Obama: Americans agree with my approach on deficit
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) - An economic calamity looming, President Barack Obama on Friday signaled willingness to compromise with Republicans, declaring he was not "wedded to every detail" of his tax-and-spending approach to prevent deep and widespread pain in the new year. But he insisted his re-election gave him a mandate to raise taxes on wealthier Americans.
"The majority of Americans agree with my approach," said Obama, brimming with apparent confidence in his first White House statement since securing a second term.
Trouble is, the Republicans who run the House plainly do not agree with his plans. Speaker John Boehner insisted that raising tax rates as Obama wants "will destroy jobs in America."
So began the "fiscal cliff" political maneuvering that will determine which elected power center - the White House or the House - bends more on its promises to voters. The outcome will affect tens of millions of Americans, given that the tax hikes and budgets cuts set to kick in Jan. 1 could spike unemployment and bring on a new recession.
An exhausting presidential race barely history, Washington was back quickly to governing on deadline, with agreement on a crucial goal but divisions on how to get there. The campaign is over, but another has just begun.
The White House quickly turned Obama's comments into an appeal for public support, shipping around a video by email and telling Americans that "this debate can either stay trapped in Washington or you can make sure your friends and neighbors participate."
Obama invited the top four leaders of Congress to the White House next week for talks, right before he departs on a trip to Asia.
In laying their negotiating markers, all sides sought to leave themselves wiggle room.
"I don't want to box myself in. I don't want to box anybody else in," Boehner said at the Capitol.
Outside all the new the talk of openness, the same hard lines seemed in place.
Obama never expressly said that tax rates on top earners must return to the higher levels of the Bill Clinton era, leading to speculation that he was willing to soften the core position of his re-election campaign to get a grand debt deal with Republicans. "I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise," he said.
But his spokesman, Jay Carney, seemed to slam that door. He said Obama would veto any extension Congress might approve of tax cuts on incomes above $250,000.
Obama's remarks were choreographed so that a diverse-looking group of Americans stood behind him and dozens more were invited to pack the East Room. In the weeks ahead, he plans to pull in the public as a way to pressure Congress.
"I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me, making over $250,000, aren't asked to pay a dime more in taxes. I'm not going to do that," said Obama.
He said voters plainly agreed with his approach that both tax hikes and spending cuts are needed to cut the debt.
"Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people," Obama said.
About 60 percent of voters said in exit polls Tuesday that taxes should increase, either for everyone or those making over $250,000. Left unsaid by Obama was that even more voters opposed raising taxes to help cut the deficit.
The scheduled year-end changes, widely characterized as a dangerous "fiscal cliff," include a series of expiring tax cuts that were approved in the George W. Bush administration. The other half of the problem is a set of punitive across-the-board spending cuts, looming only because partisan panel of lawmakers failed to reach a debt deal.
Put together, they could mean the loss of roughly 3 million jobs.
Since the election, Boehner and Obama have both responded to the reality that they need each other.
Compromise has become mandatory if the two leaders are to avoid economic harm and the wrath of a public sick of government dysfunction.
Obama says he is willing to talk about changes to Medicare and Medicaid, earning him the ire of the left. Boehner says he will accept raising tax revenue and not just slashing spending, although he insists it must be done by reworking the tax code, not raising rates. The framework, at least, is there for a broad deal on taxes.
Yet the top Democrat and Republican in the nation are trying to put the squeeze on each other as the public waits for answers.
"This is his opportunity to lead," Boehner said of Obama, not long before the president said: "All we need is action from the House."
Obama said the uncertainty now spooking investors and employers will be shrunk if Congress extends - quickly - the tax cuts for all those except the most-well off.
The Senate has passed such a bill. The House showed no interest on Friday in Obama's idea.
Obama and Republicans have tangled over the Bush tax cuts for years. The president gave in to Republican demands to extend the cuts across the board in 2010, but he ran for re-election on a pledge to allow the rates to increase on families making more than $250,000 a year.
Also lurking is the expiration of the nation's debt limit in the coming weeks. The last fight on that nearly led the United States to default on its bills.
When asked if he would try to use that issue as leverage, Boehner said it must be addressed "sooner rather than later."
The national debt now stands above $16 trillion. The government borrowed about 31 cents of every dollar it spent in 2012.
"The majority of Americans agree with my approach," said Obama, brimming with apparent confidence in his first White House statement since securing a second term.
Trouble is, the Republicans who run the House plainly do not agree with his plans. Speaker John Boehner insisted that raising tax rates as Obama wants "will destroy jobs in America."
So began the "fiscal cliff" political maneuvering that will determine which elected power center - the White House or the House - bends more on its promises to voters. The outcome will affect tens of millions of Americans, given that the tax hikes and budgets cuts set to kick in Jan. 1 could spike unemployment and bring on a new recession.
An exhausting presidential race barely history, Washington was back quickly to governing on deadline, with agreement on a crucial goal but divisions on how to get there. The campaign is over, but another has just begun.
The White House quickly turned Obama's comments into an appeal for public support, shipping around a video by email and telling Americans that "this debate can either stay trapped in Washington or you can make sure your friends and neighbors participate."
Obama invited the top four leaders of Congress to the White House next week for talks, right before he departs on a trip to Asia.
In laying their negotiating markers, all sides sought to leave themselves wiggle room.
"I don't want to box myself in. I don't want to box anybody else in," Boehner said at the Capitol.
Outside all the new the talk of openness, the same hard lines seemed in place.
Obama never expressly said that tax rates on top earners must return to the higher levels of the Bill Clinton era, leading to speculation that he was willing to soften the core position of his re-election campaign to get a grand debt deal with Republicans. "I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise," he said.
But his spokesman, Jay Carney, seemed to slam that door. He said Obama would veto any extension Congress might approve of tax cuts on incomes above $250,000.
Obama's remarks were choreographed so that a diverse-looking group of Americans stood behind him and dozens more were invited to pack the East Room. In the weeks ahead, he plans to pull in the public as a way to pressure Congress.
"I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me, making over $250,000, aren't asked to pay a dime more in taxes. I'm not going to do that," said Obama.
He said voters plainly agreed with his approach that both tax hikes and spending cuts are needed to cut the debt.
"Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people," Obama said.
About 60 percent of voters said in exit polls Tuesday that taxes should increase, either for everyone or those making over $250,000. Left unsaid by Obama was that even more voters opposed raising taxes to help cut the deficit.
The scheduled year-end changes, widely characterized as a dangerous "fiscal cliff," include a series of expiring tax cuts that were approved in the George W. Bush administration. The other half of the problem is a set of punitive across-the-board spending cuts, looming only because partisan panel of lawmakers failed to reach a debt deal.
Put together, they could mean the loss of roughly 3 million jobs.
Since the election, Boehner and Obama have both responded to the reality that they need each other.
Compromise has become mandatory if the two leaders are to avoid economic harm and the wrath of a public sick of government dysfunction.
Obama says he is willing to talk about changes to Medicare and Medicaid, earning him the ire of the left. Boehner says he will accept raising tax revenue and not just slashing spending, although he insists it must be done by reworking the tax code, not raising rates. The framework, at least, is there for a broad deal on taxes.
Yet the top Democrat and Republican in the nation are trying to put the squeeze on each other as the public waits for answers.
"This is his opportunity to lead," Boehner said of Obama, not long before the president said: "All we need is action from the House."
Obama said the uncertainty now spooking investors and employers will be shrunk if Congress extends - quickly - the tax cuts for all those except the most-well off.
The Senate has passed such a bill. The House showed no interest on Friday in Obama's idea.
Obama and Republicans have tangled over the Bush tax cuts for years. The president gave in to Republican demands to extend the cuts across the board in 2010, but he ran for re-election on a pledge to allow the rates to increase on families making more than $250,000 a year.
Also lurking is the expiration of the nation's debt limit in the coming weeks. The last fight on that nearly led the United States to default on its bills.
When asked if he would try to use that issue as leverage, Boehner said it must be addressed "sooner rather than later."
The national debt now stands above $16 trillion. The government borrowed about 31 cents of every dollar it spent in 2012.
Not a chance in hell for this American!Â
Only the ones who want free stuff Obama. Otherwise your economic plan stinks!
Really is that why Texas is sending you a petition to Secede from the union along with 20 other states including Oregon?
Raise taxes on the rich, institute 0bamaCare, increase regulations on businesses, and keep borrowing and printing money.
Â
I just don't care anymore. Let's get this over with and just bankrupt the nation. Then we can get back to basics and rebuild based on sound financial foundation.
"The majority of Americans agree with my approach," said obozo.   Really, really doubtful. How long are you going to keep beating this dead horse?
"Americans agree with my approach on deficit."
Â
Not quite, 58,000,000 voters aren't on board with the President's approach. He keeps saying he has a mandate. Not with 48.5% of the country disagreeing.  He should have an olive branch or at least an acknowledgement that almost half of those who voted do not agree and that their concerns will be addressed.
Â
But, in the current state of society, to the victor go the spoils.
His approach is to give more to the deadbeats who voted him into office.  Kiss off obama, I am an American and I don't agree with you on anything.  Why?  Because I don't like traitors, dictator wannabes and arrogant idiots like you.  You may have fooled the  losers in this country, but the rest of us are smart enough to know a con artist when we see one.
Nobody gets cooperation by making demands of the other side! If Obama wants cooperation, perhaps he should try cooperating with others instead of demanding things be done his way. My guess is that if he continues on his path of demands, he will get no more cooperation than he did in his last term.
More cooperation? He should try to cooperate really? Where have you been. Llook at how many filibusters by the pubes compared the filibusters for to bush or clinton. Remember the " We are going to make sure his a one term president" comment?
Â
Â
"To say that the Republicans in the U.S. Senate are engaging in an unconstitutional abuse of power by blocking virtually all legislation proposed by either the Obama administration or the Democratic majority in Congress is not just political grandstanding. Nearly 300 bills that have passed in the House since the current 111th Congress took office 14 months ago have been blocked in the Senate by Republican filibusters. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the minority party in the Senate any authority to hold these bills hostage by forcing a 60-vote âsuper majority.â (Chart courtesy McClatchy Newspapers)" catch freedomnot
Â
 @usa2swimpattycrabby I agree there have been a large number of filibusters. However I challenge you to show in the Constitution where it says it's not legal (unconstitutional). Because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional.Â
 @usa2swimpattycrabby So the democrats refusing to acknowledge the republicans in regards to cutting spending in order to help with negotiating an agreement on our debt as well as completely ignoring republicans with their concerns on Obamacare was perfectly alright because it was the other way around?  Welcome to the world of the pot calling the kettle black. Â
 @usa2swimpattycrabby In your post you used a quote calling it unconstitutional. That is what I was addressing. Read the quote you posted before denying it.
FREEDOM STATES THAT OBAMA SHOULD COOPERATE MORE AND NOT MAKE DEMANDS. . My point has nothing to do with whether its constitutional or not. My point is that THERE ALMOST NO COOPERATION FROM THE REPUBLICONS ON ANYTHING. I simply showed him how wrong he is
This comment has been deleted
 @wahoo Yep, obozo cleaned it up all right.  Since he couldn't or wouldn't do it in the first 4, what makes you think he will do it in this 4?
The bush era tax cuts didn't improve the economy as expected. The test is over, its time to raise taxes and pay down the debt.
 @CorporateCowMoo Raising taxes if fine if you get spending and entitlements under control.  The issue is that everybody wants to raise taxes but fails to actually show how they will get spending under control.  Obama showed in the first 4 years that he did not know how to actually control entitlement spending, what makes you think he is going to figure it out this time around?  Remember, he is the one who said if he didn't get this stuff fixed in his first 4 years that he should not be given another 4 years....well he didnt, but he sure as heck got another 4 years.  I just hope he truly understands the situation and actually wants to fix it and get it under control in a bi-partisan way, not just the democrat way
This comment has been deleted
 @Salmon Breath Blaming our economic problems wholly on Republicans, alleging that watching Fox News shortens the lifetime of their viewers and presenting rank speculation (that Romney would have "sold out America" as fact are strong indications that you are extremely partisan and lack objectivity.
So a tiny fraction above 50% (for some strange reason) put you back in office. But was it for your lame class warfare mantra?
I mean, think about it, you could confiscate 100% of the millionaires money in this country and not make a scratch in our debt. All increasing taxes does is hurt.
Old saying..."I never got a paycheck from a poor person".
I for all the rich people we can make in this country. Makes the odds better that I'll be rich too.
Â
Many who lament the unfairness that wealthy Americans often pay less tax as a percentage of their income than do middle-class Americans. On its face, it doesn't seem fair that the wealthy would pay less. How did this happen? It has to do with capital gains (say, selling a stock for more money than you bought it for) versus earned income (say, like a paycheck for a job.) In the past, Congress wanted to encourage people to put their money "to work" investing in the economy and they did this by taxing investment gains at a lower rate to give people a greater economic incentive to invest. The theory was that the amount of money lost to the government in tax collections would be more than made up by the increase in business driven by these investments. Did it work? Only partially. These investments did create more business and more jobs but the problem is that many of these investments were not made in the United States and were generating economic activity in other countries. One possibile solution is to do away with the special low tax rate for investment income and simply require that investment income be taxed at the same rate as earned income (which is taxed so that higher earners pay a higher percentage.) Another option that might make more sense is to retain the favorable tax treatment for investment income but the only investments eligible for this special treatment would be investments entirely within the USA. My question to any accountants and/or tax attorneys out there is this: Is there a relatively simple way to create a verification system for this conditional investment income tax rate? Is it feasible or would their be too many legal, accounting and logistical problems to make such a system work?
Sorry this is long but I see most of the readers do not follow links.
The Washington Times
Â
 Llist of companies that will be laying off employees as a result of President Barack Obama's health care law:
Â
Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Â
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Â
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Â
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.
Â
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Â
Others
A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:
Â
Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs Covidien - 595 layoffs Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs Hill Rom - 200 layoffs Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers, whose numbers will reach into the millions to avoid Obamacare TAX. Can't have both an employee and Obama care.
Â
In many many places that layoffs are planned (Boeing anyone?), and that many small business are closing up shop.
@erudite You get your information from the "World Net Daily" what a joke. Boeing isn't laying anyone off in there commercial division if you have an education they are hiring.Most of the folks that are getting laid off from Mil. side most of those will be transfered or offered an early retirement they are union.That's where smart folks work. I retired from there at 58
More of us should take Lousianas lead " Louisiana residents petition to secede"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..."
@erudite The price of shrimp goes up along with alligator boots. Move there get one of those oil rigs.
@Salmon Breath   How nice for you. The elite workforce of Unions. One reason we are crashing in our economy. Business can't compete with the cost of hiring employee's for the production they get. Prime reason for outsourcing. Thank You.
Â
FYI: As for sources, I cruise all sides of the gambet including the most libral, but this news about Boeing was also in the New York Times, and on yahoo business.
 @erudite While I am not a fan of President Obama and I will continue to oppose his policies when I believe them to be in error, I'm not convinced that we are anywhere near the point at which revolution or dissolution of our union is necessary. Might your comment be overstating your case?
@mikew Well when you have 25 states who sued and have said they will not cooprorate with ObamaCare, 7 States already talking Seceding and Lousiana leading the trend by rounding up petitions, I think there may be a decidedly butting of heads or more to come.
'Trouble is, the Republicans who run the House plainly do not agree with his plans. Speaker John Boehner insisted that raising tax rates as Obama wants "will destroy jobs in America."'
Â
No, the trouble is that there has never been a connection between tax cuts for the rich and job creation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html
 @Max Quinn I guess the world looks pretty simple when your only information sources are the Huffington Post, the NY Times, or maybe some MSNBC. The answer is always a tax increase, isn't it?
 @nostromo Did the Huffington Post make up the story about the Congressional Research Service report that finds no link between low taxes for the rich and job growth? No, they didn't. However, because you hide in the conservative news vacuum, you never heard about the report - it doesn't fit your ideology.
 @Max QuinnÂ
 Thank goodness someone is in there to help stop the madness. Obama will probably just go behind all our backs while the Supremes and Congress look the other way, and continue to abuse his EO priviliages some more. He already has set the record for the most ever by any President. Who will stop him?
 @erudite  @Max Quinn Sigh. For someone who's erudite, you might want to get your facts right: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/
Â
"Obama has not issued 900 executive orders. He has signed slightly fewer orders than President George W. Bush during this point in his first term, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which tracks executive orders. Obama has issued 139 executive orders as of Sept. 25. (The U.C. website listed 138 orders on Sept. 25, the same day Obama signed order 139). Bush issued 160 executive orders through Sept. 20, 2004, a comparable amount of time."
@erudite
Ah, the Heritage Foundation.... From the article I pointed to:
Â
'Obamaâs use of executive power is not unprecedented compared with previous presidents, however. George W. Bush signed several controversial âsigning statementsâ that claimed he had the power to disregard certain provisions of a law, a presidential action that historians trace back to James Monroe.... Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote to us in an email that Obama âdoes not hesitate to use executive authority, but he is well within the mainstream of his modern predecessors.â'
@Max Quinn My information came from the Heritage Foundation to date of election week. None of Bush's EO's were in direct conflict with Congress nor were they done in order to bypass protocal channels, or to promote personal beliefs over the wishes of the majority, including war, and then amnesty to reward those who defied our laws, raped our benefit and medical programs while they flooded our schools and took our jobs. This is not something that should be decided by the President, but he abused his EO authority right after it was voted DOWN in Congress in defiance.
Hey did you guys know Obama won? Obama won, Obama won, Obama won, Obama won, Obama won, Obama won. yep it feels so good,. I mean really, really good. And robme, faded, so much for his convictions. He only believed what was coming out of his mouth until they told him something else to say. No, I work with the president to change this or that-just faded. That's how heart felt that was.  Hopefully never to be heard from again. The repub party is soul searching. However since they don't really have a soul, robots never do, they are going to have a long search. Maybe they can become boyscout troop leaders! But like they say, Hey did you guys know Obama won, ya Obama won, Obama won, Obama won. lol Â
He was never, and still isn't qualified to be President, ergo, he is NOT the President of the United States! I believe that massive voter fraud was involved
 @usa2swimpattycrabby Didn't your parents ever teach you how to be a graceful winner?
 @usa2swimpattycrabby Okay... honestly what??Â
 @usa2swimpattycrabby Yes, we know Obama won, and America lost. It's pretty funny to hear a liberal parrot call someone else a robot. You sound like you've memorized the whole line. Good job! Polly want a welfare check!? Polly want a food stamp!? We're all very proud you dragged yourself out of mom's basement to vote for the invertebrate-in-chief. Didn't take much to buy your vote, did it?
@usa2swimpattycrabby ..........how gracious of you !
"Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country........ President John F. Kennedy.
@Rob C 503 ...Now Obama has made JFK turn over in his grave, Obama has re-worded it for the southern-border folks...".Ask not what you can do for this country...ask what this country can do for you" ....be-careful what you ask for America...
@shadowwalker .........that's for sure.
worst president ever!!!!!!!!
@franksbeans ....Obama wanted America to become like Europe....now his wish has come true...health care....same sex marriage....next PETA will get their chance to put marring animals on the next ballet!
Balanced approach is the only way to pay the debt down. Cut programs and rise taxes, the Bush tax cuts were temporary ....say it with me temporary
Now that you elected for a 2nd term, that dont mean we agree with everything you do, or we the people would not of had elected a Republican house.......So Barry lets simplify something we can ALL agree on ok....here it is...
Â
Salary of retired US Presidents = $450,000.00 A YEAR FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members = $174,000.00 A YEAR FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House = $223,500.00 A YEAR FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders = $194,400.00 A YEAR FOR LIFE
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGANISTAN = $38,000 a year
Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY = $12,000 per year
Â
SO you see, I think we found we found where the cuts should be made!
@shadowwalker You forgot to mention they have Medical, Dental ancd vision insurance, the best money can buy, and they are EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE.
Ya so you tell boner that you're going to cut his salary. I want to watch that
 @usa2swimpattycrabby Do you think that referring to Mr. Boehner as "boner" contributes or detracts from your post?
 @usa2swimpattycrabby We should ask Obama to give up his salary since he already gets free food, housing, transportation etc.
 @usa2swimpattycrabby Why is your juvenile reference to Republicans as "pubes" necessary? Do you think it is useful in some way? It seems to detract from your credibility. Is that what you were trying to do?
Ya jamie, surprised no one else has thought of that. And you're one of those people (pube) who would also cut the salary of the soldiers too right. Yep a true pube
 @shadowwalker The American people elected a Republican House because of gerrymandering.  If you looked at the actual votes, Democratic candidates for the House received 53,952, 240  and Republicans received 53,402,643 votes.  Democratic candidates got more votes!  If the House was truly representative and hadn't been gamed by the GOP there would also be a Democratic majority in the House.
 @blotto Gerrymandering has been going on since the beginning and it's very much a bipartisan exercise in corruption. "Blue" states have more Democratic Representatives in the House than the proportion of Democrats in the state would justify. The same is true in "Red" states in reverse.
Your analysis also assumes that everyone registered with a party votes a straight partisan ticket, which just isn't the case. Individual candidates do matter. If the candidate of one's party is awful and the candidate from the "opposing" party is better qualified, more moderate, more honest, etc., voters can and do vote for candidates with the other party.
To assume 100% partisanship and to blame all Gerrymandering on one party leads to a grossly simplistic - and inaccurate - analysis.
@blotto @shadowwalker ....lets see now as I recall Obama had a demo house when he took office, and still didnt do anything.....If this time is to be different, progressive Democrats must start mobilizing their own agenda now. And the first step is to face the truth about the record of the president we have just re-elected
 @shadowwalker  @blotto Obama had a Democratic House and a Senate that wouldn't/couldn't stand up to a Republican filibuster.  I think Obama actually tried to be bipartisan and bring Republicans along.  Take health care reform.  Liberals wanted single payer.  Republicans had previously pushed a plan much like what we ended up with.  Obama compromised to give us the Republican plan even w/o Republican votes.  I had more hope in the first term than I have now,Â
Â
I don't know how many progressive Democrats there really are. Â They all have to take too much money from corporations. Â This last election is certainly not reassuring to those of us who wish to remove corporate money from elections.