WH: Obama will veto “fiscal cliff” compromise if it doesn’t hike taxes on the rich
If he wins reelection, Obama may finally be able to dictate the terms of a bipartisan debt-reduction deal. And if he loses to Republican Mitt Romney, Obama could make sure that tax rates rise before he hands over the keys to the White House on Inauguration Day in late January.
Administration officials declined to say whether the veto threat will stand if Obama loses the election.
Obama has never explicitly said whether he is prepared to let the new year arrive without taking action to avoid the cliff. Some Republicans, noting that the president has backed off demands for higher taxes twice in the past, are skeptical that he will stand firm now. But his veto threat challenges Republicans to a dangerous game of chicken over a fiscal event that would raise taxes for nearly 90 percent of households, slice deeply into military and domestic budgets, and probably spark a brief recession.
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: « Previous 1 2
She was never really proud of her country. What she meant was, she is proud of what a good job she did guiding Barky into his Manchurian Presidency.
KS Rex on October 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM
If Obummer loses, the lame duck months will be a low point in American political history. Let’s hope President Romney and the new Congress can undo most of the damage.
KS Rex on October 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Look I really think there comes a time when you have made enough money.
CorporatePiggy on October 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Go down swingin’ there, champ.
RedNewEnglander on October 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I’m not really against going over the fiscal cliff. Maybe that is the only way both sides will wake up and realize we are doomed without painful cuts to defense, domestic discretionary and entitlement spending.
Ted Torgerson on October 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM
So, Congress, override the veto. The House can do it. Will Harry Reid want to make this his Last Stand?
J.E. Dyer on October 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM
According to official IRS data (http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/09in05tr.xls),
In 2001, the top 10% paid 64.89% of the total income tax paid.
While the Bush Tax Cuts made rates go down for everyone who paid income taxes, they led to economic growth that resulted in not only higher employment for the population as a whole but also a higher Total Income Tax Share for the top 10%.
For the last 5 years for which data is currently available (2005-2009), the average Total Income Tax Share paid by the top 10% averaged 70.54%.
Again, in 2001, the top 10% paid 64.89% of the total income tax paid, and as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 10% paid 70.54% of the total income tax paid from 2005-2009.
And now, Obama wants to raise the rates on them, and them only, so their Total Income Tax Share would climb even higher… probably to about 75%.
Obama thinks it’s “fair” to have the top 10% pay 75% of the tax bill, the next 40% pay 25% of the tax bill, and the remaining 50% pay 0% of the tax bill.
That is why simple Democracies ALWAYS fail. When 50.1% of the population can take as much as they want from the other 49.9%, the Democracy implodes.
Our Founders knew that, and that is why they did not create a Democracy. They created a Constitutional Republic.
Our Republic does contain a Democracy, and it’s called the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a simple Democracy, but it can not do anything by itself. It is constrained within the larger construct of a co-equal Senate, and that combined Legislative branch is kept in check by the Executive and Judicial branch.
To expect 10% of our poupulation to pay 75% of the bill is Socialist/Communist.
We must remove all Marxists from our government. Remember in November.
ITguy on October 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Obama’s “Nero Decree”
jnelchef on October 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Yes, I think he will, and then attempt to blame the ensuing catastrophe on the Republicans.
It won’t work, IMHO. The electorate is awake for now.
dogsoldier on October 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Lets see….if there isn’t a bill, he can’t veto it. Just wait till after Romney is inaugurated then send the bill over.
Oh, and don’t forget to advertise that any money lost during the delay between the tax increase and the new bill can and will be reimbursed by the government.
Karma…meet the bitch.
BobMbx on October 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Can’t wait till Barry returns to his homeland and spends the rest of his life sitting in the shade of an emaciated cow, with flies crawling up his nose.
Baracka..Baracka Zulu!
BobMbx on October 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Today’s Gallup:
Romney 52
Obama 45
Romney +7
So, Obama would want one of his last acts to be sending the US off of the fiscal cliff?
History would not be kind…even with liberal Historians writing it.
Resist We Much on October 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM
I know this is way, way down on the give a crap list, but do we really need this much time between the election and inauguration day? I could see it when it was originally set up – travel times, etc. But nowadays with planes, trains and automobiles? Not to mention telephones, video conferencing and Internet. Yeah, we’d have to move up the date the Electoral College meets too. But so what?
I mean, what other job does a person get fired (or laid off) and still have access to company resources for almost 3 months? Not just telephone access, copy and fax machines for use in looking for another position (in the case of layoffs). But access to the Accounts Payable and Security Systems?
Mitoch55 on October 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2