Obama digs in against GOP

[TakeAStepBack]

Uh huh.

Stop whining already. You'll get your tax hikes on the rich, and everyone else come the fiscal cliff. This was the negotition. To expire the Bush tax cuts, and implement spending cuts. But the politicians are just "playing" anyway. They want to spend. They want to tax. They will do what is best for them.

You'll cheer. We all lose. We can discuss it all over again in the next manufactured crisis.

You'll cheer. We all lose. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Oldguy]

What's different? Reagan made sense and wasn't forcing half the country to be dependent on government to wipe their ass for them.

Well, that is exactly what Reagan did. He lowered taxes for the rich and gave goodies to the poor to keep them quiet about it. It backfired and failed to create the jobs he promised and the government ran up a huge deficit to pay for it all.

And, don't forget amnesty for illegals. Coupled with his relentless assault on unions, that helped keep wages low and real income static for Joe Average.

You know...the same thing the GOP offers today and they're butt hurt because Obama isn't buying.

 

[Oddball]

What's different? Reagan made sense and wasn't forcing half the country to be dependent on government to wipe their ass for them.

Well, that is exactly what Reagan did. He lowered taxes for the rich and gave goodies to the poor to keep them quiet about it. It backfired and failed to create the jobs he promised and the government ran up a huge deficit to pay for it all.

Wrong...He got stiffed by Tip O'Neill over the spending cuts, which were put off until an unnamed later date, just like li'l Barry is trying to sandbag the repubs into doing right now.

 

[Meister]

What's different? Reagan made sense and wasn't forcing half the country to be dependent on government to wipe their ass for them.

Well, that is exactly what Reagan did. He lowered taxes for the rich and gave goodies to the poor to keep them quiet about it. It backfired and failed to create the jobs he promised and the government ran up a huge deficit to pay for it all.

Wrong...He got stiffed by Tip O'Neill over the spending cuts, which were put off until an unnamed later date, just like li'l Barry is trying to sandbag the repubs into doing right now.

The left will not address the spending cuts, because they don't want to. They like the spending frenzy.
I AM sure that the republicans would consider tax hikes if serious spending cuts were on the table. The left MSM won't be printing or reporting that part of this equation....just that the repubs are obstructionists.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's about time he stood up and forced the GOP to negotiate. During his first term, he offered them concession after concession, only to have it all thrown back in his face because their commitment was to defeating him in 2012, not doing what's best for the country.

The GOP lost in their bid to unseat him, so now they have to put up or shut up. If the country goes over the "fiscal cliff," it will be THEY who pushed us over and the American people know it.

Stand firm, Mr. President. Don't let them hold our nation hostage for partisan purposes again. You have all the cards and they're bluffing....if they have any sense at all....which sometimes seems doubtful.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/u...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121203&_r=0

Please name one real concession Obama made, that was not tied to something he really wanted.

It's so funny you accuse the GOP of holding things hostage. Anyone with a brain knows Obama has always held the upper hand, and could have gotten what ever he wanted, with only a little real Compromise.

But he has not been, and will never be, Willing to compromise.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's different? Reagan made sense and wasn't forcing half the country to be dependent on government to wipe their ass for them.

Well, that is exactly what Reagan did. He lowered taxes for the rich and gave goodies to the poor to keep them quiet about it. It backfired and failed to create the jobs he promised and the government ran up a huge deficit to pay for it all.

I guess we won't count the first 25 million jobs Reagan poplicies created....and then you'd be correct.

 

[Claudette]

What's different? Reagan made sense and wasn't forcing half the country to be dependent on government to wipe their ass for them.

Well, that is exactly what Reagan did. He lowered taxes for the rich and gave goodies to the poor to keep them quiet about it. It backfired and failed to create the jobs he promised and the government ran up a huge deficit to pay for it all.

Wrong...He got stiffed by Tip O'Neill over the spending cuts, which were put off until an unnamed later date, just like li'l Barry is trying to sandbag the repubs into doing right now.

Bush I got stiffed by em as well.

They are pretty good and stiffing folks whom they deal with.

If I were the Reps I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw the lot of em.

 

[Dragonlady]

That was the negotiation. Now Obama wants to negotiate again to get more of what he wants. Fuckum. The fical cliff it is.

The Republicans (especially the Tea Party Republicans) have pledged to their supporters that they will never vote for a tax increase under any circumstances. Such a position is neither practical nor prudent, but we are talking about the Tea Party Republicans after all, a group living on the outer vestiges of the realities of the 21st century.

The problem with the fiscal cliff is that cutting spending, especially military spending, will stop the recovery in its tracks and raise unemployment. The Republicans lost this election because they were more concerned about making sure that Obama would be a one term President than they were with dealing with the economic mess created by 8 years of fiscal mismanagement when the Republicans were in power.

The Republicans can continue to act like spoilt children who didn't get their way, but Obama holds all the cards and the Republicans did that to themselves. In order to raise taxes, which the Republicans refuse to do, Obama just has to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Then he can propose tax cuts to those making less than $250K per year and if the Republiicans refuse to vote for the new round of cuts, they're the bad guys raising taxes on the middle class.

As long as Republicans cling to the failed fiscal policies of Reagan and the Bushes, the US will continue to sink further into debt, the number of people living below the poverty line will continue to increase. Republican fiscal policies since Reagan have been an unmitigated disaster and have lead to the decimation of the middle class. More of the same is not the answer.

Obama doesn't have to worry about winning the next presidential election and he has a mandate to raise taxes now. If the Republicans continue to try to thwart that mandate, the electorate will make them pay for that pigheadedness in two years, just like they did this time. I can't imagine that the elderly, who overwhelmingly supported the Republicans this past election, will be pleased to see their income eroded when the Bush tax cuts on their investment income ends.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wow. How long did you spend thinking out and typing that load?

Republicans aren't "thwarting" any mandate. The so called fiscal cliff is where we should go. You want more tax revenue? There it is (although it will actually be less, but that was never the point or we wouldn't be bickering over 80 billion dollars when we have 1.3 trillion in annual deficits.) They want spending cuts? Well, it has that too!

 

[Dragonlady]

It sounds to me like the only thing being offered here are dictorial power for the president and tax hike for the "rich". Or we can do the fiscal cliff, raise rates on everyone and make some actual spending cuts for a change. Sounds like the fiscal cliff is the win/win. Except for Obama, because he told his base only the rich would have to pay. So politically, he goes down as the guy who yet again, did not keep his "promise".

The American public didn't buy that line this election, and it won't work next election if the Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate or to pass any of Obama's legislation. They got their asses kicked in the Congressional and Senate elections this year for EXACTLY that reason.

I saw an interview with a moderate Republican Congressman before the election who said that if Obama won re-election, the Republicans would have no moral grounds for opposing tax increases because that was the basis on which the election was fought, and the Republicans could not continue to block the will of the American people.

Now Rush and other Republicans are trying to say that it was just the "takers" who voted for Obama so we should ignore the vote and keep on keeping on. But a large percentage of the so-called "takers" are the elderly, and the working poor who are screwed over by large corporations who pad their profits by paying povery level wages and letting government programs take care of their workers. If the elderly get screwed over by the Republicans unwillingness to negotiate with Obama, do you really think they'll continue to vote for Republicans?

Oh yeah, and constantly referring to people who worked all of their lives and paid their taxes "takers" because they now receive social security and Medicare, is not exactly endearing the Republicans to the elderly either.

Right wing pundits, politicians and commentators have been saying only the "takers" voted for Obama. In fact, the ONLY demographic group that overwhelmingly voted for Romney, other than white males, was the elderly. More than 80% of the elderly voted for Romney and to thank them for their overwhelming support, the Republican Party and its supporters are now referring to them as "takers". So you keep that up boys, because nothing pisses off cranky old farts who have worked their entire lives asking for nothing and dutifully paying their taxes, than insulting them every time you open your mouth.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Blah blah blah. The negotiating is done. The fiscal cliff gets you envious types your tax increases and the republicans get their spending cuts. What's the matter? Did you pull an oldGuy and believe you were voting for the increase in someone elses taxes?

 

[saveliberty]

The only real pressure either side has is the clock. This will be an eleventh hour showdown. The Republicans put massive cuts on the table with a tax increase for the rich below what Obama wants. Then Obama gets to have something or the cliff. I love it.

 

[Article 15]

well as long as you have your Obama knee pads on while you're doing it

Knee pads, shoulder pads, chest protecter, helmet, and gloves.....you can't have enough protection on when wading into waters as polluted as usmb.

Why don't you leave then.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Buhbye.

And miss out on all this delicious butthurt? All of the herp-a-derp, wild conspiracy theories, laughable rationalizations, and false equivalencies from Tea Tards, like yourself?

No doubt you would like that but naw, dawg, I'm not going anywhere when so many who are so deserving of my mocking and disrespect are here.

 

[Rinata]

oh goody, he didn't yesterday he was too busy playing golf

propaganda from the NYslimes, say it aint so

the BIG NEWS from yahoo yesterday:
SNIP:
Fore: Obama, Bill Clinton enjoy round of golf
By By STACY A. ANDERSON | Associated Press – 18 hrs agoEmail0Share0Share2PrintJOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md. (AP) — Fore — 42 and 44 are playing 18.

Former President Bill Clinton — the 42nd president — is joining President Barack Obama — he's No. 44 — for a round of golf at Joint Air Base in Maryland.

Also in the group, according to the White House, are U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and longtime Clinton backer and strategist Terry McAuliffe, who's running for governor in Virginia in 2013.

from
Fore: Obama, Bill Clinton enjoy round of golf - Yahoo! News

So what?? As usual, you have no point.

 

[Article 15]

It sounds to me like the only thing being offered here are dictorial power for the president and tax hike for the "rich". Or we can do the fiscal cliff, raise rates on everyone and make some actual spending cuts for a change. Sounds like the fiscal cliff is the win/win. Except for Obama, because he told his base only the rich would have to pay. So politically, he goes down as the guy who yet again, did not keep his "promise".

The American public didn't buy that line this election, and it won't work next election if the Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate or to pass any of Obama's legislation. They got their asses kicked in the Congressional and Senate elections this year for EXACTLY that reason.

I saw an interview with a moderate Republican Congressman before the election who said that if Obama won re-election, the Republicans would have no moral grounds for opposing tax increases because that was the basis on which the election was fought, and the Republicans could not continue to block the will of the American people.

Now Rush and other Republicans are trying to say that it was just the "takers" who voted for Obama so we should ignore the vote and keep on keeping on. But a large percentage of the so-called "takers" are the elderly, and the working poor who are screwed over by large corporations who pad their profits by paying povery level wages and letting government programs take care of their workers. If the elderly get screwed over by the Republicans unwillingness to negotiate with Obama, do you really think they'll continue to vote for Republicans?

Oh yeah, and constantly referring to people who worked all of their lives and paid their taxes "takers" because they now receive social security and Medicare, is not exactly endearing the Republicans to the elderly either.

Right wing pundits, politicians and commentators have been saying only the "takers" voted for Obama. In fact, the ONLY demographic group that overwhelmingly voted for Romney, other than white males, was the elderly. More than 80% of the elderly voted for Romney and to thank them for their overwhelming support, the Republican Party and its supporters are now referring to them as "takers". So you keep that up boys, because nothing pisses off cranky old farts who have worked their entire lives asking for nothing and dutifully paying their taxes, than insulting them every time you open your mouth.

That is just Rush et al feeding chicken soup to the nutter base. Millions of hard working tax payers like myself voted for Obama and millions of people in trailers on welfare and/or food stamps voted for Romney.

 

[Dragonlady]

That is just Rush et al feeding chicken soup to the nutter base. Millions of hard writing tax payers like myself voted for Obama and millions of people in trailers on welfare and/or food stamps voted for Romney.

I realize this but those who immediate start parroting the daily meme the moment Rush or Hannity spout it are obviously buying it. Over 40% of the people who are now being characterized as "takers" voted for Romney. Conversley a similar number of those people who Rush et al are referring to as "strivers" voted for Obama, so not everyone is drinking the Republican kool-aid on this one.

But the old people who worked all of their lives and paid their taxes and took nothing from no one, but who now have fixed incomes and pre-existing conditions, will not have a kind view towards those who are insulting them.

 

[KissMy]

The people earning above $350k need to start paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. We can't compete if our product cost more because we have to pay more tax than the rich. This tax system is a huge benefit to the rich & a huge burden to the middle class. If a middle class person made widgets, they would cost more than the rich widgets because the middle class widget maker has to pay more tax per widget. This drives all the middle class out of business, into poverty & onto the government dole every time the rich wants to compete.

Don't fall for the tax rate nonsense. Effective tax rates are what you must go by. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class. Government is letting the people at the top pay a lower percent tax than the rest.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. That means if the rich are taxed less thereby producing more efficiently than the rest of us who are taxed more, we all become surf's & they become our super wealthy masters. That is what is wrong with this country. All forms of income including dividends must be taxed at the same rate. Loopholes for the rich must be eliminated. According to free market capitalist Adam Smith the father of modern economics there should also be a slight progressiveness to taxes that allows the people at the bottom pay a lower rate than the people at the top. Currently it is inverted & regressive.

If you want to become a peasant that is forced to kiss the shoes of your rich masters then by all means keep with the current tax scheme. Mitt Romney only paid 13% in taxes. That is as low of a tax rate as someone in poverty. By all means worship the ground he walks on & kiss his ass every hour.

 

[saveliberty]

Congressman Coburn was on CSPAN yesterday. He estimates $600B. in goverment wasted spending annually. Seems like you plug the dam before you ask for more water.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you want to become a peasant that is forced to kiss the shoes of your rich masters then by all means keep with the current tax scheme.

Those at the bottom who keep voting for the same old, same old are banking on being one of the rich masters one day so it doesn't matter. It's one thing to have guys like Bush and Romney screw you over, outsource your job, and hand you a foreclosure slip, and quite another to say "Oh that was great guys, do it again!".

 

[saveliberty]

The people earning above $350k need to start paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. We can't compete if our product cost more because we have to pay more tax than the rich. This tax system is a huge benefit to the rich & a huge burden to the middle class. If a middle class person made widgets, they would cost more than the rich widgets because the middle class widget maker has to pay more tax per widget. This drives all the middle class out of business, into poverty & onto the government dole every time the rich wants to compete.

Don't fall for the tax rate nonsense. Effective tax rates are what you must go by. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class. Government is letting the people at the top pay a lower percent tax than the rest.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. That means if the rich are taxed less thereby producing more efficiently than the rest of us who are taxed more, we all become surf's & they become our super wealthy masters. That is what is wrong with this country. All forms of income including dividends must be taxed at the same rate. Loopholes for the rich must be eliminated. According to free market capitalist Adam Smith the father of modern economics there should also be a slight progressiveness to taxes that allows the people at the bottom pay a lower rate than the people at the top. Currently it is inverted & regressive.

If you want to become a peasant that is forced to kiss the shoes of your rich masters then by all means keep with the current tax scheme. Mitt Romney only paid 13% in taxes. That is as low of a tax rate as someone in poverty. By all means worship the ground he walks on & kiss his ass every hour.

What your chart shows is people start investing after a certain income level in meaningful ways. That investment helps maintain and create jobs. Go ahead, syphon it off to the government.