Comments about ‘President Obama talks taxes, fiscal cliff and Petraeus in postelection news conference’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bountiful, UT

So the President said, "…he will not agree to any budget deal that extends current tax rates for the wealthiest taxpayers and says their rates should rise to help raise revenue."

What is sad is this President is so willing to draw a line in the sand (absolutely not compromise) over this one issue that would produce a mere $85 billion each year for the next ten years.

The federal government spends that much in just under NINE DAYS.

To me, that is the equivalent of stumbling over dollars to just pick up dimes.

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

See, that wasn't too hard, was it? Presidents should hold regular press conferences with questions and answers, even difficult ones.

@VST - Obama's just satisfying his 99% friends. He knows that poking job creators in the eye is a foolish thing to do, especially when the payback is so small. He doesn't understand that business can and will go where taxes are low and labor is cheap.

non believer


Where has the GOP compromised on this same issue? 2/3rd of Americans say this is fair! It is going to take tax increases, reduced spending (cutting programs) and finding additional revenue sources to get our deficeit under control. There is also the fact that tax cuts to the wealthy do not creat jobs or revenue. So trickle down has been proven false once and for all!

Where would you start?

salt lake, UT

@vst and third try

try actually reading the entire article before commenting. Yes he said the current taxes breaks must end for the highest earners but that he is willing to negotiate how and by how much taxes need to be raised, He has also clearly indicated he thinks there should be cuts to spending something that the republicans have been demanding. So now the ball is in republicans court are they even willing to consider negations or are they going or remain the party of no?

Provo, , UT

Non believer

Sorry but you said it has been proven false once and for all? Care to provide some sources on that? It's easy to make such a blanket statement. Harder yet to hold it up

Layton, Utah

There is one simple solution, a federal flat tax with no deductions and no refunds. Then everybody and every business pays the same percentage of their income. If the individual is receiving government assistance, they will have to pay a flat tax on their income. No matter what the source of income is, it would be taxed the same for everybody. It would be fair and would save our economy. A flat tax would help us get out of debt.

salt lake city, UT

Let the sausage making begin.

Bountiful, UT


Despite your condescending attitude, I DID read the entire article plus two others today on this same topic. Obama has said a lot of things. But in this one article he definitely said he "…would not allow current tax rates to continue for the top 2 percent of wage earners…" In another article he said exactly what I previously quoted above. Both quotes (directly from his mouth) say the same thing – he is drawing a line in the sand and not compromising on this one tax issue.

I stand by my original comment.

salt lake, UT

second page fifth paragraph of this article, "Obama said he was 'open to new ideas" but would not allow current tax rates to continue for the top 2 percent of wage earners, drawing a line for Republicans who say they will not tolerate any tax rate increases. Asked if the tax rates for the rich had to return to Clinton-era levels, Obama indicated he was open to negotiations."

Standing by your comment does not change the content of the article.

Cedar Hills, UT

Better get the ole parachute out - dust it off and strap it on because we are going over the edge of the cliff? Never fear - Barack is willing to compromise...well maybe not but he is proposing new additional taxes!! At least that is different than before! The man has one gear - forward - which isn't the gear you want when you are on the edge of a cliff!!!

Centerville, UT

Obama's insistence on taxing the rich is simply a political one. It accomplishes little. A much greater effect would be to restructure our tax system, broaden the tax base, eliminate deductions, and even lower the tax rates. This would result in greater revenue to the treasury and introduce a fairness that has been absent for decades. Taxing the rich doesn't even come close to reducing our annual deficit and balancing the budget.

Sandy, UT

Lol, has he addressed the petitions to secede yet? I think they've reached 25K by now.

Bountiful, UT


For Obama to say that he would not allow current tax rates to continue for the top two percent of wage earners, and then to say in the next breath he is open to negotiations when the Clinton-era levels were brought up, is equivalent to talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

I hope you are right in your interpretation that "…he is open to negotiations…"

But it is contrary to every thing he as said recently to others including the meeting he just had yesterday with business and labor leaders, and I quote verbatim from that article: "During his meeting with labor leaders, Obama said he was not going to bend on letting tax cuts expire for top wage earners, according to a participant in the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private session."
[Source: Associated Press, Ken Thomas, 14 Nov 2012]

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

VST's comment is supported by the article. I don't why you say a line in the sand is not a line in the sand. I don't know HOW you can honestly say he is open to compromise when he has drawn a line in the sand.

Maybe you don't know what it means to draw a line in the sand.

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

Note that we saw this play last year, with the original cast. How can we expect it to end differently?
Obama will be defiant about a tax increase for the wealthy. (Cut it where you want, but it will be something the 99%ers will be pleased with.)
And the GOP will say no.
The "compromise" will be that the economy is too sick to tolerate a tax increase or budget cuts and they will figure out a way to delay taking substantial action for another couple of years. (It's funny how these deadlines seem to lag behind the election cycle.)

spring street

from the article earlier to day in the DN by ken thomas "Asked if he viewed it as a deal-breaker if Republicans refused to allow the top tax rate to revert to 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent, he said, 'I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas if the Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn't getting hit, reduces our deficit.'"

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

I believe that America just voted "Forward" over the cliff if I am not mistaken.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Obama's rhetoric never changes. We can recite it from memory. "I am asking that the wealthiest 3% of Americans pay a little bit more." "A little bit more," turns out to be quite a bit when you increase the capital gains, inheritance and income tax.
But from a Washington standpoint, it's only $86 billion. That might seem like a big sum, but we gave $4.2 billion away last year to children of illegal aliens in the form of child tax credits. And some of those children have NEVER lived in the United States at all!
So, we can dump that $86 billion down the rabbit hole in DC...or keep it in our economy in the form of savings, investment and purchases by the wealthy.

Iowa City, IA

It's really time the media did it's job, the very thing they were given the privilege of free press for, expose the incredibly obvious lies we are being told about Benghazi. The more the press is silent the more they look like accomplices. Where's "deepthroat" when we need him?

Sandy, UT

Say No to BO,

$86 billion is the best case scenario. Likely, if taxes are raised on the wealthy, they'll just do what they normally do when their taxes are raised: hire more accountants, lawyers and politicians to get them out of paying. Either that or they'll keep moving their money and business overseas. Taxing the wealthy is a plan meant to fail. The middle class is who President Obama had in mind all along to pay for his bailouts and handouts. This is why the middle class overwhelmingly voted against him and why welfare recipients and the super wealthy, like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jay Z, Beyonce, etc. voted for him.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments