New York (CNNMoney) - Republicans have officially gotten on board with raising revenue for deficit reduction - by curbing tax breaks in conjunction with lowering tax rates.
The idea of curbing tax breaks isn't new. Tax policy experts have touted it for years and Democrats, including President Obama, have proposed it in one form or another. That's why it may offer a key to resolving the fiscal cliff.
The GOP seems to think Romney won he didn't. If need be Obama must come to the people that elected him with whoever obstructs this process. Romney lost we made our statement with our vote and we are ready to make more noise.
"Republicans have officially gotten on board with raising revenue for deficit reduction -by curbing tax breaks in conjunction with lowering tax rates."
Republicans have officially pretended to be on board with raising revenue for deficit reduction -By saying they will do something effective only if it is coupled with something that makes it far less effective.
In this time and place the republicans have no choice their political backs are up against the wall.Either work acroos the aisle with Pres.Obama,democrates or face your parties extinction plain and simple because more independents,the old disgruntled republicans are jumping ship because their party isn't what it used to be now being too extreme or too right for most old republicans taste..So its up to you republicans,either get with the program or move on because if I'd have anything to do with policy I'd change making lobbying a jailable offense keeping money away from politics,it doesn't need to be here that's political fraud plain and simple and should be handled that way ..Politics should be for and about their constituents best interests, not how much they'll make from lobbyist in any given year!!
It is time for the GOP to decide: do their office holders work for the citizens of the United Statesor for Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth. They apparently are unable to do both.
This is the same Romney/Ryan tax policies that were rejected on Nov 6. The repubs need to understand that their ideas have been roundly rejected. Their hand has been weakened at the bargaining table.
Does raising maximum federal tax rates for the upper 2%, improve or weaken the economy?
I have made over 250K for more than 30 years straight...I own a LLC with 20 employees and a C Corp. with 40 employees. both on calendar year-ends..Each Dec, I sit with accountant to determine how to deal with year end profits...1)take additional income/bonus? 2)re-invest in capital equipment, employees, and other business improvements 3) do neither and just pay the taxes on the year end net income....Most would agree that *2 is definitely best for our economy, employees, and new jobs...the IRONICAL FACTOID is that the higher the maximum FIT, the MORE LIKELY that I would select *2 above, to maximize net value between investment and taxes......It is clear to me, and I am sure to most Business owners that increasing the maximum federal tax rate would not ever be a negative if the owner just took income up to the "bump" level of 250K and reinvested, by choice, into the business to avoid a higher marginal personal tax rate......this isn't rocket science, you just make the decision that will maximize your net.....increasing the maximum federal tax rate would NEVER be a negative for me.
Moral of the Story.....Obama's plan would be more beneficial to the economy than Boehner's.
My congressman is not on board. Obama is going to do what he has always done and demonize the GOP not matter what so they might as well fight it. If the Democrats get their way with tax hikes with most likely no spending cuts then it will make the choice that much clearer next election. Obama won from being small, petty, and divisive so the GOP needs to duplicate it.
Rewind that "special" capital gains tax rate that Bush invented and then I'll be happy.
I think President Obama should do what the people that voted for him want him to do and that is raise taxes on all that make $250K or more, raise taxes on small businesses, get rid of the Bush-era tax cuts. I think it is time that our president give the voters what they want the most.
To those that voted for Obama .... u pay the tax hikes and those who didn't don't. There was NO mandate and discriminating against one portion of the population v. another is just that discrimination. Every person pays or no one. Equality...it is bounced around a lot but only when it appeals to what one wants.
So...republicans agreed to compromise by offering what they were offering before. Is this really any change?
I can't speak for politics before 2000, but has any other group lost not once, but twice and still refused to work with the president?
"I think President Obama should do what the people that voted for him want him to do and that is raise taxes on all that make $250K or more, raise taxes on small businesses, get rid of the Bush-era tax cuts. I think it is time that our president give the voters what they want the most."
Except that;'s not what he ran on nor what we voted for him to do. Thank you for your blatant mischaracterization straw man, though. It's always entertaining watching you guys scream your echo chamber demogoguery.
Myviews, glad to see you back. We had a few of you guys on "the watch" the past week. But no one took your shoe strings, so we were worried.
Rebecca, there was a mandate. The majority voted for the president, knowing full well what his plans were. Now, be a good lil conservative and get your people to start acting right. Or we'll replace them as well.
"There was NO mandate "
Obama won the popular vote.
The Dems running for the House won the popular vote and made significant inroads on the GOP's House majority, which they mainatined solely via gerrymandering, not the popular vote.
The Dems running for Senate not only managed to defend their majority despite a massive disadvantage in the number of seats they were defending, but they also managed to grow their majority by 2 seats.
There was indeed a mandate. A pretty strong one...and the longer you live in denial of it by delving into fantastical rationalizations, the more damage it will do to the GOP/Teatrolls as a party. Learn it that hard way though...I'm 100% certain I will find that far more entertaining.
"So...republicans agreed to compromise by offering what they were offering before. Is this really any change?"
But but but...they said it differently so it sounds different!!!! You're supposed to pay attention to the messaging, not the message!!!!!
obama and democrats don't know how to do math. 80 billion a year from rich people solves nothing when you need 1000 billion a year to balance the budget. but it does make for good class warfare rhetoric for dummies that don't know any better.
so what is obamas plan to come up with the other 920 billion he is spending and borrowing? haven't heard anything so that means he doesn't have a plan.
>So...republicans agreed to compromise by offering what they were offering before. Is this really any change?
obama is offering same thing. where is his compromise?
>I can't speak for politics before 2000, but has any other group lost not once,
>but twice and still refused to work with the president?
yes, democrats refused to work with bush. all kinds of name calling and fought against winning in iraq. how soon you forget.
"obama is offering same thing. where is his compromise?"
His offer IS compromise, numbnuts. He said $2.50 in cuts for every $1.00 in additional revenue. Of course, your attitude is typical GOP/Teatroll games: Obama makes an offer of compromise that lies in the middle between "all tax increases" and "no revenue increases ever" and yet you pretend that his offer is actually some sort of extremist demand and would not represent significant compromise on both sides. You know very well he has offered compromise and that the GOP/Teatrolls are still living in their fantasy land of ideological absolutes. We're done with that game. Game over. Stick another quarter in at your own peril.
Yes I have asked my liberal friends about what they were going to do about where the 920 billion was going to come from as well. They just look at me like a deer caught in the headlights. They are clueless as well.
On this date November 6, 2012, President Obama, a Democrat, was re-elected, Mitt Romney, a Republican, lost, it's over and done, MOVE FORWARD because you can break your neck looking back and if you're standing still you can't MOVE FORWARD.
The wealthy are the ones on welfare.When their not busy ripping you off with tax cuts and subsidies they're busy playing hanky panky with our generals.The"filthy"rich.By the way there's something a little strange about that Romney guy.McConnell,Boenher,Cantor and Rush Limbaugh are all stinking traitor as is dushy Bachman.Throw the Tea Party out and prosecute the for lying and skullduggery.
I think the people who voted for "W" should pay for the unnecessary wars. I pay 28%, and Mittens needs to start coughing up more than 14%.
>"obama is offering same thing. where is his compromise?"
>His offer IS compromise, numbnuts. He said $2.50 in cuts for every $1.00 in additional revenue.
what cuts? when? specifics please. you demanded them of romney now you must be held to the some standards.
future cuts are not cuts. cuts in the rate of growth are not cuts. you cannot bound future congresses to these cuts.
tax increases happen immediately. democrats always play this game. a hamburger today for a dollar tomorrow. you eat the hamburger and tomorrow nevers comes. gotta come with a better con game than that.
Look, it going to take spending much,much less and raising more revenue. It's not going to be easy, don't pretend it going to be easy, don't tell us it going to be easy.
But most of all, everybody got to pay a fair share. If you don't make enough, then keep supporting the economy with as much American made goods as you can.
What people don't consider is some have greatly benefited from government programs over the years and at the same time not had to pay a fair share. If you are in that category, you should not have a problem going back to where taxes were under Reagan/Clinton years.
Ah yes, the popular vote whose majority is made up of persons not yet/maybe never contributing to society – young people/college students, the multi-generational welfare class, etc.
Give a man a fish and he'll come back for a free fish everday!