Republicans have proposed raising revenue by eliminating those deductions and
loopholes mainly benefiting the rich. But Obama insists on a symbolic tax
increase on the wealthy. That will make him happy. Obama
criticized Romney during the campaign for not presenting specifics for his
plans. But Obama fails to specify what reduced spending he favors. States are
waiting as they try to create their budgets. Businesses are waiting to know
what reductions are coming, but Obama won't give specifics.Where are the liberal critics that wanted Romney's specifics? Why
aren't they demanding more from Obama? The hypocrisy is deafening.Obama promised a "balanced" approach. I suppose he means a
balanced approach is raising taxes on the rich and the middle class. Through
Obamacare he hits all Americans. That is balanced I suppose.Balanced means someone has to work extra hard and extra long to make the same
income while Obama plays extra golf in Hawaii. That is balanced I suppose.
Lost in DC,The President tried to compromise in the summer of 2011
with Mr. Boehner and the tea party pulled the plug on that. Fool me once shame
on you, fool me twice shame on me. Have the republicans offered the
middle class tax cuts? I haven't seen that, I have seen their offer of
middle class taxes increasing by the elimination of the charitable and mortgage
deductions. The President is trying keep the Bush tax cuts for 98%
of Americans and the republicans are holding that up to protect the 2%, maybe
that is where you were confused.
I thought all the dem apologists said it was the evil repubs who would not
compromise that were the root of all the stalemates. Here BO says he won't
move. Why is BO holding the economy and middle class tax cuts hostage so he can
continue his class warfare?
Did I miss Obama's explanation of the spending cuts he intends to
invoke?All I hear from the White House is a new round of stimulus spending
and an extension of unemployment benefits. Our government is spending too much.
What's the plan to cut back?The symbolic democrat victory of getting
more from the 1% hardly puts a dent in the problem.If the choices are the
sequestration conditions vs. this anemic effort, I vote for the cliff.