Obama Says Republican Fiscal Cliff Offer Doesn't Go Far Enough

Dec 4, 2012 | Posted by: Mr_Bill | Full story: www.bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama said in a Bloomberg Television interview that a Republican offer on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff doesn't go far enough and won't raise the revenue needed to shrink the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.

Comments
21 - 40 of 58 Comments Last updated Dec 14, 2012

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#21 Dec 6, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Long way to do what, punishing the successful?
You can't possibly mean a long way toward solving the debt/deficit problems because it won't, not by a long shot. Did you not hear your party's call for an unlimited debt ceiling?
EVERYONE, including Obama, knows that.
No. Just tax is not punishment, and success is its own reward.
The tax cut for the wealthy has not delivered the promised investment and jobs in this country.

And, eliminating the tax cut (not a raise in taxes) will certainly raise a large fraction of a trillion each year.

You act as if the deficit money incurred after GW Bush left is not attributable to his excesses, and you are wrong.

Most of Obama's 'deficit spending' has been to recover from the shit-pile the GOP left in the US Treasury. You can admit that or not, but it is still true.
Dane T

AOL

#22 Dec 6, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Just tax is not punishment, and success is its own reward.
The tax cut for the wealthy has not delivered the promised investment and jobs in this country.
And, eliminating the tax cut (not a raise in taxes) will certainly raise a large fraction of a trillion each year.
You act as if the deficit money incurred after GW Bush left is not attributable to his excesses, and you are wrong.
Most of Obama's 'deficit spending' has been to recover from the shit-pile the GOP left in the US Treasury. You can admit that or not, but it is still true.
I think you may be right. If Americans wanted a decent future for their families they would have elected Romney.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Dec 6, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
"If taxes go up enough, millions more jobs."?
Please explain.
"So if the GOP won't go for that, then 99% of the people get their taxes raised"
How is that possible? Are you saying democrats will impose a new income tax on the 47% who don't contribute now?
"the GOP only serves the very very rich"
George Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his presidency. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as labor, education, state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals.
Your claims are easily shot to pieces.
If taxes go up on the rich, millions new jobs. It is easy to explain. When taxes go up on the rich, they look for loopholes to avoid as much in taxes as they can. That is understandable. One loophole is to never claim that money as profit. Instead that money is used to grow the business or invest in other businesses, perhaps new businesses. This means the money will be used for investment right here in the USA, instead of hiding in Cayman Island accounts or building factories overseas. With a massive amount of investment, comes millions of jobs. See, that was easy.

When the rates change, and go higher as the GOP likes, then the poor who get some amount of deductions to take against those taxes, such as for children, that deduction will not be enough to cover the hike and they will have to pay.

And to your point of bush spreading billions of dollars to special interest groups, yes, he did take open the treasury to his special interests and let them take billions. However, that money only went to the very rich. Consider NCLB for example. bush's brother owned the company which made the required tests. It was an unfunded mandate so property taxes had to increase to pay for the tests and the money went straight into bush's brother's pockets. Talk about a get rich quick scheme. So, yes, bush spent like a drunken sailor, however, the money only went to the very very rich. That is why it never helped the economy in any way.

If my claims are easily shot to pieces, then why not give it a try. So far you are way off. Come on, you can do better than that.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#24 Dec 6, 2012
Dane T wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you may be right. If Americans wanted a decent future for their families they would have elected Romney.
?? a decent future for their families with Romney??? What do you mean? Do you think more 9/11 attacks on America will be good for families? Do you think lengthening the depression will be good for families? Do you think massively increasing the federal debt will be good for families? Do you think more and more wars all over the globe will be good for families? Just what are you trying to say?
Canon

Texarkana, TX

#25 Dec 6, 2012
Doesn't go far enough?....not far enough in making sure the country fails?

This is a spending problem not a tax problem. If the government doesn't start to behave like a responsible adult and keeps acting like a juvenile deliquent we will never get straightened out.

When will they refuse to stop being reckless with our tax dollars? Instead they want more of our tax dollars to keep being reckless with. The dems are not interested in fixing anything they are like teenagers with their hand held our for more tax dollars to keep spending on more stuff that will not do anything to help this country.
oh yeah

Virginia Beach, VA

#26 Dec 6, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
?? a decent future for their families with Romney??? What do you mean? Do you think more 9/11 attacks on America will be good for families? Do you think lengthening the depression will be good for families? Do you think massively increasing the federal debt will be good for families? Do you think more and more wars all over the globe will be good for families? Just what are you trying to say?
LOL, all of the above happened in the last 4 years under Obama.

So just what are YOU trying to say?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#27 Dec 6, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>

And, eliminating the tax cut (not a raise in taxes) will certainly raise a large fraction of a trillion each year.


But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $82 billion per year.

Warren Buffett said it best: "I think [raising taxes on the wealthy] would have a great effect in terms of the morale of the middle class, who have seen themselves paying high payroll taxes, income taxes.

Raise the morale is nothing more than another way of saying "sticking it to the rich."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#28 Dec 6, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You act as if the deficit money incurred after GW Bush left is not attributable to his excesses, and you are wrong.
No I don't, those are YOUR words, not mine.

I know better than to use the ignorant "blame Bush" excuse. I've been around long enough to know the "fiscal cliff" started with LBJ's war on poverty. I know BOTH parties are responsible for our current mess.
Dane T

AOL

#29 Dec 6, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
?? a decent future for their families with Romney??? What do you mean? Do you think more 9/11 attacks on America will be good for families? Do you think lengthening the depression will be good for families? Do you think massively increasing the federal debt will be good for families? Do you think more and more wars all over the globe will be good for families? Just what are you trying to say?
You have a strange lack of concern for the facts. What motivates you to defend obama's decision to refuse to negotiate and push America off the Fiscal Cliff? You must be single because those of us with children can't respect a Dictator who refuses to negotiate in good faith.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#30 Dec 6, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>

So, yes, bush spent like a drunken sailor, however, the money only went to the very very rich.
You're out of your mind.

Here's ONE area of Bush spending - EDUCATION

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bu...

Maybe you can name the "very very rich" who benefited from Bush's PEPFAR/Emergency Plan?

It's obvious you've no idea what you're talking about. You've bought into the lies.

I'll no longer waste my time providing you with facts.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#31 Dec 6, 2012
Dane T wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you may be right. If Americans wanted a decent future for their families they would have elected Romney.
I'd as soon vote for a sail without a ship, as romney.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#32 Dec 6, 2012
Dane T wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a strange lack of concern for the facts. What motivates you to defend obama's decision to refuse to negotiate and push America off the Fiscal Cliff? You must be single because those of us with children can't respect a Dictator who refuses to negotiate in good faith.
I don't support either party. I want what I consider best for all Americans; not just a minority.

As to negotiation, Obama always caves first. He already put shared sacrifice on the table. He said he would cut entitlements if the republicans put tax rates on the table. I am not in favor of shared sacrifice. The rich got all the benefit from pushing us to this position, so why should I have to pay? Let those who benefited pay. The middle class already lost enough.

The analogy is to a bank robber, who robs a bank of thousands of dollars, uses that money to set up an unlimited credit card account then spends millions and goes back to the banker for shared sacrifice. How much more should the banker pay?

The GOP did not make a reasonable counter offer. Instead they just said they wanted everything and would not concede on any item. Their offer would result in lower taxes on the rich, higher taxes on the middle class and elimination of Social Security and Medicare. They are still attempting to destroy the middle class and it is obvious.

So what will the republicans give up to get all that Obama already put on the table? Name one concession.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#33 Dec 6, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
You're out of your mind.
Here's ONE area of Bush spending - EDUCATION
...
I'll no longer waste my time providing you with facts.
LOL, follow the money. The treasury was opened, money was sent to schools, and that money had to be given to pay for the NCLB tests from a company owned by bush's brother. Essentially, the money went from the treasury, to the schools, into bush's brother's pockets. Now the federal treasury didn't sent enough money to the schools and they had to increase property taxes to find the additional money to give to the bush family.

It reduced money for education. yes he spent a lot, but it did not go for education.

As to providing facts, I don't think you know what they are. Reciting a propaganda site's opinions does not constitute facts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Dec 6, 2012
DavidH64 wrote:
The problem is NOT the revenue, it IS the spending. The Democrats want to continue the spending, even increase it.
Unless you plan of getting rid of social security, medicare, and the entire dept of defense, then the problem IS revenue as well as spending.

No matter how much spending you cut, unless we raise more revenue we'll be running deficits forever.
Dane T

AOL

#35 Dec 6, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd as soon vote for a sail without a ship, as romney.
No need for a Ship. You walked your family off a Pier by choosing failure over any hope for success for our Country.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#36 Dec 6, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>

As to providing facts, I don't think you know what they are. Reciting a propaganda site's opinions does not constitute facts.
Again you show your partisan ignorance.

"On The Issues" is not a propaganda site. It lists ALL national level politicians and the stances they took on the issues we all face.

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#37 Dec 7, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you show your partisan ignorance.
"On The Issues" is not a propaganda site. It lists ALL national level politicians and the stances they took on the issues we all face.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
LOL, you can't recognize the difference between propaganda and actual news. Here is a hint for you. When you go to a site, and they repeatedly reference places like Newsmax, it is a propaganda site. Consider Newsmax's own comments on itself with the following quote:

"Newsmax Political Analysis on Current Events and Breaking News. Commentary and Conservative Opinions from Christopher Ruddy, Ben Stein, George Will"

Opinions from people who cannot be consistent, cannot be rational and cannot provide even the slightest hint of objectivity cannot be considered anything but propaganda.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#38 Dec 7, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, you can't recognize the difference between propaganda and actual news.
I can recognize the FACT you've yet to cite your source proving Bush education and AIDS relief spending only benefited the "very very rich".
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

#39 Dec 7, 2012
Not only was Obama strong in states with the highest percentage of college graduates, he was also strong in states with the highest average household incomes. For example, the five states with the HIGHEST average household incomes (which, not coincidentally, were also among the states with the highest percentage of college graduates).
Maryland $67,469
New Hampshire $67,287
Connecticut $67,165
New Jersey $65,072
Massachusetts $62,809
Virginia $62,776



The dumber the state the more likely they are a red state. On the other hand, Obama won Florida which has only 23% college graduates.
"According to a state-by-state breakdown by the Census Bureau, here are the top 15 states with the best college completion rates as of 2010. All of them have at least 43 percent of its young residents holding a college degree, but only two states have over 50 percent. D.C., which was included in the study, beat out all of the states with an impressive 68.8 percent.
Blue - Massachusetts 54.3% of the population
Red - North Dakota 50.8% of the population
Blue - Minnesota 49.8% of the population
Blue - New York 49.6% of the population 47.2% of the population
Blue - New Jersey 47.2% of the population
Blue - New Hampshire 46.0% of the population
Blue - Connecticut 45.9% of the population
Blue - Iowa 45.5% of the population
Blue - Maryland 45.5% of the population
Blue- llinois 45.3% of the population
Blue - Virginia 44.6% of the population
Blue - Vermont 44.5% of the population
Red - Nebraska 44.2% of the population
Blue - Pennsylvania 43.9% of the population"
So out of the fifteen states with the highest percentages of college graduates, twelve voted for Obama. And as for the nonsense some have proposed about liberalism being "cyclical", republicans have gotten the majority of the white vote in every presidential race since 1964.
Dane T

AOL

#40 Dec 7, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't support either party. I want what I consider best for all Americans; not just a minority.
As to negotiation, Obama always caves first. He already put shared sacrifice on the table. He said he would cut entitlements if the republicans put tax rates on the table. I am not in favor of shared sacrifice. The rich got all the benefit from pushing us to this position, so why should I have to pay? Let those who benefited pay. The middle class already lost enough.
The analogy is to a bank robber, who robs a bank of thousands of dollars, uses that money to set up an unlimited credit card account then spends millions and goes back to the banker for shared sacrifice. How much more should the banker pay?
The GOP did not make a reasonable counter offer. Instead they just said they wanted everything and would not concede on any item. Their offer would result in lower taxes on the rich, higher taxes on the middle class and elimination of Social Security and Medicare. They are still attempting to destroy the middle class and it is obvious.
So what will the republicans give up to get all that Obama already put on the table? Name one concession.
Very well stated. I WANT to abide by the Aug '11 bi partisan agreement and JUMP off the Cliff.
We ALL have to MAN UP.

As Howard Dean, a noted Progressive, said on CNN earlier...We must demand that America goes off this Cliff.....we owe it to our kids to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for every taxpayer and take the deep Spending Cuts and deal with at temporary Recession.......rather than leave the ever worsening extinction grade Deficit Tsunami to our kids.

We shouldn't give a crap about whether Obama or Boehner WINS.....we should all care if our KIDS win some relief from this DEBT.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Incognito4Ever 1,101,040
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min LRS 177,482
Race in America: Why are blacks being seen as r... (Jul '13) 29 min xxxrayted 9,861
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 54 min ILoveitHere 151,383
U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Impostor" (Feb '09) 1 hr Patriot 18,697
Climate-change deniers firing fresh ammo (Dec '09) 8 hr Cordwainer Trout 708
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 11 hr VN Vet 437
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••