Shared publicly  - 
"When it comes to the fiscal cliff that is threatening our economy and threatening jobs, the White House has wasted another week. ... Instead of reforming the tax code and cutting spending, the president wants to raise tax rates. But even if the president got the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. Listen, Washington’s got a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”
Mark Herndon's profile photojim bova Bova's profile photoObama Failed America's profile photoThomas Summers's profile photo
Typical Stall tactics to blame the GOP for going off the cliff. DOG AND PONY SHOW! 
There is no fiscal cliff only opportunities for the USA to impose reasonable export tarrifs on natural gas exports. Those revenues should be assigned for US debt pay off only no other reasons.
the problem is , its a win win for obama, the Republicans are going to take the hit on this either way. Better to be seen doing something than just sitting on your hands saying no
Mr. Boehner it is a shame you have to deal with JOB SCARED INDIVIDUALS, when it comes to America's well being STAY WITH IT DON'T GIVE UP

THANK YOU Jim Bova the G.O.P. GUY
Let the mandatory spending cuts take effect please and let the rates go back to pre bush jr levels. Then please start work on cutting another $5 trillion of spending off the next 10 years. Please don't let obailout, reid, and pelosi guilt trip spend this nation into bankruptcy.
Yesterday didn't see a solution to the "fiscal cliff.
What we saw was an artificially manufactured crisis that ensured the administration got its way with taxes while pretending to save the American middle class it is actively destroying.
Obama used the divide between "moderates" and conservatives extremely well.  His divide and conquer tactics so effectively he got his way and will probably get his way on the debt limit as well.
So much for political expediency.

Read more: 
Cuts? That ball is in your court, Mr. Speaker! Name your cuts and propose them to the public and the President. We want to see what you think will be the beneficial cuts for the economy. My guess is that you prefer a failing economy and that is why you want to go the way of European austerity, which has failed miserably. Any economist or thoughtful person can see the flawed logic.  
John Boehner!!  Please hold down the fort what's left of it. Let the the budget go off the cliff, then let Obama explane to the public how he intended to pay for the first 4 years. Then we'll talk about his next spending party
Thank You
Jim Bova

+John Boehner 
Governors consider Inhofe’s sequester plan
is their states braced themselves for the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts known as sequestration that will take effect March 1, several of the nation’s governors voiced interest this weekend over the alternative plan to sequestration offered by Oklahoma’s Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe that Human Events first reported Thursday.

While many of the state’s chief executives here in Washington for the National Governors Association meeting had only heard of it and were not familiar with the details, most of those who we spoke to expressed positive opinions about the Inhofe plan: to move responsibility for choosing specific defense cuts into the hands of the leaders of the five services and letting them determine precisely where the cuts will take place.

“I have not read the plan in detail yet, but I would like to see it,” Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, a close ally of Inhofe and vice chairman of the NGA, told us. “Anything that would offer some kind of alternative to [the across-the-board cuts] in sequestration I would certainly consider.”

For Fallin and Inhofe, sequestration is a particularly sensitive issue. With five major military sites in Oklahoma, the Sooner State is very likely to experience particularly strong cuts. A recent article by former Federal Aviation Administration head and present Aerospace Industries Association CEO Marion Blakey estimated sequestration would cost Oklahoma nearly 16,000 jobs.

Mississippi’s GOP Gov. Phil Bryant was even stronger in his sentiments, telling us: “If you’ve got to make those cuts, let the service chiefs have wide latitude. When you are talking about a threat to national security and something that would cost jobs, this [sequestration] should never be happening. But I would love to see the details of [Inhofe’s] plan.”

Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker has also not seen the plan, but did volunteer that “we as governors are always asking for flexibility in doing things. So I can see the parallels here. It would make sense to give the service chiefs flexibility if Washington can’t come up with an alternative to sequestration.”

“It’s a very interesting prospect and it sounds good,” said Kansas’ Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who previously served in the Senate with Inhofe. “Jim Inhofe is on the Armed Services Committee and certainly knows what he’s talking about. We certainly shouldn’t be having across-the-board cuts to our armed forces.”

There are always second opinions, of course. When Human Events talked to California’s Gov. Jerry Brown—who is deeply concerned about the toll sequestration will take on his state’s Air National Guard—he deadpanned: “I haven’t read his plan yet, but Sen. Inhofe is the one who is so skeptical about climate change. So perhaps I’m skeptical about his plan.”
During his administration, the President and Democrats have cut over three Trillion in spending. The President compromised on the recent return to the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy moving from income over $200, 000 a year to incomes over $400.000 a year, a concession of a lot of revenue on a tax rate that should have expired 2 years ago. The problem with the upper end of the top 1% is that they take advantage of loopholes that don't exist for the average person and some, even under the lower Bush rate of 36-37%, many did not pay any income tax and without closing loopholes the revenue from the return to Clinton era on the top earners will not be, for most based on that statutory percentage, rather much less. In all the dealings these past years revenue is increasing only by a few billion while Trillions in cuts have been made. The people and the President want fairness here and that means that revenue is not finished until the top tax rate is maintained by the President's proposed closure of the loop holes. Without such, there will be very little revenue in the pot from the Republicans and Boehner knows this. All economists agree that the best approach to the deficit is a robust economy, requiring job creation at a just a liveable wage. The immediate problem is the fragile recovery, which would be more robust had we done more to infuse spending in the fragile areas of the national infrastructure. Such investment at the current interest rate would bring in at least a three fold return on  the dollar paying for itself and (the borrowed money) and further paying down the deficit. The only job plans from the House have been tax cut proposals for individuals and corporations that assume they will invest in jobs. If the strategy worked, Bush would have had the strongest economy in recent history. In a fragile economy coming out of and trying to avoid recession or worse, austerity cuts are the worse possible solution, for they are not a solution. It crates job loss, slows or stops spending, and leads to recession, loss of GDP and possibly recession that hurts the vast majority of the country. Wealth will continue to sit on their growing profits for a while, but as markets tumble and market demand diminishes they will too begin to see the effects, though none will no the poverty that many middle class people will be thrust into. We have living experimental data. European countries tried austerity and it created double dip recession and depression in some countries with unemployment in Spain at over 20%. Some "Tea Party" conservatives believe this economic strategy, most are not well educated and fail to understand economic reality, though a short survey of 20th century economic history would prove the point. Others hold onto ideology over data and many in office want the economy to fail under this president our of personal spite for the man and what it might mean if a Democrat, as Clinton did, presided over and produced policies that led to a strong economy. It should be noted, that when one raises taxes on the wealthiest, it is personal income tax. These people do not use their personal capital to finance their companies, grow their companies or create jobs. In fact, many work in a financial industry that creates few jobs in the first place. Mitt Romney did not invest a penny of personal money into Bane Capital. Republicans have placed politics above the National economic interest, National security, functional government and global respect of our system. Shame especially is a fitting "emotion" for Mr. Boehner. The emperor has no clothes and no heart for the country. If he wishes to shed tears in public let them be tears of remorse and repentance for what he has and is doing and what he fails to do.  
Add a comment...