Obama's Offer to Resolve 'Cliff' Is ‘Sucker’s Game'

[petegz28]

President Obama's proposal to extend the middle-class tax cuts before reforming the tax code and entitlements is a "sucker's game," billionaire investor Wilbur Ross told CNBC Thursday.

The trade-off the president proposed is not a trade-off," Ross said on “Squawk Box”. "To say give me what I want, which is the middle-class relief, and I'll give you a framework for negotiations, that's a sucker's game.”

In a press conference on Wednesday, Obama called for an immediate extension of the Bush-era tax cuts on all but the wealthiest Americans to avoid the "fiscal cliff." He added that he'd be willing to negotiate other big issues like tax and entitlement reform at a later date.

The fiscal cliff refers to the more than $600 billion in automatic spending cuts and tax increases that would take effect on Jan. 1 unless Congress acts to bring down the deficit.

Ross said that what’s being obscured in the fiscal cliff debate is not that the country is under taxed, it’s that it is spending too much.

“The whole focus is on revenues,” he noted. “You can't solve the bulk of the problem with revenues. It’s not going to happen.”

Moreover, the debate on spending isn't about actual cuts but about reducing the rate of spending growth, Ross added.

Ross also said that the market's continued decline suggests investors are trying to get out before taxes go up next year.

"I think part of the market weakness you are seeing is lots of investors saying, 'This may be my last chance to sell things at the lower capital gains rate,' ” he said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49839557

[petegz28]

This is what worries me about this whole gig. We are being presented with the typical "you give us more money now and we promise we'll talk about maybe cutting spending later"

[mlyonsd]

Obama's entire mantra is a suckers game.

Congrats lefties, he'll retire a rich man and you fed Michele caviar for the rest of her life.

[HonestChieffan]

Wait till reality sets in. The middle class, retired people, an most from 40 grand up are about to take it in the ass. Job market will crater further and all these newly minted college grads will be sacking groceries at Hyvee. Elections have consequences

[alnorth]

The republicans spat on a far, far, far, far better deal last year than what they are likely going to get now.

The idiotic tea party decided to gamble on beating Obama and rolled snake-eyes while simultaneously losing 2 more senate seats. They now have zero leverage.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The republicans spat on a far, far, far, far better deal last year than what they are likely going to get now.

The idiotic tea party decided to gamble on beating Obama and rolled snake-eyes while simultaneously losing 2 more senate seats. They now have zero leverage.

They have plenty of leverage to lever us right over the cliff. And I hope to God they do it.

We need an economic forest fire. If we don't let it burn and regrow, it'll only be worse later. Far worse.

[FD]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The republicans spat on a far, far, far, far better deal last year than what they are likely going to get now.

The idiotic tea party decided to gamble on beating Obama and rolled snake-eyes while simultaneously losing 2 more senate seats. They now have zero leverage.

Yep. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time and its unfolded just as I feared. Obama has all the leverage, Boehner should have taken that deal last year while he had it.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The republicans spat on a far, far, far, far better deal last year than what they are likely going to get now.

The idiotic tea party decided to gamble on beating Obama and rolled snake-eyes while simultaneously losing 2 more senate seats. They now have zero leverage.

So you approve of the "pay me now and I'll make you a promise for tomorrow" tactic?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

So you approve of the "pay me now and I'll make you a promise for tomorrow" tactic?

Considering the last 2 years, do you not feel that some good faith needs to be established by the HOR? There are ways to craft a bill that will allow for specific time frames to negotiate spending.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The republicans spat on a far, far, far, far better deal last year than what they are likely going to get now.

The idiotic tea party decided to gamble on beating Obama and rolled snake-eyes while simultaneously losing 2 more senate seats. They now have zero leverage.

They actually don't have zero leverage. That's only if they think like this. Revenue bills originate in the House—not in the Senate, for good reason. It's the people's house because they have to foot the bill.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FD

Yep. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time and its unfolded just as I feared. Obama has all the leverage, Boehner should have taken that deal last year while he had it.

Obama does not have "all" the leverage. This is just perception encouraged by the media. He has no Constitutional authority to craft a budget and make the House approve it. This idea stems from the idea that we have one man govt or a dictator. There once was a time when few knew who the president was because he played a minimal role. We should go back to that and enforce the Constitution. It's precisely because we don't follow the Constitution we're having so many of these problems. A divided govt is good for the country.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Considering the last 2 years, do you not feel that some good faith needs to be established by the HOR? There are ways to craft a bill that will allow for specific time frames to negotiate spending.

I said then and I will say now...no tax hikes for anyone without spending cuts at the same time. My fear then as it is now is we see taxes go up and get a promise the Gov will do their part later.

I am tired of the "**** me now and promise you won't **** me again later" attitude.

[BucEyedPea]

Folks, in some ways Obama winning has some blessings in it for the simple reason Romney would have probably done close to the same thing. This way, Obama will get the blame when things get worse. It's important that be seen.

[jiveturkey]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I said then and I will say now...no tax hikes for anyone without spending cuts at the same time. My fear then as it is now is we see taxes go up and get a promise the Gov will do their part later.

I am tired of the "**** me now and promise you won't **** me again later" attitude.

Weren't they offered a 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 deal (cuts to taxes increases)?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Folks, in some ways Obama winning has some blessings in it for the simple reason Romney would have probably done close to the same thing. This way, Obama will get the blame when things get worse. It's important that be seen.

No he won’t. The MSM won’t let that happen to their guy.