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

When it comes to revenues, it doesn’t meet the test of balance or the necessary test of specificity.

Then, maybe it meets the early pregnancy test, or the making s*** up as you go while trying to sound technical test.

Have you even urinated on it?

Need some litmus strips?

Let’s burn it in the presence of hydrogen and spectrograph that puppy.

Axe on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

F BO and all these guys with a splintered broomstick.

SirGawain on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 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

It’s all political. If that one point can be communicated to the American public, Obama will lose the war he instigated.

The media will certainly do all they can to hide that fact, but that doesn’t mean they can. Eventually, Obama will overreach and people will notice. He’s already started.

tom on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 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

All part of the plan.

They’ve already subtly gone from the richest 1% to the richest 2% and from those making more than $250,000/year to those making $200,000/year.

You know what they say about barack rolling downhill.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

As usual GOP is disconnected from reality I have a gnatbrain.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Give him the finger and walk away…

PatriotRider on December 4, 2012 at 4:15 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

Restore the budget to the level it was at under Clinton and Newt and you can have the Clinton-era tax rates. I’ll gladly chip in my extra 5%.

Doughboy on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 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

Communist Bayam: The economy boomed under Clinton because of the internet and dotcom boom and because Clinton/Republican Congress reduced the Capital Gain tax from 28% to 20%. But you keep lying and say that higher taxes lead to better economy…

A business owner make 1 million dollars a year and employs 6 people… now increasing his taxes from 35% to 39.6% would make him pay an extra $ 40,000 in taxes and that is not including other taxes in Obamacare, Capital Gain and dividends taxes… So what would the business owner do when facing a loss of $ 40,000 due to tax increase… He will have the following choices:

1. Lay off one emplpoyee
2. Reduce the wages of his employees
3. Increase the price of his products
4. A combination of all the above.

For certain he will not hire a new employee…

This is just a simple example but communists like you will never undestand basic business and economics… All what you want is to steal other people money…

mnjg on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 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

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

If they make any agreement at all (which would necessarily raise taxes on the rich), then the agreement should include the language:

“I, President Barack Hussein Obama, am now satisfied that the rich are paying their fair share. Henceforth, I will STFU about the rich.”

The Rogue Tomato on December 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

In fact the parasite class President want 1.6 trillion dollars in tax increases… And yes if he can tax the rich at 100% he will…

mnjg on December 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Over ten years. Balanced, delusional, amateur, naive, stupid, dangerous.

What word in there doesn’t quite fit with the others?

Bishop on December 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM

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

I never vote Democrat, and I will never again vote for a Republican. Maybe one day a true Conservative party will come to the fore, and be big enough to gain notice and be a true contender. It won’t happen for a while, but I have nothing to gain by voting Republican in the interim.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:18 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

That’s not at all true, Liam.

And, who, specifically, is “they” as to the GOP who “don’t want” Conservatives?

Your strategy there is like those misguided dummies who voted for OBama to make some point “as Conservatives” or something.

We need to work together, not rabble-rouse at times of crises or in general just to make points with who likes who and who doesn’t. There are many Conservatives in the GOP — I’m one of them — and I differ on issues with some of the rest in the GOP but it’s wrong to just bust down the ‘building’ because you don’t like the furniture inside.

Those who want to bust down the ‘building’ are not helping, and if anything, do more to aid and assist the Progressive’s politics than anything while claiming, wrongly, to be “Conservatives.”

Sounds like a Harry Reid method to me.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:19 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.
bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Kind of like Mitt Romney as well . No ?

Those guys are using 1099′s for their taxes. Not W-2′s

By the way in todays WSJ, Microsoft hides about 80% of it’s cash overseas to avoid taxes.

Jabberwock on December 4, 2012 at 4:19 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 you agree that we need to then go back to the budgets of those days?

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Zero spending cuts is not balanced.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 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 still have yet to come up with a good answer on that time frame BTW.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

All part of the plan.

They’ve already subtly gone from the richest 1% to the richest 2% and from those making more than $250,000/year to those making $200,000/year.

You know what they say about barack rolling downhill.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

In three years, I expect ‘rich’ to be defined as making more money than the poverty level of $13.5K a year. The government will define the middle class out of existence, so there will be only rich or poor, the haves and have-nots. Taxes will be assessed accordingly.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

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

I never vote Democrat, and I will never again vote for a Republican. Maybe one day a true Conservative party will come to the fore, and be big enough to gain notice and be a true contender. It won’t happen for a while, but I have nothing to gain by voting Republican in the interim.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Fine, vote for whom, what you will, that’s yours and every individual’s right who is qualified to vote. Register as Independent, join the Conservative Party, go Green, do what you want. But it’s irresponsible to post “the GOP doesn’t like COnservatives” and on and on like that just because YOU have issues with whomever.

I agree about the problem of Leftwingers in the GOP. I whole heartedly agree. I only say that people who oppose the Progressive/Left/Democratic Mess should realize that they, too, engage in assisting that/them when they appear at times of crises (such as now or approaching such) and encourage destruction or denigration of the GOP.

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:22 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

Ah, the hilarity of watching the insane bayam repeat his Obama’s lies.

Barack Obama screams and cries that Barack Obama’s massive debt will go away and that we’ll be in “surplus” if Barack Obama just hikes taxes on “the rich”.

So let’s run the numbers.

1) The screaming and crying Barack Obama says that no spending needs to be cut, that Barack Obama can erase his entire $5 trillion in debt if we just hike taxes on “the rich”.

2) Unfortunately, the grand total that could be had if Barack Obama and his idiot Obama Party were to confiscate every single dime of every single billionaire in the United States is $1.3 trillion.

3) And the grand total that could be had if Barack Obama and his idiot Obama Party were to confiscate every single dime of every single person earning more than $200k in the United States would be $2.4 trillion.

In short, Barack Obama and his screaming puppets like bayam could confiscate all that wealth without reaching fifty percent of the bill they’ve already run up.

And granted, they can’t do basic math, so the economic impact of confiscating $2.4 trillion is just completely beyond their ability to even comprehend.

So that’s why no one can take either Barack Obama or bayam seriously. They’re lying. Their numbers don’t add up. They’re just typical lying Marxists.

northdallasthirty on December 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

How will this help us when we borrow over a trillion dollars a year?

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Yes, the left leaning idiots like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and all those great capitalists…

“They didn’t build that.”-Barack Hussein Obama

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 4, 2012 at 4:25 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.

Do have a good answer that yet, bayam?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I keep hearing the President talk about this balanced approach, but so far all they are talking about is increasing tax revenues between $800 billion and $1.6 trillion over the cumulative next ten years. That is raising revenue $100 billion next year to cover a defecit of $1.2 trillion????

The balance part of that is somewhere around $2-$3 trillion in cuts to spending. I don’t mean spending over 10 years either, I mean that much has to be cut out of the budget next year. After that then they need to discuss how entitlements will be cut that are the real cause of our bankruptcy. Enough with the revenues, cut the government!

Ellis on December 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Actually, that’s a lie, stupid boy.

Because what Obama’s “plan” constitutes is $80 billion a year over ten years while running up $1.3 trillion in debt annually.

Furthermore, liar boy, you and yours screamed and screamed and screamed that the Bush tax cuts cost $4 TRILLION in total.

So that means your Obama just jacked spending $3.2 TRILLION without paying for it.

Come on, boy. Your Barack Obama screamed and cried and pissed himself that tax cuts cost money. Now your liar Obama won’t accept the cost, and stupid boys like you won’t bring it up.

northdallasthirty on December 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Lourdes on December 4, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The Pubs haven’t represented me since Bush the First caved to give us the biggest tax hike in history up to that point. Since then, what have I seen for candidates? Nothing but squishy dopes and haphazard opportunists have been made sacrificial lambs who won only because they were more palpable than what the Dems had. I mean only Bush the Second.

Sorry, no. The Pub Party lost me as a supporter. I want better of a Party, I demand representation. I won’t get it with the Dems, I’m not getting it from the Pubs. So I’m looking elsewhere and will vote accordingly from here on out.

I will never vote for a Republican again.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:29 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

Well, no. At least, not right now. See rockmom’s post above.

a capella on December 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Are you serious? At most the increase in taxes will do nothing but reduce the deficit by less than 4%. This is just a scam, and you’re falling for it.

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

rockmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I don’t think it is an either/or situation, rockmom. The “progressives” (communists/socialists) are bent on income redistribution, cloaking their intentions with soft phrases like “balance” and “fairness” and “social justice.” They are also determined to weaken the opposition party by encouraging divisiveness and tantalizing the weak-willed party members with politically correct phrases in order to seize power. They are playing a long game with the help of a complicit media.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Actually, I’d emphasize that to all conservatives.

1) Barack Obama screamed and pissed himself that the Bush tax cuts cost $4 trillion.

2) If eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the “rich” only raises $800 billion, then that means that Barack Obama is adding $3.2 trillion to the deficit, BY HIS OWN STATEMENTS.

Wonder if math geniuses bayam and lester can answer this? Bayam and lester scream and piss themselves that only “the rich’ received tax cuts under Bush. Are they stupid, or are they just malicious liars who repeat whatever talking points Obama gives them?

northdallasthirty on December 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM

So you agree that we need to then go back to the budgets of those days?

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 4:20 PM

How will this help us when we borrow over a trillion dollars a year?

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Spending increase didn’t happen overnight. Tax cuts did happen (virtually) overnight.

We can reverse them the same way they came to be.

Some spending increases organically, and the solution is not to cut it but deal with the source of increase: e.g. raise retirement age.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

To all the liberal trolls -

If you can’t work out a budget where federal tax revenue exceeds 20% of GDP, then kindly sit down & GPS.

Hint: it’s never happened.

22044 on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

This is just a simple example but communists like you will never undestand basic business and economics… All what you want is to steal other people money…

mnjg on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

What is this foolishness you speak, business and economics. They didn’t teach that in obamunism 101.

D-fusit on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

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

You’re living in the right wing world of imagined victimization that’s a complete fantasy. Nearly every European country has far higher tax rates, despite that fact that their military spending is generally on the order of non-existent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

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.

More fantasy. Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

All part of the plan.

They’ve already subtly gone from the richest 1% to the richest 2% and from those making more than $250,000/year to those making $200,000/year.

You know what they say about barack rolling downhill.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

In three years, I expect ‘rich’ to be defined as making more money than the poverty level of $13.5K a year. The government will define the middle class out of existence, so there will be only rich or poor, the haves and have-nots. Taxes will be assessed accordingly.

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Yes, as I said, barack rolls down hill.

The simple question of asking how long things could run even 100% taxation on some shows the sheer insanity of the left.

And yet they still bask in the revelry of their socialist fantasy world, were all they have to cleave to is good old Karl’s magical words of

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

“Thinking” that has to work somehow..

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

FU Obama you stuttering clustersfluke of a miserable failure.

jawkneemusic on December 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I will remind you, this gambit by Obama ONLY works if WE Boehner allows it to.

rockmom on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

FIFY

besser tot als rot on December 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Spending increase didn’t happen overnight. Tax cuts did happen (virtually) overnight.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No, they actually did. Obama passed the stimulus and never dropped spending in the last budget passed in 2009. We pay for a stimulus every single year, hence the deficits.

Cut spending.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I hope to god that no deal is reached and I hope that the GOP spends the next two years not allowing anything to pass the house. Keep spending at its current levels and force any increased revenues to spend down the debt.

Let it burn, let it burn, let it burn. Then, if the GOP loses the house in 2014, let Obama and the dems continue their high spending, high taxing ways and see how well that works. It won’t, america will be bankrupt and the people will ask what happened.

Good riddance. I’ll be fine. I don’t care that the poor will be much, much poorer under the left’s policies, or that minorities will be hardest hit. Let them suffer. They are the ones who vote for this insanity. they deserve the suffering that comes from it.

I will laugh at the hungry and the homeless that Obama’s economy creates over the next four years.

Monkeytoe on December 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Wonder if math geniuses bayam and lester can answer this? Bayam and lester scream and piss themselves that only “the rich’ received tax cuts under Bush. Are they stupid, or are they just malicious liars who repeat whatever talking points Obama gives them?

northdallasthirty on December 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM

They cannot answer as both hail from the Warren Buffett “Feel Good” society.
That is the one where some will feel better simply because the rich are taxed more.
The actual effect of said tax matters not.
But know someone else is paying more makes them “feel” better.
Somehow this is important.

Jabberwock on December 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

When compromise will only result in breaking your back, why bend at all? Stick with your principles and at least you’ll keep your base and maybe even pick up the votes of those who are sick of the wishy-washy Democrat-lite.

Ukiah on December 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I’ve said this before, but bears repeating, the democrats want the republican party to take the fall for the tax increases for the affordable healthcare the will kick in at the same time were go over the fiscal cliff. the will agree to nothing the republican party proposes

RonK on December 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

More fantasy. Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

$200k is not wealthy, especially in the blue states. Yet you roll out Paris Hilton like clockwork.

You aren’t serious people. You will defend Obama no matter how destructive he gets.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You’re living in the right wing world of imagined victimization that’s a complete fantasy. Nearly every European country has far higher tax rates, despite that fact that their military spending is generally on the order of non-existent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

Could it be because we’ve subsidized that spending?

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.

More fantasy. Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So it’s not theft if it’s taken from some leftists?

Are you really going to try and fall back on that ‘logic’?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I can’t wait until your precious Obamacare kicks in on little runts like you. Or other little liberal runts who make less money than you.

Your suffering will be legendary even in Hell, and I can’t wait to hear your wailing! I’m covered by the VA, so I’m safe and free as an eagle. You liblets aren’t.

I’m so dying to hear you wimper!

Liam on December 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

That is where much of the money goes as well.
Let them take care of it locally. In fact, use California as the model.

Jabberwock on December 4, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Spending increase didn’t happen overnight. Tax cuts did happen (virtually) overnight.

We can reverse them the same way they came to be.

Some spending increases organically, and the solution is not to cut it but deal with the source of increase: e.g. raise retirement age.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Oh, so you’re railing on the GOP for magical revenue from fiddling with the tax code but Obama and the Democrats are going to reduce spending without cutting by raising the retirement age etc? That’s going to deal with 80+ trillion in unfunded liabilities? And 1+ trillion yearly deficits?

So essentially what you – and Democrats – are saying is that a ‘balanced’ approach is continuing on with no changes with the last 4 years of spending with 80 billion more in revenue from “taxing the rich”. That isn’t a balanced approach. It doesn’t solve our problems but in fact makes them much much worse.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM

The controversial budget proposal submitted by House Republican leadership, and summarily rejected by the White House, was never presented to the GOP caucus in the house, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

“The caucus was not consulted on the proposal, I wish we had been,” Gohmert told Breitbart News on Capitol Hill this morning. “The Republican members were not consulted on the offer made. We are having the legislation being formulated among the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and the President. Republicans in Congress have some great ideas and principles, but those are not being utilized in the proposals.”

With the latest revelation that the unpopular proposal was delivered without the GOP caucus even knowing what was being presented in their name, pressure is sure to mount on the speaker as the fiscal cliff negotiations continue.

Breitbart News reached out to the Speaker’s office for comment and as of the time of this writing they have not responded.

Breitbart

Wethal on December 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Spending increase didn’t happen overnight. Tax cuts did happen (virtually) overnight.

We can reverse them the same way they came to be.

Some spending increases organically, and the solution is not to cut it but deal with the source of increase: e.g. raise retirement age.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I’m not sure you understand the extent of the problem. We spend virtually ALL revenue on entitlements. Now add ObamaCare, amnesty for illegals, and lowering of requirments to get welfare and disability and you have the recipe for fiscal collapse.

Simply taxing people more cannot cover the deficit … or even come close. The problem is spending, period.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

More fantasy. Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Even in thethe Blue States the producers are mostly Republicans… The small and medium business owners are mostly Republicans… The super rich will find every trick under the sun to pay less taxes even if there tax rate increases they will end paying the same as they are paying now… It is the small and medium business owners who would be hurt the most with tax increases and hence it will hurt the middle class as I explained to you before but a stupid communist thief like you cannot understand basic business and economics… All what you want is to steal other people money…

mnjg on December 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

More fantasy. Guess what- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas where… liberals live. The average Tea Party member isn’t affected yet when the Waltons and other old money families start screaming, the Tea Party scrambles as if baby Jesus is under attack. The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So taxing the rich is going to balance the budget and fix our unfunded liabilities problem?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32

PM

They don’t have enough money to cover what Obama is spending. No one does. Get that through your head.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32

Prove it.

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

The president has put forward specific proposals.

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

GarandFan on December 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM

PM

They don’t have enough money to cover what Obama is spending. No one does. Get that through your head.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

We’re fast approaching the point in the thread where bayam will reluctantly admit that we do have a serious spending problem. But he’ll still strain at the gnat of “taxing the rich” but swallow the camel of “Democrats won’t even discuss desperately needed spending cuts”.

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Completely through the looking-glass.

O & Co. say the Rep deal has no details, but theirs does. M’kay – someone’s been in the Obama-stash again, apparently.

I long for a reality that is somewhat like the scene in ‘Hitchikers Guide to the Universe’ where they’re on a planet that has shovel-shaped creatures just under the surface that detect ‘thought’ and when they do, the swing up and smack you in the face.

Every time Obama, Carney, DWS, Harry Reid, Nanzi – hell Boehner, McCain, Graham, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, et al say something stupid, tell a lie, etc – *whamp* – right in the nose.

It would only be better if it was controlled by a button on my remote control.

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

The communists’ tactic was to destroy the bourgoise (the middle class). When $200,000 or $250,000 is defined down as millionaires and billionaires and when an incumbent rabble rouses at campaign rallies about getting revenge, then it is clear what a community organizer does. He creates division and dissension and then swoops in to “save the day” with “sincere” gobbledygook that makes his look “above the fray.”

Who is fooled by this charlatan?

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Honest Abe?

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Who is fooled by this charlatan?

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

bayam and lester.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM

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.

rockmom, you’re one of my favorite people on the Internet, and I see your point as far as it goes, but there’s no “calling his bluff” because there’s no one who will actually frame the issue the way you’re talking about it. The media won’t do it on their own, and if we do it they’ll ignore us. If we give him “nothing else,” the next crisis will be the debt ceiling and any downturn that’s potentially baked into the economy will be blamed on Republicans anyway.

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

It’s called a “thought experiment,” lester. It’s an a fortiorieven if we took all that money the impact on the deficit is not enough to change the overall debt trajectory. So obviously a 5 percent marginal rate bump will have an even smaller effect. That’s the point of the argument, not to claim that this is an actual plan.

DrSteve on December 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I long for a reality that is somewhat like the scene in ‘Hitchikers Guide to the Universe’ where they’re on a planet that has shovel-shaped creatures just under the surface that detect ‘thought’ and when they do, the swing up and smack you in the face.

Every time Obama, Carney, DWS, Harry Reid, Nanzi – hell Boehner, McCain, Graham, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, et al say something stupid, tell a lie, etc – *whamp* – right in the nose.

It would only be better if it was controlled by a button on my remote control.

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Washington DC is indeed “Shovel Ready”

Jabberwock on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

What specific spending cuts has Obama proposed?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Who is fooled by this charlatan?

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

52% of the American people who voted for the idiot.

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What specific spending cuts has Obama proposed?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Ummmmm … let me think. Ummmmmmmm …..

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Good God, seriously? Ever heard of an ‘object lesson’?

The ‘why’ here is to make the bloody obvious point to pinheads that still don’t get it – we don’t have a ‘revenue problem’, we have a ‘spending problem’.

The point, nimrod, is that EVEN IF YOU TOOK IT ALL IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR THE F@#$ING SPENDING, got it???!?

So stop looking to ‘tax the rich a little more’ to solve the problem – if ‘taking it all’ wont fix it, guess how much ‘taking a little more’ will fix it? IT F@#$ING WONT, GOT IT?!?!?!?

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What specific spending cuts has Obama proposed?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

That $700 billion dollars we saved due to no more wars?

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

What specific spending cuts has Obama proposed?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

He has bravely proposed cutting spending on future wars that will not exist.

visions on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The wealthy liberals who support Clinton era tax rates are going to increase the taxes paid by the left far more than anyone else.

bayam on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

They don’t have enough money to cover what Obama is spending. No one does. Get that through your head.

darwin on December 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

This is what suffices for ‘Logic’ on the left – facing the REALITY of the problem is somehow a fantasy.

How do you deal people with that deluded?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

What specific spending cuts has Obama proposed?

gwelf on December 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

What about the trillions we saved by not colonizing Mars?

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You don’t. The Dems and Obamasite have no practical solutions. All they want the public to hear and see are the “look good”/”feel good” words that pretend to be solutions (i.e., tax the rich and everyone will be equal – utopia).

That is what is so interesting about reading these threads. The lefties have no response on any practial logic and solutions. They keep trumpeting the feel good stuff but when it comes to solutions they have nothing to offer just like Obamasite and the Demonrats.

rsherwd65 on December 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Hey, remember when Bush cut the taxes and the bayam’s of the world pissed themselves moaning about ‘tax cuts for the rich, the middle class is getting screwed, etc’ – and now that they might expire, its all ‘concern about the middle class paying more, going to benefit the rich, etc’?

It’s like the old joke about ‘when i was a kid, i had to walk to school; uphill; both ways.’

Look – if it was bad for the middle class when they were cut, then it’s good for them if they expire. If it was good for the rich when they were cut, then it’s bad for them if they expire.

Or vice versa.

Which is it, bayam? Were you f@#$wits lying back then, or are you lying today?

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Oh great, I’m sure this will help.

Obama Meets With MSNBC Bootlickers Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton To Help Him Push Fiscal Cliff Plans…

Scary times when Pravda is invited to the White House.

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

How do you deal people with that deluded?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Institutionalized, in padded rooms so they can’t hurt themselves. Nah, screw it, let them hurt themselves.

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM

This government is absolutely hopeless. The Republicans are poorly playing a losing hand and the Democrats are absolute tyrants concerned only with revenge. Does anybody even give a damn about the poor schmuck, hard working citizens that are being ripped off? Please tell me, why is this government worth supporting and defending?

rplat on December 4, 2012 at 5:11 PM

52% of the American people who voted for the idiot.

Keep Obama in president!!!

DanMan on December 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

What about the trillions we saved by not colonizing Mars?

Chuck Schick on December 4, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Damn, call the WH – you just eliminated all of the national debt, and gave us surpluses into infinity! Think of *all* of the worlds we won’t colonize and the money saved by not doing so!

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh great, I’m sure this will help.

Obama Meets With MSNBC Bootlickers Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton To Help Him Push Fiscal Cliff Plans…

Scary times when Pravda is invited to the White House.

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I hope you fools that voted for this tyrannical charlatan are pleased with yourselves because you really stuck it to the country. Oh, and by the way, enjoy your smaller paychecks . . . although I’m sure you consider this pay cut a distinct privilege.

rplat on December 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM

It’s magic beans and fairy dust.

The GOP needs to jump on this. Their proposal was perfectly reasonable and to have the administration dismiss it as “magic beans and fairy dust” shows contempt for the Congress as a co-equal branch of government. It shows that they really are not serious about avoiding the fiscal cliff because they think they can get rid of the Bush-era tax cuts, gut the DoD, and blame it all on the GOP.

Mr. Boehner. Pass continuation for all Bush-era tax cuts, send it to the Senate, and tell the rat-eared wonder to pack sand until he wants to seriously discuss the issue. Having Obama’s spokesidiot sneeringly call it fairy dust shows that the filthy bastards of the left are not interested in solving any problem. The American public is watching and noting the arrogance and partisanship.

Maybe it is time for Obama’s moochers and takers miss a few benefits to have them re-frame their attitude.

Happy Nomad on December 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Progressive “balance” == give me all your hard earned wealth, and then thank me when I grant you a sliver of it back. If you don’t thank me, you’re racist.

JeremiahJohnson on December 4, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Filthy lying Leninist scum.

rrpjr on December 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You don’t. The Dems and Obamasite have no practical solutions. All they want the public to hear and see are the “look good”/”feel good” words that pretend to be solutions (i.e., tax the rich and everyone will be equal – utopia).

That is what is so interesting about reading these threads. The lefties have no response on any practial logic and solutions. They keep trumpeting the feel good stuff but when it comes to solutions they have nothing to offer just like Obamasite and the Demonrats.

rsherwd65 on December 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM

It’s almost amusing how easily their silly fantasy talking points are demolished with basic facts.

They can’t even give you decent answer on how long the government can run on what they want to confiscate from the ‘the rich’.

And they have the nerve to call those of us on the right ‘out of touch’ or ‘disconnected from reality’

Sheesh!

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM

How do you deal people with that deluded?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Institutionalized, in padded rooms so they can’t hurt themselves. Nah, screw it, let them hurt themselves.

Midas on December 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Obamajackets with real long sleeves that can be tied in the back.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The gov’t does NOT create revenues.

All who use the term “revenue” instead of taxes, have your brains checked.

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2012 at 5:42 PM

This is all about Obama wanting to crush and humiliate the Republican party. It has nothing to do with the Fiscal Cliff — that is all incidental to the bigger picture as far as Obama is concerned.

Old Fritz on December 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Evolving! Press secretary Carney now bragging about WH lack of transparency
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/04/evolving-press-secretary-carney-now-bragging-about-wh-lack-of-transparency/

Jay Carney is now boasting about the lack of transparency in WH’s approach to fiscal cliff talks #whbrief
Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) December 04, 2012

The most transparent administration evah? Yeah, not so much. Out: Transparency. In: Boasting about lack of transparency. That’s what Press secretary Carney did today during his briefing.

“We do not go to meetings with proposals and leak them to the press,” Carney says, suggesting Republicans do—Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) December 04, 2012

“We do not schedule meetings for the press. We do not negotiate with the press,” Carney says.—
Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) December 04, 2012

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Just think of all the paper work and dealing with regulations, laws, judges, courts, Senate, House, State Goverments, County, City goverments school board, hell those silly zoning laws, drug laws, medical rules,,,,, when all we need is a daily edict or two from Lord and Master B. Obama.

Let U.S. do it on the cheap.

We await your command O Lord and Master Obama.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 4, 2012 at 5:52 PM

This man means to do U.S. great harm in any way possible.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 4, 2012 at 5:56 PM

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

cripe….

the love fest continues…

cmsinaz on December 4, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Oh great, I’m sure this will help.

Obama Meets With MSNBC Bootlickers Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton To Help Him Push Fiscal Cliff Plans…

Scary times when Pravda is invited to the White House.

JPeterman on December 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Reaping What We Sow: Get Planting! The King Needs Some Stash

M2RB: will.i.am & Britney Spears

Resist We Much on December 4, 2012 at 6:07 PM

You are now now rockin wit mochie mooch and Barry bitch.

GhoulAid on December 4, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Pat Caddell has some serious advice for McConnell and Boehner:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/03/Obama-Overreaches-Republicans-Underperform

Obysmal intends to fundamentally transform America, and he is doing so with unconstitutional overreach. Geithner’s proposal should have been lambasted soundly for the executive power grab that it was in requesting that the president determine that there be no debt ceiling.

Both of the GOP leaders continue to treat legislative negotiations by the old rules; Obysmal is changing those rules audaciously.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Say since we’re all about ‘income inequality’ these days, hows about we begin with ‘equalizing’ the ‘income’ inside the beltway in DC? While we’re at it, why not have Obamacare for all our friends there as well since it’s so good for us? As long as we are saving money by not fighting wars, why not save some money by not fighting the war on drugs, the war on women and class warfare? I’ll bet if we begin threatening war with every jerkwater nation on the planet and then not doing it, we could be rolling in the dough in no time! Why I can see a time when we will have a surplus and begin reaping the benefits of ‘investing’ in great causes like bailouts and some more of those ‘green energy’ projects that pay real dividends! Hallelujah! Lord and Savior!!!!

I the meantime until this happens, I’ll just sit on my pile brass and keep a sharp eye on my garden…

ghostwalker1 on December 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Why do we keep going back to this proposal that is not going to happen? Did Obama say tax the rich at 100%? No. He simply wants $800 billion from going back to previous rates, hence the balanced approach. No new revenue, no deal, no cuts.

lester on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM

There is no revenue in a marginal tax increase on the rich. They will just spend more money to protect their income. The republicans offered something that will increase revenue (though the truth be told, it is really a spending cut to reduce deductions and credits).

Count to 10 on December 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I now have a new plan, it sounds crazy but think about it…

Let Obama go over the cliff and let him purpose a cut in middle class taxes. The GOP should counter that offer with a plan for NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL FOR ANYONE MAKING UNDER $200,000!!!!!!!

You may that is bad for the budget, but who cares at this point, the budget was blown to pieces years ago. The government debt and spending is so out of control anyway, raising or lowering taxes on the middle class will make little difference (or at least the levels we are talking about now). If we are forced to play class warfare we might as well do it our way, No income taxes for the middle class (who we will call the poor) will make Obama’s middle class tax cut plan (for the poor) look weak, stupid, and insensitive. The GOP instantly becomes the party of the middle class and no one can say we sold out our principles to do it.

Let us see how the media will spin this…

William Eaton on December 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM

(though the truth be told, it is really a spending cut to reduce deductions and credits).

Count to 10 on December 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

No it’s not. Unless it’s refundable and the income tax liability is less than zero.

besser tot als rot on December 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

For jugears, “balanced” seems to mean:

I won. Gimme gimme gimme!!!

Anyone who parrots the “balanced approach” baloney as if it has any meaning is either a lemming or an idiot.

hillbillyjim on December 4, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3