U.S. House leader: No progress in fiscal cliff talks

World Dec. 08, 2012 - 06:38AM JST ( 6 )

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

6 Comments

2

globalwatcherDec. 08, 2012 - 08:12AM JST

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf

Dear GOP;

It is okay to break your pledges to Norquist. Norquist is not an elected government official. You do not owe anything to Norquist. Go ahead, break it and move on to avoid the fiscal cliff for the best interest of Americans.

Signed by

The Democrats
-4

WolfpackDec. 08, 2012 - 01:23PM JST

I certainly hope no "conservatives" vote for any tax rate increases. There is no tax rate high enough to fund Obama's entitlement structure. For the Obammunists, Republicans don't have to do anything for them to get their tax hike. Republicans should just pass a bill in House to freeze tax rates as they are and send it to the Senate. At least they can say they tried to stop an increase in taxes. After Obama plays his "my way or the highway" card the US goes over the fiscal cliff and tax rates go up for everyone on Jan. 1, conservatives - which may or may not include Boehner - should then push for a complete overhaul of the tax system and trim entitlements. If Obama will not play, then let him have his high tax rates, high unemployment, struggling economy, and unsustainable entitlement programs. It's all about Obama's ideology and his idea of "fairness" - the economy and fiscal reality be damned.

When his economic policies continue to fail and the debt continues to grow by over a trillion dollars a year, he will again blame Republicans (because as the Messiah, he believes he can do no wrong) but he will have no one to blame but himself. Sadly, the system will have to completely implode before it can be rebuilt in a sustainable way. There are just too many Takers now. This is what always happens in a democrat-socialist state. Eventually you run out of other peoples money.
-3

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 08, 2012 - 02:31PM JST

The "fair share" for those with the least bit of wealth will eventually rise to 100% to satisfy the redistributers.
1

LagunaDec. 08, 2012 - 06:25PM JST

"Obammunists," "because as the Messiah, he believes he can do no wrong," "The "fair share" for those with the least bit of wealth will eventually rise to 100% to satisfy the redistributers" - Take a couple of deep, deep breaths and recall that tax rates have in the past been far higher than those proposed by Obama and that federal spending as a percentage of GNP has actually fallen under Obama when temporary programs are factored out.

Or not. The fact is that when Obama tried to meet the GOP halfway a half year ago, he was swatted away. The GOP responds to Obama's proposals with exactly what their losing presidential candidate had proposed while calling the winning candidate, Obama, "unrealistic" and many other very funny names that I have been teaching my son. You can freak out in the way that House members are - politically, anguishing over whether country comes before Norquist - or existentially, which is amusing to watch, it is so silly.

Do not pretend, however, that "my way or the highway" was not exactly the GOP position a scant six months ago.
0

TheQuestionDec. 09, 2012 - 12:47AM JST

Take a couple of deep, deep breaths and recall that tax rates have in the past been far higher than those proposed by Obama and that federal spending as a percentage of GNP has actually fallen under Obama when temporary programs are factored out.

I tend to leave such programs in the equation because temporary programs have an odd habit of becoming permanent facets of US society like the income tax and social security. The expenses they generate are not negligible either.

Do not pretend, however, that "my way or the highway" was not exactly the GOP position a scant six months ago.

They were both playing that game. It's never a good game to play but they both just keep upping the ante at the expense of everybody else. Republicans are trying to save face after the election but the President and his party are essentially stating that they are unwilling to negotiate any budget that doesn't look very very similar to exactly what they want. Want to make the Republicans look stupid? Actually negotiate with them. Half of the Presidents first term consisted of steamrolling the opposition with a super-majority and it backfired in 2010.

The President won re-election but it didn't come with any substantial change in the House or Senate so if he doesn't start trying to work with Republicans right now it's going to be a rough two years and while people might be angry at the Republicans now time has a habit of spreading the blame around. The Republicans are probably going to start re-orienting towards getting the hispanic vote and getting their names on alternative immigration bills (they've already tried it on one such bill).

I suppose asking them all to behave like adults would be to much to ask at this point. The President got his lease on his favorite toy renewed for another 4 years and the other children are bickering over who gets to play with it on weekends.
0

WolfpackDec. 09, 2012 - 01:52AM JST

Take a couple of deep, deep breaths and recall that tax rates have in the past been far higher than those proposed by Obama

Yes, I agree that tax rates have been higher but the conditions that exist today are far different than when taxes rates were 90% shortly after WWII. The US does not today comprise 50% of world GNP. The tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy have always been huge and no one ever paid the effective tax rate. The economy under Clinton followed the fall of Communism in Europe and the rapid reduction in defense spending and the onset of the tech bubble - which blew up right as he left office leaving Bush to clean up that mess.

The problem of rapidly rising expenditures versus tax receipts is obvious when plotted on a chart. Given that entitlements are ingrained in US society, the structural defect of the gap between the taxes raised to pay for SS and Medicare for example are inadequate. Both of these programs combined have a $60 trillion unfunded liability. They will both become insolvent during the current generation.

Obama's solution to $1.1 plus trillion annual budget deficits is to raise $60 billion a year on the rich. The math doesn't add up without entitlement reforms.

The entitlement state is unsustainable and is destined to fail. It cannot support a economy that grows fast enough to fund it. It's time to face up to reality and cut the growth of entitlements sooner rather than later or else there will end up being greater suffering for all in the end. No society has succeeded in doing so. California and southern Europe as current examples of it's failure.

It's no fun as a Conservative to sit back and watch the implosion of the entitlement state and say 'I told you so". But I guess if you don't laugh you will just end up crying at the mess the country has become.