Obama, Boehner meet to discuss 'fiscal cliff'

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met Sunday at the White House to discuss the ongoing negotiations over the impending "fiscal cliff," the first meeting between just the two leaders since Election Day.
Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said they agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open.
The meeting comes as the White House and Congress try to break an impasse over finding a way to stop a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to kick in at the beginning of next year.
Obama met in November with Boehner, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The president spoke by telephone with Reid and in person with Pelosi on Friday.
Obama has been pushing higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans as one way to reduce the deficit - a position Boehner and other House Republicans have been steadfastly against. Republicans are demanding steeper cuts in costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
One GOP senator said Sunday that Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul entitlement programs.
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker said insisting on that red line - especially since Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
And hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
Still, at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding, "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said they agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open.
The meeting comes as the White House and Congress try to break an impasse over finding a way to stop a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to kick in at the beginning of next year.
Obama met in November with Boehner, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The president spoke by telephone with Reid and in person with Pelosi on Friday.
Obama has been pushing higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans as one way to reduce the deficit - a position Boehner and other House Republicans have been steadfastly against. Republicans are demanding steeper cuts in costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
One GOP senator said Sunday that Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul entitlement programs.
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker said insisting on that red line - especially since Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
And hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
Still, at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding, "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Finally, they meet with each other instead of going to the podium to blame each other. I'm so tired of the childish antics of these two. They need to be locked in a room together until they solve this issue. They work for us, we should be able to demand that they do this!
The United States needs to get out of the world policing business. We are spending $711 billion this year on defense. That is 41% of the money that all nations will pay this year on defense.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/173962-should-the-u-s-drastically-cut-its-bloated-defense-budget
 @rockguy Yup. That's a lot of money. But even if we totally ZEROED OUR the total defense budget, we are still on track to have to borrow around half a trillion dollars. Defense spending isn't teh problem by itself. The problem is too much spending and regulating overall.
 @RN1 You are half right. Too much spending, and not enough revenue. When we entered the two ten year long wars, we should have never cut taxes. That lead to increased debt and more spending--interest on the debt.
Rule: If you go to war, ask the taxpayers to pay for the war, not their grand children.
The small amount of revenue from the rich would cover spending for 81/2 days. You cannot do much when Obama's budget is over $1,000,000,000,000 over revenues. The Democrats want taxes to go up on everyone to mask the tax and fee increases in Obama care.Â
So they are still calling people who earn 200k-250k per year rich people. Who makes that kind of money. Mostly the guy or gal who owns a couple of fast food franchises, or a mom and pop business of some sort. Ding them for more money and they will do what they can to cover the loss by raising prices, cutting staff, etc. So who wins there. Everyone seems to have their eye on the uber rich like Soros, and Gates, and Romney. I guarantee you that their tax lawyers will find ways to shelter their income so that any tax increase will be mitigated down to near zero. The small business owner doesn't have that luxury.They don't sit on their private yacht looking at their returns. No they are most likely getting up before dawn to put in another 12 hour day to make payroll. And this so called 1. what ever trillion in increased tax revenue over the next 10 years is supposed to do what when the excess in spending over the same period will be more than 10 times that. It will be like using a teaspoon to put out your house that is on fire. The best plan would be to leave things as they are cut the waste in government, and reduce regulations so that the business sector both large and small will be unleashed to do what it does best create goods and services that people will buy. That will generate all kinds of growth and tax revenue and nobody looses. Â
 @ErichBritton You've hit the nail on the head.  They are leading the 'people' to believe this will hit only those that it won't hurt (the ghastly rich).  However, once this goes into effect, the small business world will be paying the price.  Another blow to middle Americans.
I just want to scream! Somebody please find me an open window.
Somebody has to fight to keep our country from going bankrupt. Â I guess people just don't believe it can happen here which is unfortunate. Â The President simply has to put some credible spending cuts on the table for everyones sake. Â
If it weren't for gerrymandering, Boehner would be out. 52% of Americans voted for Democratic candidates for the House of Reps, yet somehow the GOP remained in control. Considering the majority voted for the President, who campaigned all a long to raise taxes on the rich, and the majority also voted for Democratic members of the US House, and furthermore, that the Republicans lost all the Senate races they had been eyeing - considering all this the Republicans should capitulate and go along with the will of the people. Leave taxes low for everyone but the richest 2%. There's no reason the richest 2% can't go back to the tax rates we had during the Clinton years, which were very prosperous times.Â
 @FossilSpark There is no reason all can't start paying their "fair" share. You know the ones who pay no federal taxes,but still get a "refund" check.  As far as the election 52% voted not to work,but still get a check from the government without working for it.Â
Boehner just needs to quit dragging his! That or else retire and take his Golden Parachute to Qatar, Bahrain or Dubai U.A.E. - whichever his loyalties really belong to...
@JLS1950 Maybe boner, shrub, darth, rummie, et al can all live together in one of the Blackwater (or whatever the heck that they are calling themselves these days) compounds somewhere over there. Oh. By the way. Anyone seen any of the last three anywhere for a while now?
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth  @JLS1950 What's scary is.......you're BOTH spot on.
The GOP is running scared. They know they really lost the house and only held on illegally because of nasty gerrymandering they did in 2010. In reality they lost the house by over a million votes. When they try to dig their heels in and force everyone's taxes to go up because their holding them all hostage for low taxes on millionaires, everyone will finish voting the GOP out in 2014. Say goodbye to the GOP, it's going the way of the Whig. You are watching history in action.
 @NorthwestEconomist So, just for grins, let's say the Rs cave and Obama gets his measly $80 billion per YEAR in increased taxes on "the rich" (well, the high-earners, anyway, rich or not), what's he gunna do about the fact that the FedGov is now borrowing 46% of the money it spends? It borrowed $172 Billion *just in November* ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/7/government-borrows-46-cents-every-dollar-it-spends/ ). That increased tax revenue doesn't cover borrowing for even TWO WEEKS. So, then, Mr Economist, what are we going to do about spending for the REST of January, and the rest of the year? Or do you hate children so much you really don't care how much debt they are crushed under, or how much inflation they are hit by? How does this play out over the next decade or so, other than BADLY? Can you show anyplace, at any time, where it's ended well for the average family?
 @RN1  @NorthwestEconomist Same thing I've always replied to you with yet you keep coming with these ridiculous arguments about hating children or other insults. Give it a rest,
Â
Sequestration will go into effect and when the debt ceiling comes soon we'll have more cuts then too, Everything will be fine. Stop listening to Limbaugh.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist Speaking of holding on "illegally", how's Obama's support group doing?
 @Wolfen You probably think the war on illegal immigrants is worth fighting, keep on thinking that and you will keep getting screwed over by big business that brings them in for cheap labor.If we offered amnesty to every illegal immigrant and allowed anyone who wanted to to legally come here, then there couldn't be illegally low wages and the economy would grow to encompass all the new citizens, instead of this partial, anemic growth we have now.
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth Say what you want but the House of Reps was intended by the founders to be the populous counter to the Senate where every state had 2 senators. Now, because of severe GOP gerrymandering in 2010, the republicans should have lost the house (by sheer number of votes) but kept it through cheating. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/democratic-house-candidates-winning-the-popular-vote-despite-big-gop-majority/
I don't think Obama will get much help or cooperation from this Republican guy,he
should know that they (Repubs) will never support him or trying to make him look
good at all,why ask them ? Just hell with them,let it go over the cliff,let them pay
for the dirty politics / consequences !
The Republicans only want to pay for government when the other guy is in office.Â
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth Re: âThey didn't balance the budgets well during GWB. They were getting close before the dems took over Congressâ. Yeah right. The only way that âFool me onceâ shrub, âDeficits donât matterâ and Itâs Hoover timeâ darth, and âgive me a lot of money but donât ask me where it is goingâ paulson were able to make it sort of look like it wasnât quite as bad as it really was back then was to keep the two wars, Medicare Part D, gawd only knows what else (plus the interest on same) off the books and on the China credit card. Obama then had all of that put on the books. ooopppsss.
 @the unvarnished truth You think the Repubs were "balancing the budget" in 2001 thru 2006? Boy! Have I ever got some neat beachfront property to sell you! About 10 miles off the coast of Fla!
 @the unvarnished truth "trending in the right direction"??? Boy, have YOU ever sotted yourself in the Republican Kool Aid!
Bush rang up the largest deficits in the history of the Presidency - at least about half a $ trillion every single year for he was in office - except the largest deficits he produced were in the last years he was in office - including the legacy he left us all in his last four months when he - not Obama - crafted and architected (and spent nearly half of) the first $3.5 trillion "bail out".
Â
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Â
The beach-front property I propose to sell you is now on Sandy Island, between Australia and New Caledonia. Truly a picturesque place at a dirt-cheap price! (Bring your own dirt.) I'll sell you the entire island at a price you can surely afford - merely the $6++ trillion Bush deficit! You should find it MOST suitable for entertaining your "unvarnished" fantasies!
(Very private and secure, also, since you can longer find it on Google!)
@the unvarnished truth bwahahahaâ¦â¦ 1/10 bwahahahaâ¦.. You obviously donât even know what they heck that you are even posting about. bwahahahaâ¦â¦ Obviously. Go figure. Plus see other posts regarding off books/off budget, the China credit card, etc. bwahahahaâ¦.But you are correct that the last shrub budget covered most of â09. It and you would almost be funny if it and you werenât so sad.
 @the unvarnished truth   Clinton gave GWB a balanced budget and the rightards nearly bankrupted this country with unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the prescription drug act and other corporate entitlements.  The republicans spent four years trying to unseat Obama and failed at that also. Boehner is a complete disgrace as a leader, he should resign his position and get out of the way so we can continue with our recovery.  I hope Obama reminded him which platform the American people voted for in November.Â
 @RN1 He also tried very hard to get ObL - until someone evidently in Congress (or else perhaps the ex-Pres who was then still getting daily National Security Briefings) tipped the terrorist off to the plot.
Â
And then there were those special charter flights during that three-day Ground Stop that took all the rest of the bLs out of the U.S. right after 9/11... Hmmm...
 @JLS1950  @the unvarnished truth No, he didn't set out to balance teh budget - he tried to do a LOT of other things, including the AWB and HillaryCare. That sort of garbage was what caused the Republican Revolution in 1994, which then forced the pragmatic Clinton into a much more fiscally responsible position.
 @the unvarnished truth You've got it "Right": you don't "varnish' the "truth" - you first bleach it white and then whitewash it and try to sell it as satin taffeta.
Â
Clinton set out to balance the budget when the took office. First he had to find sources of revenue that could do that, so he abandoned his plans for healthcare and just tried to save money where he could by cutting unnecessary funding of out-of-date military projects while pushing new technologies such as the Internet. The result is that while the national debt did increase during his eight years in office, it did so by about by what his predecessor did in just four years, and what Reagan did in his one eight years - and about a third or what his successor GWB added. But as a percentage increase, Clinton's increase was only about 40% to Reagan's 200%, GHWBs 90% and GWB's 100%.or more. Finally, taken in comparison to GDP, the national debt actually shrank SUBSTANTIALLY under Clinton, and increased precipitously under all three Republican administrations.
Â
Well, you will not accept or learn ANYTHING from this, because like all Republican supporters you are so tied up in GOP Kool Aid and your own "unvarnishedness" that you cannot perceive that your "truth" - like the GOP Platform - is resting on dry rot.
The American people voted all these clowns in to do right by the American people not their party.
I'm so tired of my party wants this and my party doesn't want that.
We expect you to act for the good of all Americans not just the rich or the poor.
GET IT DONE!!
 @mstipton BOTH sides put party before people - the party machinery is the only thing that lets incompetent fools like that gain and hold office.
If the politictions  in the new deal take away   the write off of the intrest we pay on our home mortgages . Your going to see more people loose their homes and jobs .
 @armchairquaterback Have you considered that maybe that is the plan? Create a crisis, so the government can ride to the rescue, and make yet more people dependent on the government?
I'm so tired of these 2 idiots, just shut the hell up and find a common ground.
Â
 @hinterland And THAT, of course, is what Obama DOESN'T want. He is demanding total capitulation from the Rs. A compromise is where both sides give a bit to get a bit. Obama's asking them to give him everything HE want's, and just be thankful he isn't demanding more. He is looking for surrender, not solutions.
 @RN1  @hinterland "He is demanding total capitulation from the Rs."
But...isn't that exactly what the "R's" were doing for the past 4 years? They absolutely refused to consider even removing deductions that favor the rich - saying that would be a "tax increase!"...and yet what is Boner offering? $800B in deduction cuts for the rich...
Given that both candidates ran on their positions on the tax cuts, and the majority that Obama won, who should he yield on that? Oh, he may drop it to 37%, but the GOP no taxes stand is toast. They either vote for that, or they stand sill while the cuts go away from everyone - and they then have to vote ONLY for cuts for the middle class. All they have is a choice of poison - hemlock or nightshade...
 @OrcasThunder  @the unvarnished truth  @hinterland That's good. When YOUR guys do it, it's "just normal politics," but when the R's do it, it's poisonous, personal, and vindictive.
Â
You DO know who wrote "Rules for Radicals," right? Saul Alinski. And his acolyte, BH Obama, is following it to a T. Personalize and demonize. Make the other side take a stand, then twist them on it. Always have someone else to blame when things go wrong. And you have swallowed the big lie so well that you think it's the OTHER guys with the problem, being vindictive. Who was it again that said "vote for revenge?" Oh, yeah, it was Obama. how said "get in their faces" and things like "if they bring a knife, bring a gun"? Obama, again. Yet the Rs are the bad guys (stupid I'd agree to, FWIW) for trying to not crush our children under a load of debt.
 @the unvarnished truth  @RN1  @hinterland "As opposed to the left which spent the years 2009-2011 working to cement the dems control over healthcare and trashing the deficit."
That was just normal politics. The poisonous attitude of the GOP against Obama was personal and vindictive targeting one man. It was unworthy of a once grand and honorable political party.
 @RN1  @hinterland "And you wonder why many non-libs think Obama is a bully"
This from someone who supported the concept of "the first and most important job of Republicans during the last 2 years was assuring that Obama was a one term President? They spent the last 2 years doing everything they could to defeat him, and nothing to help the nation. In my mind that's the definition of "bully"...using every drop of power to make someone's life miserable, and accomplishing nothing else..
 @OrcasThunder  @hinterland So you think that political humiliation is "icing on the cake." And you wonder why many non-libs think Obama is a bully. You likely think that putting a slow student in a DUNCE cap in the corner is more likely to make them get with the program, too. It's simply evidence that Obama DOESN'T want a solution, and you can't see that, you think it's righteous, and wonder why things are so dysfunctional.
Â
And I see you are still avoiding any positive contribution by way of suggested actions, rates, cuts, etc.
 @RN1  @hinterland "it's about making the Rs go back on a "no tax raise" pledge."
Icing on the cake...
 @OrcasThunder  @hinterland Here's the thing. The Rs offered a deal that would leave the top rate the same but cap deductions, and would raise about twice the revenue. Obama laughed in their face. That means it ISn"T about the money - it's about making the Rs go back on a "no tax raise" pledge. Pure politics. Even though the amount of money rais is less than 10% of what is needed to close the current deficit. Obama hasn't proposed a budget that balances, EVER, even assuming stupidly optimistic projections on pretty much everything. He's offered NOTHING in the way of compromise. The Senate hasn't passed a budget. There simply isn't enough money among the high-income to balance things, and the Rs know that. They may not be geniuses, but even THEY can do simple arithmetic and count. Following Os "budget" leads to total bankruptcy sooner rather than later. holding the line on that is not that stupid.
Â
So, if you were in charge of all this, what sort of rates / raises / cuts would YOU recommend?
Call me libtard commie whatever. I'm sick of the republicans and their idiotic demands. Take us over the cliff, boss.
 @Alikelystorey Idiotic demands? Like a budget that balances, eventually, rather than trillion-plus deficits FOREVER? Spreading the pain around as much as the wealth? Asking that the compromise be somewhere between the two preferred positions, not between far left and FARTHER left, or between bankruptcy in five years or eight?
 @RN1  @Alikelystorey "Spreading the pain around as much as the wealth?"
Yeah, right - the rich are really going to be hurting from a 3 or 4 % rate increase on the part of their income OVER the $200K margin...more millionaires going to McD's...BFD.
 @the unvarnished truth  @RN1  @Alikelystorey "replying to the reply of the reply that the $800 billion is over 10 years."
Â
Actually, it IS over a ten year period...
"The GOP plan also proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the decade but it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts â including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama â in place for now."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765616947/GOP-proposes-new-fiscal-cliff-offer-to-Obama.html
 @OrcasThunder  @the unvarnished truth  @Alikelystorey (side note: I hate this commenting system). Trying to balance the budget in a year or two is not insane. Painful, yes. But necessary. Because: do the math - if we keep borrowing for the next four years like the last four, and hit $20T debt, what happens to the debt payment for every 1% increase in interest rates? That's an extra $200 Billion, per year, per point of interest. That's almost as much as ALL veterans services and benefits, and ALL transportation, *combine*. For a ONE point up-tick in interest rates. And the only thing that's keeping that from happening is the Fed printing money and buying them, but that will, eventually, come back as inflation, a LOT of it. Maybe next year, maybe in five years. But when it hits, it's going to be ugly.
 @the unvarnished truth  @RN1  @Alikelystorey What is?
 @OrcasThunder  @Alikelystorey No, it wouldn't be insane. Not realizing the fiscal reality that borrowing more and more forever, or trying to print your way out of it, ALWAYS ends badly is insane. Painful, yes. But avoiding the pain of withdrawal by administering ever larger doses of junk *isn't* a path to a happy ending- never has been, never will be.
 @OrcasThunder  @Alikelystorey Right. We are running a more than ONE TRILLION dollar deficit PER YEAR. And Obama want's to make a big stink over less than 1/10th of that, while at the same time proposing MORE SPENDING. Meaning that we'd STILL be running roughly trillion-dollar deficits. And you think that the the Rs are stupid, when that's the "best' plan O has... AND, and the same time, not getting his Senate to even VOTE on a budget. He is in many ways a fundamentally un-serious person.
 @RN1  @Alikelystorey "you can't differentiate between me and some elected gent/gal on the other coast."
Of course I can tell the difference. They were actually elected and have to make a choice.
And to try to do it in 2 or 3 years would be insane.
 @RN1  @Alikelystorey And the tax increase revenue would only be for one year? Are you serious? $80B x 10 years = $800B...
 @OrcasThunder  @Alikelystorey EARTH TO ORCAS: I'm not a republican, I'm not a politician, *I* didn't make any pledge on anything.No wonder you have a hard time arguing - you can't differentiate between me and some elected gent/gal on the other coast.
Â
*MY* preferred choice is to aim a a balance NOW (likely take two or three years, though) with massive cuts in spending and a radical overhaul in the tax code. In ANY case, I think the priority is more on the balanced-budget side of the argument rather than the cuts-or-tax-increase-or-mix side. I *rather* more cuts than tax increases, but balancing it is the goal, because debt will eat us all sooner than later if we don't It happens every time.
Â
I'm STILL not seeing any positive contribution from you on how we SHOULD get it balanced, or a statement that balance doesn't matter (because we can just print money or something)
 @RN1  @Alikelystorey I thought you agreed last week that it could be BOTH cuts and taxes.
Apparently your word isn't worth more than a pledge to not raise taxes...
 @lakeview "You guys?" Assuming you are referring to Republicans, MANY of them don't like Bush for that very reason. But even his absolute WORST year (not counting the bipartisan cluster-flop for addressing the stock panic and melt-down of '08) was less than half of Obama's SMALLEST deficit. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" sucked - it had a lot of the worst of BOTH parties. He's NOT my favorite pol by a long shot, though I do think he was a better choice that his competitors (though not by much, IMO). As for "coming down" it's only because they are doing accounting tricks that would make Enron blush, and not addressing the HUGE SS / Medicare debacle heading down the tracks that we are standing on.
 @OrcasThunder  @Alikelystorey You do know that that that "$ 800 billion" is the estimate TEN YEAR budget projection number, right? It's NOT for just one year. SO, as I said, what are you planning on for February?
 @RN1 Go look at our deficits. They are coming down each year. When are you guys going to take responsibility for Bush's out of control, off the books, spending? Forget it, don't answer that because it will never happen.Â
 @RN1  @Alikelystorey "AT BEST it'll raise ~$80B a year."
Ummm, you are forgetting the $800B that Boner put on the table...
 @OrcasThunder  @Alikelystorey "they can afford it" The phrase of envy and class warfare the world over. The problem isn't so much that, as the simple fact (that you keep seeming to refuse to acknowledge) that it is just not enough revenue. AT BEST it'll raise ~$80B a year. About what the FedGov is now borrowing EVERY MONTH. SO, what do you propose we do for February?
Â
If you think a balanced budget is important, then you HAVE TO either raise taxes (either through higher rates or fewer deductions) well down into the middle class, OR you have to propose some *serious* spending cuts. REAL cuts, not an accounting gimmick like saying you "saved a hundred grand by not buying a Bentley" that you were not planning on buying, anyway. Let's see YOUR proposals that you are sending to your congress-critters...