Skip to comments.Obama to open ‘fiscal cliff’ talks with call for $1.6 Trillion in new revenues
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 presidents 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 ...
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.
Non-starter. Nice try Barry.
And it's time for the takers to get down to some serious taking.
[using fuzzy math]
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.
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.
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.
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!”)
Agree to a $10 zillion tax increase in ten years. But not this year.
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.
Notice how every day the market futures are positive then turn red as the day shines the light on how f’d we are.
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.
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.
I thought taxing the “rich” was gonna solve all of this mess.
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
Reagan wasn’t nearly as conservative on spending as people give him credit for. Check the graph
Pay your taxes, people. Obama needs more of your money to spend and play with. And he’s got millionaire mouths to feed.
You can’t fix retarded.
So we are headed for a “fiscal cliff” and Obama’s answer is “SPEND MORE”. In what world does that make sense????
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...
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.
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?
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.
There just may be a little thing called a mideast war to deal with soon.
I so agree.
Watch how many times he mentions “investments”.
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.
$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...
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.
Ayn Rand, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
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.
” If they vote for cake let them eat cake. “
I paid for my own cake, and don’t wish to pay for theirs.
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.
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?
There isn’t that much to GET in new revenues. Moron.
I’m sure there are insane asylums in which it makes sense too.
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.
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.
LOL, I actually think I could make an exception to get behind those kinds of a tax increase.
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.
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.