Let’s not forget how we arrived at the Fiscal Cliff. The Fiscal Cliff itself was a compromise solution, and one that favored Obama. House Republicans agreed to delay addressing the deficit issue until after the presidential election. That undoubtedly helped Obama get re-elected.
He got what he wanted from that compromise. What Republicans got was the Fiscal Cliff commitment. Now as we approach that critical point, Obama is trying to concede as little as possible, making it a double win for him and his policies, by taking his typical non-compromising stand.
The proposed House vote and subsequent withdrawal of Boehner’s Plan B was a strategic move intended to send a clear message to the president that it is time for real compromise. Boehner never intended for a vote to be taken. Plan B’s withdrawal was simply a way of showing the president that the House would not accept his token concessions in compromise negotiations, even if it meant going over the Fiscal Cliff. House Republicans see this contest as setting the stage for their relationship with Obama in his second term, and they plan to stand firm against his “my way or no way” stance.
What will Obama tell us at his inauguration and at the State of the Union if he allows the negotiations to fail, and we go over the “cliff” and into recession? He is already known as the “Blaming President.” Will his legacy identify him as the “Recession President” too?
Robert Hicks
downtownresident posted at 12:40 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
OH, Please.
Typical whining from those who don't get their way.
Do you realize how many billions of dollars it will cost ALL OF US if the children in congress insist on getting continued tax cuts for millionaires to deposit in their alrady bloated bank accounts, and sequestration begins. Federal programs don't just close down. There will be millions, if not billions wasted ending programs, then after the children have strangled us all and get their way, more billions to re-start all the programs shut down by the kiddies in congress. tea party idiots ARE NOT PATRIOTS. THEY ARE TRAITORS!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:59 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
It's useless to write a logical Letter to the Editor about Obama's descent into Bankruptcy. The Letter writer is just "preaching to the choir" on the "Right" and "casting pearls before swine" on the Left.
truth posted at 3:44 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
The fiscal cliff: Almost 40 % of all Medicare spending, for example, is consumed by just 5 percent of recipients-mostly in the final week of life. We need true reform, not just spending cuts. Many seniors would retire without insurance, forcing them to buy private insurance or go on Medicaid. Any money the government saved from moving back the eligibility age would be "more than offset by increase cost to individual, employers, and state government." When the wealthy take home more money, they mostly stash it away rather than spend it. But when wealth is redistributed downward, the middle class spends it- "exactly what's right for the economy."
Los Angeles Times TNR.com
Corporations have acted much like the government at all levels by not putting enought aside for retirees and what was set aside was pilfered by upper management or government officials.
onerebel posted at 5:38 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
Interesting how the Democrats that admit they are for higher taxes, fought against the current Bush tax cuts before they were implemented. Yet now they want us all to believe they DON"T want the plan they originally fought so hard against, to expire. You can believe they don't want higher taxes just like you could believe it when Obama said "I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
"I'll unite the people of this great country."
“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
Abstract01 posted at 9:08 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
Good description, Leon!
Once again tax cuts for the rich, and tax rates are not the problem.
The elephant in the room is GOVERNMENT SPENDING and the Senate refusing to participate in creating a budget--for 3 1/2 years!!!
PatrioticPerson posted at 11:22 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
For every $1 the goverenment takes in it spends $1.54 (based on the proposed 2012 budget). How long could a family or a business exist doing this? They would either have to get a better paying job (increase revenue) or cut back on spending.....or both! Or file bankrupcy. They cannot keep it up. The "Fiscal Cliff" might just be a good thing as it will force things to happen that the "elected officials" in Washington are affraid or not willing to do. The sad part is that both sides can point to the other side and say it is their fault.
Ateam1 posted at 11:23 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Obama without a doubt will go down as the worst president in the history of this great nation! His liberal "robin hood" approach to his Absolute FOOLISH spending is why we are in this predicament. Keep printing more money YOU LIBTARDS!!! It is like trying to drink yourselves sober.FOOLS!!!
openureyes posted at 11:56 am on Mon, Dec 31, 2012.
Mr. Hicks sure leaves out a lot so he can blame the president.
Yes, it was a compromise solution. Reached after a bi-partisan "Super Committee," or whatever they were called failed to reach an agreement a full year ago.
Everybody agreed to delay addressing the deficit issue until after the election, not just Republicans; because, Washington being what it is, everyone knew nothing meaningful would be accomplished.
And now, his contention is that Boehner was the only one acting responsibly by using his, actually our, limited time and resources on a fake proposal so Republicans can win "this contest"?
Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the FIscal Cliff, and whichever other parties are in DC. These grown adults, elected to serve their neighbors, and with a full year to work on it, could not come to an agreement in full view of the consequences? Stop taking sides - nobody's going to win.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:44 am on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
Well, it looks like Obama caved again.
But what else can we expect, given his history?
He allowed the Republicans to protect people below $400K income from tax increases.
The original proposal was $250 K.
The difference is HUGE.
There are relatively few people between $400K and 1 million and over, but a relative lot of people between 250 K and 400 K and just about every one of them votes Republican.
By shielding the people who make between 250 K and 400 K from a small tax increase, the Republicans drastically reduced the amount of revenue increase.
Obama is a traitor.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:41 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
"We?" "He?" "Obama?" Who did you say lost and who won?
Mitch McConnell's number one priority was to insure that the President was not relected. Clearly Mitch did not get what he wanted. Didn't the majority of the rest of the Republican legislators want this same thing? Why did they fail? They were stupid. They upset moderates and got them up off their lazy behinds. So Obama has McConnell to thank for that. And the Fiscal Cliff was a compromise between the two parties. Didn't both get what they wanted in that compromise? Clearly the compromise was all about the assumption that McConnell would win. And when he lost, in hind sight, the compromise was a blunder.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:42 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
Continued [the spam guard is out stalking again!]
However, take heart. The Senate just passed a deal increasing tax rates. The President is committed to choosing wisely spending cuts and even some entitlement reforms, as well as going on that hunting expedition to reduce rapidly rising healthcare costs [fraud abbounds]. Too bad we seem to be stearing away from Pentagon spending cuts. Too much pork in the Pentagon!
Bob, you think and move like a blind and deaf bat!
Dale Whiting posted at 12:43 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
Think I'll got fry up some turkey spam and have a sandwitch for New Years. The bowl games look disapointing.
bobunf posted at 5:13 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
truth (an ironic name?) wrote: "Almost 40 % of all Medicare spending, for example, is consumed by just 5 percent of recipients-mostly in the final week of life. "
This glib assertion is simply not true. The huge end-of-life spending myth is just nonsense.
FACTS:
1. According to the US Department of Human Services (DHS) National Health Expenditure Data, total mean per capita personal health care spending in the United States for 2004 was $4,652. The 2005 Period Life Table for the Social Security Area Population of the Social Security Online Actuarial Publications shows a life expectancy at birth of 77.3 years, which would yield a lifetime mean per capita personal health care expenditure of about $360,000.
2. According to the widely quoted 2008 report (e.g. New York Times, April 7, 2008) by the Dart-mouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice of Dartmouth University, “Tracking the Care of Patients with Severe Chronic Illness: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care,” Medicare spending per decedent during the last two years of life (deaths occurring in 2001 to 2005) was $52,838—about 15% of the $360,000 lifetime mean per capita personal health care expenditure.
GOT THAT? FIFTEEN PERCENT !
bobunf posted at 5:14 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
Some more FACTS:
3. “Personal health care spending” is about 85% of “total health care spending” (the rest accounted for by services of prevention and public health, capital investment, and insurance and health ad-ministration). Since these additional expenditures are unrelated to direct patient care, overall about 12½% of total health care spending occurs in the last two years of life.
GOT THAT? TWELVE AND A HALF PERCENT !
bobunf posted at 5:16 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
Some more FACTS:
4. Even this is a considerable overstatement since those aged 65 and over have a much higher rate of health care utilization than younger populations and about 83% of those in their last two years of life are 65 years of age or over. According to DHS mean per capita personal health care spending was $14,797 for those 65 years of age and older, or about $29,400 for a typical two year period. A person in their last two years of life will spend about $23,200 more on health care than the typical person aged 65 or over. This excess is less than 6% of total lifetime mean per capita health care expenditures.
GOT THAT? SIX PERCENT !!
bobunf posted at 5:20 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
Some more FACTS:
5. While medical spending in the last two years of life is in excess of the normal expenditures for people over 65 is 6% of national health care expenditures, it is even less for the last weeks or days of life. In any case, it would be hard to completely eliminate such expenditures since it is not known at the beginning of the two year period, that there really are only two years before death. It is not given to human beings to know when they will die.
GOT THAT?? LESS THAN SIX PERCENT !!!
openureyes posted at 3:19 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
Apples and oranges, bobunf.
I don't know that truth's numbers are accurate, but you're measuring Medicare spending over the last two years of life against total health care spending for the patient's life span (fact #1). Truth's numbers measure Medicare spending for people in their last two years of life against overall Medicare spending.