Obama launches fiscal cliff negotiations, reminds GOP that he just won a mandate for taxing the rich - Polidicks

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRH8X650nQ[/media] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20271197[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Newly re-elected President Barack Obama has said the wealthy must pay more taxes under any political settlement to avert a looming budget crisis.[/B] He said Congress must act against the so-called fiscal cliff, a package of tax rises and spending cuts due early next year. But in a duelling news conference, Republican House Speaker John Boehner said tax rises would not be acceptable. Budget analysts warn the US will tip into recession unless a deal is struck. Mr Obama has repeatedly called for the affluent to pay more, but such a plan is anathema to Republicans. The fiscal cliff would see the expiry of George W Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2012, combined with automatic, across-the-board reductions to military and domestic spending. [B]'Open to compromise'[/B] In the East Room of the White House on Friday, Mr Obama said: "We can't just cut our way to prosperity. If we're serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue. And that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes." The Democratic president continued: "I want to be clear. I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise. I'm open to new ideas... but I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced." He repeated his oft-stated call for tax rises on earnings over $250,000 (£157,000), while urging Congress to extend existing rates for 98% of taxpayers. "This was a central question during the election," said Mr Obama. "It was debated over and over again. On Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach." He also invited Democratic and Republican leaders to the White House next week to discuss how to move forward. A White House spokesman said afterwards the president would veto any bill extending tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. But battle lines were drawn earlier on Friday, as Speaker Boehner restated his party's opposition to tax increases. The most powerful Republican lawmaker told a press briefing that "raising tax rates will slow down our ability to create the jobs that everyone says they want". Mr Boehner suggested "special-interest loopholes in the tax code, both corporate and personal" could be eliminated, as he advocated "entitlement reform as well as tax reform with lower rates". "Entitlement reform" is Washington-speak for cuts to federal spending on programmes such as healthcare for the poor and elderly and Social Security pensions - cherished among Mr Obama's Democratic allies. Mr Boehner also cited a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on Thursday which warned the US economy would fall back into recession if no deal were struck on the fiscal cliff. The analysis projected that the package of tax rises and spending cuts would cut the ballooning US deficit by $503bn (£315bn) through to next September, but also shrink the economy by 0.5% and cost millions of jobs. [B]Obama cabinet shake-up[/B] The International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned that failure by US lawmakers to reach a deal would deepen uncertainty over the global economy. Investor concerns over the issue have been partly blamed for two straight days of losses on financial markets this week. As Mr Obama turns his attention to shaping a second term in office, his administration is expected to undergo a shake-up in the coming weeks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are among those expected to leave their posts. Speculation has been swirling in Washington over possible replacements, with Democratic Senator John Kerry among those tipped as a substitute for Mrs Clinton. Meanwhile, Republicans are carrying out a post-mortem on their presidential election campaign. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CBS News on Friday the party's loss "really necessitates" new thinking. They had sent "mixed messages" on immigration and women's issues, she added. While Mr Obama carried the popular vote by only a narrow margin, "clearly we are losing important segments" of the electorate, she said.[/quote] You should watch the speech, because it is Obama at his most presidential, and if you are an Obama fan then you will love it. If you don't feel like watching it, here are the highlights: [sp]Obama begins by announcing that leaders of both parties will be invited to the White House next week to begin talks on averting the fiscal cliff. However, he vows he will not accept any deal unless it raises taxes on the rich. He then says that taxing the rich was 'a central question during the election', and his victory demonstrates that it is 'the will of the American people'. He points out that no one in Congress wants to raise taxes on the middle class, and says those cuts shouldn't be held hostage during negotiations. He therefore challenges the House to extend those cuts immediately, before talks even begin. He says a bill to do this has already passed the Senate, and he then pulls out a pen, holds it up and says 'I'm ready to sign the bill right away. I'm ready to do it.' He says he 'intends to deliver' for the American people, and that he 'expects to find willing partners in both parties' as the American people 'will not tolerate politicians who view compromise as a dirty word'. He finishes, 'let's get to work.'[/sp]

As much as this is what everyone wants, I just can't see it happening. Over the past few years every single politician out there has used this as a lever to advance themselves in the public's eyes but we've yet to see a result. I.e. I'll believe it when I see it.

[QUOTE=Stopper;38386493]As much as this is what everyone wants, I just can't see it happening. Over the past few years every single politician out there has used this as a lever to advance themselves in the public's eyes but we've yet to see a result. I.e. I'll believe it when I see it.[/QUOTE] Obama can do whatever he wants. He can't be re-elected Thats why 2nd election terms tend to be better (They know they cant be re-elected so they don't have to worry about hurting peoples feelings) But hopefully they come up with something, because its going to be cray if they don't. (I forgot the word) sequestration or something.

Yeah now the rich move to other countries

Obama's 'bout to school some rich white boys [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/emot-clint2.gif[/IMG]

How much leverage will he get? I feel like it's either all or nothing. [editline]9th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;38386658]Obama's 'bout to school some rich white boys [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/emot-clint2.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] This isn't a good way of looking at it either.

Please strike a deal, sequestration will make it very hard for me to keep my career.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;38386570]Thats why 2nd election terms tend to be better (They know they cant be re-elected so they don't have to worry about hurting peoples feelings) .[/QUOTE] In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with the Presidency. Isn't it a little odd that the moment a President gets reelected, he starts to implement policies that wouldn't have gotten him reelected in the first place? I understand that every President that gets a second term does this, but it just doesn't seem right at all.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;38386986]In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with the Presidency. Isn't it a little odd that the moment a President gets reelected, he starts to implement policies that wouldn't have gotten him reelected in the first place? I understand that every President that gets a second term does this, but it just doesn't seem right at all.[/QUOTE] Well i think he is more enforcing his policies, then making new extreme ones. I dont see it as a problem. If you want to get rid of it, make it one term. That way they can be much more aggressive in their year since they got nothing to lose position wise.

for some reason I couldn't take my eyes off this woman [IMG]http://andrescanelones.me/destinos/XbYV.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38386769]Please strike a deal, sequestration will make it very hard for me to keep my career.[/QUOTE] sorry but your career is extremely expensive and unnecessary for our country

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38387427]sorry but your career is extremely expensive and unnecessary for our country[/QUOTE] How is the military unnecessary?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;38387435]How is the military unnecessary?[/QUOTE] How is the military necessary in its current state is a better question.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;38387435]How is the military unnecessary?[/QUOTE] why do we need to spend billions of dollars on maintaining our position in afghanistan

"I'm back in office, celebration is over. It's time to get shit done." This is why I like him, and why alot of other people do too.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38386769]Please strike a deal, sequestration will make it very hard for me to keep my career.[/QUOTE] You're part of an extremely over-bloated force. People need to be cut.

[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/41041550/deprface.PNG[/img]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38386769]Please strike a deal, sequestration will make it very hard for me to keep my career.[/QUOTE] dismantling the defense budget is a double-sided blade, but it's something i'm in favor for; it will take away jobs, but it will create excess in other eras, such as education, and social and human services, which i favor greatly over a saturated military and overly capitalizing defense contractors (e.g. Bath Iron Works in Maine) we really have no reason to be in various third-world countries (iraq, afghan, etc), with the cost of imposing greater demand on our defense budget

Recession if republicans are still mad about the election

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38387542]why do we need to spend billions of dollars on maintaining our position in afghanistan[/QUOTE] The Afghanistan war doesn't cost as much as people think. Our Military gets more every year than we've spent in Afghanistan since 2001. Why do we need so many Nimitz class aircraft carriers? We can comfortably shed most of our Navy if we wanted to, even our Air Force and Army. Is Canada going to invade us? Mexico? Who's going to cross the Pacific and Atlantic? Who even has that capability?

[QUOTE=TheTalon;38387958]The Afghanistan war doesn't cost as much as people think. Our Military gets more every year than we've spent in Afghanistan since 2001. Why do we need so many Nimitz class aircraft carriers? We can comfortably shed most of our Navy if we wanted to, even our Air Force and Army. Is Canada going to invade us? Mexico? Who's going to cross the Pacific and Atlantic? Who even has that capability?[/QUOTE] cool lets get rid of all that too im down

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38387964]cool lets get rid of all that too im down[/QUOTE] Not all of it. Let's just get rid of 8 Carriers, and our B-2's for a start. I love the B-2 but they're so expensive we're afraid to use them. TWO of them cost as much as an entire Nimitz Class aircraft carrier. They also require climate controlled hangers and constant special maintenance

[QUOTE=TheTalon;38387958]The Afghanistan war doesn't cost as much as people think. Our Military gets more every year than we've spent in Afghanistan since 2001. Why do we need so many Nimitz class aircraft carriers? We can comfortably shed most of our Navy if we wanted to, even our Air Force and Army. Is Canada going to invade us? Mexico? Who's going to cross the Pacific and Atlantic? Who even has that capability?[/QUOTE] Isn't there a 90Bn bonus to the budget every year because of Afghanistan? Also you need all those Nimitz class carriers because republicans.

[QUOTE=Van-man;38386658]Obama's 'bout to school some rich white boys [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/emot-clint2.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Why is anyone with money villainized by the masses?

[QUOTE=Strider*;38388070]Why is anyone with money villainized by the masses?[/QUOTE] I don't think this is the case at all, levying just taxes in a shitty situation isn't villanizing.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38388070]Why is anyone with money villainized by the masses?[/QUOTE] we only villainize people who dodge taxes and spend millions of dollars to make sure a shitty candidate is elected that will ensure the rich have advantages over the poor (apart from their massive income lmao). if you're rich that's cool, i'm an upper middle class white dude so it's not like it's a bunch of lustful poor people hating rich people just for being rich.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38388070]Why is anyone with money villainized by the masses?[/QUOTE] They aren't. See: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Barack Obama

He thinks he got a mandate. How cute. Grow up Barry. the popular vote proved how tight the race was. you mandate would have only happened with a higher victory.

[QUOTE=Glaber;38388282]He thinks he got a mandate. How cute. Grow up Barry. the popular vote proved how tight the race was. you mandate would have only happened with a higher victory.[/QUOTE] I'm going to give you Conservatives a hint using terms such as the "mainstream media," "liberal media," "Barry," "Obongo," etc. don't boost your credibility. They just make it look like you're some nutjob conspiracy theorist.

[QUOTE=Glaber;38388282]He thinks he got a mandate. How cute. Grow up Barry. the popular vote proved how tight the race was. you mandate would have only happened with a higher victory.[/QUOTE] You do realize he DID win the popular vote right? Right HERE he already admits to wanting to extend MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS, something Romney's plan never did. Why are you hating on him? Did you and Rush have a bad morning? [editline]9th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;38388319]I'm going to give you Conservatives a hint using terms such as the "mainstream media," "liberal media," "Barry," "Obongo," etc. don't boost your credibility. They just make it look like you're some nutjob conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE] They make people look like idiots who can't accept defeat under any reason, it makes people look disrespectful and misinformed, it makes them look wrong to anyone who has any ability to think about what stupid short and disrespectful comments get them.