In his first formal press conference in months, Barack Obama showed that getting re-elected can increase a president's confidence and combativeness. He staked out tough stands on several issues, especially on the looming budget negotiations.
The Congressional Budget Office released their analysis of the group of deficit-fighting policies known as the "fiscal cliff." The top-line analysis: completely averting the contraction that would occur in 2013 and 2014 would cost $1.16 trillion - entirely deficit-financed.
Before the election ballots were fully counted last week, equity markets were sending President Obama a blunt vote of no confidence. Forget all the political pundits who were heralding his narrow popular vote victory as a mandate for his soak-the-rich tax agenda. The sour message from the investment community that fuels our economy spoke volumes about a fundamentally status quo election.
"Now Gov. Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he'd double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place." -- President Obama in an ad released Sept. 27.
There was a time when Democrats and Republicans alike could talk sense about tax rates, in terms of what is best for the economy, without demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich."
Despite all the posing and polarization of recent weeks, everyone in Washington knows that Republicans and Democrats will reach some big agreement on tax rates within the next four or five months. So if compromise is ultimately inevitable, why wouldn’t President Obama take the lead in brokering that deal before the election, grabbing credit for averting disaster and saving the country from plunging over the dreaded “fiscal cliff”?
If you listen to America's political hacks, mainstream media talking heads and their socialist allies, you can't help but reach the conclusion that the nation's tax burden is borne by the poor and middleclass while the rich get off scot-free.
In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.
Boehner is aggressively taking on President Obama's leadership ineptitude on the economy.
Obama is shrewdly characterizing the recession in a way that breeds resentment towards the wealthy, diverting dissatisfaction away from himself. Most of his recent speeches include assertions that there are a few Americans getting rich, while everyone else is suffering.
An election-minded Congress defused the Social Security payroll tax cut issue last week, but a much more politically lethal time bomb is set to go off at the end of the year.
Forgive Republican candidate Mitt Romney for his alleged failure to adequately explain why he paid "only" 14 percent of his income in taxes.
You’ve got to hand it to Mitt Romney (and his acolytes). At the very least he’s a Republican trailblazer.
“Tax breaks for the wealthy!”
Ten years after President George W. Bush cut income tax rates, his decision still remains at the epicenter of debate over future economic policy.