Posted on 11/13/2012 7:05:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Later this week, Obama will have his first face-to-face negotiations over the Fiscal Cliff. In a post that came out this afternoon, The Washington Post's Zachary Goldfarb nicely summarized Obama's opening offer:
Obama’s previous proposal called for raising $1.6 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy by allowing tax rates to increase, imposing a new special tax on millionaires and limiting deductions for the wealthy. He also proposed $340 billion in health-care and entitlement savings, continuing $1.1 trillion in spending cuts already passed into law and generating another $1 trillion in savings through the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The demand for $1.6 trillion in new taxes is far greater than Obama proposed in negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in summer 2011. At the time, Obama wavered between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, depending on how much in entitlement cuts Republicans were demanding.
That story came out at 2:37 PM ET, and it's interesting that it was in the several minutes after the release that the market sagged through the rest of the day.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
More from Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578117152861144968.html
Obama Sets Steep Tax Target
EXCERPT:
President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.
Mr. Obama, in a meeting Tuesday with union leaders and other liberal activists, also pledged to hang tough in seeking tax increases on wealthy Americans. In one sign of conciliation, he made no specific commitment to leave unscathed domestic programs such as Medicare, leaving the door open to spending cuts many fellow Democrats oppose.
Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), dismissed the president’s opening position for the negotiations. He said Mr. Boehner’s proposal to revamp the tax code and entitlement programs is “consistent with the president’s call for a ‘balanced’ approach.”
Mr. Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target that would be his opening bid. He has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenues—not higher tax rates—if Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs, the ultimate source of the U.S.’s long-term budget woes.
The president’s opening gambit, based on his 2013 budget proposal, signals Mr. Obama’s intent to press his advantage on the heels of his re-election last week. However, before gathering at the White House with lawmakers on Friday, he will meet with chief executives of a dozen companies Wednesday. Many executives have aired concerns about the economic consequences of the looming “fiscal cliff”—and the risk of another standoff.
Nothing is going to happen. The economy will go over the cliff and both sides will blame the other. Get use to Greece style living.
Taxes, I believe....savings...won’t happen...budget cuts from entitlements won’t happen...military budget cuts...absolutely. Remember, he has more flexibility since his reelection, our nuclear arsenal shall be reduced to nothing.
Sorry but there have been jobs exported to pay for higher wages for the top.
Either bring back jobs, or pay the taxes.
Fair is fair.
GM, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1 and a host of other proven "winners."
I'll betcha most people in that bracket learned enough in high school to know that hike is more like 13%. Maybe community organizers don't have to take math in high school ...or college, for that matter.
His first offer is a demand for “everything and more!”.
Who didn’t see that coming? LOL!
Here’s the ‘gotcha’: “...continuing $1.1 trillion in spending cuts already passed into law...”
The spending “cuts” outlined aren’t really cuts, at all. They are, in fact, lessened increases in spending growth. This is a function of the base line budget model used by the Feds, to keep people in the dark.
The same model allows them to cast a tax rate reduction as a deficit increase.
The fix is to force the government to use a zero based budget model, and require two year or four year sunset on ALL program enabling legislation that requires funding for implementation and continuation.
“our nuclear arsenal shall be reduced to nothing.”
They are signaling this. New York Times ran an article this week about the savings possible by reducing the nuclear arsenal.
RE: I’ll betcha most people in that bracket learned enough in high school to know that hike is more like 13%. Maybe community organizers don’t have to take math in high school ...or college, for that matter.
____________________________
From this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2950605/posts
Leno read the president a question from a viewer asking him what subject was the most difficult to help his daughters with, while doing homework.
“Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until about seventh grade,” Obama said. “But Malia is now a freshman in High School and I’m pretty lost.”
_______________________________
The interesting thing is he went to Columbia and Harvard. My question would be this -— What was his SAT Math score?
I guess it is just beyond the mental capacity of democrats to even think that cutting spending works better then increasing taxes.
Yea ol’ economic standard ... increasing taxes lowers taxable income coming to the government, lowering taxes increases taxable income coming to the government. Basic Icon 101. But, I guess, lowering the burden is not the object ... making the US a third world country is the ultimate goal.
I propose a counter, we raise taxes on newspapers, news anchors, news reporters, all employees of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, DISNEY, ETC., movie actors and production companies, and recording artists and companies.
80% sounds fair for every dollar over 200k
next is dancers and artists, then add in wedding planners, decorators, college teachers, and anyone working in Federal Government. (Military will be except)
Let them pay their fair share first.
RE: increasing taxes lowers taxable income coming to the government, lowering taxes increases taxable income coming to the government
Liberals always think STATICALLY. To many of them, it’s a numbers game. If I tax N number of people $10,000 more, the additional revenue will be $10,000 Times N.
They never ever think how people RE-ORDER their lives, businesses and work habits to ADJUST to the tax laws so as to LOWER their tax burden, which eventually means — LOWER REVENUE.
To the lib, the economy is one FIXED pie, where when the rich people get a huge percentage of the pie, the rest of the masses will be reduced to NIBBLING at the small edges.
They never, ever think of INCREASING the pie so that more people get a larger chunk instead of having to nibble at the edges.
How is this even mathematically possible?!?!
Then a tax holiday for modest income workers in the private sector until our take home pay and benefits achieves parity with our counterparts in the federal workforce. It's only fair.
Libtards are stuck in “zero sum game” thinking mode because most of them have never created one dollar’s worth of wealth. They only redistribute it.
Nevermind... apparently that’s over ten years. It’s still a fantastic amount.
Mebbe Boehner will just tell him to go get his Senate to pass a budget first and then bring it to the House to negotiate it.?
Isn’t that how it’s usually done?
A rate increase from 35 to 39.5% is a FOUR PERCENT HIKE!!??
If Obama actually said that it is further proof that he is a MORON.
I’d love to see him on “Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?”
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.