janet Jackson’s bared-endorsement.

;]

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

They never had one to pass, ignoramus.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If you took all the wealth of the top 1% (not taxed at 100% but actually took everything they owned) you could barely cover 1 year of Obama deficit spending.

Are you really trying to pretend we have a revenue problem?

Taxing the “rich” will do absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit – the supposed point of Obama’s ‘balanced’ approach.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Since Les isn’t going to answer, I will. The number you seek is 16. Taking every penny from those making over $250k would run the govt for 16 weeks.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

^^^ Moron

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I keep telling you guys….this isn’t about wealth redistribution or Marxism or anything like that. Nor is is a serious proposal for debt reduction.

It is purely and totally a brute power play to try to split the Republican Party and produce massive unrest on the Right leading into 2014.

The White House isn’t going to even try to govern in the next two years. This is the opening salvo of Campaign 2014. They’re going all-in on a gamble that they can split the GOP and win back the House and hold on to the Senate.

And so far, it appears to be working, we already have all kinds of bombs being thrown from the Right at Boehner. The RINO Hunters are sharpening their blades.

I will remind you, this gambit by Obama ONLY works if WE allow it to. If we remain united, he loses. If we give him the piddly tax increase he demands, and nothing else, we can call his bluff – but only if we avoid the civil war he thinks will come as a result.

Right now this is much more serious for the GOP than most people are letting on. It’s gone beyond the goods and bads of the policies in question. This mess is going to be patched up and patched up for the next two years no matter what. As long as Bernanke keeps the printing presses running, there won’t be another recession and there will ne no sense of urgency to stop borrowing.

There isn’t going to be any grand bargain or any meaningful entitlement reform as long as Barack Obama is President. The only thing we can do is play good defense and at least keep the House and maybe win the Senate to stop him from further spending.

rockmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Huh?

WTF kind of answer is that?

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

You can go with just a ball park estimate Sparky, but I’m going to want an answer on this – and you’re going to have to show your work.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

He’s a nasty guy.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Careful – that is going to be deemed to be a racist code word or something soon.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Ohh, right, I shoulda’ said “he’s a nasty boy.”

Then we’d have Janet Jackson’s bared-endorsement.

;]

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

In that comment of mine at 3:41 PM, the issue of race had not been exploited where Obama is concerned. But I do get your point, the exploitation of race is inevitable by the Left, regardless of what is said about Obama.

It’s also them changing the subject when they engage in that exploitation. Which means they aren’t addressing the issue of Obama’s nastiness.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It is clear the Donks don’t want to negotiate in good faith so yeah, I think I’m on board with the whole Let It Burn idea…..

TheAdmiral on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

carney, I can think of where you can put your “Magic beans and fairy dust.”!
L

letget on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Let’s be honest – the Left is living in a fantasy world where just a little more from the rich will make everything all better again..

Why do they think this is the case?

Maybe because they’re just not putting the label of socialism, communism, fascism, Stalinism or what ever ‘ism’ you want to apply to their moronic concepts.

Yes, the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists don’t understand our economic system as mastered by Joe the Plumber and his Tea Party dreamers.

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

Better keep those rates near historic lows… because Paris Hilton and the average Wall Street banker has a job ready to offer a Tea Party member, but only if taxes remain low!

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist, firmly believing that this nations’ historically low tax rates can remain intact in any kind of serious balanced budget plan.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

“Then they will simply have to take 150%, duh!”

Don’t mess with the boy, he’s already figured out that he just dug himself into an inescapable hole.

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

The +$800 Billion “STIMULUS” that everyone thought was a one time injection of cash into the economy was added to the “baseline” when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Branch in 2009…

… As a result, every year since and until the end of time itself until it is removed or our economic system collapses, every year starts off with the added amounts of spending locked in, then the increases are added.

That is why in a relatively short period of time, Obowma was able to add to the national deficit nearly $6 Trillion dollars all on his own…

… If this continues, we are on track to reach a deficit of over +$20 Trillion by the end of his second term and there are no taxes high enough to pay for that.

Not only do we have to balance the budget, we have to pay the deficit back, with interest…
… If we don’t cut spending immediately, our economic system and nation is going to collapse.

Is that real enough for you…?

Seven Percent Solution on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Actually the Senate, controlled by the DNC, voted against their own parties budget.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Reality? So what’s the Democrat plan to balance the budget? Are they going to deal with 1+ Trillion in annual deficits with [UNKNOWN]?

What’s Obama’s plan? His last proposed budget never balanced the budget and didn’t even get a single Democrat vote.

Reid hasn’t produced a budget in over 3 years.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I keep telling you guys….this isn’t about wealth redistribution or Marxism or anything like that. Nor is is a serious proposal for debt reduction.

It is purely and totally a brute power play to try to split the Republican Party and produce massive unrest on the Right leading into 2014…

rockmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

EXACTLY RIGHT! (That IS me yelling that).

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Obysmal should know all about “out of balance” because he is off his rocker. While he and his favored cronies live large, he has taken it upon himself to cap incomes of the serfs in the name of “economic justice.” What gives him or his fellow travelers the right to determine the limits of economic success for citizens in a free country?

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

By “Balance” the President means “everything we want”.

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Actually, income tax is a much more recent invention than government. In the U.S., the federal income tax wasn’t a standard part of American life until after 1913, when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Would that also be the Democrat’s who voted unanimously against King Obama’s last budget?

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM

It is purely and totally a brute power play to try to split the Republican Party and produce massive unrest on the Right leading into 2014…

rockmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It’s also a lot of why I cringe with this recent “disorder” cried by Tea Party affiliated people as to Congress.

The GOP has to remain united or at least get united ASAP. Please.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM

If you took all the wealth of the top 1% (not taxed at 100% but actually took everything they owned) you could barely cover 1 year of Obama deficit spending.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

This is what the Progressives Regressives want.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Well, Obama does have one accurate view. If you confiscate money from the rich, it does narrow the gap between them and everyone else.

Until everyone else loses their jobs, that is, and then the gap widens again.

The Rogue Tomato on December 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Party of Proudly NO! wouldn’t allow a budget to pass.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Lester, only a meager FOUR DEMOCRATS voted FOR Obama’s ridiculous budget. EVERYONE ELSE among both, all parties voted ‘no’.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Because we didn’t have a government when tax cuts for the rich weren’t around. Government is a new concept that came to existence very recently.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If you took all the wealth of the top 1% (not taxed at 100% but actually took everything they owned) you could barely cover 1 year of Obama deficit spending.

Are you really trying to pretend we have a revenue problem?

Taxing the “rich” will do absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit – the supposed point of Obama’s ‘balanced’ approach.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Since Les isn’t going to answer, I will. The number you seek is 16. Taking every penny from those making over $250k would run the govt for 16 weeks.

txhsmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Yup, that’s about the size of it – either way on how the confiscate wealth, it will destroy the economy overnight – not that doing so incrementally won’t have the same effect – only incrementally.

So lester, does that shatter you little leftist wealth redistribution fantasy or do you want to head on over to round two?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM

$800 Billion that comes from [UNKNOWN].

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

So is Obama’s prescription for economic success: printing more money, raising taxes, while increasing the cost of energy and healthcare, and increasing the regulatory burden. Works every time.

STL_Vet on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

Better keep those rates near historic lows… because Paris Hilton and the average Wall Street banker has a job ready to offer a Tea Party member, but only if taxes remain low!

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist, firmly believing that this nations’ historically low tax rates can remain intact in any kind of serious balanced budget plan.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If I had a dime for every idiot who spewed this exact pablum.

Not a single person making more than $200k has every created a job and hiking taxes back to Clinton levels alone will create another tech boom.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

Better keep those rates near historic lows… because Paris Hilton and the average Wall Street banker has a job ready to offer a Tea Party member, but only if taxes remain low!

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist, firmly believing that this nations’ historically low tax rates can remain intact in any kind of serious balanced budget plan.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

If you want to return spending to Clinton-era levels, then I’d be fine with a 39% tax rate to help pay down the debt. How about it?

For the record, our “historically low” tax rates are higher than other developed countries. Maybe that’s one more reason why companies are moving offshore.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

What is balance?!?

MAKE HIM DEFINE HIS OWN TERM. Right now it’s only a platitude for him to hide behind.

Define balance, Mr. President, or stoofoo.

The Schaef on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

It’s been said, but needs to be said again, the White House “proposal” (misuse of the word) is the President’s last budget proposal, which – clearing cough – got exactly zero votes, from either party.

Why is anybody talking about it as if it’s real?

Would somebody (Mr. Tapper) please ask Mr. Smirk (a/k/a Carney) this question? Thank you.

IndieDogg on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Okay bayam, why don’t you step on up and explain how wealth ‘redistribution’ will somehow work THIS TIME – when it’s failed every other time your idiotic ideas have been tried.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Yes, the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists don’t understand our economic system as mastered by Joe the Plumber and his Tea Party dreamers.

Buffett is fighting a court battle over a billion bucks of unpaid tax.

Bill Gates once lamented that tax rates on businesses were too high because they impeded the ability to expand and innovate.

Bezos is doing everything he can to keep from having Amazon being subject to sales tax regulations.

Funny how these limo liberals are more than happy to have their taxes raised only after they’ve tucked away a few billions. Here’s a better idea, offer to retroactively tax their wealth at the new high rates and see what sort of reception you get.

Buffett is worth about $60 billion. Take $50 billion from him to pay his fair share and spread the wealth, he would go for that, right?

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM

will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Well, I dunno, bayam, the Clinton economy ended in a recession, so I’m not sure why you’re so eager to ride that particular horse.

The Schaef on December 4, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Will that include the Clinton-era SPENDING LEVELS?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist,

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Yep, it’s hilarious alright.

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The GOP has to remain united or at least get united ASAP. Please.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The GOP needs to be abandoned by Conservatives. They don’t want us, and we don’t need them. Works well for everyone.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yes, the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists don’t understand our economic system as mastered by Joe the Plumber and his Tea Party dreamers.

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

Better keep those rates near historic lows… because Paris Hilton and the average Wall Street banker has a job ready to offer a Tea Party member, but only if taxes remain low!

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist, firmly believing that this nations’ historically low tax rates can remain intact in any kind of serious balanced budget plan.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You mean crony capitalists.
Buffet is proposing taxes that will not affect him (income taxes) but will make the products from which he derives a lot of his wealth more attractive as tax shelters.

Clinton levels of taxation? What about Clinton levels of spending?

Or are we going to do this same old song and dance again where you make comments like you just did and then after getting pummeled by responses finally admit that yeah we really do have a spending problem.

A balanced budget that keeps current spending levels would require a super massive tax increase on the middle class. But you don’t ever mention that. You tow the Democrat line that somehow taxing the rich is going to solve our fiscal problems. Instead you harp on the 80 billion per year taxing the rich is supposed to bring in but ignore the fact that this wont’ fund the federal government for 10 days. Yeah – some of the tax rates are at historic lows but the spending is at historic highs and in the equation of how to balance the budget again the greater portion of adjustment has to be on the spending side.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Yes, the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists don’t understand our economic system as mastered by Joe the Plumber and his Tea Party dreamers.

Because you know, increasing the marginal tax rate for an income group to 39% will ruin the economy… just as it did under Clinton.

Better keep those rates near historic lows… because Paris Hilton and the average Wall Street banker has a job ready to offer a Tea Party member, but only if taxes remain low!

It’s hilarious to hear the carnival barking and name calling from the same people aligned with a clown like Grover Norquist, firmly believing that this nations’ historically low tax rates can remain intact in any kind of serious balanced budget plan.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You’re another moron. Buffet, Gates, and others who have tremendous wealth don’t care how high you raise taxes because for the most part they aren’t paying it. They’ve made their fortune and now they simply side with whoever’s in power to make sure they keep their fortune. They’d much rather have the government eyeing your money than theirs.

Secondly, if Clinton tax rates were so damn good then his spending levels must be orgasmic. Yet you don’t seems to want to spend like Clinton … why?

We’re trillions beyond what Clinton spent. Get it? TRILLIONS. We’re way beyond the point where taxes can help us. This is nothing more than intentionally trying to stop the economy from trying to right itself.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Huh?

WTF kind of answer is that?

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

…the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists don’t understand our economic system as mastered by Joe the Plumber and his Tea Party dreamers…

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I was just reading yesterday about Jeff Bezos being considered as something of a very large albatross around the increasingly unpopular Microsoft and their products. And Gates, Buffet, perhaps you evaluate them as significant based upon their billions of dollars of wealth?

Three wealthy guys do not a consensus make of what the nation should do and what a proper method is to manage our economy. AND the three of them are big fans of Barack Obama so I think that says more about who they are and how they reason (badly) than their wealth does.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Cut spending back to the previous levels when we had that rate.

Deal?

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You are a flat liar. The marginal rate on those making more than 200,000 (singles) or 250,000 (married) is going to go to 44%. Otaxacare raises (3.8 + 0.9) in 2013. Add a tax rate increase plus some deductions being phased out and you end up with well above a 39.6% marginal rate.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

If the Dems won’t be serious, then GO OVER THE CLIFF. Don’t worry about who the un-informed public will blame. No one liked Obamacare, or a million other mistakes the Dems made the last 4 years and got pinned with. It didn’t seem to cost them anything. They still won big last month.

moc23 on December 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

So is Obama’s prescription for economic success: printing more money, raising taxes, while increasing the cost of energy and healthcare, and increasing the regulatory burden. Works every time.

STL_Vet on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

He proposed S-B as a compromise last year. The Party of Proudly No… said NO! In fact the front budget guy, the apparent fiscal genius and VP candidate rejected it altogether.

This is the new offer which again gets a NO! as expected.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Liar.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

What has Boehner really done for the GOP, let alone America, to deserve his leadership position? To deserve the massive salary he gets? Sits in his chair. Sends a few letters every now and then to Obama that he never follows up on. Makes statements about standing firm at times like this.. only to later give in to all Democrat demands. Oh.. and declare ObamaCare is the law of the land. Tells Republicans to fall in line with the Democrats and then purge conservatives from committee positions. And cry.

What side is this guy really on? He did nothing to win the House. It was the TEA party that dragged the GOP across to victory. They despise the TEA party. And what is the TEA party? Normal average people getting involved.

Any protests that the TEA party may be thinking of making need to be focused on removing RINO’s from the leadership. They want to purge conservatives? Purge all RINOs!

We will never win America if we don’t take back the Republican party. If these people were in charge at the time of Lincoln.. yes… we’d still have slavery! It was the conservative Christians of the day that birthed this party! And it is the middle of the road surrendering do nothing’s who are destroying it!

Democrats are winning by default! Our greatest battle is within our own party! If conservatives win control of the GOP….. our chances of winning back America increase dramatically.

JellyToast on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Just give the parasites class President what he wants… Let him tax the job creators and let the economy crushes… What is he going to say “Those Republicans did not stop me from taxing the rich and hence I blame them for the bad economy”… Let the idiot do it…

mnjg on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

There’s nothing to restrict any of these three or all of them (Bezos, Gates, Buffet) — or anyone else — from sending in as much money as they want to to government.

Last week on a panel discussion (“yelling match by the Liberal present”) on FOX, the yelling liberal present was told (by Hannity, it was on Hannity’s show) that they could send whatever amount more of money to the federal government as they wanted to out of their worth/wealth/money controlle…AND THE LIBERAL YELLED, “IS (name of Republican here) doing that? I’ll do it when (name of another one here) does it!”

See that? The Left won’t act on their own demands. What they WANT is to force others to act on their, the Left’s, demands.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Funny thing is, Obama will probably win this and he and his gang get the lion’s share of the $ they wring out of us, and that will disappear into Stimulus Land offshore accounts…oh, but the GOPers will get their cut as well. And once again the GOP “leadership” will shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, folks we tried…but we’ll get ‘em in 2016! Trust us!”

See, everybody’s a winner!!!

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

A huuuuge Dummy is Chief.

The gov’t is NOT in business. It never creates “revenue”, swines, from top to bottom. YOU incredible harlots on the dole. YOU can use any language you wish. It still never makes it so. GO to Hades, all of you. May all who brung him, and their families, suffer immensely, hungry, in the cold/dark.

Starve the looters, from the left to the right.

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Exactly how are “previous rates for the wealthiest 2%” going to help when we’re borrowing over a trillion dollars every year??

Please explain.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Oh, and the GOP proposed rolling back spending levels to 2008 and the Left cried about how people would die in the streets. How about those “good old days”?

Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

He proposed S-B as a compromise last year. The Party of Proudly No… said NO! In fact the front budget guy, the apparent fiscal genius and VP candidate rejected it altogether.

This is the new offer which again gets a NO! as expected.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

A total lie. You’re on a roll.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Again, How long could they run the government if they confiscated every penny from ‘the rich’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

So incremental poison isn’t as bad – is that what you’re trying to sell?

Nobody is confiscating wealth.

Call it Theft, robbery, stealing, etc. whatever you want – but it’s all the same thing with the taking of someone’s property at the point of a gun.

You stil have yet to come up with a good answer on that time frame BTW.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The US has the highest corporate taxes in the world. You, being a typical liberal, wouldn’t know that or even bother trying to find out. Truth, petulant sanctimonious child, destroys every screed that spews from ignorant liberal mouths like yours.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

There isn’t a plan to do so. That’s why I say GOP is disconnected from reality. Nobody is confiscating wealth. We’re just going back to a previous rate for the wealthiest 2%. Considering all the talk about “good old days” this can’t be such a bad thing.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The GOP is disconnected from reality?

So the Democrats are what? What is their proposal to balance the budget?

You’re sticking it to the GOP because they don’t want a tax increase on the rich which will bring in a projected 80 billion per year. That won’t quite fund the federal government for 10 days. So what about the other 355 days of the year?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

He proposed S-B as a compromise last year. The Party of Proudly No… said NO! In fact the front budget guy, the apparent fiscal genius and VP candidate rejected it altogether.

This is the new offer which again gets a NO! as expected.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

That is a big fat lie.

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM

He proposed S-B as a compromise last year. The Party of Proudly No… said NO! In fact the front budget guy, the apparent fiscal genius and VP candidate rejected it altogether.

This is the new offer which again gets a NO! as expected.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Obama’s last budget got a unanimous NO!1!!!!!!! from the Democrats.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

So what about the other 355 days of the year?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Tax them again! And redefine ‘rich’ down to income of $150K a year.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Any protests that the TEA party may be thinking of making need to be focused on removing RINO’s from the leadership. They want to purge conservatives? Purge all RINOs!

JellyToast on December 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM

The issue is timing and venue. During a demand if not assault by the Left in/through Congress, it’s not the best if not the reasonable time to start in-fighting. Or at least in-fighting in public.

I think MOST voters on the RIght, Middle oppose a great deal of what the Left, via Obama, and Reid, etc. are demanding. But the GOP needs to be coalesced, not working toward a food-fight.

The in-fighting just lends greater attention to the Left as an authority. Which they are not but when there’s in-fighting among the GOP, then the Left just rocks back and forth in self-satisfaction and people by default look badly at “the ones making all the noise” (or, the GOP).

I can understand “in-fighting” behind closed doors, but I think the GOP (AND those “Tea Party” folk) need to keep the arguments private.

The time and place to “elininate the RINOS” is at the polls and during elections. NOT when there’s this Left-vs-Right crud by the Left taking place.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

“lester” reads MoveOn’s newsletters…

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM

What is balance?!?

MAKE HIM DEFINE HIS OWN TERM. Right now it’s only a platitude for him to hide behind.

Define balance, Mr. President, or stoofoo.

The Schaef on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I agree, but who would dare ask the boy king such a question? Do you honestly believe anyone in the LSM would dare ask it?

They are just as loathesome as their deity.

D-fusit on December 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Rep. Manuel Cleaver (D/DelusionalState) just said on FOX, “Social Security is not the problem…”

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Boehner is the biggest fool.

Obama is the biggest and most impertinent thug in the world.

Both should get theirs, and soon.

Arrogance/pride goes before the Fall, Obama. YOU are not exempt. May you get paid back, in droves.

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3