Who’s giving the most in ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations so far?
Related Stories
A day after House Speaker John Boehner said the White House “wasted another week” in the negotiations over the “fiscal cliff,” both President Obama and the Republican Party are repeating their arguments over one major sticking point: taxes.
In his weekly address, Obama said there is still some wiggle room on what Democrats are willing to give in negotiations over how to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff” at year’s end. But increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, he stressed, is “one principle I won’t compromise on.”
Under the White House’s proposal to generate revenue by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire January 1 for the top two percent of earners in America, “everyone would enjoy some peace of mind,” the president argued. He pointed out that “even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income.”
Currently, progress on a deal is stalled due to the split Congress’s disagreement over whether to extend the cuts for all Americans or only those making less than $250,000 a year. Republicans have criticized the president’s “unserious” plan for not cutting spending deeply enough; Obama returned the favor in his remarks, calling the GOP’s proposal “an unbalanced plan that actually lowers rates for the wealthiest Americans.
Delivering the Republican response, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. – a hero of the hands-off government tea party movement – tried to make the GOP’s case that tax hikes, even on the wealthiest Americans, are not the answer to reining in the deficit.
“Our goal should be to generate new revenue by creating new taxpayers, not new taxes,” he said, arguing that closing loopholes in the tax code would free up revenue.
Which side is giving the most so far in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Boehner is, and he shouldn’t.
Reid has refused to allow a vote on any budget that has passed the house, clearly violating the meaning of the Constitution and to thwart the will of the people expressed in the 2010 elections, all so he and Obama could keep the “stimulus” bloated budget, with its unprecedented level of deficit spending indefinitely. In the early days of this country, a tyrant like Reid would have been removed from office long ago and reviled throughout the land.
To add insult to injury, after ignoring the clear message of the 2010 elections, Obama now runs around childishly claiming that he nas received a “mandate” to raise taxes due to the 2012 election results. Oh really? How is 50% of the popular vote a mandate and the overwhelming Republican House victory of 2010 not?
If any group has a moral obligation to pay higher taxes to pay for the deficits Obama and Reid deviously prolonged against the will of the American people, it’s the Obama supporters and no one else.
Reid, in the Senate, has yet to see a bill passed by the Republican lead House (where all budget bills must start). Meanwhile Senator McConnell (a republican) had to filibuster his own proposal because the democrats were willing to vote and pass it.
I think everyone needs to look back to July when the Republicans did not want to negotiate about anything, and finally agreed to kick the can down the road to after the elections with the provision that if there was no bill passed by ‘the fiscal cliff’ then all of the Bush era tax cuts would go away. Democrats are only asking that those who earn more than $250K a year pay the Clinton era taxes.
“Reid, in the Senate, has yet to see a bill passed by the Republican lead House (where all budget bills must start).”
Your first sentence is an easily proveable lie:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/house-vote-gop-2012-budget/
So far Republicans have compromised on raising tax revenue. Obama has refused to compromise at all. Revenue increases will be immediate if not retroactive and spending cuts will be in the future and incremental over the next 12 years(ie. never)
So while all agree spending cuts must be part of the plan, Obama only proposed over $ 1 trillion in new spending.
Also The Republicans in the Senate attempted to bring Obama’s proposal to a vote in the senate with no debate and no amendments, Harry Reid blocked the attempt to Vote on what Obama claims to want. Whats up with that?
Point #1–the most recent national election was 2012, not 2010
Point #2—Obama won the 2012 election; Romney lost
Point #3–between 60% and 65% of voters support raising top marginal tax rates
Quinnipiac, AP/GfK, ABC/Washington Post, and National Exit Polls all come out the same.
“Trio of Polls: Support for raising taxes on wealthy”, Paul Steinhauser, CNN Political Ticker 12/06/2012
“Washington (CNN) – A new poll indicates a majority of Americans are OK with raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 per year as part of a deal to prevent the country from falling off the fiscal cliff”
Guys, give it up. You lost. Deal with it
“Point #1–the most recent national election was 2012, not 2010″
Irrelevant to my point, which is that Obama and Reid IGNORED THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IN 2010. That’s when the Republicans not only won control of the House, where budget and tax bills originate, it was a record shift of party control.
But did Obama or Reid accept that the Republicans won and that they lost and agree to compromise? NO!! They played scorched-earth politics and ran the country without a budget for 2 years, just so they could keep that sweet porkulous money comin’.
Therefore are they entitled to capitualation by the Repiblicans who continue to hold a majority in the House, just because they squeaked by in a small victory with a bare 50% majority? NO! They are entitled to go pound sand.
Be that as it may, Mr Galt, the last election was in 2012, not 2010. And your guy lost.
But since you seem so very upset by the fact that Democrats failed to compromise following the election of 2010, perhaps you could explain what you mean by “compromise” and the failure to agree to do so.
Because, to be perfectly frank, I don’t know what you are talking about.
Ah, I see; according to you, only the elections where your guy wins “count”. “Heads you win, tails we lose.” And your guy is entitled to cooperation after strong-arming his way for years, just because?
No, and your childish assertion “the last election was in 2012″ does not bolster your case that only one side has to accept it when they lose. It just shows what intellectually dishonest idealogue they, and you, are that they still haven’t accepted the results of an election that happened OVER TWO YEARS AGO!
Furthermore, the Republicans not only regained the House in record shift of control; they WON THE HOUSE AGAIN IN 2012!
As far as being upset about lack of compromise, I don’t merely mean that that they owed the Republican party; I mean that they owed it to the American people who voted them from control of the House to follow the normal budgeting process instead of being sore losers who can’t accept the fact that they LOST CONTROL of the branch of government that gets to CONTROL THE BUDGETING PROCESS. But they act like a regime in some sort of third-world banana republic, violating the will of the people to hold on to the funding they rammed through to reward supporters with money from the taxpayers.
You can try to argue here, as you did in another part of thread below that the Constitution does not explicitly require the Senate to bring a budget approved by the House, but that is not the question being asked in this forum. The question is who’s giving the most in the negotiations, and you can’t argue that they are giving or compromising when they won’t agree to follow the long-established process of budgeting that their own party helped establish.
They are lawless, and if the Republicans have to let tax rates rise for everyone and not increase the debt ceiling to force them to follow the lawful budget process their own party has agreed to for decades, then so be it. And if the people who have urged Obama to not compromise get hurt the worst by this, I’ll be glad that they get what they deserve, because that’s what they voted for, and elections have consequences.
Mr Galt,
I’m sorry, but I still don’t know what you are talking about.
Republicans may have control of the House, but they don’t seem to have control of themselves. The Republican caucus is dominated by people who identify as “Tea Party” and as near as anybody can figure, these people did not come to Washington DC to govern. They came to Washington to destroy the ability of the government to govern.
I’d like to know what the middle ground is with people like that.
What I’m getting from your post is that there is no middle ground. Your guy won at some point. The Will of the People. Forever and forever. And those of us who don’t like how people like you want to run things need to go shrivel up and die.
I’ll tell you what. If you are so intend on retaining power based on a single election (all subsequent elections apparently don’t count), why don’t you Republicans do what the Democrats did. Find yourself some electable candidates (the fact that Republicans control the House indicates that your guys have a fairly limited appeal), run a series of decent campaigns where your candidate doesn’t repeatedly say stupid and offensive things, make an honest effort to sell your ideas, convince enough people to vote for your candidate and you may have a victory worth respecting.
Oh and by the way, I’m still waiting on that fruit basket I’m supposed to get. Where is it?
Compromise? Neither side.
Obama’s proposal was more of a compromise than the Republican plan though. Republicans has been showing SIGNS of some compromise, but it hasn’t happened yet.
A last minute deal that merely delays decisions so that we have another fiscal cliff will be reached at the last minute. It’s the way of our “democracy”. Rinse and repeat, and you have our future. Fiscal Cliffs, inaction until the last minute that in turn creates future crises. Repeat until the whole thing finally fails.
The GOP has attempted to offer compromise. President Obama is out campaigning and demonizing telling lies. Obama has not offered one thing to reduce the federal debt and deficit. His tax policy is a power play to crush the GOP because it doesn’t bring in enough money to make even a small dent in the debt and it will kill jobs.
The GOP should pass a bill that includes the tax revenues they have offered BUT is restricted by conditions. Those conditions should be progressive deficit numbers. If Obama doesn’t offer real spending cuts and entitlement reforms the bill should extend the current tax cuts until he does. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it will be Obama’s fault for taking us over the fiscal cliff.
If Obama takes us over the cliff the GOP should pass a debt ceiling bill that extends the Bush tax cuts until these conditions are met. Its time to play hard ball because that’s the game Obama is playing.
The GOP should also bring ethics charges in the US Senate against Harry Reid for breaking federal law and not passing a budget.
If Obama continues in this mold the House should bring impeachment charges against him. The Senate won’t convict on the charges but Obama’s legacy will be stained forever.
Ellis,
The GOP has not offered any meaningful compromise. If you think they have, please explain.
Raising the top marginal rates will generate revenue. There’s no way that it won’t. And it will be a lot easier and faster than endless squabbling over “loopholes”. And it won’t kill jobs. There’s absolutely no evidence that it will. If you have any, please provide it. Otherwise you have nothing more than a slogan from a losing campaign.
Poll numbers indicate that if we go over any kind of fiscal cliff because of a failure to resolve this before the first of the year, Republicans are going to get the blame for this, not Obama
Bringing ethics charges against Harry Reid is ridiculous. If the Senate GOP had anything on him, they would have brought ethics charges against him long before now. Can you cite the federal law that requires the Senate to pass a budget? According to Article I Section 7 of the Constitution, that’s House stuff (“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House”)
As for impeaching the President, do you remember what happened the last time the GOP tried that little stunt
Raising the top marginal rates will only generate enough revenue to run the government 8 days. That’s chump change compared to Barry the Wastrel’s added spending.
Then you agree, Mr Galt, that raising the marginal rates on the top 2% will indeed generate revenue
No. I’m pointing out that even according to the assumptions made by the people pushing this tax increase that even if it works as they claim, it will not make a dent in the deficit; 8 days of funding the government might as well be nothing.
But I don’t think it will work as well as they claim
I have no doubt that many will shift their investment priorities to mitigate the effect of the new tax rates, as well as new Obamacare taxes. Only a willfully blind person could not notice that this is already under way. (Companies, including those who supported Obama, moving their dividend payouts to happen before the end of the year, people and investment firms selling stock to take their gains this year.) Overall revenue may actually decrease, but either way it will not be good for the economy.
So, no; I do not agree that it will generate revenue.
You know something, Mr Galt, I don’t care.
We had the deficit under control when Clinton was president. To argue that we can’t possibly go back to the tax level in effect when Clinton was president, and times were good, is insane.
If you are serious about the debt and deficit, you had better start talking about something other than cutting Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare. If you refuse to talk about the revenue side of it, then you aren’t serious and I’m done listening
“You know something, Mr Galt, I don’t care.”
Yes, I know you don’t care. You just want to tax someone, economy be damned.
“We had the deficit under control when Clinton was president.”
Who’s “we”? Are you standing next to Newt Gingrich? Right, I know you’re not.
“To argue that we can’t possibly go back to the tax level in effect when Clinton was president, and times were good, is insane.”
To argue that we can afford the same expenses in bad times as in good times is insane.
But ok, if the Clinton rates were so great, and somehow contributed to the booming economy (and not the internet bubble) then why don’t you want to impose them on everybody?
“If you are serious about the debt and deficit, you had better start talking about something other than cutting Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare.”
Where did I mention that in my comments?
“If you refuse to talk about the revenue side of it, then you aren’t serious”
If you refuse to admit that your people went on a spending spree with nothing to show for it, but refuse talk about anything but increasing taxes on the eeeeeevvviiiilllll rich, when that won’t even make a dent in the increased spending, then you aren’t serious.
“and I’m done listening”
That implies that you actually were listening.
Go back to the Clinton tax rates and the Clinton spending rates. The Clinton era budgets came out the the House controlled by Republicans and Newt Gingrich.
Obama is not compromising and Obama has refused to offer spending cuts.
As far as any ‘serious’ offers, Mitch McConnell tried to bring Obama’s latest proposal, the one Flogged by Tax cheat Tim Giethner to a vote in the Senate and Harry Reid went over the top, accusing McConnell of cheap political stunt. Blocking the vote on Obama’s plan, that is so substantive that even Democrats cant abide by it
And yes there was a election. Republicans were elected overwhelmingly to not raise taxes and reduce spending. That is the peoples mandate. Low information voters believe the Obama speechifing, but the House is the final say on budgets, The President nothing but a bit player.