Obama says immediate action needed on fiscal cliff

World Dec. 29, 2012 - 08:45AM JST ( 13 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

13 Comments

-1

noriyosan73Dec. 29, 2012 - 09:17AM JST

"Send in the clowns" is the appropriate music and commentary for this circus. The USA taxpayers have completely distanced themselves from this issue because they know that the only way to control Congress is to wait for the next election, and believe it or not, the members of Congress know they face unemployment if a solution is not found and Mr. Obama will be at the door to wish them good luck. Since it is almost December 31st, the "auld lang syne" music used for closing a store in Japan is even more appropriate now.
-2

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 29, 2012 - 09:38AM JST

Another act of smoke and mirrors showmanship, and the proletariat will get stuck with the bill.
-4

CrisGerSanDec. 29, 2012 - 12:16PM JST

Sadly the United States is stuck with a total fool of a bad president for another four years of misery. He is largely to blame for the shallow partisanship wars that have bedeviled the Congress and frozen progress in the economy in the US. Sad sad sad state of affairs.
3

LagunaDec. 29, 2012 - 03:24PM JST

McConnell must prevent a filibuster in the Senate and Boehner must allow a vote in the House on the Senate's bill. That is all there should be to it - but McConnell is worried about Tea Party challengers from the right. If he and Boehner do what is in the best interests of the country, they will lose politically. We shall see which they hold in higher regard.

He is largely to blame for the shallow partisanship wars that have bedeviled the Congress

Let's see: the GOP is on the verge of getting NOTHING that was offered to them repeatedly by Obama - not an increase in the income tax rate exempt from reversion; not the offers of spending reductions such as chaining SS to a slower growth rate - Nope, Boehner and his counterparts have succeeded in gaining exactly zero for their side. The reason for this is their bone-headed negotiating moves and the recalcitrance of their caucus. Facts as they go down refute this completely, my friend.
-2

SerranoDec. 29, 2012 - 06:16PM JST

"looming tax hikes and spending cuts"

How about just massive spending cuts?
1

MadvertsDec. 29, 2012 - 06:26PM JST

"How about just massive spending cuts?"

Because the amount of debt racked up bu the US government since the seventies is so gargantuan that even tax hikes and spending cuts will hardly make a dent.

(the old enemy Arithmetic enters stage left..)
-2

SerranoDec. 29, 2012 - 06:57PM JST

"even tax hikes and spending cuts will hardly make a dent"

Not if the spending cuts are massive enough. We should start with foreign aid.
2

LagunaDec. 29, 2012 - 06:59PM JST

How about just massive spending cuts?

We can go there! Over half of the federal budget is consumed by Social Security (which pays for itself - if you cut it, you have to cut its contributions); Medicaid and Medicare (cut those and you've aggravated the cost efficiencies that these programs provide); and the military. Wikipedia notes that average military spending to GNP globally is 2.5%, while it is 4.7% in the US. Thus, we could halve military spending and still be on a global average. That would be massive spending cuts!
-3

SerranoDec. 29, 2012 - 07:07PM JST

Laguna - If we halved military spending, we wouldn't have had the manpower or materials for Operation Tomodachi to give relief to the Japanese in the wake of the 2011 quake/tsunami disaster...
-1

SerranoDec. 29, 2012 - 07:10PM JST

"Washington's dysfunction"

Would that have anything to do with Republicans or Democrats?
1

MadvertsDec. 29, 2012 - 09:02PM JST

"Not if the spending cuts are massive enough. We should start with foreign aid."

Coming from a loyal W Bush bone-fetcher, you recreate the meaning of the word "ironic".
0

TheQuestionDec. 30, 2012 - 04:16AM JST

We can go there! Over half of the federal budget is consumed by Social Security (which pays for itself - if you cut it, you have to cut its contributions); Medicaid and Medicare (cut those and you've aggravated the cost efficiencies that these programs provide); and the military.

Every single one requires massive cuts and restructuring. We could cut the military budget by billions simply by giving the Pentagon exactly what it wants, sounds odd but the fact of the matter is that the department of defense only asks for a tenth of the amount of money that they get. Many in the military are actually having problems finding ways to spend all the money they are given, we literally have bases full of parked tanks that have never been used because Congress keeps ordering more.

Social Security requires drastic restructure as the number of beneficiaries will soon be unsustainable by the number of working contributors. It was originally designed for nearly a dozen workers to support one beneficiary, now its more like 4 workers to 1 and the number will continue to shrink. The proposed slow in benefit growth that the White House supposedly offered is a pittance compared to the age hikes and benefit increase reductions that need to go into effect. I'd support an opt out for those so inclined but I tend to chalk that up to another dream that will never come true.

Wikipedia notes that average military spending to GNP globally is 2.5%, while it is 4.7% in the US. Thus, we could halve military spending and still be on a global average. That would be massive spending cuts!

The US military is probably the largest provider of foreign aid and emergency relief worldwide. Additionally it serves as a policing role in the worlds oceans. As much as some posters love to deride the US as an abusive authority figure in this regard the fact remains that the US keeps all major trade routs open and relatively safe, this benefits all nations that use maritime transportation for heavy freight. To do that the US maintains a navy larger than the next 13 largest combined, no other nation is even remotely capable of doing so or would use their navies to choke off international water crossings as China would be like to do.

It is in the US's economic interests to use its military to maintain economic stability in the waterways and nations that it trades with. While I agree it needs drastic restructuring in how it acquires and allocates funding the idea that it should, or can, reduce military spending to 2.7% flys in the face of the military's numerous tacit and implied objectives of security and stability both for the safety of US citizens and for US international trading activities. Additionally the US has dozens of mutual defense compacts that it needs to maintain which requires just as much logistical spending as it does in terms of raw hardware. If you look at expenditures only a small amount relates to actual physical military equipment, most of it goes into logistics, administration, R&D, and other support activity.
0

MolenirDec. 30, 2012 - 06:15AM JST

Let's see: the GOP is on the verge of getting NOTHING that was offered to them repeatedly by Obama - not an increase in the income tax rate exempt from reversion; not the offers of spending reductions such as chaining SS to a slower growth rate - Nope, Boehner and his counterparts have succeeded in gaining exactly zero for their side. The reason for this is their bone-headed negotiating moves and the recalcitrance of their caucus. Facts as they go down refute this completely, my friend.

Your statement, basically proves, you know absolutely nothing. Boehner's plan was to basically accept what Obama offered last year. Obama is now saying, nope, not good enough now. In point of fact, its all on Obama. The funny thing is, that not even his own party would support his latest idiotic plan. McConnel tried to put it to a vote in the Senate, and Reid refused to even allow a vote on Obamas plan.

Weird thing is, one of Boehners suggestions, is something that Obama mentioned more then a year ago. He talked about closing tax loopholes. Doing so would increase revenues significantly. In fact, Obama now is insisting that rates must go up. Nevermind that actual revenues would be higher by closing the loopholes. No, the rates are more important then the money.