No one retreating; cliff talks seem at standstill

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    @worf -- Ok, so does this summarize your position: A wealthy person pays, for example, $100,000 in taxes. Therefore a person who makes $15,000 a year must pay $100,000 in taxes or the rich person is being robbed. Makes a ton of sense.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    it's the same logic the left uses on the repubs. since repubs are not willing to allow a tax increase on anyone, they are not willing to compromise on anything.

    Oh, it's OK when the dems do it, but contemptible when the repubs do it. typical dem double standard. And you have the gall to say I'm wrong when I apply the same standard to BO that you apply to Boehner.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:02 p.m.


    The rich paying just one percent is stealing, if the bottom half pays nothing. If you're not paying millions in taxes, then it's stealing when others are forced to pay over that. As it is, their paying the bulk of the taxes.

    Obama had an eighty million dollar, all expense/tax free Hawaiian vacation a year, or two ago. Romney doesn't make that in five years. Do some research, and see what the Indian vacation cost us. Don't think Obama hasn't got money in foreign banks as a tax shelter.

    Great leaders lead by example.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:43 a.m.

    Nice Try Lost.

    Let me see if I understand your logic.

    Because Obama is unwilling to compromise on tax rates, you feel that it is fair to make a blanket statement that BO is unwilling to compromise.

    Hmm, where I come from, one would further qualify the statement to make it accurate.

    Try this one.

    BO is unwilling to compromise when it comes to raising taxes on the top 2%.

    See how this statement is completely accurate and yours is completely misleading and wrong?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:12 p.m.

    Dem's won't offer any specific cuts. GOP won't offer any specific closing of loop holes. Both sides pander to their base. Problem for the neo-cons is their base gets smaller as the rich pocket more of the cash. Problem for the lib's is there is still a few neo-cons left standing. We're watching a game of tic-tac-toe with two skilled players.

  • buckbeaver Lake Forest, CA
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:18 p.m.

    Looks like our very citizens and our elected officials have forgotten american exceptionalism, So lets go over the cliff and after thedamage (if it occurs) we can clean up the mess and start anew.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    see xscribe's comment about BO's unwillingness to compromise. Oh, but now since you know the quote, you are qualifying it. No wonder there is no negotiating with the left - the target is always moving.

    Again, xscribe, I ask, what is so hard about seeing "I won't compromise" in the words "I won't compromise"?

    I don't know that worf would say 35% is moral; I cannot speak for him. How high does it have to go before YOU consider it immoral? 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% 115%?? where?

    How much is enough? how much water do you put in a bucket trying unsuccessfully to fill it before you check to see that it has no bottom?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    @worf -- I don't covet anyone's money. I make plenty of my own. Just out of curiosity, why is a 35% tax rate moral, but raising the tax rate by any degree is immoral (i.e. stealing)? Your argument of morality makes no sense. Is a 35.1% tax rate stealing? How about 35.2%? Does it only become stealing and immoral if proposed by Obama? Was it immoral to have a higher tax rate under previous Republican presidents? In other words, why is this arbitrary number so important to you and your fellow tea partiers?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    I'd like to see one right-winger make a post that doesn't denegrate those who voted for Obama for having a difference of opinion. Telling us we are greedy, coveting and ignorant because we vote for someone different from you is very telling about the poster. You have zero knowledge as to why I may or may not vote for someone. The reasons may no be financial at all. In fact, it's just the opposite, as Romney would have most likely been better for me financially. Frankly, if Romney would have stuck to who he is rather than who he is not - including picking Ryan for a running mate - he most likely would have won this election by a landslide. However....

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    The day Obama makes any serious entitlement cuts is the day I will support him. Until then, anything else just hollow rhetoric and more smoke and mirrors. I am safe because the reason he was re-elected is because Romney promised jobs and Obama promised more free stuff. More greedy, coveting, ignorant people voted for the free stuff. Now we get to see how Obama will pay for it and I repeat, taxing the rich $80 billion more does NOTHING to solve the out of control SPENDING problem.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    Lost in DC: As JoeBlow says, please guide us to the full context of what Obama will not compromise on. As in, I will not compromise on raising taxes on those making over $250,000. That's it. If all you are going to do is try to make facts out of incomplete quotes and incomplete context to make your arguments, then there really is no need to recognize what you say. We are just not as dumb as you must think we are!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    OK Lost,

    Show me the comment. Show me the complete quote in context where Obama says "I wont compromise" in the context of Entitlement reform.

    I have seen him make that comment regarding raising taxes on the top 2%. But, that is not what I have been talking about.

    Which is quite different than your post.

    I will gladly admit I am wrong. Here is your chance.

    Personally, I will be disappointed in any deal that does not get $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increase.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    BO has confirmed that he will not compromise, yet Joeblow and xscribe says it is the repubs who are recalcitrant. guys, what part of BO's statement, "I won't compromise" do you not understand?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:00 a.m.


    The top rich know how to protect their money by using foreign banks accounts, and other means.

    The rich are paying eighty percent of the burden while the bottom half pays nothing in income taxes. In a great, and free country as ours, there are no excuses for half our people receiving handouts, and a third of our children being fed by schools.

    Taxing even more from the rich is coveting, and stealing. They are the backbone of our economy, and it's no ones business what they do with their earnings.

    In college, I worked for high grades, but some teachers graded on a curve, and rewarded the low achievers. That wasn't fair, but at least they didn't tax a portion of my scores.

    Sorry guy, but Obama is plain wrong. This is clearly stealing, and not what a leader of our great nation should be doing. No excuse for it.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    Mountanman: Don't just throw things out there and expect to be believed. Obama has and is willing to cut entitlements. His only mandate, if you will, is to raise taxes on those making over $250,000. That's it. Everything else is on the table. I won't argue with you over the tax raise and what it will or will not do, as I don't know. However, there are two sides to this, so everyone stop just blaming Obama!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:51 a.m.


    #1: Obama refuses to cut entitlement spending as the national debt soars.

    That if patently false. Obama has been willing to in the past.
    No reason to think he will not now.

    I expect to see reasonable entitlement spending cuts. I have written my congressmen stating that.

    "only fund the government for less than 10 days so it does not solve ANYTING."

    So, are you suggesting that we can disregard anything that only has an $80 Billion per year impact?

    I will say that we must first look at

    - SS
    - Medicare / Medicaid
    - defense
    - Revenue

    Those are the biggies.

    How about we keep the discussions fact based.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:29 a.m.

    But Joe, there are two significant problems with Obama's demands:
    #1: Obama refuses to cut entitlement spending as the national debt soars.
    #2: The tax increases on the rich will only fund the government for less than 10 days so it does not solve ANYTING.
    Its all smoke and mirrors from Obama and the Democrats.
    The GOP wants to fix the problem (run away government spending) and Obama only want so fix blame and solve nothing!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 7:21 a.m.

    The Dems want to continue the tax cuts on 98% of Americans.
    The Reps want to continue the tax cuts on 98% of Americans.
    The President wants to continue the tax cuts on 98% of Americans.

    Dems are ready to pass legislation which does that.
    Obama is ready to sign legislation which does that.

    So, only the GOP is balking. That is why they will get the blame.

    It cannot get any simpler than that.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:01 p.m.

    Obama criticized Romney during the campaign of presenting campaign promises but no specifics. Numerous Obama supporters took up the banner and repeated the criticism against Romney that he had no specifics.

    Where are the criticisms from those posters now? Obama has no specifics except to tax the rich, the top 2%. That is the only specific detail he provides. When asked about what specific government spending he would reduce, Obama refuses to answer.

    I feel Obama to be demonstrating hypocrisy that is all too common in politics, and politicians get away with it because voters and the media do not hold them accountable.

    Obama campaigned on a "balanced" approach to the deficit. Where is the balance when all he proposes is tax increases on the rich? Where are his specific plans for reducing government spending? I would not be surprised come 2013 if his only government reductions is defense.

    I agree that defense spending must be reduced. But the elephant in the room is entitlements. They dwarf everything in the national budget and our debt. Entitlements will comprise 100% of the budget within a generation. Wise leaders would make changes now.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:56 p.m.

    @worf -- If the Republicans won't compromise, they should be blamed. And most people will blame them. This silly insistence on protecting the top earners, who don't even want to be protected, is getting ridiculous.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:21 p.m.

    Obama is too arrogant to negotiate, or compromise. When things go wrong, expect the Republicans, and George Bush to be blamed.