Live links and a video of Obama's speech is at the link.

[url]http://www.classwarfareexists.com/obama-says-there-will-be-no-deal-with-republicans-without-raising-taxes-on-the-rich/
[/url]

Obama Says There Will Be No Deal With Republicans Without Raising Taxes On The Rich
Posted by icarus on 11 Nov 2012 / 0 Comment

One day after the election – John Boehner came out and said in a very friendly, compromising tone that Republicans would not negotiate on raising taxes on the rich (source). A week before the election – Grover Norquist basically admitted that Republicans would try to hold the economy hostage unless it got its way (source). All of the opposition among the Republican party comes from ONE issue: raising taxes on the wealthy.

For the past two years – Republicans have been complaining about the lowly 47% of Americans who do not pay an income tax and it really only became primetime when Mitt Romney got caught with his hand in the cookie jar at a 50k per plate fundraiser. But – Romney only said what Republicans have been saying for quite some time …. we don’t to raise taxes on Americans …. except for the 47% of Americans who already don’t pay any federal income tax. That whole debate has devolved to the “takers vs. makers” argument wherein my immediate response is to throw my tv on top of a conservative’s head. Just kidding – please do not throw things at conservatives.

“We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don’t pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that’s fair. And should we broaden the base in a way that we can lower the rates for everybody that pays taxes. [...]“
~Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-R)

Now Reuters explains what’s upcoming with the tax showdown HERE:

Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House next Friday to discuss the issue, the most pressing challenge as the president prepares to starts his second term in office. He will also hold a news conference on Wednesday.

John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, repeated his party’s commitment not to raise anyone’s tax rates as part of a deal to address the crisis.

He too claimed a mandate from the elections, in which voters gave Republicans continued control of the House.

The statements showed the two men, who have been divided on the issue for two years, were still far apart, leaving doubts over whether the “fiscal cliff” could be averted. Congress is expected to address it when it reconvenes next week for a post-election lame-duck session.

Now there are some naysayers who do not believe that President Obama will keep his promise about raising taxes on the rich, but I think those naysayers are wrong. First of all – President Obama agreed to extend the tax cuts for the rich out by 2 more years right after his party lost over 60 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate and they were handed an overwhelming ass whooping in the state legislatures and Governor’s races. Not to mention that the economy was very fragile and Obama wanted to push through some important legislation like repealing DADT, giving additional tax cuts for the middle class to stimulate the economy, extend unemployment benefits, enact the START treaty with Russia which was very important etc. Obama negotiated a huge package that really drove stimulus and all after his party lost big.

Today – he’s in a very different political situation. The economy isn’t booming but it’s much more solid. Obama just won more seats in the Senate and he won big time over Romney. Very different political situation. And now he is once again saying unequivocally that he won’t negotiate on the tax cuts for the rich.

For every $1 that we don’t get in raising taxes on the rich – that’s a $1 we have to cut from vital government services. That means putting Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Education etc all in harm’s way just to avoid raising taxes on the rich.

Sometimes you’ll hear this argument about the tax cuts for the rich and a conservative might say … that will only pay for 3 days of the deficit or something like that. Well – that’s actually not the point at all. The country won’t be able to fix the deficit until we’re back to full employment regardless. But – those tax cuts for the rich equal almost $1 trillion over 10 years. And right now – you have Republicans saying two very different things. On one hand – they say …. these tax cuts for the rich doesn’t equal much money at all so why even try. On the other hand – they say … we’re broke and can’t afford basic programs.

So – Republicans don’t want to allow tax rates to go up AUTOMATICALLY for the rich increasing the money that goes to the Treasury by $1 trillion over 10 years but they express concerns about being able to fund the following:

Free lunch programs for kids (source)
Cuts to embassy security (source)
Early education programs for children (source)
Eliminating fresh fruit for kids at school (source)
Funding for rape crisis centers (source)
Subsidizing student loans for college kids (source)

I could literally go on for hours. Republicans say that we can’t afford to do ANY of those things at the rates we’ve done them before. They say “We’re broke”. When you say – we can get another $1 trillion to pay for all of these programs and still put quite a bit to reduce the deficit … they say that will punish “job creators”. Anyone who tells you that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy doesn’t know what they’re talking about. First off – Republicans forced the Congressional Research Service to pull a report that showed there is no correlation between cutting taxes and economic growth (source). And – the Congressional Budget Office recently compared various options to address the “fiscal cliff” and they found that raising taxes on the rich would effect GDP by .1% … otherwise known as a rounding error (source).

Cutting government spending would have a worse impact on the economy than raising taxes on the rich. That’s a fact. So – here we are … Republicans have to decide whether or not they’re going to allow the automatic spending cuts to defense and other important services go into effect if they are unwilling to negotiate on taxes. If you don’t know what the “fiscal cliff” is – educate yourself HERE. Obama wants a $4 trillion deficit deal. It’s necessary long term for the economy but it’s also a political win because he will be able to say he passed serious reforms to address the deficit in a fair and compromising fashion.

As I shared HERE - Republicans know they don’t have much to negotiate with:

“We’re not going to save our defense unless we go along with the president’s wishes to raise taxes on small business. It’s not a good choice. I would never support it. . . . [But] there are enough Republicans, I think, who are so afraid of defense cuts that they would probably give in.”
~Jim Demint (R-SC)

“This is a referendum on taxes. If the president wins reelection, taxes are going up” for the nation’s wealthiest households, and “there’s not a lot we can do about that.””
~Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)

“I hope, obviously, the status quo doesn’t prevail. But if things stay as they are, and all the players are generally the same . . . finding a responsible reform for Medicare is the secret to unleashing very productive talks that would put in place a balanced solution to our fiscal problems. If you deal with the Medicare issue, then Republicans are far more open to looking at revenues.”
~Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

President Obama has the leverage. He need only allow the tax cuts to expire and turn them into the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. The Senate can pass a bill and force the House of Representatives to act. Remember – the only incomes in dispute are the top 2% of incomes or those who make more than $250k a year. That’s it; Democrats want to sign a bill TODAY on extending tax cuts for the bottom 98% of Americans. And yet – Republicans hold the American people hostage. Once Obama wins this battle on taxes – Republicans will negotiate on reducing the deficit. Right now – the only thing holding up the Republican party from acting in a sane manner on the budget is trying to keep tax cuts low for the rich. Once they get owned on this issue – they’ll be forced to move on (as long as Obama is President).

And then we can see a serious deficit reduction package put in motion … and that will be a good day potentially as well.

Being a bit more assertive this time?

He better. He won. By the skin of his teeth, but he's there now. It's time for him to grow a couple and draw a line in the sand. It isn't good enough to just protect us from the bad guys. Now he has to prove he's the GOOD guy.

It's time to take on congress.

Amen, GAT.
Now if only our opposition parties could do the same and start an ABC strategy.

I can't even think about it. The ontario provinical government is still perogued, and our union told us to get prepared to strike. It's really scaring me.

Strike over what?

By any measure, 332-206 EVs and 3,000,000+ popular votes more is NOT "By the skin of his teeth ..." ~ and while there were several Dem gains in both the House and Senate, including the ouster of a number of "TP stars" and a couple Blue Dog Ds, those changes don't take effect until around the same time as Inauguration Day in January ~

Sooz

bill 115 mostly. it arbitrarily takes away our right to strike.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_ ... illID=2665

Better the devil you know than the other devil you know. You can bet Tim Hudak will roll back labour laws to pre-1900's.

Honestly, it would hard to make things worse than arbitrarily mandating away our right to strike, waving their hands and vanishing our sick banks and retirement gratuities, and freezing the pay grid. Specifically the right to strike. That was done all at once, a slight of hand. It's sickening.

I think the NDP just inherited back the teacher's unions in Ontario. After all, Hudak's conservatives backed this bill in parliament in a deal with the Liberal minority government.

Hudak would take things further back. He supported Jim Flaherty during the Conservative leadership race. Flaherty ran on a platform of throwing the homeless in jail. In the last election, Hudak wanted to put prisoners to work. So... what he stands for is jailing the homeless and pushing them into forced work camps.