Start A Petition

John Boehner Signals No Softening On Taxes In Fiscal Cliff Standoff [UPDATE]

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, republicans, elections, ethics, government, corruption, dishonesty, politics, congress )

- 2029 days ago -
House Speaker John Boehner signaled no new willingness to bend on raising taxes for the rich Wednesday after one of his more respected GOP colleagues suggested the party should take President Barack Obama's offer to extend Bush-era tax cuts for 98 percen

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Sue H (7)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 3:08 pm
I'd love to have the opportunity to slap this truculent pig.

Past Member (0)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 4:50 pm

Thomas P (280)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 5:03 pm
Noted. There is NO way to not raise rates, generate more revenue, and eliminate deductions without hurting the middle class. The deductions that are utilized by the middle class are there to promote equity and mitigate disparity, not necessarily in income, but in disposable income. Deductions such as real estate taxes, state income taxes, and mortgage interest are necessary for middle income families to reduce their income tax burden. The earned income credit helps low income wage earners. The rates need to be raised for those with incomes > $250K.

Thomas P (280)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 5:08 pm
Our economy is driven by spending. The "job creators" in our economy ARE NOT those who employ people, the are those that spend money, and there are far more of them than there are employers. Without those spending money, employers wouldn't need to hire because nobody would be buying the products they make/sell. Employers hire according to sales, which are driven by spending. There can be no growth w/o spending. It's basic economic theory, but one that Boehner & some repubs don't seem to grasp, either because they're too greedy or too stupid

Carrie B (306)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 5:28 pm
Someone needs to let Boehner in on the election results. The republicans lost!

Kit B (276)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 6:05 pm

I do agree with Thomas that greed is still rampant, but these are some cagey folks. If enough republicans are worried about losing their seat in 2014. They will vote to end the fiscal Bluff, though I don't expect that we will see too much change. One vote does not a mean they be seeing the "light" of new thinking.

Billie C (2)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 8:00 pm
we need tax increases and spending cuts. for every dollar that's generated we need 3 in spending cuts. if we don't cut spending we are going to go bankrupt. we can't keep spending like there is a giant money tree that will never run out.
neither side is willing to step up. gop says no taxes and obama says no spending cuts. both sides need to shut up and do what's right for our country.

Carrie B (306)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 8:35 pm
Sorry, but it is time for the republicans to admit their loss, and let the country go on about its business. No matter what Boehner says, they lost the election and the country wants tax increases on him and his rich friends.

James T (6)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 9:20 pm
"for every dollar that's generated we need 3 in spending cuts" I am assuming Billie C that you are including cuts to the bloated military budget. And by that I mean cuts that don't affect veterans benefits and help for those who have been wounded emotionally or physically. Because they are the going to be the first on the chopping block. Again
Really there are a lot of spending cuts which should be done. But I guarantee you that none of them will be "on the table" The poor and the middle class are going to get hammered. Again
The lobbyists are going to descend on Washington. Again.
The wealthy and the corporations will emerge relatively unscathed. Again

Billie C (2)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 9:54 pm
there is lots of places to cut our bloated government james. military is a start, stop sending our tax dollars to countries that hate us and or make more money than we do like china. try cutting bloated salaries of government employees and cut out waste from every department.
that's just a few of the budget cuts and they hurt none of the plans people need to live.

Billie C (2)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 9:57 pm
tell obama to quit flying around in air force 1 so much. he can try staying put for once. everybody should help out where they can and obama can stay in dc for more than 2 days at a time.

Carrie B (306)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 10:38 pm
Billie C., I am really trying to figure out what you mean, but am confused by your comments.

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday November 30, 2012, 12:34 am
"...but raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent -- half of those taxpayers are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income tax filing every year. The goal here is to grow the economy and control spending. You're not going to grow the economy if you raise tax rates on the top two [percent]. It'll hurt small businesses; it'll hurt our economy." --- John Boehner

First of all, what percentage of the American tax base are "small business owners"? My guess, a hell of a lot more than 1%. So the small business owners that fall into the middle class take a tax hit because Boehner's 1% of small business owners would be unduly affected? Makes no sense to me. That is in my mind, a form of class warfare. One group of entrepreneurs is better than another because they happen to make more money. Perhaps Boehner's 1% should have better accountants that can properly steer them through the morass of business and taxes.

By the middle and working class shouldering the tax burden as Republican/Teabaggers would have it, there will be less disposable income where it counts, the consuming populace, which impedes job creation, impedes the economy. Nick Hannauer, a billionaire member of Patriotic Millionaires, has clearly stated that the way he makes more money is when there is more disposable income in the hands of the middle and working classes. When they buy, it creates demand; enough demand creates new jobs. It really is an easy concept to grasp, but which the GOP conveniently fails to grasp. Another one of those inconvenient truths? I think so.

To paraphrase a well known phrase, "How can the American eagle soar when it is stuck with a bunch of Republican/Teabagger turkeys like the ones in the Congress currently?"


Jim P (3257)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:21 am
John Boner needs to go...

Too bad that the people in Ohio kept re-electing this "person" as the key spokesman for the
fascist g o p party of NO to the people of Unites States.

US needs to close the tax loopholes which allow corporations from paying their fair share of taxes.

Cut the military & supplier budget by 50% without hurting veterans benefits.

Leave Social Security alone as it is NOT part of the federal budget.

Ty, Carrie.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:37 am
Boehner is looking for a compromise and he isn't getting one. We need spending cuts. We are spending far more every month than we are bringing in borrowing $.42 on every dollar we spend. Something must be done to cut spending.

P A (117)
Friday November 30, 2012, 5:54 am
Boehner said " but raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent -- half of those taxpayers are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income tax filing every year." Is he seriously telling us that half of the top two percent of the population are SMALL business owners? REALLY?!! Go on - tell me another, that was a real rib tickler! Those millionaires and billionaires would be most insulted at being called small business owners! Thanks for the article Carrie!

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday November 30, 2012, 8:41 am
@ Diane O --- Boehner isn't looking for a balanced and just compromise, he is looking for the Republican/Teabagger definition of a compromise --- the Republican/Teabagger way or the highway. The taxes on the wealthy need to go up since per centage wise, they pay less than the average middle class tax payer. That is not just! Efficiencies with Medicare and Medicaid, including the overpayments to insurers and fraud should help so that beneficiaries are not impacted. Big cuts in the military budget in areas not affecting veterans benefits most definitely need to be made. SS should be off the table since it is not part of the deficit --- even your sainted Ronnie Ray Gun said that back many years ago now.

And if you're going to go back to the Republican/Teabagger meme of 'job creators' and increasing taxes would hurt the small business person, see my first comment.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 9:13 am
Lynn, small busnesses can be upward from one employee to 500 employees. Boehner, of course, is right.

Arielle S (313)
Friday November 30, 2012, 9:19 am
Why is it all the Republican fat cats have faces that are so repulsive? (Boehner, McConnell, Bush, etc.)

The people who are trying to survive on $25,000 a year are never going to understand the problem with raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year, especially when the tax increase is ONLY on that over $250,000. John Boehner can kiss my grits.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 9:49 am
Arielle, going along with your line of thinking, how about Harry Reid, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank?

Where I live earning $250,000 a year and more is not a big income. Sorry, folks, but that's the way it is both on the east coast and the west coast of America. So, if I'm earning that much and my taxes go up I don't care. It wouldn't impact my lifestyl at all. So, bring it on What I do have a problem with is Obama not cutting the necessary spending that will actually help pay down the deficit. Raising taxes on the so called rich won't even put a dent into the deficit. In fact, many say it won't impact reducing the deficit at all.

Ronald Reagan made a serious misake when he was President. He agreed, when confronted by a democratic congress that he would raise taxes if the congress promised to cut spending. The democrats promised and never kept their when Obama tells Boehner "let's raise taxes now and we'll get to the spending cuts later" all I can say is I wouldn't trust Obama to keep his word and especially the Senate.

Gene J (290)
Friday November 30, 2012, 10:22 am
Well fine. But he really ought consider how the 98% are going to feel about his stance when all THEIR taxes go up January 1st. Because that is the effect of his course, if the 2% don't get what he wants, the whole countries taxes rise. I think people will remember that in 2014. I think they'll have help remembering it. So, go for it, John, be the pariah you've always wanted to be. It will be a nice going away party, I'm sure.

Roseann d (178)
Friday November 30, 2012, 10:32 am
I don't mind paying the higher rates we had under Clinton. There was a lot of prosperity. As far as spending cuts, cut them from the supply side, like overpayments and fraudulent to insurance companies. Like the $760,000,000 in savings from the supply side that helps fund Obamacare. The American people have already paid up enough...bailing out banks and Wall Street. Now they can do their fair share. We've done our share of compromising and sacrifice, not it's their turn. It's all on them.

James M (84)
Friday November 30, 2012, 11:06 am
That's the ticket Mr. Speaker! Don't do anything that
will make sense and be able to get done, just drag
your feet, kick and scream and yell "Hell NO!" like
you've done before!!

What a lame sitcom.

Chris C (152)
Friday November 30, 2012, 11:28 am
Interesting comments. I get a kick out of Diane O - "Boehner, of course, is right". Yeah - is he as right as you were, Diane, about the outcome of the election?
Or - "Boehner is looking for a compromise". Actually he's looking for a way to keep his seat!

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 11:38 am
James, what is lame is that the democrats are not compromising. they need to put spending cuts on the table. They've had two years to prodce them.

Arielle S (313)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:07 pm
What a weird view you have, Diane. I wonder what spending cuts you'd make? Education? Medicare? Let's save a few thousand by not giving hungry kids a free breakfast? You are right about one thing - the big deficits started in 1981 with Reagan. Debt was about 1 trillion then, but had grown to $9 trillion by 2007 thanks to George W. Then came the 2008 financial collapse which added more debt. The Obama stimulus added some, yes, but a small portion compared to what was done before. Seems to me the mess should be cleaned up by those who started it all, not those who have been hit hardest by it.
And btw, the average salary for an east coast teacher (with a masters degree) is around $61,000 a year - not even close to $250,000. West coast? $82,900. Still not even close.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:21 pm
Arielle, my view is the same as President Obama's view....medicare and medicaid is our single most costly expenditure. We pay for over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse. I thought you supported President Obama and were in lockstep with everything he believes in. He believes in cuts to medicare and medicaid.

The financial crisis in 2008 brought in TARP under GWB's last few months in office. Most of TARP has been repaid. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but I'll listen to you.

You are talking about teacher's salaries. I am not. Two family incomes was my target and it can easily be $300,000 a year.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:37 pm
Why do you think our young college graduates flock to the DC area for jobs after graduation? They can easily have a starting salary of $80,000.00 a year. However, a one bedroom apartment in this area will cost them at least $1,500.00 a month. Two bedrooms? $1,800 and up so they have to have a roommate to survive. This is true in our large cities across the US. It's all relative. My position is that the tax increase will affect many middle class families. But, to me, that's okay, as long as we can cut our spending to support the tax increase. We all want to focus on paying down the debt, don't we?

Esther Z (94)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:43 pm
Boehner's current bluster is just an act; he needs to walk a very fine line or he'll have to face the wrath of the Tea baggers, and he'll end up like last time, not having enough votes or support to pass any workable bill. Unlike Harry Reid's comment of not "understanding his brain" do understand human psychology, and the need for survival.

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:45 pm
@ Diane O --- It doesn't matter how many employees (except perhaps in benefits calculations which I would think even under the US tax policies would be a cost of doing business and therefore a tax writeoff) when looking at the taxable income. The percentage tax paid on the bottom line income should not be less than that of the average middle class tax payer. Additionally, there are a lot of middle class entrepreneurs are being squeezed because the 1% small business entrepreneurs get a better tax deal. That is not right.

I would also suggest that anybody with 500 employees should really be sitting down with their accountant and figuring out whether incorporation is a viable alternative.

Diane O, "Boehner, of course, is right." No, Boehner is not right. What is needed is a balanced approach, but Boehner's definition of balanced is the Republican/Teabagger way, or the highway. Sorry, but that does not cut it!

Yvonne W (229)
Friday November 30, 2012, 3:02 pm
Boehner & Shimkus (R-IL.) are like the trolls on Care2, they're always there, but totally useless for real people to deal with.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:06 pm
Understand where you spend your time. It is not exclusive.

Roseann d (178)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:11 pm
It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth--that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves.
On April 20, 1983, Reagan signed a bill to preserve Social Security. At that bill signing, the president said words every Republican should heed:
"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire."
President Reagan had it right: Social Security is here to stay. To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent.
Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 69 , Dec 5, 2011

JL A (281)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:11 pm
Fact Check: medium sized businesses are 50-499 employees, small are below 50

Roseann d (178)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:14 pm
I just wonder how far Diane O got into crafting her rebuttal before she realized the quote is from her icon/hero Ronald Reagan's ironical commitment to Social Security.

JL A (281)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:19 pm
Diane is partially right--we CAN cut spending---the Pentagon budget can easily absorb cuts (the plane they didn't want for starters)--especially since yesterday's bipartisan vote (13 GOP) in the Senate regarding staying to schedule on bringing troops home/ending the war in Afghanistan. With restoration of equitable taxation as Obama just put out there plus Pentagon cuts and jobs creation bills moving again to stimulate the economy, we'll easily move in the right direction since ACA already will save a lot in Medicare future expenditures.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 5:27 pm
jo, it is rare out here to read a post like yours You are absolutely right on the mark. We borrow from a foreign country $.42 of every dollar we spend. Tell me that's where America needs to be.

Mitchell D (87)
Friday November 30, 2012, 5:51 pm
Boehner is an ass!

JL A (281)
Friday November 30, 2012, 6:43 pm
FactCheck: the majority (almost 2/3rds) of what we borrow was borrowed from ourselves .

James M (84)
Friday November 30, 2012, 9:04 pm
The whole "Fiscal Cliff" argument is LAME.
It is just another "straw man" conjured by the
LAME GOP to try and scare people into doing
things not in their best interests.

This is not now, nor was it four years ago, a
time for cuts. History has shown that in clear

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 7:00 am
You cannot currently send a star to James because you have done so within the last week.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 11:49 am
For factcheck on stimulus (saved and created lots of jobs despite data collection challenges)
". Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.

Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion.

Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. "
Just the facts instead of myths.........and Obama is not the source originating the term "fiscal cliff" which refers to the economic impact of the budget cuts the GOP desired.

Carrie B (306)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 12:47 pm
It's not about the spending cuts, which will be numerous, but about the tax increase on the wealthy! Boehner is refusing to compromise, Diane. By the way, the only reason he keeps getting reelected is because he runs unopposed. That may also change.

Yvonne W (229)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:25 pm
I know the only reason Shimkus keeps getting re-elected is because the Democratic Party spends NO money in Southern IL.! :( And "blah, blah, blah" to the troll... oh, and "Merry Christmas" (yeah, I said it!) it's the most Communist time of the year!:) LOL!

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:31 pm
Obama and Geithner handed the republicans an outrageous plan. Read below:

House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, was likely to meet strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year, with no guarantees. He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details.

And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might well be outnumbered by upfront spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare … The upfront tax increases in the proposal go beyond what Senate Democrats were able to pass earlier this year. Tax rates would go up for higher-income earners, as in the Senate bill, but Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income, something the Senate did not approve. He also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent.

No wonder Mitch McConnell openly laughed at this outline; how else should one respond to a preposterous farce? Republicans should counter-offer in kind, demanding full Obamacare repeal, across-the-board tax cuts, the Wyden/Ryan Medicare plan -- and maybe toss in articles of impeachment just for kicks. Let's unpack the Times' report piece by piece:

(1) Obama is asking for $1.6 Trillion in tax hikes, double the number he and Boehner reportedly (almost) agreed upon last summer during the previous crisis. Not only does he want to raise marginal tax rates on "the rich," he's also shooting to raise capital gains and dividends taxes, too. According to NBC News, those revenues would amount to nearly $1 trillion. Then comes an undefined $600 Billion in unspecified "new revenue," presumably from tax increases to be named later. This element of the broader package alone is more than enough to tear the whole thing up and walk away.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:34 pm

(2) There are no guaranteed entitlement reforms. There are no specified spending cuts. Obama is willing to consider some "savings," but those would have to be discussed some other time in the future. This is what Obama fancies to be his "concession." And it comes in exchange for...Republicans agreeing to the taxmaggedon described in item #1. As I said, surreal.

(3) There's another stimulus in this puppy. Remember, this is supposed to be a deficit reductionplan, yet it calls for *at least* $50 Billion in new spending on infrastructure and other projects. As the Times reports, some aides on the Hill believe the plan's guaranteed spending increases could actually outnumber its (still unspecified) cuts (!)...

(4) Obama's proposal goes so far on investment and death tax hikes that even Congressional Democrats are looking at each other and slowly backing away.

(5) And, oh yeah, it abolishes the debt limit. Poof. Limitless "legal" debt for the federal government.

I understand that this is just an opening offer; both sides generally commence negotiations with a very robust ask, recognizing that they'll have to back down on certain elements at the bargaining table. But this isn't a starting point. It's an insult. Allahpundit is beginning to convince himself that Obama has joined the cliff-diving brigade and is therefore hoping to either (a) bully Republicans into a chain-reaction cave of epic proportions, or (b) make his demands so unreasonable that GOP leadership simply cannot relent, allowing him to stick them with the blame when the economy goes up in smoke. What should Boehner and McConnell do? Walk away, counsels Charles Krauthammer:

Second Third look at "let it burn"? NRO's Jim Geraghty is thinking about it long and hard:

House Speaker John Boehner says there’s been "no progress” in the budget talks in the past two weeks. At this moment, Republicans in Congress need to examine which presents a more dire threat to the country: A) A double-dip recession driven by the sequester and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, or the public's belief (verified through polling) that our giant debt, our ticking time bomb of entitlements, and our gargantuan government can be solved by "asking the richest Americans to pay a little bit more,” as Obama insists.

Option A is terrible, but Option B is the giant locked door blocking all of the real solutions. So if we must have tax hikes, let the tax cuts for every income level expire and let everyone of every income level pay higher taxes. Destroy the illusion among so many voters that they can get all the government they want without paying more in taxes.


This offer is a colossal trainwreck financially for our country. Specifically, the government shouldn't be realigning mortgages. They've already tampered with the natural recovery of the real estate market three or four times and that has prolonged the recovery. As I've stated, everything this administration touches goes up in a very costly smoke cloud. They simply do not know what they are doing in the White House.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:45 pm
Sad that people responsible to this country consider what is good for the majority of people and the economy to be outrageous.
Factcheck on the myths spouted (reduced to simple language in this particular secondary source based on the mathematical facts and real data):

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:52 pm
Of course not a very credible source either to compete with the CONSENSUS of economists on what is good for the economy:
"Townhall Magazine is the monthly news and opinion journal from the same team of right-thinking reporters, opinions makers, insiders and political leaders conservatives have trusted for 15 years. It’s the place to find interviews with and profiles and writings of some of your favorite conservatives, including Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, Andrew Breitbart, Newt Gingrich, Walter Williams, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Wayne LaPierre, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, Mike Pence, Bill Bennett, Fred Thompson, and many more. "
Is what the source says about itself....................

Carrie B (306)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 3:24 pm
Diane, are you a lobbyist too?

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 3:52 pm
JLA, and are you suggesting that only your sources are credible? If so, LOL! Get a grip.

Carrie, why do you ask if I'm a lobbyist?

Carrie B (306)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:06 pm
Because you sound like one, Diane. You know, "gimme,gimme, gimme". Entitlements for the rich.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:13 pm
Obama's "fiscal vision" is outrageous. There is something called "basic math" meaning who is going to pay for America, The Nanny State? You will run out of rich people. Two thirds of British millionaires have left England. That's a big chunk of change taken out of the revenue pool to pay for the massive entitlements. Rich people simply pack up and leave a country when it is apparent that they can no longer stay in business due to a chiseled profit due to excessive taxation. It's always about the simple math. Want socialism for America? Fine. Go for it. Keep electing socialists/progressives to reside in the White House. One day you'll wake up and find that two thirds of our jobs are gone.....look at England, France, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Normal people don't spend $100,000 on an education so that they can give half of their income away. The math gets in the way, JLA.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:15 pm
And, by the way, JLA, you can find the exact wording from my link on your biased left wing websites....the language is exactly the same. Obama's offer to the republicans can't be altered. It is what it is.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:19 pm
Carrie, don't put words in my mouth. I've never stated that the rich want "entitlements." They just want to be left alone. The rich have done their due diligence to get where they are with many paying over $100,000 for their education with their own money and then charted their life path. Many have opened businesses which provide jobs for people like you and they are the job engines in our country. Why the liberals feel like they need to be penalized for being smarter and perhaps working harder will remain a mystery to me.

Anyone born in America today has choices to make because the opportunities are there for everyone to succeed. Some people are lazy and opt out of college. At that very moment, they chart their own life path....minimum wage. I never wanted that for my three children and I didn't want it for myself. I'm working today to make sure my grandchildren have at least a college education. Choices. It's always about choices.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:27 pm
It seems appropriate to bring up the lottery winners at this time. All of us have seen previous big lottery winners tell their stories of how after they won family members and friends stepped forward with their hands out. They wanted a share in a win that wasn't theirs. Recently on one of the media outlets a past lottery winner told his story about how he was no longer talking to family members because they were mad at him because he didn't give them what they considered "enough of his money." This is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the liberals in our country today. They feel like they deserve to have a share in someone else's money. Do you know how wrong that is? What a person "has" is his. We all pay taxes and it would seem that we all pay into helping those less fortunate. How do we know this? Because our federal government has as its largest expenditure every month....entitlements. Food stamps have quadrupled under Obama and none of you look him in the face and ask the hard question..."So, where are the jobs you promised?" These people don't want food stamps. The want to work. But, I know that's a bridge too far for many liberals to question Obama. But, don't blame the republicans. Obama got his $860 billion failed stimulus passed because he sold it as a job's bill and no jobs came forth. Yet, you give him a pass. It's a mystery to me.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 4:58 pm
By own money defined as the taxes that would've been paid in a fair system that they kept instead of their share of funding for the common good, they had $100,000 to an entitlement at other taxpayers' expense (e.g., the tax cuts and deductions they and their families were entitled to)...the entitlements the majority of the country want to wean the rich from believing they should perpetually keep at everyone else's expense per the math:
Equitable taxation on the wealthy and corporations could ERASE the ENTIRE county's debt in one year (i.e., every dollar taxed equally no matter how earned--capital gains same as earned, etc. and off-shored untaxed paid)--the actual need to cut safety net, the revenue is easily there unless people intentionally want to be unChristian reverse Robin Hoods.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 5:05 pm
My high school teachers taught me that experts in their field (e.g, economists) were more credible sources than people who wrote personal opinion pieces for publications that defined themselves as liberal or conservative...

Kit B (276)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 6:44 pm

Boehner claimed that Robert E Lee was given a better option at Appomattox, than Obama is offering the republicans. That should be worthy of laugh if you know your history.

Obama compared to the Corleone's of movie fiction..."Here's my offer...nothing."

It's called negotiations. The republicans expect Obama to take what they offer. Let's see the specifics of the counter offer. This is no longer an election, so this time we demand specific counter offers. Raise taxes by offering some things be eliminated. What things - how much and what income brackets specifically.

How much or how little you have Diane, is not the point here. What matters is who will be carrying the burden those who can afford it or those who cannot.

Lots of talk about cuts, what cuts, where and how much and when? If everything is on the table that must include the bloated and over inflated Pentagon budget.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 7:05 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

JL A (281)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 9:07 pm
FactCheck: Only 33% is borrowed from other than ourselves (i.e., another country) and we own more $ of their debt than they do of ours=not a problem except for those with limited knowledge and understanding of the nature of government/all governments and related fiscal practices that are necessarily different than corporations.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.