Soo . . .

“In my view, we all agree that we're not going to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 dollars, so we should just take them out of this discussion right now,” Cole said after a meeting of the GOP Conference. “Continue to fight against any rate increases; continue to try to work, honestly, for a much bigger deal.”

Cole tries to compromise, Boehner, being the boner that he is, says, nahhhhhh we don't want to do THAT! Good grief!

Wow! The guy doesn't have a brain in that orange thing that sits on his shoulders! Does he actually believe even HIS constituents are going to be happy with him?

He didn't learn anything in November but he may in 2014!

Pro - every post you make sounds more and more like Donald Trump. In other words, you've moved from being simply irrelevant into the realm of totally insane!

Austerity doesn't work very well in this situation Boehner. Here we go again down the road to stupidville.

Gosh Darn Gremlins! Again! Now I am really pissed! Gotta call the Techie guy to find my gremlin!

Boehner really wants to destroy America. I can't believe the Republicans can behave this way, over and over and over. The people who vote for Republicans need their head checked. This guy gets up in the morning, shaves, puts on a suit and then he does this. It's shocking.

Looks as if Boehner still cannot control his tea-nuts so he joined the rest of the GOP and jumped in the barrel headed for Niagara Falls, grabbing Grover Norquist and hanging on as they shoot the rapids. Fools, Grover will push them to the bottom to save himself.

Paws93

Why not cut spending first...? Why do taxes have to go up first?

It is the easiest one to implement first. The spending part is full of hows and wheres.

Paws, Oh my I could really just romp on your ass right now, but I won't. The Dems have every intention of making further spending cuts. Wake UP! Try doing some HONEST independent research as to what Obama has done over the last four years. You people are so blinded by what sh!theads like Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity and all the other crackpots tell you that you have completely lost the ability to think for yourselves. You and others like you are truly what is screwing this country up! Either get educated or put a GD CORK in it!

It's time for the GOP to secede from the Union. They can leave with Texas.

Paws, study up. It has been republicans since Reagan who spend, spend, spend; repubs who promise to cut the size of government while increasing it; repubs who cut taxes and promise to cut spending later but never do; it is republicans responsible for 333% of our national debt compared to 81% for democrats. No wonder republicans were surprised Mitt Romney lost, reality doesn't exist for them.

elliot, it was those crazy people on the right who claim to want a balanced budget who bankrupted the country because they didn't pay for a single thing they passed while having total control of the House, Senate and the White House. Spare us the phony "pious baloney" because it was Reagan who turned this nation from a creditor nation to a debtor nation; it was Bush 43 who crashed the economy because he never met a war or a spending bill he couldn't sign even if he did put it on the credit card.

Time to call their bluff. Off the cliff now!

And let's see who the electorate blames in 2014. Let's just see, shall we? If the Republicans want to make themselves a permanent minority, I say let them. Good riddance! Maybe a centrist party will re-form from the ashes...we can only hope.

What was it from the exit polls on Nov. 6th again? Oh that's right, over 60% of Americans were in favor of a tax increase on the 2%! How many TPers were voted out Nov. 6th? And didn't that GOP predicted landslide for Romney turn into a pile of crap very early in the evening? And how many times during the debates were we told that the difference in the election was about President Obama asking the rich to pay a little more? And now Boehner wants low and middle-income taxpayers to get dumped on AGAIN!

FINE! Reject everything! Those Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to be temporary anyway. Let 'em go away. The blame will fall 100% on the Republicans and it will be the end of the Tea Party and Grover. And that would leave us all better off!

raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent, half of those taxpayers are small-business owners

This pathetic hypocrite, Boehner, and his side-kick Cantor, have told so many lies they are beginning to believe them.

The top 2% are WAY above "small-business" owners. The top 2% are the ones who finance you and your ilk. Boehner is so full of @!$%#, I smell his stink ass from here, and I'm a long way from DC.

I say it's fine to fall off the curb over this. What Obama should do at this point is work on calming markets by explaining that going off the "fiscal cliff" is in fact the only plan that works in breaking the intransigence of the whiners on the right that refuse to accept the fact that THE PEOPLE SPOKE back in Nov..... it is time to stop the obstructionism. Furthermore, the campaign for 2014 should start now, so we can remove these fools that simply can't accept the fact there are more Americans that don't buy into the crap they are trying to peddle than there are that do. If these fools don't believe that elections have consequences, then let them figure it out when they are tossed out in 2014.

Boehner turns down anything that doesn't have alcohol involved.

I do not want my children or grandchildren or for that matter myself to have an microchip implanted inside of my body of which I have found out is in the obamacare bill and could take place in 2013.

...and the village idiot has returned. Hey douche, change the batteries in your tin foil hat.

Jerry - your post is totally ignorant and has no factual content.

Elliot. Yes, on paper it's not a pledge to Norquist but he has big mailing list and he will try to use it to defeat Republicans who don't follow his orders.

Very serious question here. If the median income of America is about $45k/$50k for the average family of 4 would someone explain to me how 50% of the American populace can boost the economy when the GOP takes $2000/year out of the equation? This would remove ~$800,000,000 out of the economy which would result in an effective loss of about $7Billion. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the defense budget. This is a drop in the bucket compared against the waste in the Federal Budget. However consider this - if you factor in the effective $7Billion loss then ADD the social network cost increase to prevent people from starving in the streets of at least another $7Billion for a total loss of about $15Billion you still have gained nothing except raise the anger level of ALL Americans.

Congress you need to explain yourselves and provide an accurate description of how an average american family can live on the average american income with today's prices. Has anyone ever done that? You will find out that the economy is in such shambles it is not possible to handle all obligations without going into debt.

How about we just extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts for 6 months. When the new Congress is sworn in, make it mandatory they pass a FY Budget in accordance with the law. Take a dozen or so newly elected members of both houses and give them 5 months to come up with SPENDING CUTS, and REVENUE.

Raising the tax on those making $200/250K will only raise $680 Billion over 10 years ($68 Billion a year) and will do nothing in lowering the deficit. Obama has said on several occasions that "it's not about more revenue, it's about so called FAIRNESS."

As someone above mentioned the Democrats promised both President Reagan and Bush 1 that they would cut spending if they first got their tax increase. Never happened and it won't happen again if Obama gets his way. BTW, where has Obama and the Democrats proposed to cut spending, I have seen nothing on the table.

As for Medicare, people should become eligible for Medicare when they reach the retirement age for social security (Excluding early retirement between 62 and full retirement age.)

Jerry: WOW, you need to take off the tinfoil and do a little research.

Might I suggest: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

Its a place to start.

And so it begins ... again.

Boehner and his ilk have learned nothing from history. They are still following the obstructionist line of thinking. It is a sick, power-driven game that these idiots are playing. The majority of the people (90+%) of this country are the ones who will suffer if they continue down this path. Americans are not as short-sighted, ignorant or forgetful as Boehner and company would like to believe. We WILL remember in 2014.

Economists have already made it clear that, if the tax breaks for the under $250,000 wage earners are lost, the economy will tank. It is obvious that this is the plot the GOP has devised, thinking that they will crash the economy and blame it on President Obama for refusing to give in to their demands (their word, of course, will be "compromise"). Ignorant @!$%#s! Keep on playing, Boehner, but I would hate to be in your shoes when the @!$%# hits the fan over your bullheaded, entitled attitude. I wonder if your rich and powerful friends will be able or willing to protect you from the wrath of an enraged nation.

In 48 B.C. Julius Ceasar and Pompey met at Pharsulus, only to inflate their respective egos, to decide who would control Rome. Over a hundred thousand died. Can we not learn from history -- compromise. I am sick of both parties.

oh yeah Allen, the military budget has ruined the economics of the USA. Cool let me know how cutting military funding and raising taxes will pan out LOL.

Brady, who sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said he is advocating for comprehensive tax reform, to be completed next year after all rates would be extended.

If you believe that I have prime real estate here in south Florida to sell.

Yo Boner, this deal wasn't about raising taxes on the top 2%. It was a bill to continue the Bush Tax cuts for the 98%.

Don't misdirect. You don't care about the 98%. They're just a bargaining chip to be used to further the 1%.

The GOP are in a small bubble, and Reality is screaming loudly outside of it. If they want to go down in history as pulling off the greatest economic Holocaust of the masses in the name of the Rich, then we must stop them, peacefully if possible. If not, well, we must still stop them.

The republicans just don't stop, do they. No matter how much they are told that there IS NO SUCH THING AS TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS, they continue to push it. Raising the reates on the top 2% WILL NOT SLOW THE ECONOMY OR AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS. Small business owners are not in the top 2%. These Boehner-like clowns are either stupid or outright liars.

Isn't it weird that the middle-class and the ones who can least afford it, are the ones screaming for sacrifice in this country. And then there is Warren Buffett fighting along side the rest of us. He is a true outsider of all those selfish million/billion aires.

Obama better play hardball on this, even if it means "going over the cliff" which sounds more appealing every day.

The truth is that nobody wants to help pay for the financial trouble this country is in, they want someone else to do it. Nobody here can make a sane, logical argument that taxes should be raised on certain individuals but not on others. My biggest issue with this whole mess is that neither side has been completely honest with the American people about this impending crisis, which is a much bigger threat to this country than terrorism, health care costs, etc.

Here are the facts: We cannot solve our current debt and deficit problems solely by raising taxes on the rich (they don't have enough money). We also cannot escape this issue simply by cutting social programs without devastating the safety nets that so many Americans have become accustomed to. We need a balanced approach that sees mild tax increases on every income bracket, combined with spending cuts in every government sector until our budget is balanced. Once that happens, we can start to address the long-term issue of our sovereign debt.

One thing that's for certain is that we need to eliminate all tax deductions. We shouldn't be using the tax code to promote social policy. Borrowing money to buy a home should not mean you have less of a financial obligation to the government. Having additional children should not reduce your tax burden. People need to pay based on whatever income bracket they fall under, end of story.

ProBusiness #1.3~~Yep, republicans stand firm to the detriment of your party. 67% of the people who were polled, favor letting the Bush tax cuts expire for all earnings over $250,000.00. President Obama was re-elected after campaigning for that issue for the last two years. Now at the mid-night hour, the repubs are trying to convince their low-information voters, that they are not obligated to their Grover Norquist pledge, and they will raise taxes on everyone before they will raise taxes only, on earnings over $250,000.00

There is not a valid argument for not going ahead and extending the tax cuts for everyone other than the upper 2 percent. That doesn't necessarily mean that the upper 2%s rates have to go up, but the other 98% of Americans don't have to be held hostage by the GOP. That can't be any clearer.

Boehner and the rest of the GOP should be voted out in 2014. I know I didn't forget the GOP antics in November when I voted, and I am keeping tabs for 2014 like so many other voters. Keep it up GOP and you will cease to exist.

@ ProBusiness, post 1.3

The alternative my Republican Party offered was no way someone I could vote for. After going over the cliff I hope that side of my Party crashes and burns!

D. Appel, what is disturbing is you may be right. The Republican platform may very well be willing to do harm to the economy just to have something to rub the Democrats noses in.

ProBusiness,

Economics history does not support your economic logic. We have had far better growth and economic success under much more rigorous tax structures. While you are right about the economic theory espoused by economic books, I think you would admit that theory and real life are two different things.

Most of your comments prove your reading comprehension is poor. $250,000 is an arbitrary number that will likely include a large portion of the 98% because of how they are required to do their personal income taxes. Allowing the rates to go up for people over that amount are basically running into the same problem as those subject to the ATM before the cuts.

So heres the deal, many people (people you may know or love) will not have their taxes stay or go down. They will actually go up. BUt go ahead, yell and scream at the guy saying he wants real FULL reform and ignore those that couldnt pass a budget for 4 years.

hey Gil, that was Civil War. and Less than a decade later they would be at it again with Antony and Octavian. The end result wasnt to restore a Republic from any side. The 13 colonies ratifying a constitution to form a more perfect union was compromise.

justicenonexistent

As one of the constituents supporting the Republican's I agree with Boehner. If you allow the demonic-rats to take the 98% off the table, they will never be reasonable about spending cuts

Very true. This is a negotiation and you can't give one side essentially everything they want without first getting something in return. Both sides have said that they've identified similar spending programs that should be cut; why not at least start with those? Just because they don't agree on everything doesn't mean that they can't act on the items they do agree on.

I dont think people really understand how the rich live today. My roommate doesn't work and neither do either of his parents. His Father has been "retired" since he was 35. he lives off investments and where ever he can find tax loop holes does. he even has a "non-profit" he writes off.(or atleast on paper has a non-profit. they all vacation and do whatever they want.) He does nothing produces nothing and employees no one. It would take a good amount of homeless people to make up what just there family sucks out of the economy but doesn't give back.

I grew up in a small town so i didnt know rich people. Living in a city now almost every rich person i meet fits more that mold than the small business owner working hard struggling to make it. My uncles own there own businesses and hire alltogether about 10 people and they make maybe 100k personally a year.

Paws93

Why not cut spending first...? Why do taxes have to go up first?

Oh...that's right...because the Dems have NO INTENTION of reducing spending.

TAX & SPEND...TAX & SPEND...TAX & SPEND.....

Answer is who won the election in a landslide? Obama campaigned on the fact that he wanted to let the tax cuts for the rich expire. Majority voted him back in office because of his campaign. That should answer that question simply enough.

WTF, why dont the American Taliban understand Temporary means for a short time? and BTW Why dont the GOP pay for the 2 Unfunded Wars that has cost us 3 TRILLION DOLLARS. Is WAR for FREE? Either you can be an American Patriot or be a Quisling, Taxes will not be raised on 100% of Americans who make less than $250k and if you make $275k you pay only the extra 2% on $25k. WARS Cost Lives and MONEY it is time to pay the piper

Speaker "Bonehead" you are so full of crap...... the Congressional Budget Office did the report this (just three weeks ago) that showed tax breaks to the rich don't create jobs........ oh wait you tried hardest to have that report buried.

For the second time in as many weeks, an analysis by a nonpartisan agency of Congress has demolished the GOP myth of upper-income taxes and so-called "job creators." Just days before voters headed to the polls, the Congressional Research Service documented that for decades tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were not correlated to economic expansion, but instead to growing income inequality. Now as Republicans on Capitol Hill warn of the supposed "fiscal cliff" they helped manufacture, the Congressional Budget Office is reporting that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will have virtually no impact on the U.S. economy at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160493/-CBO-No-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-no-problem

And there are other links to copies of the report before it got buried.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15053167-cbo-higher-taxes-on-rich-wont-harm-economy

Click on "reported" and the 16 page CBO report is available to read.

Well we know we don't get Boner's vote but does the rest of congress get to vote? Some Republican are for it. When will they vote on this bill or can this one man stop it from coming to a vote completely?

ProBusiness

You believe "taxing the rich" and having them pay their "fair share" simply redistributes income from those that "have" to those that "have not" without any consequence to the private sector. History shows that is not true. Economist for centuries understand when you increase the penalty of success (i.e. increase taxes) it has a negative effect on the economy.

Wrong. There is no evidence that low taxes spur economic growth. If that were the case we would be booming right now with the lowest rates in history.

Cool let me know how cutting military funding and raising taxes will pan out LOL.

Hey genius, military spending is 20% of the budget and in 2011 was second only to social security which IS NOT a contributor to the debt. Furthermore questioning the notion of having the wealthy pay their fair share in addition to being totally ignorant as to the drivers of debt shows you are nothing more than an empty head and big mouth.

Boehner has only one plan, and that's for the middle class to pay for the rich. Screw him. He's a traitor. Personally I haven't heard of a single middle class American complaining about accepting a tax hike nearly as much as the 1% are.

At least the truth is out now. All this opposition the GOP showed about raising taxes only applies to the taxes for the super rich. The GOP doesn't give a damn about the American worker. Thank God Romney got his ass handed to him.

Paws93 #1.13~~Why not cut spending first...? Why do taxes have to go up first?Oh...that's right...because the Dems have NO INTENTION of reducing spending.TAX & SPEND...TAX & SPEND...TAX &

SPEND The Bush tax cuts expire on Dec 31, 2012. If republicans, will not cut taxes on all those earnings under $250,000.00, then everyone will see a republican tax increase

GOP - the party of 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.

Yes, the House Speaker alone under house rules can stop any bill from coming to the floor for a vote. It is an extra-constitutional power of the Speaker of the House.

The Republicans pass policies to make people poor. Then, they demonize the poor that they have created with these policies. As has been said before: "Poverty is the worst form of violence"--Ghandi.

Having said that, I say we tear Republicans from limb to limb and hit them so hard that their bullying instincts bleed blood. They have not earned anything else than that.

History just doesn't count to the Republicans. Bush and the Repubs were given a surplus, with which to start paying down the debt. Instead they passed the tax cuts, claiming job creation and all the same old trickle down BS. Dems at the time wanted to put the money in the so called "Social Security "lock box". They objected that the overwhelming majority of the cuts went to the upper crust. Republicans instead "rammed " through their agenda, with Cheney casting the tie breaking vote. They then proceeded to explode the national debt through their actions. Of course not a single Republican gave a shyte about the debt then. "Deficits don't mattter", remember. They complain about the "takers" when of course they increased their ranks significantly with the cuts. The size of the government didn't matter then. Regulations were to be thrown out. Wall Street responded with the worst crash since Hoover.

Now, if the tax cuts were good back then, then for 98% of the American people they're good now. Or don't you believe your own Bulls..t.

GOP - protecting the rich so that they may continue to receive bonuses equal to your yearly pay.

Face it - if you taxed the the wealthy 60% allof themwould still have more money than the entire state of Mississippi

Example: Bill Gates minus 60% in taxes still equals billionaire.

"We can't do something easy that helps 98% of Americans if it doesn't help the top 2%, that just wouldn't make any sense!!!" Signed, The Stinkin' Lyin' Republican Cabal for Billionaires

Pro-business is blogging your job?

I mean do you get paid to blog?

You must be a hard working american that hates people who don't work but you are like every 5th comment on every blog on this site. Day after day.

Killian Jones

The truth is that nobody wants to help pay for the financial trouble this country is in, they want someone else to do it. Nobody here can make a sane, logical argument that taxes should be raised on certain individuals but not on others.

and:

ProBusiness

You believe "taxing the rich" and having them pay their "fair share" simply redistributes income from those that "have" to those that "have not" without any consequence to the private sector. History shows that is not true. Economist for centuries understand when you increase the penalty of success (i.e. increase taxes) it has a negative effect on the economy.

Here are some irrefutable facts and a link which should certainly put this debate into the correct light.

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007 (the period for which these data are available), according to data the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued last week. Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top of the income scale than at any time since 1928.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

I laugh in the face of these conservative shills who continue to back big business and the the uber-elite in this country.

"Cry me a river, they have it so bad and Mr. Uncle Sam is after them again"

You corporate mouthpieces need to have your head examined if you think the top 1% (or anybody with a net take home >$250,000/year) are getting the $hi+ end of the stick on this deal.

BTW - where are those jobs we were promised from the "job creators"? Remember? We had a verbal agreement between socio-economic classes that if we subscribed to the (phony) idea of trickle down economics, starve-the-beast, high-income tax cuts economic legislation....... it would allow those individuals to create jobs. Yeah, instead we opened the flood gates of outsourcing and offshore $$ tax havens. Trickle down my a$$.....

Did it ever occur to your bobble heads that if perhaps all that money which has been concentrated at the top of the food chain was circulating through the economy, we would not be having this debate? If perhaps the middle three 1/5ths (mentioned in the CBO article above) was able to spend even 30% of that shifted wealth (which was instead hoarded by greedy barons) that nobody would have to worry about tax increases, but instead we could all treat ourselves to a nice (legislative) steak dinner...... like an across the board tax cut or shoring up our safety net...... or adding some more horses and bayonets to our depleted cavalry.

No it probably didn't.

Lets just do what Republicans would do and start another War and not pay for it, just put it on the good ol Chinese credit Card and when the Bill comes Due, just act like you dont know what they are talking about

And 5 comments later... we have...

Killian Jones at 1.47:The arguments for allowing taxes on the rich to go to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels are

1) that they will not see a significant loss of quality of life if they pay a bit more in taxes, whereas at the lower socio-economic end, the quality of life will be impacted.

and

2) the rich have benefited disproportionately from the infrastructure and financial structure of the country, leading to gross wealth disparity.

So, basically, they have the money, they got it because the system is biased to make it possible for them to get more, and they don't need it to sustain life.

We know this because under higher tax rates on the rich, the country and the rich did just fine.

In other words, "fairness" is complicated. What is "fair" is not always "equal" but is more likely "equitable."

Look up those words if you don't understand the difference.

So no one seems to address the obvious lie that the top 2% of wage earners in this country are "small businesses" - yah, if your small business employs 500 people! I know TONS of small businesses and small business owners, and I know for damn sure they are not in the top 2% of earners in the country.

And lets get away from the fcuckin myth that it's the business owners that create jobs. Not a single business owner will ever create a job if there is no demand (or assumed demand) for their products and services. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with their tax rate. Even if they are dead broke or in debt and there is a surge in demand, they will find the money needed to hire. Money in hand will almost never be the determining factor in making a new hire. Creating a job is always the last thing someone who owns a business will do. It is the middle class, the hundreds of millions of people that USE products and services that drive job creation. So this foolishness about the economy being hurt if a single tax payer making $300,000 has to pay...$10,000 more in taxes is just that, foolishness.

Pro Business - don't tell me what I think when you clearly have no idea. You also clearly know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about economics as evidenced by your long, arduous and nonsensical post. You have no concept of the reality of economics. Try taking at least ONE class - and passing it!

Come back when you actually have something to say instead of posting the far right talking points, convoluted figures and total stupidity. It isn't working and I'm pretty sure most on this site can see through your foolishness!

Why didnt someone say the Obama was a Muslim and was not Born in this country before I voted for him, I wont vote for him for a 3rd time , Lesson Learned : ).

Respectfully, I disagree unlike Republicans Dems have suggested areas for cuts and are open to ideas and suggestions. The Republicans have not offered or entertained such opportunity. Further, the 98% or majority of Americans have a voice in how "their tax dollars," are allocated. These are Americans who are Middle-Class and who by paying their taxes invested in their government. They did not evade or hide their income rather they paid a larger percentage of their income in taxes then the most wealthy. They like any investor expect and rightfully so a return for their investment as they paid into so called "entitlement," or government programs. The nation's top 2% have enjoyed historical wealth thus they should have generated a large number of jobs. We should not have any issue with employment if the 2% weren't so greedy. These wealthy and disconnected individuals could care less about anyone but themself. They do expect unlike the 98% majority perks regardless of tax evasion. As a business owner so eloquently stated along with several high profile CEO's..." help the middle-class and tax the weatlhy as the middle-class create the jobs by their demand for goods and services." If Mr. Boehner and his buddies continue to obstruct they most likely will find they are a minority come 2014 elections. Voters will finish what they started having no more patience for politics.

I'll pretend you didn't just deflect my point and throw out some silly one-liner drive-by.

How do you address the fact that:

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007

Here are the current federal tax brackets for single income filers:

up to $8,500 10%
$8,500-$34,500 15%
$34,500 - $83,600 20%
$83,600 - $174,400 25%
$174,400 - $379,150 30%
$379,150 and up 35%

The truth is that nobody in any of those brackets pays anywhere near their actual rate. Everyone enjoys tax deductions and credits, which are really the root of the problem. This is how someone like Romney only pays a 15% federal rate while someone in the bottom 47% (1st two income brackets) effectively pays nothing. In my opinion, the current rates and fine as is, but if we want to raise additional revenue (which we should) then it would be best just to eliminate existing deductions so that everyone pays the rate they are supposed to. What good is raising the tax rate on high-earners to 40% if they'll still be paying 15% when all is said and done?

So you're a paid teacher of the internet.

Thank you wise Pro Business.

For a second I thought your 9 to 5 was to spread misinformation and misdirection for a certain $/hour. My bad.

I'll go back to my job.

ProBusiness,

Once again, economic theory from books and economic realities are to different things. The text you learn from in college impart great information. However once you leave college you realize that the text do not account for human behavior which is not as rational as the text would portend. Economics is messy and never as clean cut as either side would like you to believe \.

I'll pretend you didn't just deflect my point and throw out some silly one-liner drive-by.

How do you address the fact that:

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007

Two reasons:

1) Globalization: competition for labor increased most amongst low-skilled, low-paying positions which further drove down existing salaries

2) Population growth has largely been attributed to the working class: most immigrants that come here come from poor, 3rd world countries and the reproductive rates of low-income individuals is much higher than that of the upper class. This creates a demographic where the number of poor people continues to increase relative to the number of rich people.

thrakenglarv

Once again, economic theory from books and economic realities are to different things. The text you learn from in college impart great information. However once you leave college you realize that the text do not account for human behavior which is not as rational as the text would portend

I disagree completely. Human beings are incredibly rational as they will always respond to individual incentives. The problem is that we can't always predict which incentives are most important.

It’s okay to take money from others but when it’s your money the squealing starts. LOL! Most of these comments are obtuse. There is not a fiscal cliff just a bunch of self-serving morons in Washington knowing the simpletons will imagine they are saving them. Washington’s problem is not having enough money but spending money they don’t have. Does anyone really think that Washington will spend their money more wisely than they do? After the upper income folks get robbed Washington will steal from the middle income earners, your savings will be confiscated. People; put your head out of the dark hole.

Killian Jones

What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Bet you've been waiting all day for that haven't you, Tea Party

LOL

Probusiness

The Congressional Budget Office released a 16 page report three weeks ago that showed tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs. Speaker "Bonehead" tried to get the report buried.

For the second time in as many weeks, an analysis by a nonpartisan agency of Congress has demolished the GOP myth of upper-income taxes and so-called "job creators." Just days before voters headed to the polls, the Congressional Research Service documented that for decades tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were not correlated to economic expansion, but instead to growing income inequality. Now as Republicans on Capitol Hill warn of the supposed "fiscal cliff" they helped manufacture, the Congressional Budget Office is reporting that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will have virtually no impact on the U.S. economy at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160493/-CBO-No-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-no-problem

And there are other links to copies of the report before it got buried.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15053167-cbo-higher-taxes-on-rich-wont-harm-economy

Click on "reported" and the 16 page CBO report is available to read.

I say let all the tax cuts expire and the GOP will lose control of the House in 2014 and lose their chances at the White House in 2016.

Killian,

If you have not read Dan Airely, please do, it may change your mind. The work he and his colleagues are doing in behavioral economics is fascinating. You may find that your previously held truths about rational human behavior and economics are not as reliable as one might think.

Pro-Business

Are you serious? You believe the microchip crap? That is
quintessential tin foil hat material. The language which you reference
NEVER referred to a micro-chip. The
language referred to information being entered into a database regarding
devices patients had implanted into them such as pace makers and artificial
heart valves and joint replacements, etc, in order to keep track of the success
of the device. It was never, ever, a microchip. The language has been extremely
mis-represented/mis-understood. It blows my mind what some people will fall
for!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

PROBUSINESS....

Tea Party Downgrade: Did any of what you typed actually make sense to you? Try opening up and economics textbook sometime and see the light. You will be amazed at what you really don't know.

I have my economics book out. I'm looking for the light you spoke of while I wait for your carefully crated rebuttal to my questions. Are you still typing?

Killian Jones

Bet you've been waiting all day for that haven't you, Tea Party

LOL

I don't wait around for people like you. No offense.... just reality.

Killian,

If you have not read Dan Airely, please do, it may change your mind. The work he and his colleagues are doing in behavioral economics is fascinating. You may find that your previously held truths about human behavior and economics are not as reliable as one might think.

Cool. Thanks for the tip

Just as a side note, If tax rates are left in place for those making less than 250,000, then 100% have seen their tax rate lowered. Everyone pays the same rate up to the level of their income. The barons in the balcony are laughing, they love depressions, they get to kill unions, kill wages, cut benefits, retirement, eliminate social safety nets and for added fun, try to drown the government in a bathtub so they have free reign to rape the environment. The Republicans act like there aren't decades of results from their brand of governing to analyze their "fiscal acuity". Corporate welfare good, anything for regular citizens bad. You can tell a lot about a person by what they spend their money on. Wars versus survival. Excessive wealth versus extreme poverty. I don't believe 4% points of income tax equals socialism, if so, where the hell have we been all these years of much higher rates? If they refuse to deal, let them all expire. It seems the Republican party was hell bent to collapse the economy and don't give a damn about debt.

ProBusiness...."try opening an economics text book?" Which one? The one that preaches Trickle Down. It WAS CALLED VOO-DOO when Reagan introduced it and it's still Voo-doo today.

The 1990's is over. It was the perfect storm of corporate raiding, dot-com, and Y2K. Profit was everywhere as the equity of this country was sold off and the balance sheets were squeezed dry. The FTC opened the flood gates on large companies merging with other large companies and the stock market swelled with excitement. But with each large merger, a whole group of employees lose their jobs. And now we are paying the price. And there is no going back.

The "greatest generation" built this country, and the subsequent "worst generation(s)" have selfishly and greedily crippled it. And one thing is or sure, if you think that a 15% tax rate for the rich is fair, then you're either rich or an anarchist.

You seem to climb on this board as soon as Rash Limpbaugh is over. It's time you wean yourself from him and Faux News. Those days are over too.

Killian do you know the source Romney's income is? Wealth does not necessarily = INCOME.

I have no idea. But I imagine he's earning significantly more than 50-60K a year, which is what would equate to a 15% rate assuming zero deductions.

Excellent post Hole122000!

Had an old friend tell me the other day:

"Why even try..... our parents made all the money".

Sad...... but true?

Unless you somehow believe you know more than the hundreds of Phd scholars who have studied economics for years?

In fact, dear ProBusiness, the Economist polled a number of economists (both academics and forecasters) as to whether they preferred Obama's or Romney's (by extension, Democrats' or Republicans') approach to a number of issues and, guess what...

They overwhelmingly favor Obama.

economist.com/node/21564175?fb_ref=activity

It's not even close.

Even if you discount those who said they have a clear party preference (and a respected scholar like yourself should know better than to make assumptions of causation here), independent economists also think Obama and the Democrats are more correct than the Republicans.

I'll give you something, though: there was one issue where they sided with Republicans. Don't start doing cartwheels, though, because it wasn't taxes; it was entitlement reform.

Now, please, count the number of Nobel laureates in economics who are advocating the Republican approach and those advocating the Democratic approach. Come back and report to us your findings.

I know you have a penchant for making appeals to authority to support your arguments and bullying others into feeling uncultured and stupid for disagreeing with you. I'm sorry to break it to you, however, because the "authorities" (i.e., the "hundreds of PhD scholars who have studied economics from years") are not on your side this time.

Now, let me guess: your counterattack is going to be to disqualify Democrat-leaning economists and somehow suggest that only Republican-leaning economists are truly objective. Or you're going to undermine the credibility of the Economist, as if the publication somehow told the economists how to answer the questions. We're not buying it, bud.

Boehner's fighting for his life. If he allows the vote, he will no longer be speaker in January. He has never been a good leader and should just let go. Cantor will become Speaker and the Republicans become the minority in 2014.

Bonner I can't wait to vote your azz out of office. You better hope the coke brothers give you 50 million dollars.

You are trying to cause the US credit rating to go down again with you and your bunch of greedy azz wipes rich old MFs.

Everyone of the 98% should call boner office until a deal is reach that the rich pay there fair share of taxes. Greedy Fuks

Of course, the only ones that matter, according to Romney's campaign aide, are those making $5,000 a week. The heck with the 47% and the rest of average America. What a party of losers. Rename them the GOP God Owful Party! Off with the Aristocracies heads and the party that support them so blindly!

ProBusiness; I had a professor with a PHD, and his comments in class one day went something like this, a PHD means s--t is only piled high deeper. Those aren't the exact words but that was the essence of his saying that, and the whole class laughed. So if you say you've got a PHD, in my opinion you're just piling stuff higher.

I had hoped that the people in OHio would be smart enough to dump old Bonehead earlier this month, unless he and Grover Norquist scared all would-be opponents so that they wouldn't run against Bonehead.

AndresTM

Now, let me guess: your counterattack is going to be to disqualify Democrat-leaning economists and somehow suggest that only Republican-leaning economists are truly objective. Or you're going to undermine the credibility of the Economist, as if the publication somehow told the economists how to answer the questions. We're not buying it, bud.

I'll put up dollars to apples that he tells you to open an economics book and see the light. Followed by some gibberish about historical data and how three decades ago is not today and you cannot form a coherent opinion using data from the 1960's. Then he'll conclude with another reference to an economics book........ again.

Bonhead Boehner doesn't have a clue! He wants to ruin America, but to protect the rich!

It's no surprise that Johnny Boner and the tea baggers are perfectly willing to screw those Americans making less than $250K a year.

People in that income bracket can't afford to contribute millions to politicians with their hands out, like Mr. Boner.

But, the Very Wealthy have a Boner standing Firm and Tall just for them!

A nicely suntanned boner, at that.

Everyone of the 98% should call boner office until a deal is reach that the rich pay there fair share of taxes. Greedy Fuks

Is this the greed of people trying to keep money or the greed of people wanting to take money?

I see this all too often, the fact is the tax increase is only on the portion of anything over $250k, not anything under that, even Boehner knows this and refuses to talk except to confuse everyone. You WILL NOT have an increase until you make over the $250k then only the portion over the $250k. These politicians live to lie and confuse.

The plan to raise taxes on the wealthy will only generate taxes to fund the federal government for eight days. What about the other 357 days of the year? If you work for a living maybe you need to re-think it; you are next. You know that 401K and or savings you have been working on all your life? Get ready Uncle Sam has his eye on it! That's a lot of money middle income folks are sitting on.

Guess the majority of us are just "leverage".

Let's get ready to go off the fiscal cliff, Thelma & Louis style... lol

Oh Lord, Feisty! The image of Boehner and Cantor in brunette and red wigs, scarves blowing in the wind, big dark sunglasses and Cantor's Southern accent squealing "Drive, Boner! Drive!!!" will keep me laughing hysterically through this lame duck session!!!!

Agreeing to extending the tax rates for the 98% now would defeat Boehner's intention of holding the 98% hostage until he gets his favors for the uber-rich. Good God...how many times do we get to go down this road?

Kevin Brady is smoking cow crap if he thinks we trust the House Republicans to "deal with the serious issues" next year if we pass extending all tax rates now. We've seen how they "work" and I really don't think the majority of sane Americans have the stomach for the "Fetus Saving Redefining Rape Deficit Reduction Jobs Bill" that they would come up with.

What state is this Boneheader from? Please people don't re-elect this idiotic moron...give some new blood a chance!

How about not allowing Congress to go home for Christmas until they get this work done? Also, publish a list of the House member's names that vetoed the August Bill on taxes (257-170)? Then send e-mails to those telling them to get the work done, or be prepared to get kicked out in 2 years.

ALL OF US FIGHTING IS SOLVING NOTHING. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO IS WRONG OR RIGHT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE FIXED FFS.

Now that is out of my system, why is NO ONE talking about instating a FLAT TAX RATE for all citizens and business? It would be the most fair way to go. Zero deductions, Rate somewhere between 15-19%. All income is taxable, INCLUDING ALL ENTITLEMENT INCOME. Also, You can only receive 2 years worth of entitlement money in a 20 year period, with the exception of SS for citizens over 65.

Part of problem solved, EZPZ.

There's no way the Republicans are going to give away their only bargaining piece.

Ridiculous!. WHO IS PAYING FOR TWO WARS WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS? Mr. Boehner, you voted for these wars. How do you propose to pay for them? They are above and beyond normal operating expenses, so that does require more revenue! Truman did it. Eisenhower did it. Carter did it...they raised taxes to pay back what was spent.

The defense budget has DOUBLED since Reagan won the Cold War. Defense is a great area to cut spending. Easy to do. Viable too - as no one ever paid for these wars .

Bring the troops home. 75% of them from all over the world. Are we imperial USA? Name another country that has more than 5 bases overseas? Why are we paying civilian contractors 3 times as much as soldiers? Why are we maintaining bases, swimming pools, shopping and security overseas when these folks can come home, spend time with their families, it would cost the taxpayers 1/3.

Don't force anyone out. Have them come home and help guard schools, secure ports and transportation, station some on the border instead of building ridiculous walls, care for their own needs like eating, washing, etc instead of contractors. Have them care for other veterans who have been wounded, support the medical care system - providing services to lower the cost of medical care for those working for wages below poverty level, save these soldiers and their families for real conflicts while normalizing their daily lives. The cost of the force would be 1/3 of what it is now.

Cut several already identified weapons systems that are obsolete and the Pentagon says are no longer needed. Stop investing in weapons designed for the Cold War, and improve weapons for the 21st century. The USA spends 20 times what the next country spends on defense...and our country is exhausted and broke from spending and not paying for military projects and escapades.

Everyone who voted for the Iraq & Afghanistan wars - raise your hands. That probably includes McCain & Graham. Now US government - send everyone with their hands raised an invoice for payment of the debt they incurred - maybe a flat 5% on gross income for 5 years. Then we can see who will raise their hands next time. Two wars on a credit card? Where in all the GOP blathering do you see a plan to pay back the war bill AND balance the budget. Everyone in this country needs to pay for the wars they cheered for.... maybe they will think before cheering next time....

It's almost like the Republicans want to lose the next election. Unbelievable, pass the tax cuts Boehner, and worry about your precious rich later. I have a feeling they will be fine in the meantime.

The aristocracy are afraid to pay more taxes because they already pay too much? The aristocracy do not pay all of the income tax and the income tax is only 42% of the federal government's income.

The case can be made that those with 90% of America's wealth are only paying 36% of the taxes.

Meanwhile those with 2.5% of the wealth (50% of Americans) pay 30% of the total federal taxes.

If lower taxes created jobs we would all be working overtime now. Where are the jobs!

send everyone with their hands raised an invoice for payment of the debt they incurred

Dorfy; Better yet, why don't we send them over to Iraq with "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, Inc." to collect on those oil revenues that were supposed to pay for the war.

Why do the teabaggers forget that we were promised oil and it's revenues for Iraq?

I hear the left trying to say the right is dumb especially when a Russian news agency's analysis of Obama as being elected by America's illiterates!

elliot-3020456

Read the tax pledge. It is a pledge to the American People not Norquist.

It pledges to not raise any Americans taxes, Not Grover's.

Funny, I don't recall "We the People" asking Grover Norquist to coheres our elected representatives into limiting their legislative options for the benefit of the wealthy.

Anyone surprised? Republicans will never pay any attention to the wishes and needs of the average people. They are there specifically at the pleasure of their wealthy constituents. Actually, Boehner, likely would go along with the Presidents proposals, if He could control the rest of His house members, but He can't. The republican party, if not crushed and broken, will one day totally destroy this Republic. They use the fear, ignorance, bigotry, and superstitions of the people to get elected, then, once in office, run over 'em like the fools the republicans perceive them to be. A nation of disregarded people, unable to recover themselves from poverty, constantly worrying about their lack of ability to pay required costs of living, fearful of illness, and Its costs, and especially, attempting to come to grips with the hopelessness of their children's future, cannot long stand. Surely, our President will not cave on this issue. We must hold firm. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let all the spending cuts begin. Break the gwaddamn republicans. Come 2014, send these "yes" representatives of the unscupulous wealthy back to where they came from. Until we do, we're never going to have Governance of,by, and for the people.

go-n-out-of-biz

You know that 401K and or savings you have been working on all your life? Get ready Uncle Sam has his eye on it! That's a lot of money middle income folks are sitting on.

Odds are that if you worked all your life and put it in a 401K...someone on Wall Street now owns your 401K. You are aware that exactly the opposite is true regarding what Uncle Sam has his eye on, right? Wall Street has their eye on all that juicy Social Security money and their Republican Toadies are more than happy to give it to them.

So, if your only old age safety net "was" Social Security and it was all placed in a 401K on Wall Street and the economy pulled a 2007...you would be living in a cardboard box begging for spare change to buy dog food. But you wouldn't have to do it for long, the Republican healthcare act would kick in: Don't get sick. If you do get sick...die quickly.

Boehner is not being fair to his party. He is willing to piss off 98% of the electorate, in order to have a negotiating chip for the top 2%. He should also read the CBO, CSR, and economic analysis reports that all recommend not extending those tax cuts to the top 2%, the effects on a truly small business will be minimal.

If he keeps up this track, and insisting that Obamacare is on the table as well, we will go off that dreaded cliff and the 2014 elections will all but kill the GOP party.

Come on Really: Just trying to enlighten you. But trying to enlighten a liberal is like trying to tell a child not to put the fork in the electrical plug. You would THINK the child would learn the first time not to do it again - and the child that learns the first time is the conservative. But a child that DOESN'T learn and continues to put the fork in the electrical plug multiple times just doesn't learn. That is the liberal.

I find your enlightenment... trivial. Let me enlighten you:

A conservative sought office in 2000. His words:

I'll promote a responsible economic agenda to continue our prosperity.

His actions:

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion.

And now I throw your own words back at you:

...like trying to tell a child not to put the fork in the electrical plug. You would THINK the child would learn the first time...

Why do you believe that the "conservatives" of today are any different than the "conservatives" of 2000?

@Ol_Doc#1.137: You're spot on Doc. Course, you usually are. Regards

Mr. Boehner's next bid to retain his seat, Nov 6, 2014, now less than two years away.

(Spoken in Hannibal Lecter's voice:) "Tick-tock, Johnny boy, tick tock."

Ed Orr - Boner is from Ohio, and unfortunately, ran UNOPPOSED!!! Now there's a man who needs to be fighting for his job!!

Hey Pro Business, I've noticed your absence since Andre TM called you on the regurgitated trash you've spewed all over this site ... it's been quite enjoyable.

Thank you so much Dorfy for suggesting that Repubs start war reparations ... I've been saying that for years.

And thank you all for trying to remind all the RWNJs that if tax cuts for the rich was the answer to job creation everyone who wanted a job would have one by now.

Hole122000 ... you tell 'em my friend!

And the best for last, thank you AL-1735815 ... for also being someone who will be reminding others of the importance of Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700, R42729. We must not let the Repubs' blot out the information contained in this extremely important report. Their efforts to extinguish this report should not be allowed to stand.

this is going to be great. let them not pass the middle class tax cut's. people will remember and they will be thrown out of office in 2014. they are circumventing what the people voted for in the election. and elections have consequences. you don't do what the people want and your out. i guess there pledge to grover means more to them than the people who vote. they are afraid of a primary. they better be afaid of the general election. even die hard republikans will vote against them if the taxes on them go up. they may not admit it on these posts but they will vote against them. i love it.

Boehner will cave under pressure, just like he has in the past. Obama will, once again, win with his "charm", lies and deception., just like he did in being reelected.

Has he even mentioned the unemployment issue since being reelected? I don't think so. His only priority is raising the taxes on the rich.

With less than a month since being reelected, his incompetence in coming thorough "loud and clear."

ProBusiness

You believe "taxing the rich" and having them pay their "fair share" simply redistributes income from those that "have" to those that "have not" without any consequence to the private sector. History shows that is not true. Economist for centuries understand when you increase the penalty of success (i.e. increase taxes) it has a negative effect on the economy. Heck, EVERY economics textbook on EVERY college campus in the world states this - but yet you believe just by "disagreeing" then you are correct: You are not.

Actually, textbooks are pretty vague on this issue; they only argue that tax increases have negative effects on the economy in general. They never said anything about whether tax increases hurt when applied ONLY to certain segments of the economy.

ProBusiness

I love how many say it is the Republicans creating this "fiscal cliff" but not smart enough to even realize it is the Republicans TRYING to stop it. What IS the Fiscal Cliff? It is the understanding that tax increases negatively affect an economy and, through Sequestration, MASSIVE tax increases will take place across the board if not stopped. So the Republicans have offered, make that BEGGED, Obama not to allow us to approach the Fiscal Cliff by simply extending the current tax rates.

First of all, Republicans did technically create the debt crisis via their obstruction during the debt ceiling debacle and the supercommittee's super-failure. Secondly, the sequestration (as part of the debt ceiling agreement) only affected spending cuts; the expiring Bush tax cuts was a coincidence due to President Obama's 2010 capitulation on extending them for 2 years. And Republicans may be seeking to mitigate part of the fiscal cliff, but they fail to address the correlation that tax rates are at record lows and revenues to GDP are also at record lows; if tax cuts did pay for themselves, which conservatives assert now but true supply siders like Bruce Bartlett argue over the long-term (if ever), we'd be swimming in a sea of greenbacks.

But Obama is so determined to punish "capitalism" and "success" that Obama will allow EVERYONE to be punished with higher taxes thus Obama is able to stop this country from going into another recession, make that a depression, by simply extending the current tax rates. But in the name of punishing "the rich" Obama will allow EVERYONE to get punished and throw this economy into a tailspin.

Actually, Obama only wants to undue the economic fiasco of the Bush tax cuts (which redistributed wealth and income upwards without taking out the cuts for middle class Americans (which I don't believe exist but unfortunately, I am not the guy in the Oval Office). The nonpartisan CBO argues that raising taxes on the top 2% will have a negligible effect on the economy; ergo, it is the smartest way to reduce the deficit (other than reforming entitlements).

So it is very easy - even for a liberal to understand: Republicans want to make sure taxes DON'T increase and allow the economy to recover but Democrats are not willing to stop the MASSIVE tax increases to be automatically implemented and throw this economy into a depression.

Actually, Republicans want to make sure taxes DON'T increase and allow the economy to return to the 1920s, when big banks roamed free and robber barons sucked up vast amounts of wealth and income. At least, if the vast majority continue to support the obsolete and debunked theory of supply-side economics.

So you voted FOR massive tax increases by reelecting the Community Organizer in Chief so now the Republicans are not able to STOP the massive tax increases that Obama wants. You get what you asked for. You get the massive tax increases. Unless Obama is convinced how much that will hurt this economy. So Obama has a choice: NO tax increases or MASSIVE tax increases. It is up to you liberals to decide.

Well, since most Americans (including myself) urge for tax increases for the wealthy to compensate for the increased economic inequity of the Bush Bubble (and the Reagan/Bush 41 fiasco), I am willing to support tax hikers against tax cutters. After all, the Bush tax cuts are too expensive to keep, even for the middle class; tell me why we ought to forgo $4 trillion in potential revenues over 10 years for some stupid concept that they will reduce growth over the long-term??? I mean, we did pretty good under the Clinton tax rates, didn't we???

ProBusiness

Pat: Why do liberals always have to go back decades to try and defend their nonsense? The reason is because decades ago are easy to distort and warp. What you said was for the most part incorrect. So do I spend energy trying to convince you otherwise? No, it does no good because you won't even research the nonsense you stated - so how is my clarification going to make a difference?

Probably because conservatives do (remember all the Reagan hearkening when talking about passing the Bush tax cuts??). And also because the past contains some very good and applicable lessons, like how the deficit spending of the New Deal and World War II jump-started the depressed U.S. economy and propelled us to dominant power-status.

But it is 2012 and we are heading into a collapsing economy so try to stay in the right decade. All you have to do is open ANY college economics textbook and it will tell you tax increases DECREASE Aggregate Demand. For those of you who do not know anything about Economics that means a decrease in GDP and a decrease in productivity. But YET even though a college textbook (ANY college economics textbook) tells you that raising taxes will negatively affect an economy you liberals simply say these Phd economic scholars who wrote the textbooks and have studied economics for decades is simply wrong.

And that college textbook will ALSO tell you that cutting spending in a weak economy REDUCES aggregate demand as well; I dare you to check your own textbook. And by using primitive statistics (forgoing all the "dynamic" effects), reducing the after-tax income of the top 2% of Americans and counting in the fact that the wealthy tend to spend less of their income due to the marginal propensity concept leads to the conclusion that tax hikes for the rich DO NOT depress growth. Remember, our GDP is mostly based off of consumption, not investments, meaning that the rich have a relatively small role in expanding the economy than the rest of us. And by the way, the economic intelligentsia is SPLIT on the efficacy of supply-side tax cuts on economic growth, with conservatives and paleoconservatives arguing yes and a growing number of former supply-side thinkers and creators (not to mention moderates and liberals) arguing no.

From Black Agenda Report:

Not only is the ‘fiscal cliff” a phony, manufactured issue, there is fundamental agreement between the White House and Republicans in Congress on how this game should end: with entitlements in tatters. “Austerity is the common language and goal of the talks.”

Obama and GOP Play Tag Team on Entitlements

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 23:43 — Glen Ford

It seems that every breathless moment of corporate media news is choreographed to convince Americans that austerity is as inevitable as tomorrow’s weather. The objective of this con game is to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The two principle parties engaged in negotiations – the White House and congressional Republican leaders – are both agreed that entitlements must be put under the knife. The “grand bargain” that both Obama and the GOP seek has already been made, in principle. Austerity is the common language and goal of the talks, and nobody that counts in the discussions is defending entitlements.

There is only one problem: the vast majority of Americans oppose cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the great difficulty facing both Obama and the Republicans: the fact that the public favors the maintenance and even expansion of the meager U.S. social safety net. The disagreement, the great debate, is not between Republicans and the White House, who both agree on putting entitlements on the chopping block. The disagreement is between strong majorities of the American people, who want no tampering with the three entitlement programs, and Obama and his Republican friends, who are hell bent on so-called entitlement “reform.”….

http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama-and-gop-play-tag-team-entitlements

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Let's get ready to go off the fiscal cliff, Thelma & Louis style... lol

lol, Lets tie Boehner aka Boner to the hood of the car before it goes off the cliff.

It's interesting watching the suicide of the Republican party.

It's too bad because we need some real conservatives to replace those crazy jokers that have taken over the party.

We have a two party system for a reason and while I favor the Democratic party at this time. some sort of balance between the left and right is important.

THE GOP are a bunch of idiots that are destroying their own party, and it's @!$%#ing awesome!

If you raise the taxes on those making $250,000 or more, you know what you get?

You get enough money to run our govenment for 9 days. Can someone please explain how that helps?

With this one statement, Boehner just proved why he deserves a bullet in the head.

The problem with Obama voters is they actually buy into the concept that not raising taxes is a tax cut. A Tax Cut is a reduction in the amount of taxes that you pay. That is how Obama claimed that he cut taxes when tax rates have not changed since he took office.

The issue is not taxation - the issue is the demand the public puts on government to babysit them.

I mean, an article was seeded yesterday about how few laws (under 200) congress passed this year. It then did a "law count" for each year going back 30 years. Look how many more laws were passed by previous congresses!

The posters ate that up. Cries of "obtstructionist Repulicans" rang out.

You judge a congress by how many "laws" it passes, then you wonder why government is struggling to pay for all that garbage?

You people do know that "more laws" cost "more money", right?

So many people commented back to me and none got the point. Same old Rush & Fox attacks...Losers. I do not support the Repubs as they are failures as well.

Bush tax cuts were to expire...OBAMA extended them. They are OBAMA's tax cuts now. Why do liberals not get that. Obama OWNS the tax cuts. He signed them. BLAME HIM...!!!! (watch the whiners talk about how Obama was forced..blah blah blah...Still his responsibility.

Secondly, Obama has not cut any spending. That's why he's the first president to have 4 years of trillion dollar deficits. A couple of liberals said that I need to "study up", but apparently, they have not studied finance. Even with the tax increases, you haven't reduced any of the DEBT 1 dime. (watch how they don't know the difference in debt and deficit.)

If the Dems were serious about cutting, they would have done so already, but they won't even pass a budget. They kicked this can down the road time and time again. No, I do not trust the Republicans to quit spending either.

The difference between me and you loser liberals is that I believe in finance...not a political party.

Boy what a pocket of deadheads this morning lead by the Freaky redhead from illinois!!

One thing for sure, the Democratic Party believes the American people are just plain stupid. Or at least they feel their supporters are incapable of adding up all the hypocrisy in this argument. Here we have Obama and the Democrats running against the policies of the past that got us into this financial mess. Then we have that same bunch extending the Bush tax cuts, the very epicenter of the cause of the financial mess. Now we have Obama and the Democrats demanding the Bush tax cuts be made permanent for 98% of the nations taxpayers, while touting a tax increase on the top 2% that will raise enough revenue to fund the federal government for 8 days. How anyone in Washington can even espouse such nonsense with a straight face proves what idiots the Democrats feel they have for constituents.

If these policies were in the fact the problem that caused the downturn in the economy, then let them expire. Everyone in Washington and especially Obama knows full well there isn't enough revenue in raising taxes on the top 2%, it is a drop in the bucket. Yet Obama is parading around the country as if this paltry 80 billion is what is needed to bring this country into financial solvency. The simple fact is the Democrats are hoping the Republicans hold out, they want tax increases across the board and they want the ability to blame someone else. The Democrats have offered no specifics on spending cuts, just pass this paltry 80 billion in tax increases first, and then we can talk later. Well if 80 billion is all that is need to avoid the fiscal cliff, then there is no fiscal cliff.

There is absolutely nothing serious about Obama or the Democratic Party in terms of getting this nations fiscal house in order. We are running 1.2 trillion in annual deficits, and Obama is touring the nation to push a plan that raises 80 billion. It really is time for the Democratic Party to put up or shut up. Lay out the plan once and for all. Give the nation something that isn't a 10 year talking point that still sees our national debt exceed 20 trillion. The fact of the matter no one in the Democratic Party and least of all Obama has a clue what they are doing, touting an 80 billion dollar tax increase is nothing but smoke and mirrors and more kicking the can down the road. Someone needs to tell Obama the campaign is over, put away the talking points, and get to work.

Why do we keep using the term "tax cuts for the rich"? No one... repeat NO ONE is wanting to give tax cuts to the rich. The rate they have been paying has been in place for several years now. What we are arguing about is whether to raise the current tax rates or not. There are no "tax cuts" for the rich. The rates were dropped several years ago for EVERYONE to spur the economy. Now we are facing whether to raise them or not.

To continue to use the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" is to frame the argument in intellectually dishonest terms. Republicans want to keep the current rates in place. They don't want to cut taxes for the rich. (BTW, Obama had control of the house, senate, and White House for two years. Why didn't he raise taxes then? Because he said it didn't make sense to raise taxes in a recession. Is the economy SO much better now?! Well, he certainly says it is!)

It isn't working and I'm pretty sure most on this site can see through your foolishness!

Yeah, probusiness has a tendency to use a lot of words to say essentially nothing of note.

He will cite his 'undeniable logic' and his 'knowledge of economics' but he never actually displays them. He just references them, over and over, as if they exist - while berating whoever he is arguing against.... but not once have I actually witnessed him USE them to make an argument.

pro business Since you believe that no one in the top 5% or so should pay taxes, please explain to me why in the 50's and 60's when tax rates for the wealthy were about 90% we had a booming economy, a larger middle class, and a soild stock market?

In the 50's and 60's we were an industrialized nation. We had a huge tax base. But those days are long gone. Our tax base has dwindled with the loss of jobs. Driven from this country by over zealous unions, huge pension and benefits packages, environmental groups, and let us not forget the politicians that negotiate trade agreements that make the US the laughing stock of the world. To simply suggest that the tax rates are solution and the root cause is pretty foolish. Where we are today didn't happen over night, it didn't just happen during the Bush years, and it certainly isn't going to be solved by those we have in Washington today. When Washington actually fixes a problem they created, it is entirely by accident. Those in Washington work for themselves not us. The whole corporate political machine from Washington to what is supposed to be a non-biased media has failed this nation, the condition of this country is not an accident, it was inevitable.

This is so beyond logic that it's not worth arguing about... Boehner and his followers aren't listening anyway.

A moment of silence for the REpublican PArtry as their "Leaders" draw the faithful over their own "electoral clifff."

Rick-3416939

One thing for sure, the Democratic Party believes the American people are just plain stupid. Or at least they feel their supporters are incapable of adding up all the hypocrisy in this argument.

Apparently you believe that the 3.6% raise in taxes at the top is the end of the discussion? If that were the case then, yes, the Dems would have to assume a great deal of stupidity.

It isn't. There must be cuts. Once the economy revs up, taxes for all will probably increase. The argument coming from the Dems is: cut, but not on just the backs of the middle class. What part of that message did you miss?

Rick-3416939

In the 50's and 60's we were an industrialized nation. We had a huge tax base. But those days are long gone. Our tax base has dwindled with the loss of jobs. Driven from this country by over zealous unions, huge pension and benefits packages, environmental groups, and let us not forget the politicians that negotiate trade agreements that make the US the laughing stock of the world. To simply suggest that the tax rates are solution and the root cause is pretty foolish.

(sigh)... A better way to look at it is that unions kept American based companies from driving wages and benefits down to nothing to compete with emerging markets' dollar-a-day workers.

Show me where one Democrat in power stated or suggested that tax rates are the solution and root cause... to claim that they believe it is pretty foolish.

Tax rates have been decimated since Reagan and will take careful planning and adjustments (and time) to "right-size" them so we do not have the rich increasing their pace while the middle class stays mired in the mud.

Manufacturing jobs have left the country and, yes, this has occurred over a long period of time and will take careful planning and adjustments (and time) to trade plans and, frankly, our target jobs for the future. Training and education play big in this planning.

Entitlements loom large at the moment because our economy crashed and people are out of work. Entitlements other than Social Security and Medicare need little adjustment... we just need jobs. But, yes, Social Security and Medicare and health care in general all need work... hard work and compromise.

So let's fix the first thing first. Let's agree to the slight tax hike at the top with modest budget cuts just to get the feel of what compromise can do. I'm not convinced we're so far off, but I do believe Boehner and his "fix it all at once" attitude has to go.

Seems John of Orange didn't pay attention to not only the election results, but the results of poll after poll after poll showing that a majority of American's have no problem whatsoever with increasing taxes - a "whopping" 3%+ - on the top 2%. Either he's being willfully ignorant, he's just been staying in his tanning bed waaaaaaaaaaaay too long or hitting the bottle of Jack Daniels waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too hard.

John of Orange chooses to ignore that despite all of his pearl clutching, only 3% of small businesses would see their taxes increase and only on income over $250K - not the full $250K and then some, but only that income over $250K. John of Orange would rather hold 97% of small businesses - and 98% of the American people as well - hostage for 3% of small businesses and 2% of Americans (makes all the sense in the world for a country of 314M citizens, right??). He also chooses to ignore that that 3% of "small" businesses primarily encompass smaller companies formed by the Kock Bros and the like.

Entitlements? I am so sick and tired of hearing about "entitlements". It's bullsh*t - I've paid into both Social Security and Medicare for the last 30 years. The only "entitlement" I'm "entitled" to is what I've PAID into it. It's not "free" money; it's not just GIVEN to me willy-nilly; these are programs I've EARNED. So, not only does the definition of "entitlement" need to be drilled into that cavernous head of John of Orange's and those of his teabagger allies but, the media needs to pick up a dictionary as well.

My biggest issue to to imply that "small" business owners are the folks making over $250k a year. Most businesses would need a very large amount of sales to get $250k for tax purposes. Of course Bohner knows most people aren't accountants and don't know to call bull@!$%# on that. Especially in the Confederacy (the only states the GOP continue to win).

Amazing.......... I TRY to explain how an economy works and relay economic theory as well as referencing that the liberal philosophy goes AGAINST all logic and theory that is in every economics textbook in this country.

So then comes the liberal bashing. One told me to take an economics course. Another tells me that "textbook" information is not reality. Another states I don't know what I am talking about.

But maybe you might be interested to know that I have two graduate degrees which are an MBA and in Economics. Also, I own my own business so I certainly DO understand business. And let me go one step further....... I enjoy passing along knowledge so I also TEACH Economics at a local college on a part-time basis. I have more economics textbooks at my house than any of you liberals have porn magazines. I have used over 7 different textbooks over the years in both Macroeconomics and Microeconomics and also purchase used textbooks so I can be well informed of the many different textbook authors.

So here comes the criticism and is the reason I don't offer my background initially in these threads. Go ahead and tell me that I am ruining your children's education. Tell me I am an idiot and shouldn't be teaching. Tell me that I don't know what I am talking about. But what I CAN tell you is the information I pass along in these threads is economic knowledge and theory stated by EVERY economist in the country (make that the world). I pass along what is in the textbooks AND learned in historical and current scenarios.

So hate me if you want because I pass along the truth. Hate me because you just don't know how to debate someone who is more knowledgeable than you on how an economy works. Hate me because I call the Democrat party out on their lies and misrepresentation. Hate me because when a liberal doesn't have a point they can make they resort to name calling. But economics is economics is economics and if you opened a textbook, or took a class (you can still register for my classes in the Spring - there are a few seats left), you would be amazed at how much you really don't know.

Neko: Who said nobody in the top 5% should pay taxes? Where did you get THAT nonsense? All I have said consistently is raising taxes on the very producers in this country has a negative effect. Secondly, taxes are necessary but should be only for the true functions of government and Obama phones, contraception, and many wastes within the federal (and state and local) governments are NOT for the true functions of government. At the current tax rates we have PLENTY of money for the true functions of government but we spend needlessly and wastefully. So there is a debate of whether we tax more or spend less. Taxing more affects the functions of the private market so taxing more will more negatively affect the economy than spending cuts. THAT is what I said. If you want to BELIEVE something else that is your decision but to falsely state what I have stated is childish and immature.

Then you ask me to explain the 50's and 60's. In a forum thread? This could take several hours. But you already have an error in your assumption. Do you know that when Reagan cut the tax rates from 70% to 28% in the early 80's our tax revenues rose significantly? And led to the longest economic expansion in U.S. history?

But THAT also will take hours to explain so let me try to sum it up for you this way - tax rates are not the only factors in an economy. Liberals who don't understand economics like to talk about tax rate in 19XX or tax rate in 19XX but tax rates are a small part of the economy as well as tax revenue. We have to also look at Capital Gains rates (which are different than tax rates). Sometimes a tax rate DOESN'T change but a change to the Capital Gains tax rate has a positive or negative effect. And let's not forget Fiscal Policy. HOW the government spends the tax revenues also play a part. Also we have effects of laws and regulations. Something as simply as welfare reform, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, etc. can play a big part in how an economy reacts but none of these are related to "tax rates". And FINALLY let's not forget MONETARY policy. Monetary policy can have a significant effect on the economy and a change (or no change) in tax rates are not related. Expanding or contracting money supplies can affect interest rates, exchange rates, investment domestically or internationally, and/or inflation and ALL these play a part in the economy and have no relation to tax rates.

So my suggestion is not to be so naive. To pick a "tax rate" in the 50's or 60's and compare to ANY other time period confirms a total lack of understanding of how an economy works and what factors play a positive or negative effect on the economy.

Probusiness, I'm not going to argue your economics acumen because I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Its when you add your opinion (and some other economist's opinion) as to the affect of different things on the economy. An economics book may say that raising taxes on the wealthy would affect the economy negatively but that's not necessarily testable in a real-life setting. Too many other factors influence the economy to argue that the very rich's disposable income affect the whole of the US. One other point which I've tried to stress earlier: the accounting for that income and how it affect things like hiring are ALWAYS presented into the media incorrectly. To hire someone who LOWER your tax burden. The question is always would someone rather keep the $ themselves then hire someone and would the need to "gross themselves up" for the higher tax to determine how much they won't spend on business activities.

ProBusiness

EXCELLENT!! Obama needs to understand NOBODY should more in taxes or EVERYBODY should pay more in taxes.

I'm good with that. Lets set the tax rates at the 1955 levels!

If it was good enough for Eisenhower, it's good enough for me.

Oh, Doc...We all know these teabagger idiots would have called Eisenhower a commie.

Shockedanddisgusted

Are you kidding? St. Ronald Reagan couldn't get the Republican nomination today...definitely a socialist/communist/fascist (whatever the hell that is). I'm sure they would consider Grover Cleveland a big government socialist and Barry Goldwater a communist. Not only that but the closest thing they have to a foreign policy expert appears to be John McCain...and the hits just keep coming!

If life is a circle and they keep turning right, they're next step will be to nominate Stalin.

All of this nonsense about "tax cuts for the rich" is disturbing me, also.

Republicans claim that you don't want to stifle "job creators" by raising taxes on the rich. Well, those "job creators" have had more than 12 years of Bush era relief from taxes - just where are the jobs? Jobs are just NOT being created at the same rate they were when the rich were "suffering" under the onerous tax rates before. We can discount that argument.

Democrats claim that the rich should pay their "fair share". But they are a little stupid for focusing on income tax. Republicans point out, correctly, that you can't get enough money from raising income taxes on the rich. The numbers just aren't there. We can discount that argument for any meaningful increase in government revenue.

But both sides keep ignoring where the money is. Once all of your basic needs are taken care of, what do you do with the money left over? You invest it. Investments in this country are taxed at a far lower rate than income. Capital gains taxes are taxed at a much lower rate - 15%. I am not going to argue about why or whether that's right or not, it is a fact that capital gains are taxed lower than "earned" income. If it is taxed at all! I give you Mitt Romney's $100M IRA. IRA gains are not taxed at all!

Now, when you look at the numbers, where is the wealth in this country? Not earnings, wealth. As of 2010, the top 1% have 42% of the financial (non-home, home wealth is almost irrelevant since the housing bubble burst) wealth in this country! The top 20% has 53%!! That money is mostly investments and investment income is taxed at a lower rate than any other income. And yet, more than 1/2 of the wealth in this country makes money that is taxed at the rate that poverty wage earners pay! Why?

Any meaningful tax revenue increase plans must start with a significant increase in the capital gains tax rate!

I still do not understand this support ,in regard to taxation from these people who are determined to have me concede that the super rich should not pay their fair share in support to this country by the feeble cries that the rich alone can't pay down our debts and that by taxing them their fair share we will destroy this country as trickle down throw you dogs a bone is good for everyone.The last first.Trickle down was advocated by R.Reagan who as governor of California ,payed no taxes and when challenged on that fact answered dirty pool but neither denied that fact nor attempted to justify it. Second,No one claims that taxing the richest 3%? would wipe out the debt,but that shouldn't mean that we give them such a ride that their economy goes up by disgusting percentages. The last one,which is the most ridiculous of all.The rich do not increase the standard of living ,nor are they necessary for our survival. so,Let the government make the full population of this country pay their fair share and not give the rich much more than they deserve.

TO: dyermoe who wrote:

"There's no way the Republicans are going to give away their only bargaining piece."

I wouldn't so much call it a "bargaining piece" as I would call it their ONLY "excuse".

Basically, I think Republicans are still working on their old plan to do as much damage to the President of the United States and the American People as they can possibly do, so that later they can say "Sure, we had a black president, and everything he wanted to was supported by the American People but blocked by the "Racists Without Term Limits" in Congress."