Obama’s asking for it; maybe the GOP should give it to him
It appears more and more likely that Washington’s new favorite drama, the fiscal cliff, will run as long as possible.
Passing new legislation before Christmas to avoid the cliff — the doomsday nickname given to the combination of across-the-board spending cuts set during last year’s debt-ceiling negotiations and the total expiration of income-tax rates that have prevailed since since 2003 — now seems unlikely. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Wednesday said lawmakers can expect to be in Washington during December’s final days.
The fatal conceit in this debate is that the economy will somehow be well-served, or at least survive, if it takes only a half-dose of what Democrats consider poison (spending cuts) and a half-dose of what the GOP deems deadly (tax increases).
If either party is correct, we are in for a rough 2013 at the very least. If both parties are correct, we could be heading for another recession. The irony is that we’re trying to avoid the fiscal cliff in order to prevent … a recession.
Only President Obama has proposed a pure version of his preferred course: A $1.6 trillion tax hike on upper-income earners over the next 10 years, recently reduced to $1.4 trillion, with no guarantee of net spending cuts. The House GOP’s opening salvo had much more of the “balance” Obama insists on.
Many observers have dismissed the president’s proposal as a mere negotiating stance. Perhaps they’re right. But one presumes he wouldn’t have made a proposal he wasn’t ready to accept.
That is, one presumes Obama really believes taking an extra $140 billion out of the economy each of the next 10 years — remember, he says the money is for deficit reduction, not to fund new government spending — would not be harmful to businesses, workers or the unemployed.
Members of Congress are supposed to do what they believe to be in the best interests of the country and their constituents. But if House Republicans cannot persuade Obama to agree to meaningful entitlement reforms, which along with more rapid economic growth are the only way to bring our fiscal house in order, they should consider giving Obama what he wants.
This is not a decision to be taken lightly. But Republicans might not win this policy argument in the long run if Obama can pin the blame for economic damage on GOP spending cuts, while continuing to demagogue the rich for not paying their “fair share,” without consequences.
And there would be consequences for following his plan. Today, $140 billion equals almost 1 percent of gross domestic product. When the economy is struggling to grow by an annual rate of even 2.5 percent, taking another 1 percent of GDP out of the private sector will not help matters.
But what about the 1990s? Didn’t Bill Clinton raise taxes back then, only to watch the economy boom?
Yes, but there are major differences between then and now. Clinton raised taxes as both the U.S. and world economies were stronger than now. He did it when state taxes were broadly lower than they are now. He did it when oil was closer to $20 a barrel than $90 a barrel. He did it before a record housing boom, not after its bust. He did it at the onset of the IT boom, which doesn’t figure to be replicated anytime soon. And before revenues really grew, he cut the capital-gains tax rate, rather than raising it as Obama desires.
Worse, Obama wants to get most of this $140 billion in part by raising marginal tax rates on “the rich” whether their earnings come from their labor or their investments. This has a significant impact on decision-making. For just one current example, look at the growing number of companies paying their anticipated dividends for 2013 out to shareholders now to beat a potential tax hike.
Some of these companies, Costco for example, are even borrowing money to pull off this switcheroo — committing themselves to pay back billions they only hope to earn as profits in the future. Talk about distorting economic behavior.
Obama says the people voted for these higher taxes. While I believe Obama’s proposal would be very harmful economically, congressional Republicans might find themselves with little choice but to allow his policies to prove him wrong in practice. Obama could hardly blame them for letting him entangle himself with the rope he’s demanding.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
504 comments Add your comment
@@
December 13th, 2012
3:08 pm
I’ll have to drop this off at the neighbor fella’s blog during tomorrow night’s music fest.
Pennies over patriotism? Stars move to tax havens
In 2005, the Beatles’ Ringo Starr took up residency in Monaco, where he gets to keep a higher percentage of royalties than he would in Britain or Los Angeles.
The Beatles’ resentment of high taxes goes back to their 1960s song “Taxman.” George Harrison penned it in protest of the British government’s 95 percent supertax on the rich, evoked by the lyrics: “There’s one for you, nineteen for me.”
Harrison reportedly said later, “‘Taxman’ was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.”
Can you IMAGINE!!??!!
In 1972, The Rolling Stones controversially moved to the south of France to escape onerous British taxes. Though it caused a stink at the time, it spawned one of the group’s most seminal albums, “Exile on Main St.” The title is a reference to their tax-dodging. In 2006, British media branded them the “Stingy Stones” with reports that they’d paid just 1.6 percent tax on their earnings of $389 million over the previous two decades.
“Yea, yea…..it sounds good but we (they) can’t dance to it.”
schnirt
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 13th, 2012
3:09 pm
“They have moved so far to the right they cant win on the big stage anymore.
I dont see another Republican winning the White House in my lifetime.”
Cheesy, if Obama wasn’t the American Idol President, and hadn’t paid off union workers with bailouts and stumuli, he would have been toast in 2012. But the American electorate loves empty-headed cool, and we got him back in. But you simply continue to ignore how close it was to his losing re-election.
Doing the do
December 13th, 2012
3:12 pm
if this, if that
If a frog had wings…….
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts…………….
td
December 13th, 2012
3:13 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
December 13th, 2012
3:06 pm
So what is your conclusion about these facts?
They like Ryan better than the other guy?
Could it be that they liked Obama better then Romney? I is hard to believe that in one district that the people would vote for the most Lib President we have had since FDR and then vote for a “extreme” conservative to represent them in the House just because they liked one person or the other better but hey we do live in a country where 40% of the people do not even know who the VP is.
Doing the do
December 13th, 2012
3:13 pm
so close to losing the election that Rove melted down by 10 o’clock and most folks went to sleep………..
yeah it was a tight race
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 13th, 2012
3:15 pm
you simply continue to ignore how close it was to his losing re-election.
Like Tib simply ignores the fact that more people voted for Dem House members than Con house members and the cons actually LOST seats in the House.
Both realities say something but don’t change the final score.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 13th, 2012
3:24 pm
Finn, in case you didn’t know this (and of course, you don’t), it doesn’t matter how many people in total voted across the country for Democrats or Republicans in House races – it only matters as regards the individual districts – and they are heavily gerrymandered to produce expected results in about 92%-95% of all cases. There are still a few that will swing one way or another depending on how bad a particular party is perceived, but for the most part there aren’t even contested races (less than 15% differential) in most House races across America.
That is REALITY.
Republicans lost seats due to redistricting via the U.S. Census. States had to consolidate districts in some cases, and some legislatures felt comfortable in putting certain sitting Congressmen into others, expecting them to still win in mixed ares. Some worked out that way, and some did not. Either way, the few that did change hands were not even REMOTELY enough to change the makeup of the House, and there is no indication that will change in future elections until the next round of gerrymandering following the 2020 census.
That is (again) REALITY.
Doing the do
December 13th, 2012
3:27 pm
Reality: Romney lost and it doesn’t matter how one wants to cheery pick certain states to say if this or if that
Reality
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 13th, 2012
3:31 pm
That is (again) REALITY.
whine whine whine whine whine….it never ends.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 13th, 2012
3:32 pm
“Romney lost and it doesn’t matter how one wants to cheery pick certain states to say if this or if that”
I don’t disagree with the former, however, if you choose to ignore the latter regarding the very real analysis of just how close this election was, feel free to do so, Chuckles.
Reality.
Doing the do
December 13th, 2012
3:34 pm
And the whiners whined on……..
Just keep doing exactly what you are doing………… and things will change
NOT REALITY………
“chuckles”
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
3:39 pm
No wonder Kyle throws out a blog subject only a few days out of the week. The same people saying the same things like it is mudhole playtime every day.
As to the subject, my friends, I say FIGHT! This shilly-shally president and his shilly-shally followers have the country on a cliff right where they put us. Now the president puts his nose in the air and seems to say “YOU Republicans save us ’cause I’ve never been wrong in my life!” That while he pushes us over the cliff.
Some of you are definitely dreamers. Big time. You don’t rescue people by pushing them over a cliff. Amazing news!! The only people jumping off cliffs have a desire to DIE
.
I don’t want that for me, mine or my country. Wake up, weaklings.and stand up for your rights.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 13th, 2012
3:39 pm
“spike spike spike spike spike….it never ends.”
Fixed your typo, Finn.
Typical classless and clueless liberal.
@@
December 13th, 2012
3:40 pm
It’s funny to me how liberals live vicariously through their politicians.
I don’t see Obama as the President. The perpetual candidate? Absolutely.
He’s STILL campaigning. It’s what he loves best. That’s the way it is with narcissists.
O-ba-ma
O-ba-ma
O-ba-ma
It’s the only toon that keeps him going.
O-ba-ma
O-ba-ma
O-ba-ma
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 13th, 2012
4:00 pm
JDW
Duhbya’s first act was to end it. His second to lower taxes. Today we live with the legacy.
So, Bush wrote the law, voted it through, and enforced it? Well I knew, we didn’t need to be paying those congresspeople, like Reid and Pelosi.
jms
December 13th, 2012
4:18 pm
“To answer your statement (lower income/poorer folks should stop doing the things that made them low income/poor)….maybe if the wealth were spread among ALL classes, the motivation NOT to be poor would be increased…..and class mobility would reoccur! When you believe that you’ll always be stuck….and economic conditions reinforce that belief…why try!!!??” -HDB
That’s the spirit this country was founded on. Right?
Stunna
December 13th, 2012
4:18 pm
“Obama says the people voted for these higher taxes.”
Fortunately for him, unfortunately for the rest of us, most of the people who voted for higher taxes don’t pay taxes.
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
4:18 pm
This looming “fiscal cliff” reminds me of a story told about the Okinawa Suicide Cliffs. During WWII, Americans invaded Japanese held Okinawa. As American troops moved forward, thousands of Okinawans leaped from the cliffs to their death.
Why did they do it? Because the Japanese military told them they would be BETTER OFF DEAD than be captured by Americans. Yes, BETTER OFF! Nothing Americans could do would convince people of all ages to hold back. They went right on and jumped off the cliffs.
Some similarities here today. Jump off the fiscal cliff and you will have chosen the better thing!
Yes, if you want to deal a death jump to our country, all for its benefit!! . .
Linda`
December 13th, 2012
4:30 pm
Ya’ll are doing it again, just wasting your time & energy.
There are 7 steps to problem solving & you are arguing over how to solve the “problem” without defining, identifying & analyzing what the problems really are.
Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the top earners. He originally asked for $800 B, then $1.6 T & now $1.4 T over 10 years, which is $80 B, $160 B & now $140 B per year. He wants to raise their tax rates AND limit their deductions. (Their taxes are already being raised in Obamacare.) The budget deficit has been well over $ 1 T for the last 3 years. It was $175 B last month alone
Raising taxes will not solve the “problem,” not even for one month.
There is also the problem that Medicare recipients are receiving 3 times as much in benefits ($300K) that they paid into the program ($100K) & that Social Security payments exceed receipts. These problems will worsen each year. (Both funds were spent.)
There is also the problem with the $16.4 T debt which will be well over $20 T soon. This does not include the $121.9 T in unfunded liabilities or any of the guarantees the fed. govt. has made.
There is also the problem that our debt is over 100% of our GDP & that does not even include the unfunded liabilities nor the guarantees the fed. govt. is liable for. We owe more than we are worth.
The other problem is that the US govt. is buying its own debt. (Google Weimar Republic)
Arguing about who should pay how much in taxes is a waste of time. Class warfare was a politically manufactured technique to divide voters & distract attention away from real solutions to our very real & mounting problems.
Going over the fiscal cliff is nothing compared to what the US will go over in the very near future. (Google Greece.)
splavistic
December 13th, 2012
4:31 pm
Increasing taxes on the very wealthy would NOT have a detrimental effect on businesses. Their personal income is completely separate from their business income. Give us a break, Kyle. You’re giving the same old argument. Tax cuts did NOT work during Reagan, and they did NOT work during Bush.
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
4:31 pm
Dusty @ 3:39 pm
When I started reading your post, my first thought was: Another time I can agree with Dusty. That was when I was reading the following:
“The same people saying the same things like it is mudhole playtime every day.”
I just wish the rest of your post was less of the same thing and more to the point. If you are urging your friends to fight, tell us what YOU think they should fight FOR specifically, in this “cliff” fight.
Skip
December 13th, 2012
4:34 pm
47 is the new 51
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
4:36 pm
Dear MarkV,
So glad you liked a few lines, at least.
As what to do about the fiscal cliff? Easy! Don’t commit suicide. What do you suggest?
JDW
December 13th, 2012
4:37 pm
@Rafe…”So, Bush wrote the law, voted it through, and enforced it? Well I knew, we didn’t need to be paying those congresspeople, like Reid and Pelosi.”
Pretty much…he jammed it through using the EXACT same reconcilation process Republicans love to hate…when it is not them using it…as for Reid and Pelosi…Nay in both cases.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
4:48 pm
Dusty @ 4:36 pm
Dear Dusty, I am afraid your suggestion falls short of“specific.” .
First, I doubt there will be anything approaching a suicide, whether a deal will be made before the end of the year or not. Still, I am in favor of a deal before that.
The President has affirmed his position about what the deal must contain, mainly, the tax rate increase for the highest income earners. He won the election with that as one of his main campaign points, and people of this country agree with him by a margin of 3:1. All the rest appears to be, as they like to say, “on the table.” So if you are asking what I suggest, how about for the Republicans to accept the facts of life?
Doing the do
December 13th, 2012
4:53 pm
MarkV
I think that blogger was just doing their best Susan “drama queen” Lucci impersonation………
Outlandish, but amusing that blogger is
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
4:58 pm
Dear MarkV
Americans also voted in the members of Congress. They have offered an agreement with the president AFTER he is specific on what entitlements he is going to cut. The president only has to be specific (the same thing you want me to be) and have it in writing. I believe that is a condition required by most contracts to be legal.The budget is a contract (promise) to be followed, is it not?
clem
December 13th, 2012
5:00 pm
all the more reason to tax the rich:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/matt-taibbi-hsbc_n_2294426.html
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
5:01 pm
Doing the do
Who is Susan Lucci?
Just Saying..
December 13th, 2012
5:06 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 13th, 2012
9:00 am/ “stands – I forget, what was Huntsman’s vote total in the Repug primaries? Oh yeah, now I remember, it was like ZERO.”
And you’re like, PROUD about that…
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 13th, 2012
5:16 pm
Bottom line the Republicans have gotten more votes in exactly one Presidential election since 1988.
1
Add to that the changing demographics and the fact that over 60 percent of people under 30 voted for Obama.
Its perfectly reasonable to believe that we wont see another Republican President for a long long time.
Not until the party reforms and realizes the country leans to the left. Just like the founding fathers did.
Linda`
December 13th, 2012
5:16 pm
Tax increases have NEVER raised higher tax revenues. Tax increases only increase tax planning.
Since WWII, revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained steady at a little less than19 percent. Regardless of tax rates, that’s the amount the feds have been able to collect.
“Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
Why? Higher taxes discourage the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.”
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
5:18 pm
Dusty @ 4:58 pm
Can you provide some support for your claim that the members of Congress (I suppose you mean the Republicans) “have offered an agreement with the president?” I have heard some individual members, mostly senators, but nothing more, and certainly not John Boehner. But your demand for the President to be specific about the entitlement he is going to cut is rather pointless. Of course he will have to be specific, but that is what negotiations are about, negotiations inside, not in public..
Pizzaman
December 13th, 2012
5:22 pm
Reality @ 2;30,
You may misunderstand me. I want Lil Barry and the Repubs to fall flat. So I agreed with Lil to “go” off the cliff and see who wins.
I was involved in a name calling episode here before the election. I regret it because, unlike them, we have the truth on our side. Lil called me “stupid”. That’s because I’m informed and completely disagree with all “conservative” policies.
Look at the truth. Bush got us into this and the “Wingnuts” blame it on Obama. Who’s stupid?
clem
December 13th, 2012
5:30 pm
in recent poll of wsj/nbc news
repubs unfavorable with white independents by 20 points
and likely to get worse if you follow folks on right on this blog
Bob
December 13th, 2012
5:31 pm
Lets go over the cliff now so our grandkids are not stuck paying for something they are not receiving. Let the poorest of people that actually pay federal income tax see their rate go up 50% from 10% to 15%. Dems have been telling us that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the wealthiest the most but I will not miss a few points like those barely scraping by. Then the people will see how much those not in the top 2% benefitted from the Bush tax cuts and dems will no longer be able to lie about what group gained the most. Obama has no intention of cutting any spending and Boehner is a failure. Both parties have sucked but at this point medicare has to be addressed. I can’t see why the dems will not means test medicare but want to bash the wealthy over tax rates. Gates, Buffet and others want to see taxes increased, let them pay for their own prescriptions. Obama’s nose grow every time he utters the phrase “shared sacrifice”, it’s time for slackers to get cut off.
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
5:32 pm
One of the myths, also promulgate some time ago by Kyle and not supported by facts, is that “…federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.” With tax collections at 15.4% of GDP in 2011 and 20.6% in 2000 at the end of the Clinton Presidency, the 2000 tax collection percentage was one third higher than in 2011 – hardly “a narrow band.”
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Linda`
December 13th, 2012
5:36 pm
One thing we can all agree on is that Washington is broken. Congress has an approval rating just above pedophiles. A new group is proposing amendments to the constitution. Read Article V before you disagree that it can’t be done without congress. It can. These amendments are merely proposed & relate to procedures & methods by which decision makers are selected, etc.
Some of the examples are:
membership of House committees limited to 4 terms & of Senate to 2 terms,
congressional compensation by committee separate from congress,
abolishing earmarks & pigeonholing,
budgets approved on a timely basis or congressional members disqualified,
60% vote to raise or spend money,
no special benefits for congress,
no retroactivity,
no state bailouts,
no exemptions for congress for the laws they pass,
spending limits,
term limits,
no severance clause,
state legislatures elect US senators (repeal of 17th amendment), etc.
http://www.campaignconstitution.com/
We would not be in the shape we are in now if some of these rules had been in place.
snoqualmiefalls
December 13th, 2012
5:39 pm
TBan 10:31… “get over it” the transparency of the comment is clear, submit to his authority and just do what Obama wants.
HMMM Same attitude when Bush II was appointed by the Court.. just get over it we were told, just do what Bush II wants, such as 2 unfunded wars and a tax cut at the same time? Never been done in American history… Just get over it… indeed TBan indeed.
Bob
December 13th, 2012
5:39 pm
Pizzaman, how can you just blame Bush, that is stupid. It was not Bush that started all the entitlement programs. It wasn’t Bush that thought paying single girls to breed was a good idea. It was not Bush that passed the unified budget act to fund Vietnam and spent the SS trust fund. It was not Bush that passed the bill that automatically increases the budget, the baseline budget act in ‘74. It was not Bush that gave us the ponzi known as Social Security, the biggest case of generational theft ever. Bush was bad but so were many before him and after him. Maybe you need gov to manage your retirement money, conservatives do not. Bush and Boehner are not conservatives.
Dusty
December 13th, 2012
5:44 pm
MarkV
There are many reports on Google about agreements Republicans have offered to the president. This is from one I have read on TPM, written by Brian Beutler
Boehner has written to the president with an offer suggesting overall change in the tax code. He asked for (1) Increased Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67.
(2) Less generous formula for calculating the cost of living adjustments in Social Security.
The president refuses to negotiate. .
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
6:02 pm
Dusty @ 5:44 pm
Dusty,
The very latest report is that the President and Boehner are just now negotiating. As for what you hear from Brian Beutler, it is of very little interest to me.
However, if Boehner’s “offer” is “overall change in the tax code,” I would have to laugh at that. Remember your words about the “imminent” danger of a suicide? A tax code change (other than the rate change) cannot be made within such a time frame. That would definitely not be a “serious proposal,” except as an agreement to negotiate it later. The Medicare eligibility age change would be a difficult one for Democrats to swallow, and in any case, the savings would be miniscule. Cost of living adjustment in SS probably is very much “on the table,” but Social Security really is not an integral part of the fiscal cliff issue.
Linda`
December 13th, 2012
6:13 pm
Obama postponed some interesting regulations until, ahem, after the election.
We now have 2 cliffs: that old fiscal one & the new regulation one.
The Obama adm. has deemed that water is a pollutant & has deployed his baby EPA on those offenders. This is a bipartisan lawsuit. Another article mentions the EPA is employing eminent domain to save some frogs.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/fairfax-va.-sue-epa-over-water-rules/article/2502024#.UMpgSnc_fpK
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 13th, 2012
6:18 pm
The Wall Street Journal reports that despite Fisker’s $192 million in Energy Department loans, the Karma “has been hobbled by recalls and quality problems” and the company has sacked half its employees. But perhaps Fisker’s biggest problem is that its source of batteries, A123 Systems, has gone bankrupt in spite of its $249 million Energy Department grant. The administration that in the fiscal cliff drama is demanding control of much more of the nation’s wealth is the author of many Solyndra-style debacles.
Maybe if we eased up on the boondoggles, we wouldn’t need to increase taxes.
@@
December 13th, 2012
6:18 pm
Somebody needs to slap Jay Carney upside the head.
blah blah blah….you know….blah blah blah….you know….blah blah blah….you know, you know, you know, you know
Reminds me of Caroline Kennedy.
‘Ya know?
schnirt
td
December 13th, 2012
6:22 pm
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
6:02 pm
If the Republicans gave Obama the tax increase he wanted then it would amount to $140 billion per year. We have a deficit of $1.1 trillion per year. If you totally cut out all military spending (the only thing libs want to cut) then you could get another $700 billion per year. The total then comes to $840 billion per year in cuts.
Where are the other cuts going to come from to balance the budget and then how are we going to raise the revenue necessary to pay off the debt?
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
6:31 pm
td @ 6:22 pm
td,
A rather comical argument, which you seem to repeat, is that Obama’s tax increase would amount to “only” $149 billion, and therefore, what? It is not worth doing? There will be spending cuts, that what the negotiation is about. If you get some spending cuts, will the effect be the same whether the revenue increase will or will not be part of the deal?
As for the following: “ how are we going to raise the revenue necessary to pay off the debt?”
Anybody asking us to pay off the debt?
Jack ®
December 13th, 2012
6:34 pm
“Talk about distorting economic behavior.” Very good description of the mess in which we find ourselves. And I give full credit to those that didn’t vote.
td
December 13th, 2012
6:39 pm
MarkV
December 13th, 2012
6:31 pm
When you are talking about taking 1% of GDP out of the economy and giving it to the government then you are going to slow down any growth we are having and turn us back into a recession.
The whole statement is just to prove that we do not have a revenue problem in this country but rather a spending problem.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 13th, 2012
6:41 pm
There are no spending cuts in Obozo’s plan. He wants to raise taxes and spend 75% of the new revenue, on top of his existing un-American spending level.
You receptacles are so unbelievably stupid for having supported this sociopath.