Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to open ‘fiscal cliff’ talks with call for $1.6 Trillion in new revenues
The Hill ^ | 11/14/2012 | Daniel Strauss

Posted on 11/14/2012 9:19:01 AM PST by mojito

President Obama is taking a tough opening stance in talks over deficit reduction, pushing Republicans to accept a plan that calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next ten years, according to reports.

The figure is double the $800 billion last discussed by the White House and House Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) during their 2011 negotiations on raising the debt-ceiling limit.

The president’s plan is based on his most recent budget proposal, which sought the $1.6 in new revenues by targeting the wealthy and corporations.

The president and congressional lawmakers are set to meet at the White House on Friday as both sides begin hammering out a deficit-cutting plan that helps the nation move past the “fiscal cliff” of rising tax rates and automatic spending cuts set to take effect in January 2013....

House Republicans on Wednesday were incredulous at the president's opening bid....

On Tuesday the president met privately with a number of union leaders and liberal activists to discuss his plan. In the meeting Obama reportedly promised to make good on his vow to renew low tax rates for the middle class and let them expire for wealthy households.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; corruption; democrats; fiscalcliff; obama; takingtakers; taxes
Clovard-Piven, ho!
1 posted on 11/14/2012 9:19:07 AM PST by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mojito

Hussein’s deficit is the size of one of Clinton’s annual budgets!

How about $1.6 trillion in spending cuts? That would be much better for the economy and for liberty.


2 posted on 11/14/2012 9:21:00 AM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Non-starter. Nice try Barry.


3 posted on 11/14/2012 9:22:26 AM PST by mrs9x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
0bama won, don't ya know.

And it's time for the takers to get down to some serious taking.

4 posted on 11/14/2012 9:22:48 AM PST by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Translation - Obama wants to reduce the GDP by 800 Billion. I figure that is worth a loss of jobs of about 1.5 to 1.75 percent added to the unemployment rate.

[using fuzzy math]

5 posted on 11/14/2012 9:26:10 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

I think Hussein should ask for $5 Trillion in annual revenue increases just to be safe. $20 Trillion in annual revenue increases might be better. Why not $30 Trillion? $40 Trillion.


6 posted on 11/14/2012 9:26:39 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The reason why they rack up a big deficit is so that they can say “we need a tax hike.”
They know it. They think we are stupid.


7 posted on 11/14/2012 9:26:45 AM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

He is deficit spending at that approximate number every damn year. The middles class morons who voted for this clown are gonna get one big surprise when the bill comes due and that will be as soon as interest rates rise. The young voters who cast votes to impoverish themselves? Well they can live a lifetime with that. I don’t much care.


8 posted on 11/14/2012 9:27:03 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

If the industrial and business leaders have not “gone John Galt” up to now, this is going to a big decision-maker for them.

There are very few places left for refuge to where they may flee, but those places are about to get very, very crowded.

I miss George W. Bush. Hell, I miss Bill Clinton, who at least had the native good sense to triangulate when he faced resistance.

This criminal enterprise in the White Hut does not even start to understand the concept of compromise. The highway is no longer a means of escape. (You know, as in “My way or the highway!”)


9 posted on 11/14/2012 9:28:57 AM PST by alloysteel (Bronco Bama - the cowboy who whooped up and widened the stampede.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Agree to a $10 zillion tax increase in ten years. But not this year.


10 posted on 11/14/2012 9:31:56 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

The rich will survive. They know how just like the people on this website regardless of income. The ones who are going to get hurt are the idiots who voted for him. They are too dumb to understand economics. They won’t be prepared.It is going to be a perverse pleasure watching this ponzy scheme collapse.


11 posted on 11/14/2012 9:32:06 AM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom

Notice how every day the market futures are positive then turn red as the day shines the light on how f’d we are.


12 posted on 11/14/2012 9:34:45 AM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
I miss George W. Bush. Hell, I miss Bill Clinton,

I don't miss either one. GW spent more on domestic liberal programs than Clinton. They both moved us to the left.

The two Statist Bush's looked at government as an inherent Good (proof is their activist liberal domestic policies).

The only President I miss is Reagan. He was the last Conservative President. Only Reagan tried to follow the Constitution.

13 posted on 11/14/2012 9:38:50 AM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
The rich will survive

Many of them would not if Obama's policies are put in place.

Obama's plan is to criminalize them and neuter them as China, Brazil, Russias super-rich get richer and richer and start buying stuff up in the States.

14 posted on 11/14/2012 9:41:22 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mojito

I thought taxing the “rich” was gonna solve all of this mess.


15 posted on 11/14/2012 9:45:31 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

He’s running deficits of over $1 trillion per year and he wants to increase revenue by $160 billion per year (only half of which would ever be collected as a result of the drop in economic activity caused by the tax increase). Sure, that “tax the rich” scheme will solve everything. :p


16 posted on 11/14/2012 9:51:17 AM PST by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sand88

Reagan wasn’t nearly as conservative on spending as people give him credit for. Check the graph


17 posted on 11/14/2012 9:52:49 AM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Pay your taxes, people. Obama needs more of your money to spend and play with. And he’s got millionaire mouths to feed.


18 posted on 11/14/2012 9:55:19 AM PST by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: littleharbour

You can’t fix retarded.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 9:55:49 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojito

So we are headed for a “fiscal cliff” and Obama’s answer is “SPEND MORE”. In what world does that make sense????


20 posted on 11/14/2012 9:59:25 AM PST by Personal Responsibility (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Triangulation Obama style: He offers Left, I counter-offer right, he demands farther Left than before. I’ve seen this behavior somewhere else, but I can’t put my finger on it...


21 posted on 11/14/2012 10:01:56 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
Reagan wasn’t nearly as conservative on spending as people give him credit for. Check the graph

Agreed. But you have to consider the Congress with which he had to deal. Could you imagine the spending if it was either Bush with Reagan's Congress?

Reagan was the last President that looked at government in the way our Founders did -- as a necessary evil.

22 posted on 11/14/2012 10:02:45 AM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Perid. Then call it a tax increase on the rich.

When Obama starts yakking about how the poor will be affected by this, remind him that he ran on the Bush tax cuts benefitting the rich. Now that the cuts are gone, remind us once again why the poor will be affected?


23 posted on 11/14/2012 10:03:07 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (The goal is to equalize outcomes based on race without regard for performance or merit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
Reagan wasn’t nearly as conservative on spending as people give him credit for.

1) He had to rebuild the military from the Carter years 2) He was trying to win the Cold War 3) He had to keep Tip O'Neill placated or he was not going to accomplish anything.


24 posted on 11/14/2012 10:04:45 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
So we are headed for a “fiscal cliff” and Obama’s answer is “SPEND MORE”. In what world does that make sense????

In Paul Krugman columns and Robert B. Reichhhhh's blog


25 posted on 11/14/2012 10:06:16 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Keep in mind that 1.6T in tax increases over the next 120 months will fund less than 6 months of the fiscal year 2013 budget deficit.

And a loaf of bread is going to cost more than US$15.


26 posted on 11/14/2012 10:09:02 AM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox
"Never go full retard."
27 posted on 11/14/2012 10:16:07 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mojito

There just may be a little thing called a mideast war to deal with soon.


28 posted on 11/14/2012 10:22:48 AM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
It is going to be a perverse pleasure watching this ponzy scheme collapse.

I so agree.

29 posted on 11/14/2012 10:25:43 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

Watch how many times he mentions “investments”.


30 posted on 11/14/2012 10:28:59 AM PST by sanjuanbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mojito
This is all very simple.

Don't raise the debt ceiling in February when we run out of money to borrow.

Instant cap on debt; deficit stops in its tracks. Gov’t forced to live within about $2.4trillion a year in revenues. Done.

Sure, there will be some pain, but as Ed Koch says: They made their choice... now let them suffer.

31 posted on 11/14/2012 10:35:49 AM PST by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

$1.6 Trillion over 10 years = $160 billion / year. With $16 Trillion in CURRENT debt it would take us 100 years to pay off the debt. Since we will be adding at least $1 trillion every year this will result in us only having $24 Trillion in debt by 2023 (assuming nothing else changes).

It’s just math...


32 posted on 11/14/2012 10:44:46 AM PST by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Expect to see show trials of executives, seizing of companies, and lots of pain.
33 posted on 11/14/2012 10:45:40 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sand88

I miss Eisenhower. Under his eight years he understood the WW2 debt must be paid down first and the US needed rest to transition from war production to peace production. Under his admin he kept US out of major wars, kept gov spending including defense to a minimum as our WW2 debt was paid down as the US transition to peacetime manufacturing and consumption. The only major fed program was building our interstate highways which kept many Americans vets employed as industry needed time to transition completely from war to peace and create jobs for the last vestige of demoblilized soldiers who came home from war and occupation duties in Europe, and Japan. it was Eisenhower’s boring admin that paid down the WW2 debt that laid the strong financial foundation for JFK and the 1960’s.


34 posted on 11/14/2012 10:52:43 AM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Expect to see show trials of executives, seizing of companies, and lots of pain.

Ayn Rand, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

35 posted on 11/14/2012 11:43:55 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mojito; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
RE :”President Obama is taking a tough opening stance in talks over deficit reduction, pushing Republicans to accept a plan that calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next ten years, according to reports.
The figure is double the $800 billion last discussed by the White House and House Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) during their 2011 negotiations on raising the debt-ceiling limit.”
.....
House Republicans on Wednesday were incredulous at the president's opening bid.
“That is so 2009. It's like he is still in charge of this place,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), referring to the last time Democrats had a majority in the House.
.....
On Tuesday the president met privately with a number of union leaders and liberal activists to discuss his plan. In the meeting Obama reportedly promised to make good on his vow to renew low tax rates for the middle class and let them expire for wealthy households.
.....
GOP lawmakers insist that the White House include entitlement reform and spending cuts as part of any deficit package, but Obama has said he will only compromise if the deal includes higher taxes on the wealthy.

I just assume they do nothing. This just p...es me off. Look, America (swing states and blue states) voted for food stamps over jobs because Obama cares more for the middle class.

If they vote for cake let them eat cake.

36 posted on 11/14/2012 11:46:12 AM PST by sickoflibs (How long before cry-Bohner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; mojito; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; ...

” If they vote for cake let them eat cake. “

I paid for my own cake, and don’t wish to pay for theirs.


37 posted on 11/14/2012 11:51:31 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker ((God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

At some point in the near future - damned sooner than you may think - a lot of people are going to figure out that almost no one in Washington, D.C ever had any intention of paying off our debt.


38 posted on 11/14/2012 11:53:17 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

What if Bohner caves and raises your taxes further to pay for more handouts to his voters? Or past ones?

Wouldnt it be better just to raise taxes on them too?


39 posted on 11/14/2012 12:55:19 PM PST by sickoflibs (How long before cry-Bohner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mojito

There isn’t that much to GET in new revenues. Moron.


40 posted on 11/14/2012 12:56:15 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I’m sure there are insane asylums in which it makes sense too.


41 posted on 11/14/2012 12:56:19 PM PST by Personal Responsibility (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; mojito; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; ...

The only tax increase I am for is 100% tax on incomes exceeding $250,000 for Hollywood actors, and a 100% tax on ANY income earned by Warren Buffett.


42 posted on 11/14/2012 1:00:35 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker ((God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

I don’t have an issue with debt in and of itself. And the Fed did nice work with Operation Twist and refinanced a large portion of the debt to long term at exceptionally low rates. the problem is that with it going up significantly faster than the economy is growing we are going to reach a point where we might not be able to meet our obligations. That is a national security issue.

I just don’t want to hear any of them talk about raising taxes and that helping. $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is a rounding error.


43 posted on 11/14/2012 1:00:40 PM PST by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

LOL, I actually think I could make an exception to get behind those kinds of a tax increase.


44 posted on 11/14/2012 1:07:12 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
Public debt, issued in amounts commensurate with a sound, value-backed currency, a rational fiscal policy and stable GDP growth is not normally a problem. Excessive public debt that seeks to act as a substitute for GDP growth is a recipe for systemic collapse. And that is where we are.

Refinancing debt by means of digitizing dollars into existence and buying our own securities (even long-duration products, priced absurdly by fiat) is how our government now transfers its obligations from one hand to the other, while gleefully spending itself into oblivion while also banking on wealth creation that cannot reasonably occur in such an environment as ours, which is positively toxic toward economic freedom.

45 posted on 11/14/2012 1:23:40 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Between expiring tax cuts and new taxes going into effect: The US will have the biggest tax hike in history starting Jan 1.

The new taxes haven't even kicked in yet: AND WE'RE ALREADY BEING TOLD IT'S NOT ENOUGH

Think about that while you're job hunting. :)
46 posted on 11/14/2012 1:39:50 PM PST by Tzimisce (Will there be anything to fight for in 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Geez. Reagan had a deal to raise taxes if Congress would cut nondefense spending. He got his tax cut but ONeill stabbed him in the back and never cut spending. If you don't understand that the 'rats controlled the House and therefore the budget, you don't understand the Reagan years.
47 posted on 11/14/2012 6:56:34 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Fee
Ike was a gifted leader and very good president, but he lived in a different world economically speaking. Mostly what he did right was knowing when to do nothing.

Eisenhower had very little nondefense spending to contend with, although he did expand social security and start the interstate system. As of 1960, defense accounted for more than half the whole federal budget, which was less than 100 billion dollars.

He never had to pay for Medicare or the rest of LBJ's Great Society.

As far as "demobilizing" after WWII, he of course reduced the size of the military but had hundreds of thousands of troops remaining in the former axis powers, segueing directly into the Cold War. Then there was the little matter of the Korean War, before Ike even took office and needed to be "paid for" as well.

The economy under Ike was good but not great, with a serious recession in the mid fifties. When JFK ran in 1960, one of his effective campaign phrases was a promise to "get the country moving again," which he did by passing a major tax cut, which is usually acknowledged to have set off the boom of the "Soaring Sixties."

Circumstances make a difference, like the fact that in 1960, when OPEC was formed, the world price of oil at the well head was still under $2 a barrel. Not a bad thing for revving up an economy based on basic heavy industry and a burgeoning auto industry, but had nothing to do with Ike or his policies.

48 posted on 11/14/2012 7:47:04 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson