E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Athena Jones
President Barack Obama announced plans Tuesday for top administration officials to work with members of both parties to break the logjam on extending the so-called Bush tax cuts.
After a long-awaited bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders, Obama announced that he has tasked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew with reaching an agreement with Republicans, who want to see the tax cuts -- set to expire at the end of the year -- extended for everyone.
The White House wants to see the tax relief extended only for individuals making less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000. The administration has argued the country cannot afford to borrow $700 billion over the next decade to pay for tax cuts for those making more.
"I've asked the leaders to appoint members to help in this negotiation process," Obama said in brief remarks to the press after the meeting. "They agreed to do that. That process is beginning right way and we expect to get some answers back over the next couple of days about how we can accomplish our key goal, which is to make sure the economy continues to grow and we are putting people back to work."
Ratifying the new START Treaty with Russia on arms control -- which the president said was "absolutely essential for national security"-- extending unemployment insurance and tax relief measures topped Obama's wish list for congressional action over the final weeks of the year. He did not mention the repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy or the Dream Act, both contentious items on Capitol Hill.
In his first public comments after the Thanksgiving holiday on Monday, the president said he hoped today's meeting would mark a "a first step towards a new and productive working relationship" between Democrats and Republicans. The White House originally wanted to host the meeting right after the mid-term election, with the president himself expressing hope that it would spill over into dinner. Instead, it had to be postponed due to Republican scheduling conflicts.
Obama declared himself pleased with how the meeting turned out, calling it "a good start", and urged members of both parties to chose the "best of our ideas over the worst of our politics" as they work to tackle the challenges facing the country. He announced plans for additional bipartisan summits like this one in the future, including at Camp David. But he also said that differences on many issues would likely remain and that reaching agreement would not be easy.
The president's bipartisan deficit commission was also a subject of discussion at today's meeting. Reducing government spending is high on the list of Republican concerns and the commission is due to release a full set of recommendations on how to reduce the budget deficit this week.
Geithner, Lew and Vice President Biden joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), incoming Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) for the meeting, which lasted nearly two hours.
Leave a Comment:
If President Obama ever needed to draw a line in the sand it's NOW!
Short & Simple - Making under $250K tax rates remain as is...
Making OVER $250K tax rates go up 3%...
PERIOD!
How many of you wish you had the luxury of making OVER $250K?
3% WOULD BE THE LEAST OF MY WORRIES!!
Problem for Obama is that currently there is a majority in the Senate who want to extend all the tax cuts and very close to a majority in the house. If he waits until the new congress then there will be a majority to extend in both houses. You really think he'll veto a bill in January that includes the extension for the top 2%?
Unless they change the rules in the Senate, the President will never have to veto anything.
You think there will be 40 Democratic senators in the new congress that will filibusterer a tax cut bill that includes an extension for the top 2%? Name them.
Feisty...are you jealousy your life didn't turn out the way you wanted.
Why do you think people making over 250K a year should have to pay more than someone making 25K a year?
So, doing well in our country should be punished...is that what you're saying?
BTW...we are NOT a socialist country...we are a REPUBLIC!
TA,
They do pay more than the feisty making 25K per year.
Oh, you meant a higher rate? They already do pay a higher rate than the feisty making 25K per year.
Makes me wonder what her argument is all about. I know she will claim something about $700 billion (or some projection). What she can't fathom is that the government isn't LOSING $700B, it has to find a way not to spend that extra $700B.
Chef Darrell...you will never get her to understand or, should I say, ADMIT to the facts that you stated above.
She is part of the progressivebagger team here on this thread. She and her minons swoop in, post some "bleeding heart" trash, swoop out, and then when called out - start calling you names, deflect, change the subject, or anything they can think of to NOT answer your questions.
Hey True - That's like saying "We're not a capitalism...we are a democracy!" One is an economic blueprint, the other is a type of government. They are (in your example or mine) niether synonymous NOR mutually exclusive.
They're apples and oranges, and it is made clear nowhere stronger than the democratic, socialist, capitalist republic we call the USA !
Jonbogreen...ummm...I think you're a little off the mark.
They are both forms of government...in a socialist country, you do not actually have a republic (even though they like to confuse people with that). In a true Republic, you don't have socialism.
So, I will grant you the fact that this country strayed long ago from it's original intent. That is not to say that we can't return it to it's original intent.
Why can't a Republic choose to have a Socialistic economic system?
A socialist economic system is against the grain of a Republic.
In theory, a republic could choose to vote in a socialist economic system, but that would require it also choosing to end the republic. Get it?
By nature, a republic is SELF reliant. Although it elects officials to vote for the masses in a senate situation, it is necessarily opposed to government CONTROL. In a republic, the people tell the government what to do, not the other way around.
Paul - you're right, of course it can.
True - We are a republic, which is in turn a form of democracy, and we have a capitalist economic framework, into which we have woven several examples of socialism. I know y'all right-winger's aren't big fans of subtlety & nuance - you want Rush-Beck to be able to point their fat-a$$ finger at something or someone and say "THERE - RIGHT THERE - THAT'S WHAT THE ENEMY LOOKS LIKE - KILL IT !!!"...
Problem is, the real world IS nuanced...it's NOT black and white, good and evil. You can't tell the good guys just by the fact that they don't have on a Darth Vader mask. The word socialist is not evil. Did socialism work on a grand scale (see USSR) ? No, failed pretty miserably (in that instance). But does socialism work every damn day, right here in the US (see Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and for that matter, ANY OTHER type of insurance you'd care to name) ? Yes, it does...pretty brilliantly as a whole.
The hybrid of systems we have created in this country continues (and will continue) to evolve. Oversimplifying akes for good talk-radio, but that's about it...
Jobo...I am not a Rush listener.
You actually think Social Security and Medicare work "pretty brilliantly". Medicare is breaking our backs. can anyone say ponzi scheme? You say "woven" into our society. I believe we were coerced by fear into passing these entitlement programs. We need to get back to states taking care of themselves and leaving the tax payer money to pay for what it is meant to pay for. (i.e. defense, our court systems, etc.)
Nuanced yes, transformed NO.
Medicare's only been breaking our backs since George II (and just since his 2nd term). That's when Bush (not Clinton - left office with record surplusses; not Obama - see below) but BUSH added more to the federal deficit / debt with the un-funded Medicare Rx part D than TARP (Bush and Obama's halves), the Stimulus bill, the Auto bailouts, AND Healthcare Reform, combined.
Let me say that again so it sticks - never mind the two unfunded wars; never mind the ballooning of the size of the federal government during Bush's 8 years;...JUST Bush's Medicare Part D adds more to the nation's debt than TARP, the Stimulus package, the Auto Bailouts and HCR combined.
So yes, (until then, Medicare), Social Security, the US Post Office, public education and unemployment insurance are all good examples of Socialism in the US, (and now that the Democrats don't have to ask that Texas hick's permission, we'll fix Medicare Part D too! Michelle for America 2016 ! )
Wow life choices!
This just encourages more people to cheat to try to get under the threshold, but what can you expect. Look who heads the tax system.
3% of nothin' is nothin'...
So let's go to a flat tax, without deductions. Then everyone pays their full share.
Hey darth - Remember when Steve Forbes ran for prez? Nope...neither does anybody else...that's because that idea won't get you 5% of the vote...'cause it's THAT bad
After a long-awaited bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders, Obama announced that he has tasked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew with reaching an agreement with Republicans, who want to see the tax cuts -- set to expire at the end of the year -- extended for everyone.
________
Tim Geithner. Oh boy.
By Muffet's statement, it would not matter if Bush's taxcut expired for the rich; they have ways to pay less than their secretaries, whatever the rate.
The GOP is hell bent on the Waterloo mission as the real reason, to delay anything for another two years of "hell no"
Be afraid, lefty liberals, be VERY afraid.
The reality is going to sink in soon. Barry knows he's not going to get any extension of the current tax rates for anyone unless he is willing to COMPROMISE with the party that has the votes in the Senate. That's why he's settting up Geithner and Lew to be the fall guys.
Nasty Redhead, too bad you don't make over $250,000 so you could take advantage of this situation.
Wow Joe...it's like the day after the Scott Brown election in MA. Republicans jumping up and down for their 41 seat "majority"...now it's a 47 seat majority; how impotent for you! lol
I would like to make $249,999.99 a year.
Wouldn't a simple solution be to exclude small businesses from letting the tax cuts expire for those making over $250K? Or make it $1,000,000 for small businesses? It seems to me all it would require is that small businesses would have to file in the name of the business instead of the owner's name.
Most small businesses are excluded from the 250k limit already. This tax hike would only affect the richest 2% of them, who aren't really small.
But Boehner says that the letting the tax cuts expire for those making over 250K will be taxing small businesses. Could he *gasp* be lying?
It may effect 2% of small businesses, depending upon their incorporation and how they file.
What the hell, appoint a f____ing commission. If you don't want the responsibility, then back your bags. We can at least enjoy Biden shooting off his mouth for the next two years. Apparently Obama is unwilling to twist the arms of his own party.
Wm - business executives/leaders delegate responsibility all the time why not the potus? How obama reacts to the decisions made will be the proof of the pudding (so to speak).
american-2051576....."delegate responsibility" ...Are you kidding ??? this is to delagate BLAME....Obama can say to his base....Hey, I wanted the rates to go up on the $250,000 and up....But Tim and Jack made the deal with the Republicans........And the sad/funny thing is.....his base will believe him......
C'mon, Obama. If a drunk punk like Boehner can say it, so can you:
"Not only No, but HELL NO"! C'mon, man- you can do it. You HAVE to do it.
your right a crack head like obama will say anything to get his next fix,
Maybe if Nasty Redhead spent her days working at her job instead of spending all her time on this site, she might make some more money.
OUCH!!!!
That's gotta hurt!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Are you serious? This IS her job.
And still there are those who find it unbelievable that the democrats were so thoroughly beaten at the ballot box. When your agenda is rejected by the electorate, and your mouthpieces are so, well, lame, what chance do you have?
Now that's FUNNY...coming from our resident pathological liar....
You know the one ...who plays the economist on First Read...
Best laugh I've had all day... thanks NJNB!
Hon... you might want to take a break... you've been off your game lately!
Feisty...
How much do they pay you to post their progressive drival all day?
I'd have to say about the same amount they pay No Jo and your sorry ass.
Borrow/pay for tax cuts?? Bull, taxes are a revenue stream not a debit stream.
Reduce spending by 70 billion a year. Hard choices now or hard choices later. SS seems to be the only program with revenue exceeding outgo.
But that doesn't even touch the deficit. Reduce spending by $70 billion and increase the tax rates, then we start to attack the deficit. Freeze spending, but keep the same tax rates, the deficit goes up - why? because the budget revenue projections already factored in the expiration of the tax cuts. So don't blame Obama for increasing the deficit, blame Bush's inventive accounting.
Or, you could do it the Obama way: raise taxes, but quadruple spending.
How, exactly, has that worked out?
When exactly did he raise taxes? I seem to remember a middle class tax cut as part of the stimulus not a tax increase...
Wm - you are right to do both, but it is political suicide (either party) to increase income taxes at this time. Show the populace that you want to be fiscally responsible by reducing spending. Should be easy enough to show that by 2012, just by reducing spending isn't enough to bring the budget under control.
Keep in mind that many taxes that the average taxpayer pays are not directly obvious to them. I may be wrong, but I believe that after the 1st of the year your paycheck will show a decrease as your payroll withholdings revert to a higher level.
Wm.
What is the point of a budget? Is it some fictitious number that Washington uses just so they can later ignore it (thus the deficit)?
You talk about wanting to attack the deficit...the easiest way to attack it is to prevent it. They can do what the rest of us, or at least the responsible ones, do and live within our means.
What we need is a Robert Altman scenario - suicide is painless. American's post while quite reasonable is unrealistic. It assumes that the other party is going to be reasonable and act in a rational manner. I'll take the over/under on that one. Maybe Obama can lead with spending recommendations, but the likely GOP response, ala Paul Ryan, is that we don't have a revenue problem, it's all a spending problem.
I'm with Fiesty on this one. Its the economy stupid. Ten years of proof that tax cuts for the wealthy DO NOT create jobs, but they DO create and extend deficits. The very wealthy are already spending as much as they will, but the less well off one is, the higher percentage of income is spent, spurring on the economy. It is about policy that will most ease the recession and unemployment. And, BTW "True American", being a Republic and being Socialist - are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Cutting Social Security benefits and denying unemployment benefits and cutting Medicare & Medicaid so that a millionaire can have an extra $85,000 tax cut does nothing to fix the economy.
Marv - I have no problem with the republicans wanting to fund the UEE from other programs that are already funded (their plan) rather than adding more debt (the democrats plan). Are their any stimulas funds left?? or have they expired??
Don't agree with anyones plan to cut SS though. The plan was doing just fine untill the mid 60's when it was moved to the general fund. Since then politicians (R & D) raped and modified it to fund programs it was never intended to support. I am hoping that by the time I draw my monthly check it will pay for more than a 12 pack and munchies.
Until the 47% that don't pay federal taxes participate in the system, then why should anyone else pay exorbitant rates?
If I have the good fortune to have EARNED $250k then why would I want to support a bunch of people who don't want to work for it?
Fact is that well off people already pay through the nose for people that are too lazy to work and be successful.
 I think this is a no-brainer. We borrowed money from China for the Tax cuts and the rich got richer. The middle class has gotten poorer. So who pays China back. Ding, ding , ding, ding.... You got it folks. The top 2% !
Or, gasp, the federal government could live within its means, just like the rest of us. Most of the states have cut drastically to fit the economy, but the feds just print more money.
Pouring more taxes into the rat hole just continues to feed the rats
There are many rat holes - some go by the name of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of those rat holes are the states. Just where do you think those federal grants come from - the tooth fairy? Watch what happens to your universities when that money dries up. The states and local governments couldn't survive except for the fact that the federal government is able to print money. What we can't continue to do is spend money on what we can no longer afford. We can't have guns and butter - so what's it going to be: roads, water treatment plants, or the military?
People like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and including our President feel that letting these tax cuts for the rich expire is what is needed. That means their taxes would go up. I think that takes integrity. I also think that an individual who makes close to $250,000 every year would not be considered lazy or unsuccessful. But lets' not be rational because then Democrats and Republicans would agree on something good for our economy. But for you Fox watchers it's all about making sure Obama fails even if it means the country fails too. Way to go guys you are so very smart!
Tom ,Yreka.....Really ???....you and Buffet and Gates and Obama and the other guys that believe that can whip out their checkbooks any time they like....they can even set up a website....to show off how much extra they paid....Give themselves a tax hike.....I bet Obama's tax preparer makes sure the Obama's pay the least amount of tax possible.....right down to the last penny.....
Okay... I'm always a bit confused, and I hope somebody will take he time and tell me what I'm not getting.
The "Bush" tax cuts are set to expire, and this will happen if nobody does anything. Is this true?
And Obama and the Democratic party are not in favor of the Bush tax cuts expiring... is this true?
So they are looking for a compromise with the GOP to extend the tax cuts... because they don't have the votes to extend them on their own..
... even though they have majorities in both houses and the presidency.
... and the GOP insists there shall be no extension on these tax cuts unless they are extended for everybody across the board, and the Dems say that people making $250k plus should not get them.
....and unless there is a compromise, nobody will get them?
Look, I don't know if my synopsis there is what's going on.. but if I'm even close, the Bush tax cuts are the least of our troubles.
And I've often thought so anyway... but here's hoping I'm just a tad senile.
Dang.... I wish I was senile.
You know what gets me... these so called "two parties" making all this noise like they are political rivals and competitors.
...and I know that voters are bitterly divided these days...over nothing, yes, but bitterly divided anyway..
... but these "two parties" are highly cooperative and mutually supportive. Not if you listen to them talk, no, the rhetoric is highly partisan... but if you just watch them... We only have one party in this country..
...and both branches , Dems and GOP have been cooperating on increasing the power of the executive branch of this government, and sidelining the legislative and judicial... And this has been going on since Nixon created the DEA.
You know, the first prohibition required an amendment.. the subsequent prohibitions just required a signature by one guy.
Wish I was senile, glad to be old... This is your problem.
Good luck
Maybe we could sell the WMD we found in Iraq to pay China back for that war. Hey! We could sell some of the Karzai drugs to pay for the other one. If we then put everyone to sleep over 40 in our country(myself included) that would end the healthcare and social security problems and everyone would have jobs! I dunno ... I think i'm onto something here . HA!
Let them all expire. I have grown sick and tired of hearing the $700 billion bull$$it. The actual number for the tax cuts is well over $4 trillion but that little fact evades the standard talking points. If nothing else it would end the banter over what the top 2% have to pay, or should have to pay and at the same time it will teach our friends in the legislative branch a high quality lesson in economics. Watch what happens to the economy in Q1 & Q2 of 2011 when the tax withholding tables all jump back to their previous levels.
Doing drugs at a young age is considered a "youthful indescretion," made better if the habit is kicked and not
revisited...drinking at a young age and continuing through adulthood makes you a "PATHETIC,
ORANGE, CRYING A$$" alcoholic! "HELL YES IT DOES!"
Well, I guess I'll try one more time to explain what Bohner was talking about. If a small business buys 3 million dollars worth of stock to resell and gets 4.5 million retail giving him 1.5 million gross profit. His business expenses and payroll were 1 million so that leaves him a taxable net of 500k taxable. Not a bad living, right? So the gov hits him for 43% off the top leaving him around 270k to live on. Still not a bad living, right? Well lets say he wants to give a few loyal employees a raise totaling another 20k in payroll a year and buy enough stock next year to increase sales a meager 4%. And that will also require another staff position. That will take setting aside about 150k for the stock, 20k for the raises plus at least 3 months of salary for the new staff, leaving him about 60k minus whatever extra expenses may occur and occur they will. Not much of a living for being the guy who built his business night and day for 20 years and who risks everything, is it? That is the situation of the majority of the people being vilified and made light of on these posts and the kicker is that small and midsized American owned business employs about 78% of the domestic workforce. What a shameful and uninformed expression of dependency you exhibit.
SELL, Winthorp!!! SELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The gutless wonder boy has given this tax task to a committee......how convenient.
"Not my fault....they did it......." is not going to work POTUS..........
You're on the hook and gutless....................
right now there is an 1100 billion dollar deficit going. it wont come down much unless congress gets some backbone and does something other than lie and sling mud. eliminate the unfunded tax cuts would only reduce that by 400 billion. the tax cut for the rich is only 70 billion per year. earmarks are about 17billion last year down from 23 billion under bush. bush doubled the budget and the deficit so there is plenty of fat there. now it just takes some backbone to cut some fat out of the budget. does anyone really believe the republicans will do anything but talk while spending even more and blaming it on the democrats. this start treaty stuff that promises 44billion to arizona to upgrade the nukes is just another earmark and bribe for republicans from arizona. this is just another example of poor dealmaking in the senate by the president
This is the fact about socialism and socialized healthcare.In socialized countries with socialized healthcare everyone is covered and there is no private insurance like we have here.There are no private hospitals either.ALL are owned by the government.So the republicans calling the healthcare reform a socialist agenda is misleading.
When asked to choose between extending unemployment benefits or denying tax cuts to the upper 2%,
Congressman Mark Pence wouldin't answer; instead he stuck to the same old Republican talking
point...raising taxes on anyone in this slumping economy is not a good idea. I sure as hell hope the
"American People" are listening because you've just been shi+ on by those you voted into office.
And no one in the media confronts them with the FACT, that the recession is over, corporate profits are at an all time high, the economy is growing, has been for more than 18 months, yet all the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans keep saying that we can't raise taxes in a slumping economy. And not a single political reporter stops them and reminds them that their argument went stale a year and a half ago. CHUCK & SAVANNAH are you going to continue to allow them to lie straight to your face?