Obama hopeful on reaching US debt deal with Republicans

[Gerald]

US President Barack Obama has said he expects to reach a deal with Republican lawmakers on reducing national debt.

"We will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its means," he told news conference.

But Mr Obama said getting rid of tax breaks for oil companies and wealthy Americans must be part of any reduction plan, a move Republicans have opposed.

With the deficit set to hit $1.4tr (£873bn) this year, Republicans want spending cuts.

"The tax cuts I'm proposing that we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners," President Obama told a White House news conference.

The president said both Republicans and Democrats must be prepared to "take on their sacred cows" as part of the deficit-reduction negotiations.

Leaders of both parties agree to the need to trim the budget, but Republicans have refused to allow tax increases, while Democrats have vowed to protect costly social programmes.

Mr Obama said on Wednesday that though some of the social programmes backed by Democrats are beneficial, "we cannot afford them right now".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13966712


Note: 29 June 2011 Last updated at 17:14 GMT

[AVGWarhawk]

"We will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its means," he told news conference.




Sure....


But Mr Obama said getting rid of tax breaks for oil companies and wealthy Americans must be part of any reduction plan, a move Republicans have opposed.




Nothing new here. Welcome to another stalemate.

"The tax cuts I'm proposing that we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners," President Obama told a White House news conference.



Two years ago I believe the corporate jet owners were rewarded with jets for the good old government. :hmmm:

Leaders of both parties agree to the need to trim the budget, but Republicans have refused to allow tax increases, while Democrats have vowed to protect costly social programmes.



No new taxes and cling to the nanny state. Same song and dance.

Mr Obama said on Wednesday that though some of the social programmes backed by Democrats are beneficial, "we cannot afford them right now".



Bravo! Let's cut the programs that are failures. This would probably account for 95% of them.

[Osmium Steele]

"We will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its means,"

:haha::har::rotfl2::p2::k_rofl::Kaleun_Goofy::O:

Go on, pull the other one.:stare:

[yubba]

"The tax cuts I'm proposing that we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners," President Obama told a White House news conference.

What a hypocrite, god forbid corperate leaders have their own jets, at least they pay to have them, while Obama flies the wings off of Airforce one at our expence, and by the way where is Me chell and that plane, and how many times do they have to go to Africa and at what cost.?????? Cut the wasteful spending it's that simple stupid.

[AVGWarhawk]

Cut the wasteful spending it's that simple stupid.


:yep:

I agree Michelle tours of Africa with kids in tow.....very wasteful.

[Takeda Shingen]

"The tax cuts I'm proposing that we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners," President Obama told a White House news conference.

What a hypocrite, god forbid corperate leaders have their own jets, at least they pay to have them, while Obama flies the wings off of Airforce one at our expence, and by the way where is Me chell and that plane, and how many times do they have to go to Africa and at what cost.?????? Cut the wasteful spending it's that simple stupid.

Great point, especially since the previous president never shuttled himself or his family anywhere on the taxpayer's time.

[AVGWarhawk]

Great point, especially since the previous president never shuttled himself or his family anywhere on the taxpayer's time.


They all do Tak but it is time to curtail this activity. Michelles last trip to Africa, what purpose did it serve other then getting out of DC with the kids for a week?

[mookiemookie]

The "debt ceiling" is nothing more than political kabuki. It's inevitably going to be raised every time it comes up for renewal. It's just a political stick for the party not in power to beat the one in power with. It serves no practical purpose other than to be used as a political football.

[yubba]

At least the previous president didn't punish corperations for having their own jets. And I bet he knows the age of his own kids. Hell the Republicans are going to cave on the debt ceiling anyway Sponge Bob has more backbone than most of those guys

[Takeda Shingen]

At least the previous president didn't punish corperations for having their own jets. And I bet he knows the age of his own kids.

No, the previous president punished the entire nation with a war that should have never been fought and the entire world with the worst financial crisis since the 1930's. :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

1930's. :doh:
:o

Professor of what??? :O:

[yubba]

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-2010-Air-Force-One-Trip-Count.htm Bushes fault, well Obama could have changed or turned this all round, but he chose bigger government and more spending, he chose more regulation and created a unfreindly climate for businesses, and if you hadn't noticed we are in four wars and there's probably a couple more that we don't know about, Bush didn't have 44 million people on food stamps, Bush didn't have a 14 trillion debt, Bush didn't have us spending 4 bucks on a gallon of gas, Bush didn't have a 9 percent or more unemployment rate, it all fell apart when the democrats took over both side of the house in 06 and took us down the path we are on now, at least I had a better job when Bush was in office. So the question you need to ask yourself, is, are you better off now, or 4 years ago, and if you want 4 more years of this over bearing and over spending nanny state. The one thing that I have noticed, we are, all screwed, some haven't figured it out yet, oh well, those will be the ones in the streets because of broken promises.

[Sailor Steve]

No, it's not the Democrats' fault, and it's not the Republicans' fault either. It's neither of them and it's both of them. Part of the problem is the people who want so badly to win they forget what the prize is, or even what the game is. Blaming the other guy is the easy way out, and until you realize that there really is no "other guy" you're going to recreate the same old trap yourself, over and over again.

"We have met the enemy and he is us".
-Walt Kelly's Pogo

[yubba]

Oh by the way I hated Bush, this guy is far worse. Yeah your right steve they both feed from the same trwath.

[Takeda Shingen]

:o

Professor of what??? :O:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Musicology. Emphasis in Wagner studies. What are your credentials?

[Sailor Steve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Musicology. Emphasis in Wagner studies. What are your credentials?
I can spot a misplaced apostrophe. That's about it. :oops:

[AVGWarhawk]

No, the previous president punished the entire nation with a war that should have never been fought and the entire world with the worst financial crisis since the 1930's. :doh:


Truth be told Tak, war is an a multi-billion dollar industry. It serves a large part of our working class. I would dare say (without proof) that the manufacturing business above and beyond military materials is gone from this country. It is found in China. The military machine industry is found here in the US. I can only imagine what the economy would be like if this facet of the economy was removed.

There is a old line from somewhere and it goes, "Killing is my business and business is good.'

Has there really been a presidency since WW2 that did not have some kind of crisis/war/police action/occupation of another country? :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Truth be told Tak, war is an a multi-billion dollar industry. It serves a large part of our working class. I would dare say (without proof) that the manufacturing business above and beyond military materials is gone from this country. It is found in China. The military machine industry is found here in the US. I can only imagine what the economy would be like if this facet of the economy was removed.

There is a old line from somewhere and it goes, "Killing is my business and business is good.'


Of course, if that were still the case, we would not be in the dire straits that we find ourselves.

Has there really been a presidency since WW2 that did not have some kind of crisis/war/police action/occupation of another country? :hmmm:

There has not, but only the war in Iraq and Vietnam stick in my head as cases of wars being thought without necessity.

[Platapus]

There is a old line from somewhere and it goes, "Killing is my business and business is good.'



I think it was from the band Megadeath.

But it also applies to the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned about.

[yubba]

This government can't function in a peaceful environment, it has to have a security threat, or a boogey man, it gives the government and politicions imagenary powers, that aren't in the constitution, point in fact the TSA {thousands standing around}

[Sailor Steve]

So, which president created the Patriot Act?

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
-James Madison

[Gerald]

By President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001!

[mookiemookie]

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
-James Madison


It's also overused, but still true:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” - Hermann Goering

[AVGWarhawk]

There has not, but only the war in Iraq and Vietnam stick in my head as cases of wars being thought without necessity.

Yes, these are wars without necessity but both still drove the military industry. It would seem, we as a nation, need war as part of our economy.

[AVGWarhawk]

But it also applies to the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned about.


Interesting. I did not know Ike had the foresight to see the Military Industrial Complex would become part of the fabric of our economic society.

[AVGWarhawk]

This government can't function in a peaceful environment, it has to have a security threat, or a boogey man, it gives the government and politicions imagenary powers, that aren't in the constitution, point in fact the TSA {thousands standing around}


It does not give them imaginary powers. These only provide an avenue to generate more business in military defense and homeland security. Liken it to going GREEN! This is another industry that is generating business development, employment and revenues. Exactly what war and protecting the homeland has done. It is a shovel ready project that requires no shovels, just some uncertainty in security and a dash of attempting to right a wrong.

[mookiemookie]

Interesting. I did not know Ike had the foresight to see the Military Industrial Complex would become part of the fabric of our economic society.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

[AVGWarhawk]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Thank you Mookie!



But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.


Such foreshadowing and foresight. Simply amazing. We have lost that balance Ike speaks of. And what does Ike say would happen during inbalance? Frustration! Yes, for decades we have understood these truths but somehow we have lost complete understanding of the truths. We live in frustration.



Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.


Ike is right on the money here.


Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.


Absolutely facinating!


Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.


This has been thrown out the window. We lead with arms and talk about it with intellect and decent purpose after the fact.


From this speach I would say Ike was quite the thinker. His speach backs up what I see and work with everyday.

[Armistead]

Corporations need tax breaks, with the extra profits they can invest in more plants and hire more people.....in China or India.:O:

You really think with extra profit they'll invest it here?:har:

[Gerald]

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4638/jpobamablog480.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/jpobamablog480.jpg/)
President Obama, speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, said that Republicans must agree to end tax breaks for corporate interests.

The rap on President Obama is that he’s too professorial, too cool, too prone to dissecting a problem logically and then attempting to explain it to the public.

If that’s the case, then it wasn’t Mr. Obama who stood in front of the news media on Wednesday.

From the moment he started his prepared remarks in the East Room, it was clear that the president was frustrated with his Republican adversaries, who have spent the last several weeks accusing him of failing to lead. House Speaker John A. Boehner did it again moments after the news conference, saying the president “has been AWOL.”

White House officials say that such accusations have not gotten under the president’s skin. But in the more than hour-long news conference, Mr. Obama made clear that he views the upcoming high-stakes negotiations over the nation’s debt as a test for the Republicans of the very leadership skills they say he lacks.

Mr. Obama did not lay down a “red line” beyond which he would refuse to negotiate. But he repeatedly dared Congressional Republicans to side with oil companies, hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners against the interests of the elderly, schoolchildren and the middle class. His tone throughout was defiant.

The question is whether Mr. Obama’s pointed remarks about his Congressional adversaries will help jump-start the stalled debt negotiations, or will have the effect of backing each side further into a corner even as the Aug. 2 deadline for raising the nation’s borrowing capacity nears.

And it remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama, who faces a re-election battle next year, is beginning a concerted effort to push back against the Republican charges that he has failed to lead the country out of its economic mess. That charge, more than anything else, has animated the campaigns of his potential 2012 adversaries.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/obama-shows-emotion-with-political-consequences/?hp


Note: Update Record, June 30, 2011, 7:35 am

[AVGWarhawk]

(Reuters) - The White House effectively turned down an invitation by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for President Barack Obama to visit his members on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss raising the debt limit.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, while not directly saying the invitation had been rejected, said Obama did not need to hear Republicans tell him what they would not support.

That, Carney said, was "not a conversation worth having."


Reaching across the isle are we? I guess the problem goes away when it is ignored.

[mookiemookie]

“The Republican-dominated Senate voted tonight by 64 to 34 to raise the Government’s borrowing authority to more than $1 trillion for the first time in history. The vote to raise the debt ceiling, to $1,079 billion, will allow the Government to start its new fiscal year Thursday with sufficient funds in its coffers to pay its bills . . .

Although the routine increase in the debt ceiling was essential to meet Government obligations already incurred, the vote is traditionally delayed to the 11th hour, with the minority party accusing the party in power of spendthrift ways.

New York Times, September 30, 1981 (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/30/business/senate-backs-1-trillion-debt-ceiling.html)

This is a stupid politics as usual fight that's been going on since ancient times.

[Tchocky]

From Andrew Sullivan -

For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+ Daily+Dish%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[vienna]

CBS Radio has a daily feature called "Reporter's Notebook". The June 7, 2011 took a look at the tax rate history for the wealthiest people in the U.S. The piece is short but kind of interesting:

http://audio.cbsradionewsfeed.com/2011/06/07/15/07ReportersNotebook_1801_1811975.mp3

The GOP has taken to currently labeling these very wealthy people as "job creators" with the inference being that if we further tax them or eliminate their tax breaks (which the average taxpayers do not get), the country will lose jobs because they, the wealthy will be less inclined or able to "create" jobs because they will have less money to invest. Let's be honest, here: the very wealthy are not in the business of caring if "Joe Six-Pack" (to borrow another favorite GOP label) works or not. The wealth accumulated by these uber-rich goes not into investing in US business interests; most of it goes into off-shore tax havens, is invested in foreign concerns (for the higher rate of return), or is just squndered buying the toys and luxuries associated with the lifestyles of the rich. There is a movement afoot by the GOP Right and leading business interests to give corporations holding funds offshore a "tax-holiday" as an incentive to bring the funds into the US and, as it is being sold by the people who are pushing it, to "help create jobs" with the funds. However, they point out, taxing these funds at current rates, will stifle job creation. A tax-holiday was given once before under the prevoious Bush administration as a means of "job stimulation". An article in the Christian Science Monitor details the result:


In addition, firms are unlikely to invest the repatriated funds. Congress passed a similar repatriation tax holiday in 2004 and required firms to create domestic jobs or make new domestic investments to get the tax break. Nonetheless, the firms, on average, used the tax break to repurchase shares or pay dividends — not to increase investment.


Full article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2011/0629/Don-t-fall-for-a-repatriation-holiday

Somehow, I don't think we are going to see any progress on solving our financial mess as long as Congrees keeps giving in to these so-called "job creators"...

You can call a clove of garlic a rose, but it still stinks...

[mookiemookie]

Jobs are created by demand. Demand is created by buyers. No sane business owner says "gee, I paid lower taxes, let's hire more workers even if the demand doesn't warrant me doing so!" Hiring is based on need, not tax rates.