GOP senator: It's fair to put idea of raising revenues on table as part of fiscal cliff talks

  • Article by: Associated Press
  • Updated: November 25, 2012 - 1:41 PM
  • 40
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
roymercerNov. 25, 1211:58 AM

Lindsey Graham is a "Republican" of the Arne Carlson variety. Why is the GOP too damn stupid to recognize that they should be bargaining from a position power right now. They act as if Dems have the power when in fact the Dems have everything to lose.

4
62
comment229Nov. 25, 1212:38 PM

I think someone should check with Arne before making that comment and while you're at it, Arne is from the old republican party. I have no idea what the current republican party stands for, but I hope Obama stands his ground. I know a lot of people who welcome the fall over that cliff as a way to start our way back to a balanced budget. Something has to happen, and if you are depending on congress to do it, you are fooling yourself.

34
3
tooty123Nov. 25, 12 1:01 PM

Graham is willing to put taxes on the table, BUT there are attachments to his willingness. What does he mean by "entitlements?" Caps on deductions? Reagan already did an elimination of deductions! The tax rate needs to increase, especially on unearned income. 15% is not even an amount that is even reasonable.

33
2
probsolverNov. 25, 12 1:59 PM

Of course it's on the table. Everything is on the table. To say otherwise is to be an ideologue that is more concerned with winning than the financial stability of our country.

23
0
hawkeye56379Nov. 25, 12 2:34 PM

Position of power? If Congress deadlocks in the lame duck session, then all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Then, in January, the Democrats can force a vote on new tax cuts for all except for those over $250,000 in income. Would Republicans dare to vote against tax cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers? That doesn't sound much like being in a position of power.

40
3
chuckdancerNov. 25, 12 2:58 PM

The lower rate was never intended to be permanent. The lower rate was given an expiration date and the cost of the action was thus minimized for public consumption. If these guys want to pay games, over the cliff we go; as agreed.

25
0
maypowNov. 25, 12 3:20 PM

First off....social security is not a benefit program, for those that have paid into the program. There are two types of Social Security: RSDI which is what employees and emloyers pay into, which creates the fund that should be used to keep those payees afloat when they can no longer work. This is not a benefit program as the people getting the meager payments paid them in. SSI: shortly, federal welfare that is given to elderly foreigners, etc. Ones that have not paid into the regular fund. I did say only two, but there is another type, the one that should take the first "entitlement" cut....Congress...whether they do something or do nothing (which is all they have done for eons) they get a good pay, great time off (more than some top execs, and more than all workers combined), great pension pay (even after one term), lifetime health care, to name a few... Yet, I have not heard one, not one, person in the US House and/or Senate talk about cutting their "entitlements". I call them entitlements, because they ARE!!!! So to Congress...TALK THE TALK, BUT WALK THE WALK" and back it up by looking in the mirror. Take no salary (since most of you are millionaires that should be no problem), give up your health care (again your net worth), Campaign on your "PTO" not on the taxpayer dime and finally, give up life-long pensions that are not based on time in office, just based on "I got elected" first day on the job now I get a lifetime pension. So where should the cut in "entitlements" start?

34
0
roymercerNov. 25, 12 3:58 PM

Americans exhaust their contributions to Social Security within 7 years of retirement, then it effectively reverts to a welfare program where reserves are insufficient. No one likes hearing this, but then the truth isn't in fashion today. Nor is reality.

8
31
jpcooperNov. 25, 12 4:13 PM

haweye5379 " Then, in January, the Democrats can force a vote on new tax cuts for all except for those over $250,000 in income

Just how could the Democrats force this vote?.. Boehner does not have let any bill in House go up for a vote, just like Reid did not let a budget Bill go up for a vote in the Senate

5
19
jpcooperNov. 25, 12 4:15 PM

"GOP senator: It's fair to put idea of raising revenues on table as part of fiscal cliff talks"

Its also fair to talk about spending, entitlement spending, Foreign aid spending Military spending, "Green Jobs" spending, Department of Education Spending. and Budgets or the lack thereof.....

9
9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT