White House meeting a last stab at a fiscal deal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 30, 2012 11:27 p.m.


    You're joking.

    There's been plenty of remarks blaming Bush and his tax cuts for the rich, as the cause for our economic mess. You do the homework.

    Can you find any liberal leader stating the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class?

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Dec. 30, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    Is anybody really surprised that our do nothing congress has once again done nothing?

    And yet Americans continue to vote in the dead wood.....fools.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 30, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    Obama never claimed that only taxes for the rich where cut. Your claims are based purely on your attempt to rewrite history.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 29, 2012 11:34 p.m.


    So why were we told the tax cuts were just for the rich, and they can pay a little more? That's been reported many times.

    With the tax cuts expiring, the rich should be paying more,--if what we were told is true. So why is Obama wanting even more of an increase on the rich?

    Mark--forget the talk radio spin. I do my own thinking. Spending has hurt our economy. A blind man can see that.

    Half our population are on their knees for entitlements. This is a disgrace for any nation.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 29, 2012 9:59 p.m.

    it would take a "fool" to believe your lies. The tax cuts where across the board including the middle class and the wealthiest americans. the tax cuts to the wealthiest americans did nothing to stimulate our economy and instead did far more harm then good.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 29, 2012 6:14 p.m.

    @Say No to BO:
    "From the article: 'The deal would also likely put off the scheduled spending cuts.' These leaders can't be serious. Such a deal would add a paltry amount of revenue without addressing the root cause."

    Democrats are shred negotiators. They promise cuts in the future in exchange for tax hikes today. The promised cuts will never happen. Boehner and his Republican associates are uninformed.

    "The only right of litigation the president has is putting his signature on the bills he is handed."

    His signature is a power 'right.' If he vetoes, the bill goes back to the Congress to fix it to the president's liking or override the veto with a super majority... which the Republicans don't have... since they don't control the Senate.

    But you're right. The House and Senate should pass what they think is a proper budget to run the government considering we are not only broke but are $16.3 trillion in debt. Then they should send their final product to the president. They shouldn't be negotiating in the White House. Such conduct makes it look like Obama is king. And he's not even a citizen.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2012 5:04 p.m.

    worf, Bush's tax cuts did harm the economy. Just because you hear otherwise on those talk radio shows you listen to doesn't make what you say true. The massive debt we have is a drag on the economy. Bush cut taxes when he was spending billions on two wars. And the wars were not the only places where Bush had massive, unfunded spending. Bush, through his tax cuts and huge spending drove up the debt. And he was handed a surplus, and we were on a path where the debt would have been paid off by now, except for the action of Bush and Republicans. How do you not know that? Do you really know so little of history? We are not finding Iraq's WMD's in Syria. There is absolutely no way in the world that Sadam Hussein gave WMD's to other countries. You guys just make stuff up. Stop listing to talk radio, and believing everything you read in the chain e mails that are sent to you from your conservative buddies.

    As far as the Muslim Brotherhood and guns in Mexico, what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 29, 2012 3:44 p.m.

    when I hear people claim that the only role of the president is to rubber stamp whatever comes out of the house I weep for our public education system.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 29, 2012 3:02 p.m.


    Tax cuts don't hurt the economy. It's the excessive spending.

    Bush's spending was on the Iraq war, and now we're finding the WMD's in Syria.

    Sorry guy, but sending billions to the "Muslim Brotherhood" isn't a good thing. Neither are selling weapons to Mexican cartels.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    Dec. 29, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    The President is not obligated to congress, he doesn't have local constituency, he was elected to the EXECUTIVE office, and represents all the people, even those in the minority that didn't vote for him. His job is or should be to protect those who can't protect themselves from an increasingly detached political and economic power structure. It has been said before and it fits, we get the government we deserve. The American people keep sending people to congress who have only one purpose, to get reelected. We need statesmen and leaders instead of pandering ideologues that puff themselves up and spit out rhetoric instead of finding or creating bipartisan plans to solve real problems for our country. What most fail to see is the rich don't care if we go over the cliff they won't miss a meal, and will continue to ride the backs of others as they manipulate the economy to protect the 1%.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    worf, Bush was wrong. His tax cuts and massive spending was a huge problem, and one of the things that caused the crash to be so bad. This is a far different economic climate then Bush was dealing with. I just have a very hard time understanding how people like yourself seem not to understand that we had an incredibly bad world wide economic crash. And we are still dealing with the fall out if that.

    A1994, what do you mean, where are they? Yes the Clinton era surpluses were a big deal, if we had kept on the path that Clinton left us on the national debt would have been paid off by now. How great would that have been?

    Unfortunately, some in this country decided, for some strange reason I'll never understand, that they did not like the prosperity that Clinton left, and decided to change course. (Actually the majority of people didn't. But oh well.) and we got Bush and the Republicans in that drove up the debt through massive new government spending and very unwise tax cuts. They drove us right into the ditch.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 29, 2012 2:37 a.m.

    The White House is not the place any discussions should be taking place, that's why our congressmen have their own building to discuss and prepare the budget and laws and that is where they must remain. Leave the white house and to your jobs of budget controls and spending cuts in the houses of congress.

    The only right of litigation the president has is putting his signature on the bills he is handed. His threats are criminal and interfering with our government processes where the president has to business involving himself with. Let alone going to the white house without the full force of congress with them.

    The president is obi gated to the houses of congress, our congress has no obligation to the president on any matter or law.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 11:24 p.m.

    Remember when Clinton was in office and we had budget surpluses and Democrats were touting what a big deal that was? That was when the national debt was only 6 trillion dollars. Where are those Democrats now?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 10:57 p.m.

    Anyone surprised by these latest developments?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 28, 2012 6:24 p.m.

    I don't get it. We were told the Bush tax cuts were tax breaks for the rich.

    Now the cuts are to expire, and it turns out the tax cuts were for the middle class. A fiscal cliff for over a hundred million.

    If Bush was so wrong, why not go off the cliff?

    Fools are people who believe lies.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    "The White House talks -- at which Obama presented no new offer to Republicans in Congress -- yielded “no concrete proposal,” Reid told reporters at the Capitol following the meeting."

    Still no leadership - at any level...

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    From the article: "The deal would also likely put off the scheduled spending cuts."

    These leaders can't be serious. Such a deal would add a paultry amount of revenue without addressing the root cause.