Obama heading to Michigan to push taxes on rich
Photo
In this Nov. 16, 2012, file photo, President Barack Obama acknowledges House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio while speaking to reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, as he hosted a meeting of the bipartisan, bicameral leadership of Congress to discuss the deficit and economy. Admnistration officials say President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met Sunda, Dec. 9, 2012, at the White House to discuss the ongoing negotiations over the impeding "fiscal cliff." Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said the two men agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is pressing for public support Monday to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a day after he and House Speaker John Boehner met one-on-one for the first time to discuss ways to avert the "fiscal cliff."
Neither side provided details of the weekend meeting at the White House. But with just three weeks until a flurry of tax hikes and spending cuts start taking effect, the mere fact that the meeting happened was seen as progress.
Negotiations continue to center on whether to raise tax rates for the top two percent of income earners. Obama, in a campaign-style speech to auto workers in Michigan on Monday, is expected to stress that he won't sign a deal that doesn't include higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.
While Republicans have long opposed that approach, some GOP lawmakers are suggesting the party relent on taxes in order to win concessions from the president on entitlement reforms.
And business leaders, tired of Washington's partisan bickering creating uncertainty in the marketplace, are emphasizing the need to hammer out a deal before year's end.
"The millions of people that work for us, their lives are in flux. And this is incredibly critical we get this done now," said Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive and head of the presidential advisory council on competitiveness.
Immelt, in remarks aired Monday on "CBS This Morning," added: "Everyone knows we need revenue," because spending cuts alone won't solve the problem.
GOP mavericks are putting increased pressure on their party's leaders to rethink how they approach negotiations with Obama in the wake of a bruising national election that left Democrats in charge of the White House and Senate.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements, and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Conservative stalwart Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had already floated a similar idea. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., has said Obama and Boehner could at least agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates of top earners later.
"It's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said on CNN's "State of the Union."
But such ideas face an uphill battle. Many House Republicans say they wouldn't vote for tax rate hikes under any circumstances. And GOP leadership could lose leverage in the negotiations if it raises the rate on upper-income earners without getting anything substantial in return like entitlement reform.
Democratic leaders have suggested they are unwilling to tackle entitlement spending in the three weeks left before the fiscal cliff is triggered.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Medicare reform specifically, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year," Durbin added.
The "fiscal cliff" refers to rate increases that would affect every worker who pays federal taxes, as well as spending cuts that would begin to bite defense and domestic programs alike. Economists say the combination carries the risk of a new recession, at a time the economy is still struggling to recover fully from the worst slowdown in decades.
The president's message in Michigan will be that the economy is rebounding and Congress should not risk that progress to save tax cuts for the rich. The president will use the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant where he'll speak to illustrate his point, noting that the company plans to spend an additional $100 million to boost production in the U.S.
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income earners. The Republican plan also would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.
Dec 13, 2012 at 7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Red are you really that inept at reading numbers?
Form the table you listed here are the top spending years by % of GDP from 1930-to-today, Obama's are ALL in the TOP 8.
1943 180.3 13.3 43.6
1944 209.2 20.9 43.6
1945 221.4 20.4 41.9
2009 13,937.5 15.1 25.2
1946 222.6 17.7 24.8
1942 144.3 10.1 24.3
2010 14,359.7 15.1 24.1
2011 14,958.6 15.4 24.1
Keep twisting and spinning as you refuse to see facts and reality for what it is.
Dec 12, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, your link includes Table 1.2 where the numbers indicate that, as a whole, Obama’s spending as a percentage of GDP is the same or less than Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush I & II.
(Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2017)
-
As a side note, you also probably missed the fact that Reagan raised the debt limit 10 times during his first four years in office going from 985 billion to 1,823.8 trillion while during the term of Bush II the debt limit more than doubled from 5,950 trillion to 12,394 trillion. (Table 7.3—Statutory Limits on Federal Debt: 1940–Current). Great stuff, thanks for the link.
Dec 12, 2012 at 7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Red the following numbers come directly from the current administration
Year, GDP Trillions, Receipt%, Spending%
2000 9,821.0 20.6 18.2
2001 10,225.3 19.5 18.2
2002 10,543.9 17.6 19.1
2003 10,980.2 16.2 19.7
2004 11,676.0 16.1 19.6
2005 12,428.6 17.3 19.9
2006 13,206.5 18.2 20.1
2007 13,861.4 18.5 19.7
2008 14,334.4 17.6 20.8
2009 13,937.5 15.1 25.2
2010 14,359.7 15.1 24.1
2011 14,958.6 15.4 24.1
2012(e) 15,601.5 15.8 24.3
2013(e) 16,335.0 17.8 23.3
Keep pretending all you want, even the current admin admits it has a spending problem.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/His...
You might want to check your op-ed sources before you look silly once again.
Dec 11, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
You can twist the numbers any way you like 916, but that does not change the fact that Obama is not spending any more than his predecessors. Dollar for dollar, Obama increased spending in two of his four years and decreased spending in the remaining two years. Those numbers are backed up by data from the OMB, CBO, Haver Analytics and MarketWatch. What sources were included in the article you linked 916? Evidently you attended the same fuzzy math course as RAF. In fact, your link even claimed Reagan reduced spending. Give me some facts to back that claim 916! The Bush tax cuts and failed Republican economic policies have contributed more to our deficit than government spending, contrary to what Republicans want the public to believe.
-
Go check the CBO and Bureau of Economic Analysis and see if you can find any shred of evidence that disputes any of the information contained in the op-ed piece RAF. Good luck.
Dec 11, 2012 at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
And Obama is hauling all over the country to push his one item agenda....raise taxes on the 1%, which will exactly pay for the govt for 8.5 days! Big deal! For that the taxpayers are footing the enormous traveling expenses he is incurring. What a stupid idea! Think of what these junkets cost us.
Dec 11, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't understand why this president doesn't stay in DC and do his job? Why still campaigning? It's so ridiculous!! One blogger stated there's an invention called the telephone where communcation between the prez and Boehner,etc. can take place regarding this fiscal cliff situation. Obama needs to take a course on good business practices. Anyone in business knows if you want to reach a deal, you meet FACE-TO-FACE with that person(s). To me, if a person relys on telephone calls to debate or discuss a topic, that person is not genuine or really serious about the matter and doesn't really care to reach an agreement. To me, that's unacceptable for an elected official, especially a president, to do. Time for people to grow up and act like rational adults. This country is in dire need of maturity and sound decision making from their elected officials.
Dec 10, 2012 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
When is the left fringe going to understand raising tax rates in no way means more money will be collected by the feds, http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/...
The "evil rich", the same ones the left want their base to hate based on class warfare alinsky style politics, have the ability to move themselves and their money. Look at the history of rich dems like Buffett, he claims he wants higher taxes, but has worked his whole financial strategy around avoiding them. The rich have fled California and New York as tax rates went up. To think they won't leave the county is naive as well; just look what has happened in France and the UK after rates jumped.
The govt is funded based on what the economy can provide, as such, spending should also be tied to that. When the govt has spent OVER what has been collected, like it has for the last +60 years, only the IGNORANT can claim spending is not the problem.
The fix is easy, only the politics make it hard. Remove all tax deductions and credits, then get rid of the IRS. A simple flat tax on everything while holding spending to receipt levels and the problem goes away.
Dec 10, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Leave it to Red to declare an OP-ED is the truth...lol.
Dec 10, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rick Ungar, Contributor
Writing from the left on politics and policy.
Just another one of Obama's hacks.
Dec 10, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
PanamaRed, Obama giving Myanmar 170 million dollars upon his visit, I would call that spending taxpayer money.
Dec 10, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Red.....Huh?!?
Forbes also reports that Obama is the largest spender in history.......
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...
Of course those posting won't believe a word of the report since it contains facts and figures that prove them wrong. Democrats are living in a fantasy world if they believe our debt is the result of a "taxation" problem.:)
Dec 10, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Perhaps those posting should look further than FOX News for their information. Forbes magazine reports than Obama has spent less than any Republican president since Reagan! Check out the link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...
-
Of course those posting won't believe a word of the report since it contains facts and figures that prove them wrong. Republicans are living in a fantasy world if they believe our debt is the result of a "spending" problem. Unless you consider Republicans failed to include war spending in their budgets. Not accounting for several billion in spending sure helps when it comes time to "balance" the budget.
Dec 10, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Up yes, gigantic healthcare taxes are on the horizon. I predict the big applause for Obama will be muted greatly after they are hit with the so-called "affordable" health insurance payment each month.
Dec 10, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Guys -- he wont cut spending -- All our taxes are headied -- way up starting next year and even higher in 2014 due to his tax and spend policies. Anyone that cannot see that is completely blind. He will drive all investment out of the US and we are headed down the tubes financially. He is basically bankrupting this country and fools are playing along.. How do this bum ever get elected.
Dec 10, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spending is key. Obum is still campaigning.
Dec 10, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
When will potus talk about CUTTING spending? And, when will a budget be passed?
Last budget passed was under GWBush.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.