December 13th, 2012
12:56 PM ET
5 years ago

Obama, Boehner hold 'frank meeting' on fiscal cliff

Washington (CNN) - Facing a looming deadline to avoid the fiscal cliff, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met Thursday for their first face-to-face talk in four days.

Boehner arrived for the previously unscheduled meeting just after 5 p.m. ET, a few hours after claiming Obama had failed to offer a serious compromise to prevent the fiscal cliff's automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect in less than three weeks. He spent about 50 minutes in the White House, before returning to his office.


Filed under: Fiscal Cliff • John Boehner • President Obama
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. rs

    Yes, and the GOP wants America to look more like Somalia. The rich are fine, the rest of us, not so much.

    December 13, 2012 01:05 pm at 1:05 pm |
  2. Rudy NYC

    "Give"? I wouldn't use that phrase. It's a little belligerent in this scenario. Just as your public offers have to give the GOP an exit strategy with their dignity intact, so should the rhetoric describing the end result. I'd call it what it is, compromise.

    The Republicans are going to have to concede to the will of the majority of the American People. Anything less is unpatriotic, and a thumb in the nose at our democracy.

    December 13, 2012 01:07 pm at 1:07 pm |
  3. pburkart

    There apparently needs to be some education given to the "fiscal" conservative crowd...

    They have the simple math down pat...if you spend more than you bring in you'll be deficit spending which will create debt that will have interest that will need to be paid down. Check...You're right about that.

    Where the "Fiscal" Conservatives fail is on Economics:

    You see, deficit spending is "not always" a bad thing. Especially if the GDP is at 0.8%.

    What we need...In order of importance:

    1. Create DEMAND
    2. Create JOBS
    3. Reduce SPENDING
    4. Reduce DEBT

    DEMAND should create JOBS which then allows for reduced SPENDING allowing us to reduce the DEBT.

    That is the trickle down economics that works best in a capitalistic market:

    If companies are unable to create enough demand on their own, then the government "needs" to step in to create demand.

    Increasing taxes on the top 2% will give the government capital in the short term to help create demand by creating jobs (i.e. Infrastructure, Technology, Research, Protection, etc).

    Providing tax breaks for the rest of the country (i.e. the 98%) will allow the market to create demand by giving lower income households the ability to create demand for products & services.

    In the current environment (GDP 0.8%), the only spending reforms that should be considered right now is spending where the money is not cycled back directly into our economy. (i.e. overseas non-american worker contracts, non-US country donations, big business subsidies that don't help, etc)

    December 13, 2012 01:07 pm at 1:07 pm |
  4. Rick McDaniel

    No......the reality is......the socialism is costing more than we take in. It is really about basic can't spend more than you take in.

    December 13, 2012 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
  5. hawkny

    Go over the cliff, put the 2% back into the Social Security pipe line, where it belongs....then, raise the ceiling on incomes subject to the top rate of 39.6% to $1,000,000 and then, in addition, create a 50% surtax on all income in excess of the $1,000,000 ($1,500,000 for couples) for 36 months specifically to reduce the federal deficit.

    December 13, 2012 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  6. Sniffit

    "you can't spend more than you take in."

    Precisely. Which is why the GOP is at fault for reducing what we were taking in when it was just barely covering what we were spending. Name me a "fiscally responsible" business person who has fixed expenses and an income stream that covers them, but goes out and voluntarily guts his income stream such that it no longer covers said fixed expenses. NAME HIM.

    December 13, 2012 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  7. rs

    Yeah Rick-

    Those two unpaid-for wars while giving the rich the lowest tax rates in 60 years had nothing to do with it, right? What "socialism" are YOU willing to give back? Public schools maybe? Your Social Security? Perhaps public transportation or Fire protection?

    December 13, 2012 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  8. llydapdicter

    I agree with Rick, pburkart. The gvt simply can't spend this much more than they bring in. Balanced budget amendment would be superb to make the liberal socialist rethink what country they want to mess up then.

    December 13, 2012 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  9. Sniffit

    "deep spending cuts that include the military "

    HAHAHAHA. Wow. The spin is strong with this one. "That include the military"...gee, I wonder where CNN wants everyone's focus to be. Boogity boogity boo! Everyone freak out and be afraid! We'll be invaded and taken over by the Taliban on January 1, 2013 if this happens!!!

    December 13, 2012 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |
  10. Hammerer

    Rudy NYC wrote; The Republicans are going to have to concede to the will of the majority of the American people -– that is true only it is convenient. There are a number of cases where the majority opposes a bill and the majority is ignored.
    The list is long but Obamacare is a classic example.
    Need I list others?

    December 13, 2012 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  11. Hammerer

    As for Republicans holding the middleclass hostage, Obama says he is willing to plunge the the whole into a deep recession simply to satisfy his hostility toward the sucessful people in America.

    December 13, 2012 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  12. Malloy

    Republicans = cut taxes and spend more, but don't include the cost of two wars in your budget. NOT One of these republicans who are now very concerned over the federal debt voted against the Bush tax cuts. Not one of these same concerned republicans voted against starting two wars. Not one of these same republicans worried about the cost of Medicare part D. Wonder why? Oh, yeah that's right, the president was a white anglo-saxon republican.

    Now we have a non white democratic president and they are suddenly concerned with the debt. Hmmm, any coincidence here?

    December 13, 2012 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  13. Wilson

    A socialist is disgusted by a big house and says "no one should live like that." A capitalist sees the same house and says, "everyone should be able to live like that."

    December 13, 2012 02:15 pm at 2:15 pm |
  14. Larry in Houston

    The "trickle down" theory doesn't work, never has worked, never will work. The trickle down has been going on ever since I can remember, especially since the Reagan presidency. As a former union member ( AFL – CIO ) factory worker / and Owner of My Own Business , I can honestly say : Trickle Down only works for so long. You have to "Grow" the economy, from the bottom UP, or from the Middle Out – As a Business Owner, I honestly don't mind paying a little more in Taxes – And I won't spend money, if I don't have to, period. To be perfectly honest, the "Bonehead" should compromise – Why do they want to "Raise" Taxes on the poor, or the middle income ? I mean, that should be a No -Brainer – raise taxes on me – ( and believe me, I'm not rich, by no means) Not the middle income person – If You raise Taxes on Them, guess what happens ? Money will NOT Flow, like it once was, but when you Lower their Taxes, they will have more money to SPEND, thus, making the "FLOW" easier, not tighter.

    Guess that doesn't make sense to the hard core GOPERS + the Tea party ppl.

    December 13, 2012 02:21 pm at 2:21 pm |
  15. Rudy NYC

    Rick McDaniel

    No......the reality is......the socialism is costing more than we take in. It is really about basic can't spend more than you take in.
    They're called "red states", Rick. You know, the states that traditionally have voted Republican for the past 40 years. Those are the states that "take" in far more federal dollars than what they pay in federal taxes.

    December 13, 2012 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |