House Speaker John Boehner told the Republican caucus today why his talks with President Obama broke down. A big part of it is that President Obama wants to make taxes more progressive, meaning the rich would pay more. Mr. Boehner is more in line with Senator Orrin Hatch, who says folks on the bottom don't pay enough.
From Mr. Boehner's remarks, as reported by NBC's Luke Russert:
"I wanted tax reform that broadens the base, simplifies the code, and lowers rates, to boost economic growth. The president could not accept that because he wanted to increase the 'progressivity' of the current system. This is where things began to break down."
The full text is after the jump. Above, a Reuters chart by way of Felix Salmon -- note the employment tax, which is paid by anyone who has a job at even a very low wage. People who don't owe federal income tax still typically pay a range of others like a sales tax or the Social Security tax. Below, a chart from Citizens for Tax Justice, by way of Ezra Klein.
Speaker Boehner's full address to the House Republican Caucus, as reported by NBC:
"You all saw Friday's jobs report, and you know our economy is struggling to create jobs. On top of that, we face a crushing burden of debt - driven by out of control government spending. In three decades - our debt will grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy. We've had high levels of debt before - including WWII - but those were temporary increases in the size of government. The trajectory today is catastrophic. There is no way our economy can sustain this explosive growth of government.
"We also have a tax code that is making our country less competitive. We can't solve our budget challenges unless we address the growth of our entitlements, specifically our health care entitlements.
"These problems are caused by government. They're hurting our future, and hurting our ability to create jobs. I came here because I wanted to address problems like this. So did you. All of us did. Unfortunately, we have a White House that doesn't share our seriousness about dealing with these problems.
"Over the past couple weeks I engaged the president in a conversation directly about the possibility of an agreement that would tackle all of these problems. This would be an agreement built on the solid work done by the Biden group, negotiated by Leader Cantor. I pushed the president to go even further, and lock arms with us and make structural reforms to all three entitlement programs. The president said he was willing to talk about it. He said he was willing to talk about reforming Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid -- but in order to talk about that, he had a list of tax increases that would have to be a part of it. I told the president that tax hikes were off the table, but we could talk about tax reform -- because comprehensive tax reform could generate additional revenue through economic growth. He was willing to talk about corporate tax reform. I told him we have to talk about personal AND corporate tax reform, because if you don't do both, you leave out the small businesses who often pay at the personal rate, and therefore would be at a disadvantage. He then asked for a 10-year revenue number. I said it should be no more than 19% of GDP - about the same level as the House-passed budget. . .with fewer tax rates and a top rate less than it is today. He said he that to go there, we would have to make permanent the bottom four Bush tax rates. I said I could only talk about that if there was a guarantee that tax reform with three personal rates -- and a top rate lower than the current rate -- would be enacted by the first quarter of next year. This would guarantee the decoupling would be an irrelevant political statement because a new code would be in place before the scheduled tax hikes could take effect. I wanted tax reform that broadens the base, simplifies the code, and lowers rates, to boost economic growth. The president could not accept that because he wanted to increase the 'progressivity' of the current system. This is where things began to break down. And this is where there's been some confusion.
"Let me be crystal clear on this: at no time, ever, during this discussion did I agree to let taxes go up. I haven't spent 20 years here fighting tax increases just to throw it all away in one moment. What I did do was lay out the conditions that would be necessary to make sure there would be no tax hikes. As the week went on, it became clear that the president wouldn't accept those conditions. It became clear that they weren't serious about structural reforms to the entitlement programs. It became clear that they would only do entitlement reform if it came along with tax HIKES. It became clear that their vision of tax reform was to maintain many of the current code's flawed features. That's when I walked away.
"Am I angry about it? I sure as hell am. I believe we are missing a great opportunity. We all know the problems we face as a nation. We've acted with courage this year, passing a budget that begins to address them. At the White House yesterday, when the president talked about 'shared sacrifices,' I noted that our members weren't exactly doing cartwheels over daring to make reforms to Social Security and Medicare. The president said Republicans had already voted to do that. My response: 'Well excuse us for trying to lead, Mr. President.'
"The agreement we talked about is no longer operative -- not because we weren't willing to lead, but because the White House wasn't willing to listen to the American people. Like it or not, though, we still have to do something about the debt limit. In a few moments, the Majority Leader is going to show you the options that have been discussed in our meetings the last few days. As you know, we've planted three 'stakes' in the ground:
· Cuts must be larger than the hike
· There must be restraints on future spending
· There cannot be any tax hikes.
"These are the stakes, and they've always been the stakes. And I want to be clear about something else: I support a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we're going to fight for one. Any debt limit bill we pass will have to include enforceable caps on future spending -- and I can't think of any better way to enforce those caps than a constitutional amendment requiring Washington to balance the budget.
"The president keeps talking about the need for a 'balanced' approach. He thinks 'balance' means 'I spend, you pay.' Most Americans would beg to differ. They would say a 'balanced' agreement is this: the president gets his debt limit hike, and the American people get spending cuts larger than the hike. That's what we're going to fight for -- the will of the people. Adding tax increases to the mix doesn't "balance" anything. If the president is going to take his case to the American people, I am going to do the same."
Leave a Comment:
I say the Dems and the President should stand their ground in this game of chicken. If the US does end up defaulting, it will be the wealthy investors that will end up losing out anyway. So I say, increase their taxes or let them lose the money on their investments. They have no bargaining chip, let's stop pretending they do.
I agree with you. Once again they are showing they are willing to risk the stability of our economic system for their political agenda.
They had someone on CNN this morning who used to be in the Treasury under George H.W. Bush, and he had run through some simulations of what happens under default or shutdown scenarios, and none of them were pretty. In every case, even if bondholders and investors are paid, the US credit rating drops, and we all pay higher interest rates, and the cost of paying interest on the national debt skyrockets, virtually eliminating most of the "savings" that repubs are demanding.
Democrats really need to focus on the fact that the GOP instigated this crisis. They alone seized on this a new way to use extortion to further their radical agenda.
The American people need to know that the GOP is holding a gun to their heads. They are using threats to harm the American people to force the democrats to their bidding.
What they are doing is morally,ethicaly and constitutionaly wrong. If the American poeple are awakened to this it will also become politicaly wrong and it will cease.
Why that is so crazy it just might work!
If America defults, most of the money lost will be from the people who have the most money (slaps head.) When was the last time you say someone commit seppuku? That's what the top tax bracket will do if the debt limit isn't raised.
Shhh. Let's see what happens.
As much as I'd like to see that happen, I fear that the damage caused would be so extreme and long-lasting that it would be devastating to everyone, not just the rich. It would sort of be like the sanctions slapped on Iraq after the Gulf War, intended to hurt the elites in Saddam's regime, but having catastrophic effects on those who were blameless in the first place, the children and the middle class. The rich ALWAYS find a way to avoid suffering the consequences of the destruction they wreak, usually by putting the cost onto all the rest of us.
It's up to the GOP whether it happens or not. It's useless to worry about things we can't control. The best the democrats can do is make sure everyone knows where to lay the blame.
The only choice is whether we give into extortion again. The last time the GOP held unemployment and middle class hostage for the rich tax cuts. It worked and now they are upping the ante.
As I've said before, for America to change direction, all it needs to do is reverse its policy.
I feel confiscatinging the wealth of high end low tax wage earners is an important first step. 1950's income tax regime, yeah? Next, the federal govt needs to embrace deficit spending. Big time. And yes, given how deep in the hole we are now it will feel and sound insane. But the difference is that the deficit caused by Bush era tax cuts are profoundly unstimulative. Deficit spending that puts people directly back to work will pay for itself - as it did during WW2. People who are employed pay taxes which creates both revenue and demand. The economy has been stuck in reverse for the past 30 odd because of a highly successful snake oil Westinghouse salesman.
AAAAAaaargh. For God sake somebody run down to the corner store buy a clue and mail it to your state's representative!
If they fail to raise the debt limit, they could well top the economy into a New Great Depression which will only get worse the longer they try supply side solutions. Our only hope is that those at the top have a low enough pain threshold that they themselves will demand a change in approach. Certainlty they and the policians they enabled must absolutely be held responsible for what happens.
I can't imagine that the corporations controlling the repugs are actually excited about the proposed financial devastation of an economic shut-down. Maybe a CEO or two can convince these people to back off of their suicidal trajectory.
Next, the federal govt needs to embrace deficit spending
should be said as.
investment in the good of the whole country.
smiling well you get the drift. i hope smile
sorry, no. Not following where you're drifting.
sorry
instead of calling it spending call it investment in America.
Thanks for the clarification! However, we-the-reasonable can call it whatever we like. Unfortunately, the repugs are determined to see any sort of money going into the pockets of the less-than-wealthy as a really, really bad thing to be prevented at all costs.
Oh, their corporate masters are more than happy to take advantage of the government-provided infrastructure and education system that allow them to function in the first place....they just don't want to pay for it, which is why two-thirds of US businesses paid NO income tax last year.
let the rich squabble and bitch! I don't care, get the most $ out of them as possible. truth is, without the labor force the rich will fall...you cant have a product to sale without the labor to create that product or a service to offer without the labor to service it. The rich need the poor...not the other way around, and because of this realistic economic dynamic/relationship...the rich should have to pay anything to help the poor sustain a "nice" life.
you cant have a country full of corporate "do nothings"...it just leads to the next generation thinking that being a corporate "do nothing" actually equates to being a useful/ successful worker...
the labor force is what brings home the bacon...
K1ngz, the truly wealthy, the top 2%, aren't going to be affected by this at all. They've got their money tied up in corporations that have sent just about everything off-shore from manufacturing to customer support. Or just flat-out sheltered their money in US-tax-free accounts off shore. When our economy collapses, the only people who *won't* be affected are the ones who are causing it.
GOOD GOD your right peanut!
The thing that Speaker Boehner doesn't acknowledge is that while the taxpayers near the bottom do not pay federal taxes (as they have tax credits that are there to help them), they still pay a lot in state, sales and other taxes that are all regressive on those who are near or below the poverty line.
To me, it seems he's saying "Hey, if the wealthy and corporations have to give up their tax breaks, so do the people at the bottom" without acknowledging the fact that it will be yet another type of regressive taxation on those who can barely afford to live (as those who are already wealthy will still have more than enough to live on should their taxes go up).
In the last 45 years the wealth of this country has been rapidly consolidated in the hands of the top two percent of the richest. Did the rich suddenly get smarter and deserve this or has the game been rigged?
The country is not poorer as a whole, it wealth has been growing pretty well. Instead look at the tax structure 45 years ago and look at it now.
It is that simple. Tell the rich to give us back our money.
I stopped reader Boehner's remarks at the part where he claimed the President isn't as serious on economic matters as the GOP. That's like being told by a pro wrestler to show some class, or getting a lecture from a Shriner on the subject of dignity. Nothing Boehner says (ever) passes the laugh-so-hard-milk-geysers-out-of-your-nose test.
I think President Obama is doing the right thing. He needs to stand his ground. I fear nothing will get done until a fair and Democratic Congress is elected in 2012. I don't believe the Republicans have any interests in working on the debt. President Obama is the only reasonable person working on this. The Republicans don't get their way they walk out and go pout about it to the press. I want to see some maturity in DC. Is that too much to ask?
Funny how all of a sudden he is reasonable after he broke all spending records the last 2 years - adding more that a trillion to the debt each year. I do believe one of his budget proposals was rejected 97-0 in the Senate because of the amount of spending. Even the Democrats in the Senate said no. No sure why all of a sudden he is for cutting. Don't get me wrong, I do think the Republicans are silly not expecting any tax increases, but to say EITHER side is being reasonable NOW is actually hilarious since everyone in DC had no problem with spending before this. They can totally confiscate all the wealthy's assets and all the top 500 corporate's assets (100%) and it won't even eliminate what we owe. And of course then they would not be around next year when we keep spending of a trillion every year.
I tire of all the funny math in government. All levels have spent more than they have repeatedly and somehow it's ok, like some financial miracle will happen in the near future. Wish I could live the Ponzi way the cities, states and the feds live!
I too have wondered where the heck all the Tea Partiers and their ilk were during the Bush administration, where he took a huge budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit in just ONE YEAR? And of course, he broke the deficit records set by his daddy, who in turn broke the records set by Reagan. WHERE were those "concerned citizens" then? Yes, spending needs to be cut, and revenue raised, but let's look at the specific areas that are to blame for much of our financial issues now. The CBO reported that the NUMBER one biggest cause of the current deficit was the Bush tax cuts. So, since they were the biggest cause, they should be the first things eliminated, IMMEDIATELY. I'm sick of hearing how they created jobs...that is nothing short of a monstrous lie. If they were so effective at job creation, how is it that during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration, only 1.5 million jobs were created, the worst record of any president in modern times? And what was the second biggest factor in our massive deficit? That would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, once again, END THEM NOW! Afghanistan alone costs $2 billion PER WEEK! I see at least $100 billion that can be saved immediately simply by ending that futile, grinding war. The third biggest cause of the deficit was the stimulus package. Well guess what folks, that's over and done with, no more money being spent there, so nothing to cut there. The fourth biggest cause according to CBO figures was TARP, and once again, it is over and done with, nothing to cut there.
The CBO came out just a couple of weeks ago with figures that said that if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated, the budget would be balanced by 2016. That's right, with the simple expedient of eliminating those unwise tax cuts, we could balance the budget in 5 years, no need to cut defense, social security, medicare, research, education, healthcare or anything else. But of course, that would violate Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes that repubs all signed. Wouldn't want to go against the most powerful man in America now, would we? Could someone remind me again what elected office Mr. Norquist holds, and who elected him?
Yeah, Norquist is on a mission from Reagan, whom he would now abhor.....
I guess I'm ahead of the curve then, as I abhorred Reagan from the very first! Ah, the trendsetter, I!
That was Bush kept all of his biggest budget items... the wars, tax cuts medicare expansion...off the budget. If he was a private citizen or a business, he would have been following in the footsteps of Ken Lay and would have done hard time for it.
You mean the way Harding, Hoover, Reagan and Bush have? It was Reagan who introduced us to multri-trillion dollar deficits, crashed the stock market in '87, set the stage for S and L bailouts - and still he is considered a fiscal genius even though his policies have never been anything but disasterous.
Obama lacks the insight and will to engage in the deficit spending that FDR did at the start of WW2, infrastructure and manufaction investment, that actually grew the economy. What? you though wars were stimulative? It was the Vietnam War that wrecked the economy during the '70s. And we've had at least two going for the past twelve years. Aside from war profiteers like Halliburton (ergo the Cheneys) and Blackwater, the only people who have been profiting from our wars are the companies that do off-shore manufacturing. No American employees means no taxes collected means deficit. Tax cuts for the bastards who do manufacturing off shore means deficit compounded.
its not rocket science, but it appears to be beyond the grasp of anyone in Washington.
Your comment Uffda about the tax cut elimination balancing the budget by 2016 (per the CBO) sounds good, but I truly believe that if the govt (no matter who is in charge) will find ways to spend that "savings/revenue" and then some. I have no faith in the federal government actually reducing the massive current debt we have and THEN to spend only what the take in. I would bet that even if the top 25% of the population was taxed at a 50% rate ,they would spend that and then some. Call me cynical to the max (like our debt), but I see no evidence of congress or the executive office ever pulling back from the trough.
I do like your $100 billion savings from the war though - good start. That would leave us with $13,900 billion to go on the debt. Of course we will probably add $1,000 billion back to it in the current year. Oh well....
There is absolutely no way to fix the deficit by cuts alone, and the cuts that the GOBP has focused on are on areas that have no relation to the deficit. We are not in debt because of social security...we all pay a separate social security tax to fund that. If repubs are REALLY worried about social security, take the simple way out, and eliminate the social security tax cap, which would fund social security to 97% of its liabilities. Add some form of means testing to get the other 3%. As for your comment on the war, you mixed up the deficit with the national debt. The deficit is currently around $1.3 trillion, so ending the war in Afghanistan would eliminate about 8% of the annual deficit at one fell swoop. NOTHING proposed by ANYONE would cut the national debt, unless you can swing the annual budget into a surplus....like we had under Clinton, until Bush came along and magically transmuted it into a record deficit with 2 wars and ridiculous tax cuts.
Don,
You mistake me for a Republican I think. I am not fond of either party. But, fine, Harding, Hoover, Reagan and Bush did the lion's share of the damage. Does that make you feel better that I agree. Does that make our debt more palatable? I think not. Our current President has and is spending much much more than taken in, so he is adding to it. And again, I don't really care about the history of our indebtedness and how bad those guys were. I am more concerned about stopping it. I can also write paragraphs on how we got here but I have read that a trillion times here - we all know that OK?!?
Until you know how the damage was done, why it was done, and who did it, you cannot make a rational decision on how to fix it. For example, how could you possibly repair the massive damage done to Germany by WWII unless you know why it happened in the first place? Without that knowledge, you could easily say that the Nazis should be allowed to fix the damage. After all, if we don't acknowledge that their actions brought on the destruction of Germany in WWII, then they are just as valid a choice for fixing it as anyone else. Same is true here. If we don't acknowledge the reality as outlined by the CBO, that the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the two biggest causes of the deficit, and those were all repub policies, then voters may think that repubs are the ones to fix the problems, instead of realizing that they guys who wrecked things are now the ones who are trying to shift the blame anywhere else they can, and are claiming they can fix things.
Uffda I know the difference between the deficit and debt, but honestly does it matter? Today's deficit adds to tommorrow's debt. So does it matter in your $100 billion war example if it reduces the current deficit to 1,200 billion versus reducing the national debt to 13,900 billion.
Yes I agree that nothing has been proposed to cut the debt and to me all this "savings" of 4,000 billion over 10 years (400 billion/year - whoopee) is like saying "I"m going to cut out my $5 starbucks coffee to help with my $1 million debt. I will however still be adding about $250,000/yr to my debt, but I will be "saving" $1,825 (365 days x $5) each year by "cutting" my latte outlays. Comedy at it's best...
And what is the solution? To pay off the debt, you need to run a surplus, as Clinton did. And what was the repub reaction when that happened? There were repubs saying that paying down the debt was a BAD thing, and that running a surplus was proof that we needed to lower taxes. Just as you believe that any increased revenue will be spent badly, I also believe that repubs will always see a surplus as an excuse to cut taxes for the wealthy instead of paying down the debt. We will never see another surplus in our lifetimes, and cutting the federal budget to ZERO won't even do the job, as the interest payments on the debt alone amount to hundreds of billions each year.
As for cutting $400 billion a year....that would be great. Sure, we'd still be running a deficit, but you don't stop a car from hitting a wall by bringing the car to an instantaneous halt. You have to hit the brakes, slowing the car down first. If cutting $400 billion a year is meaningless, then so is spending $400 billion a year more, right?
I agree Uffda that we need surpluses and yes, the "repubs" drew down the Clinton surplus. Again with the history - but hey I see where you are going. The unfortunate thing is I think the current congressmen are no better - the Republicans want to keep tax breaks (less income for the govt) and the democrats want to keep spending (more expenses for the govt). Two sides of the same coin in my opinion. No, Uffda $400 billion is not meaningless, but it is not even close to enough. We should NOT be spending any amount over what we have in the coffers at this point. Sad, but true that this will hurt, but anyone that has to budget and/or cut their personal finances has gone through this.
And what is the solution? To pay off the debt, you need to run a surplus, as Clinton did. And what was the repub reaction when that happened?
to bad Bush just pissed it away and gave it out as tax returns, instead of lowering the debt. as yes its is our money but we need to pay our bills.
Yes Pilotshark Bush did piss away a suplus and I agree. But recent history is not helping the debt at all. Here are some rough numbers that I believe are pretty close:
2006 - $248 Billion deficit (Dem controlled Congress starts here)
2007 - 161 Billion
2008 - 458 billion
2009 - 1.8 TRILLION (Dem President and Dem congress starts here)
2010 - 1.2 Trillion
Now I am not happy with either party and you are right about Bush, but the current POTUS has set new spending records. So there is plenty of blame to go around. I personally only care about the here and now going foward. And if it takes a person from the Druid party to start spending LESS than we take in (so the difference can start to pay down the debt) and take in more, I'm all for it. There has to be more taxes and less spending.
As I have said countless times here - I know the history of how we got here. But that doesn't fix it so let's stop with the history of Bush blowing the surplus - cause right now we a blowing through an unbelievable amount of negative cash. Bush is no longer in office, so he will not be able to make it worse or fix it, OK??
And that's all without considering how big an impact more jobs would have on reducing the deficit. If one insists that tax cuts are the way to encourage job creation, how about we change the tax code to include the stipulation that to receive the cuts, the company has to create jobs in the US? Creating them in India and China doesn't do the US much good. Increased tariffs for importing would help too, although I'm not sure just how many FTA's we have that would cut off that avenue. Likely quite a few, if not all of them.
Ending the wars would be an excellent beginning! The defense budget already consumes more than 50% of our discretionary budget, and the GOP House just voted to increase the defense budget! Yes, that's the same group that is calling for cutting back on spending.
We are never going to balance the budget, much less run a surplus, if the only solution repubs will accept is tax cuts, which reduce the amount of money flowing into the Treasury, and cuts in government employment, which adds to the unemployment rolls. We have all seen the dismal job figures in the past few months, but if you look closer, you will see a stark reality: the private sector has been creating jobs, but the government sector has been shedding jobs at almost the same rate, mostly from state and local governments. So the zeal to shed government jobs and cut state and local budgets is creating the very unemployment that repubs say they want to erase. What was the phrase Boehner used constantly on the campaign trail and as soon as repubs took over in January? Oh, yeah, it was "jobs, jobs, jobs". Too bad he didn't tell us he meant he wanted to cut jobs, jobs, jobs. Then again, he DID tell us that, saying that if 200,000 federal workers had to lose their jobs in order to make the cuts repubs wanted then, to use his exact words, "so be it".
At this point, I am frustrated by the fact that it is looking more and more likely that both sides are working toward the only solution that both can live with: kicking the can down the road with cosmetic measures that allow them to avoid making unpopular decisions. The president has come more than halfway in that regard, offering to give away more than I would like, and it looked like Boehner was ready to take it, until Cantor cut his legs out from underneath him. We need to make cuts in the budget and we need to increase revenue. What we don't need to do is to do them in a manner that causes damage to the country. Defense spending needs to be cut, Medicare needs to be allowed to negotiate with drug companies on drug prices, tax loopholes that allow corporations to pay no taxes at all need to be eliminated. The cap on earnings subject to social security tax needs to be eliminated. And finally, ALL trade deals need to be re-examined, starting with NAFTA. By doing all these things, we cut spending, get more value for the dollars we spend, make social security solvent, make the tax code more fair, and eliminate incentives for companies to ship American jobs out of the country. At the same time, we preserve the vital social safety net and increase the number of jobs in this country. It's a win-win for everyone....unless you have a vested interest in letting this country fail for political motives.
You know what really makes me angry? Is that fact everyone is talking about CUTS to this programs and that and they don't even think about the consequences of it. Those are REAL people who will suffer if we cut those programs. If anything we need to spend more. We need to put more in Education and After School programs. We need to put more into research and development. We need to promote more job creation. Tax hikes on the wealthy is great but it doesn't solve the problems. There are REAL AMERICANS out there without jobs. Not just a statistical number. We need to close the loop holes that allow our jobs to go over seas and provide companies with incentives to build a business here and hire American workers. You can't do that by taxing the wealthy. All the wealthy is going to do is close up any help they offer poor people and struggling families like free medicines. We need to do more, but we cannot do that without a fair and balance DEMOCRATIC minority. Send these immature Republican Children home. Our nations needs fixing and we don't have time for their crap.
We need to close the loop holes that send our jobs over seas and offer incentives to start businesses here and hire American. Cutting Programs will not work if we are not going to put back into America and stop helping each other. For some reasons our leaders will not do this.
The Bush administration DID cause this debt problem, and yes President Obama did add to it but for good reason. He encouraged job group, he passed and universal health care bill. Most of all he caught Bin Laden. Don't get me wrong I hate war as much as anyone else, but we need a strong military. Most of us we cannot cut jobs to military personal without helping them to find another job. We need to support them more now than we have before. Most of all we need to be able to participate in joint Nato and UN operations around the world to protect human rights and Democracy. I am sick of this attitude that Americans are getting. "It doesn't affect us so we should do nothing". I am sick of hearing it. We have a dictator in Libya that is killing people and we shouldn't get involved? When did life become so meaningless? All this hate talk about Libya makes me ashamed to be an American. We need to do more to help these people instead of leaving them to die at the hands of a mad man. I wish people could see that. International cooperation is important. We do not need to sink back into isolationism. That is nonsense. I am tired of the selfishness that has seemed to swept across America that is backed by the Tea Party movement. We are not supposed to help anyone according to them. We need to cut programs that help the poor because we are running low on funds. Giving means giving beyond on means. Sometimes true sacrifice is giving the food off your plate so someone else can eat. That's true Americanism. Self Sacrifice, handwork and Charity. It's helping your neighbor put a roof on their home because of a hurricane, it helping at the food bank, and its helping taking meals to the elderly. If we take the heart out of America--what do we have left? We are not America any longer. Republicans want to the cut the heart out of America and they encouraging us to care about no one but ourselves. I don't agree with your statements. It's not how I was raised in America.
Every time some repub wants to whine to me about "where are the jobs", I simply tell them that Obama has created more jobs in 2 years than Bush did in 8. If Obama's performance on the job front isn't good enough for them now, why was an even more abyssmal performance acceptable for 8 years under a repub president?
The President doesn't technically need Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and any other reps to do what is in the best interest of the country. Saying taxes are off the table completely refutes what precedes it:"Everything must be on the table" and makes their entire negotiating stance moot. It's basically double talk for "everything you want must be on the table, but we won't negotiate on our thing".
I say he should use the 14th Amendment to implement the original thing that Reps asked for, 58% cuts/15% revenue and move on to new business.
The Reps haven't done anything since the got "control of the house except throw the Commander in Chief under the bus and slap his hand every time he reached out.
Time to just cut them out of the loop.
He should use the 14th Amendment language to simply raise the debt ceiling. Deal with the rest of it later in a different context, when the Repubs can't hold the economy hostage.
Yes, use the 14th while making it perfectly clear that he refuses to negoitiate with a gun to his head. He didn't knuckle under to bin Laden's threats and he won't let the GOP use the same tactics of extortion
I don't understand how not one reporter, one tv newsanchor has challenged Boehner over his repeated statements about the "will of the people". I would love to see him confronted directly on this topic (I know it's probably a hard interview to get for anyone who would ask that question). I seem to remember the last poll I saw had the approval rate of raising taxes on people who earn over 1 million dollars a year was at about 75%. Does he mean the will of HIS people or THE people?
To him, HIS people are THE ONLY people that matter.
I'm with you, SAB. Where are the questions about GOP talking points? There are a number of inaccuracies in Boehner's statement, yet no one calls him out on it.
How does $4 trillion in spending cuts vs. $1 trillion in revenue increases (both over a ten year period) amount to an insistance on "I spend, you pay?" And no one is talking about tax hikes anyway. The revenue increases simply amount to eliminating some deductions for those who can afford it, and who have benefitted while the rest of the country has been hurt. Bush's first tax cut was in 2001, so when is the magic 'economic expansion' and trickle down going to happen?
And the bigger government BS is exactly that. The government at state and federal level has lost 500,000 jobs since Obama was sworn into office. Do I think this is a good thing? I do not, but in light of that figure, how is the government "getting larger"?
http://www.businessinsider.com/government-jobs-under-obama-2011-7
Boehner: "We can't solve our budget challenges unless we address the growth of our entitlements, specifically our health care entitlements." A new report shows the health care entitlements will save money, especially for states.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/07/11/Healthcare-reform-to-save-states-100B/UPI-29831310417622/?spt=hs&or=hn
And Boehner wants to hold out for a constitutional amendment that calls for a balanced budget? Does he have any idea how this process is done? There is no possible way that can be accomplished by Aug 2.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
Too many misstatements to debunk here.
Boehner speaks for the will of TEA people, not THE people. Huge difference!
He's a very, very weak speaker. It's now obvious that he can't do a thing without Cantor's approval, and Cantor is angling for his job. You can't negotiate with a party whose leader isn't really in charge.
Night of the Long Knives!
It certainly looks like it will be coming. Dana Milbank had a great column today talking about the ungovernable repub caucus in Congress these days, and he also mentioned that Cantor seems to be the real power right now, with Boehner being set up to fail. If he gets a deal with the president, (which seemed to be true a few days ago), then he is considered a traitor to repub values, as any deal would certainly include new taxes. If he fails to get a deal, he will be considered a failure, unable to push the president into a deal that the Tea Party considers to be the only deal acceptable, (massive cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid and other social programs, along with massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Now I understand why Boehner cries all the time!
I find Boehners position quite amusing. He must listen to his rich overlords while trying to please the corporations he took bribe money from, the whole time trying not to upset the teapeckers. And if this wasn't bad enough, he has Cantor knifing him in the back trying to get his speaker position. However this is exactly what he ask for.
As for the dems, they need to stand firm on no changes to SS and Medicare, Obama should drop his losing position and go for a straight debt ceiling raise. Let the repubs either raise it or destroy their overlords. Their call.
Take a GOOD LOOK at Congressman Paul Ryan. He's what Eddie Munster looks like all grown up!!
Read his lips: at no time, ever, during this discussion did he agree to let taxes go up.
The Republicans are trying to shift the tax burden away from the filthy rich and onto everybody else and they seem perfectly willing to play dice with the entire global economy in order to make it happen. When blockheads like Boehner talk about "simplifying" or "reforming" the tax code, what that means is raising middle class taxes (Yes, Republicans want to *raise* middle class taxes in the middle of a recession) by killing middle class deductions, like the mortgage interest deduction. That's how Reagan did it in 1986 when he killed off a whole slew of deductions and implemented all sorts of new taxes-excuse me- "fees." It allows Republicans to claim that they are cutting taxes when they are actually raising the hell out of them, but only for certain people. Just like "tort reform" doesn't really mean the end of frivolous lawsuits, it means the end of pretty much all lawsuits. It really means banning people from suing crooked pharmaceutical companies, incompetent doctors and corrupt, Medicare defrauding healthcare conglomerates like the one Rick Scott was running until the government nailed him.
As a payback to (mostly liberal) students, one of Reagan's biggest tax increases was on high school and college students holding part time jobs. By eliminating the dependency exemption on their return, tens of millions of young people had to pay taxes. This prevented them from putting more money aside for college, transportation, and other expenses.
OK, so Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid need some attention, but now is not the time. They should not be examined in a crisis situation. Let's get this deadline out of the way, then move on to those items and do a thoughtful and careful analysis of what's wrong with the systems.
Charts make perfect sense to the ones creating them, but can be confusing. It appears to me that corporations are paying a smaller percentage these days. Loopholes? Foreign investments? Individual taxes seem to be relatively stable as corporate tax shrinks. I don't know. Does that make sense?
Only a person with plenty of money would insist on trying to make the budget work by using only spending cuts, with the lion's share of those dealing with people who can ill afford it, not those who could survive quite well with less than they have. Having reduced revenue for year after year has taken a toll on the nation's financial situation, tax breaks have NOT created jobs, and creating "haves" and "have-nots" seems somehow un-American. Eliminating loopholes, subsidies, and tax breaks only the wealthy can use makes too much sense, I guess.
Mr. Boehner
believes he is speaking for the American people? Please, give me a break. The only people he is speaking for are the big corporations ( oh wait they are people aren't they, well the Supreme court thinks so.) Wall Street brokers, bankers and the very wealthy.Here's a novel approach to reduce spending: Cut the pay of all the senators and representatives in half, close the 2 gyms, make them pay for their own health insurance, change their retirement plan to a 401K take away their mailing benefits and reduce their staffs by 50 percent. The less they can do, the better of the Real American people will be.
The GOP is the Party of extortion and hostage takers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They can not accept any thing good for the American People!!!!!
If Boehner is so concerned about the upper income earners needing to pay less in taxes so they can create jobs...where are the jobs??? Their income tax rate is he lowest in recent history and yet the new jobs don't seem to be getting created in spite of Boehner's call for 'Jobs, jobs, jobs' in November. The federal government has decreased the number of jobs, apparently helping the deficit, but the number of private sector jobs seems to be pretty slow. Go figure.
Is it just me or does anyone think that Congressman Paul Ryan looks like a grown up Eddie Munster??
Yes, I noticed! Wicked Widow's Peak. Pasty skin and crazy eyes. I definitely want him in charge of my national budget!
In his 'plan' he states unequivocally that the government gets its revenues from taxes, so he's not stupid, just really duplicitous!
This is the biggest betrayal of American Democracy since the Tories in the 18th century.
It's time for another Declaration of Independence to rid us of the republicans like we did the British, for many of the same reasons.
The last great republican patriot was Eisenhower. After Ike, Nixon created a legacy of betrayal of America which the republicans have been living down to ever since.
It's time for We The People to wake up and vote out the republicans forever, or lose American Democracy forever.
None of what Speaker Boehner matters, because (as he admits) he can't deliver the votes from his own caucus, no matter what the Administration throws in to sweeten the deal.
Or at least, almost no matter what. If Minority Leader McConnell is to be believed, they might accept the resignation of the President and Vice President.
Brothers Johnny and Billy are playing marbles. Johnny has 20 and Billy has 10. Dad comes along and says, “Johnny…you don’t have enough marbles.” So he takes 5 from Billy and gives them to Johnny. Does this make sense? Only if you are a Republican.
Falconlady
Are you saying the Republicans have lost their marbles? ;-)
LOL...that too!
things breaks down as soon as the GOPs open their mouths.
So, according to the Klein graph, 10% of Americans own 50% of the wealth and pay 40% of the taxes. Well no wonder the economy is screwed, all the money has rolled down to one little corner of the table. Smells like a crooked game to me. An uneven playing field. Dealing from the bottom of the deck.
There's an omission in the Boehner transcript. They left out the "uhs". I know it does not change the meaning, but, it just isn't real Boehner without the "uhs". I didn't hear his address, but, I know it had many, many "uhs" in it