E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter a weekend that generated skepticism about a possible deal to avert the 'fiscal cliff,' House Republicans presented a plan that includes $800 billion in new taxes, which is half of what the White House asked for. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Updated 4:50 p.m. ET -- Republicans offered up their own proposal to avert the impending “fiscal cliff” on Monday amid Democratic demands that the GOP match the Obama administration’s plan with one of their own.
In a letter to President Barack Obama, House Republican leaders outlined the contours of a deal they said would achieve a net savings of $2.2 trillion. The plan, which is based on fiscal commission Democratic co-chairman Erskine Bowles’s proposal to the super committee, would achieve these savings through revenue from tax reforms, health savings and discretionary spending cuts.
Recommended: Income tax rates just one piece of Obama proposal
"Going over the cliff will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country. It’s one of the reasons the day after the election I offered a concession to try and speed this process up. Unfortunately, the White House responded with their ‘La-La-Land’ offer that couldn't pass the House or Senate and was basically the president’s budget from last February," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill at a briefing detailing the plan.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Speaker John Boehner speaks during a news conference, Nov. 30, 2012, on Capitol Hill.
"We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that. What we’re putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way," the Ohio Republican added.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the plan "does not meet the test of balance."
"Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve," he said. "While the president is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates ... Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs."
The counter-offer coincides with Democratic demands that Republicans produce their own proposal to match the deal offered last week by the administration. That plan, presented to Republicans by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, called for $1.6 trillion in new revenues, savings from entitlement programs and new spending on unemployment insurance and investment projects. GOP leaders rejected the plan out-of-hand.
Still, the GOP proposal on Monday appears to move no further toward compromise on Obama’s central demand that tax rates be allowed to increase on the wealthiest Americans. While Republicans have agreed in principle that richer Americans can shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, they insist this must be achieved through ending loopholes and deductions, rather than raising rates.
The Republican plan, which is also backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., achieves its $2.2 trillion in several steps.
rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., talks about the key points in President Barack Obama's fiscal cliff negotiation that are making Republicans wary.
As Republicans put it, they would raise $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, $600 billion in health savings, $200 billion from changes to the Consumer Price Index, $300 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $300 billion in savings in mandatory spending. Many of the health savings track closely with the changes to Medicare first proposed in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets.
Republicans say the plan, using the Obama administration’s math, would achieve $4.6 trillion in savings.
It’s unclear, though, whether the Republican plan would move toward ending the stalemate around the fiscal cliff negotiations, with less than a month remaining until the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to snap into place on Jan. 1.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pummeled his GOP colleagues earlier Monday afternoon, arguing that their failure to produce a counter-offer would only exacerbate the situation.
The new GOP plan reflects the posturing that has come to characterize these negotiations, separated just a month from an election which awarded Obama a second term and which kept Republicans in control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate.
Also on Monday, the president continued his messaging offensive on Monday with a glossy campaign-style video highlighting the cost to families if the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of this month. (Obama has argued they should be extended for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of U.S. households.)
Benjamin Myers / Reuters
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrives at Capitol Building before a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 2012.
The president also took to Twitter to make the case for his own plan, answering questioners who used the informal 140-character medium to ask about the fiscal cliff negotiations.
Asked by one participant why he insists on increasing rates on the top 2 percent of earners rather than limiting deductions in order to raise revenues, the president replied that capping deductions alone would not raise adequate revenue.
"Not enough revenue, unless you end charitable deductions, etc. [L]ess revenue=more cuts in education," he wrote.
The president also dismissed the GOP notion that lower taxes for the very wealthy have a trickle-down effect in terms of new hires and a larger tax pool. "High end tax cuts do least for economic growth & cost almost $1T," he wrote. "Extending middle class cuts boosts consumer demand & growth"
Obama also argued that his administration cut spending by $1 trillion last year and that he is open to further "smart cuts" as long as they don't affect education or job growth.
NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
So the republican's offer exactly the same proposal as Mitt had during the election. We voted against that offer on 11/6/2012. Didn't the GOP get the memo. So the GOP has decided to wrap a rope around their political neck and jump off the proverbial fiscal cliff. Good luck with that. And guess who will push Boehner off the cliff, you got it, Eric Cantor - Boehner's arch enemy.
Actually, Mark, leftys think they'll be able to lie like they did this last cycle in pres. election and get away with it again.
We won't let this happen. Obama owns whatever happens. And we will crush again in 2014 like we did in 2010 and take back the Senate.
Rebel with no cause, your deluded. The teabaggers are a minority party and they are done. Just watch Boehner fold.
Mark - the "teabaggers" - tee he he hee he he u R so funny :) even your use of "your" which should have been the contraction "you're" made me LMAO! - are but a small part of the whole and I know as a lefty u Think tEabAggeRs are hAterZ and radical but riddle me this: why is a desire for a balanced budget and fiscal reposnisbility in D.C. radical?
I wrote like a 12 year old because I need to connect with your feeble mind that is a sponge for lefty indoctrination.
rebel
What lies? Please explain.
David there are many misrepresentations of fact made by Obama here are but a few: Romney the murdering capitalist, Obama claiming in debate 3 he called Benghazi an act of terror the very next day, got very irritated with Romney and thanked his water carrying lefty moderator lefty Candy Crowley (a sure sign he intentionally hid what really happened there so as not to crush his narrative he had decimated Al Q. and had them on the run), which in context HE DID NOT as further proven when 5 days after his supposed statement the day after 9/11 part 2 he had Amb. Rice telling 5 talk shows it was because of a video; his sleight of hand claims he had created 5M jobs when he had lost 5.5M due to layoffs made in publically traded corps. that had to to show earnings growth since their top line slaes groth was no morethan sideways in most cases, his assetion the Bush economy created the problems he inherited when in fact the Sept. 08 banking collapse happened due to poor oversight by those solely charged with that, the lefty Chairmen of the House and Senate Banking Committees headed by Braney Frank and Chris Dodd, ad infintum.
Obama is the biggest parser and prevaricator we have seen in the WH since Nixon.
Romney the murdering capitalist?
Obama did say in his speech the next day that it was "an act of terror" that is a fact.
What obama did was give Romney a little rope and he hung himself with it (but thanks for your baseless assumptions).
So you are trying to claim that Obama didn't call it an "act of terror" based on what Rice said 5 days later?? You do realize that they are to separate people and what one says does not negate what the other said don't you?
BTW it was oprgianlly thought to be like the protests in Egypt and the terrorist at benghazi pretended to be protestors which is why that thought persisted until new info was attained.
Although on Susan rice, I do find it funny that Condi rice repeated faulty intel on Iraq as a poltiical member of the administration for YEARS and still became Secretary of State but Susan repeated faulty intel she was given for 5 days and that makes her unqualified? You got to love the hypocrisy of the right.
Please list where you are getting your numbers and how HE lost those 5.5 million jobs.
I have no idea what you were trying to say about earnings please retype and phrase better please.
The Housing bubble burst in 07 and that started the downfall. Once again you pretend the bubble didn't exst to suit your arguments. Furthermore, the housing bubble started to deflate in 2006 before frank and dodd became chairmen so why didn't republicans act when they had all branches of government?
So I have to say thanks for the talking point propaganda but you fell way short of exposing lies by obama
David i have no idea how your number add up. Unemployment is where 8% and how many people are out of work and stop looking all together like 12 to 16%???? If Obama improved the economy by 5 million jobs why is unemployment still so high.. Simple you have to subtract the loss of jobs from the gains which means we are still loosing jobs every month.
Didn't he tell us last time that he was going to make sure unemployment was about 5%??? What happened to that give me the money and i will make sure we get unemployment below 5% and get this economy going. He got the money and spent it on what??? Does anyone really know for sure???
No more moeny with no cuts. I am deeply afraid that at some point we are going to have to pay back that money and we won't have it..
CU
my number??
My post was addressing and questioning another poster so the only number I gave came from his post.
If you have a question for me please learn to read and try addressing the actual content of my post. If you can't do that there is no point in responding to your nonresponsive rants.
David does not mention at all the root of the matter regarding Obama's claim he created 5M jobs. He does not know net jobs so don't try explaining it to him.
Fact: we lost over 500K jobs in Obama's first 4 years. Expect more of the same.
David has been at the water cooler over at MSLSD TV. He is not logical just a liar who won't address facts directly. Parses around them like his hero, Barack Milhaus Obama.
Still won't admit Obama was referring to the first 9/11 when he mentioned "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden 9/12 of this year.
Nthing he writes matters he is just having fun and not seeking truth. He is possibly booksmart but his comments are nothing more than getting his ya-ya's off BSing to his heart's desire.
poor rebel.
I ask you to defend your claims and the best counter you've got is to attack the messenger because you know you don't have the substance to back up your own claims.
If you did you wouldn't bother trying to tear me down. Instead you would provide the substance to back up your arguments.
Thanks for showing that you've got nothing.
I made my claims by factually exposing Obama's constant misrepresentation of facts. The truth does not need defended it needs to be exposed. Which the media outlets who favor Obama overwhelmingly will not do. Nixon would have loved having these bozos in his back pocket the Obama does.
You are not the messenger, David. You are most likely are a follower and always will be. You are dedicated, you truly are, but defending untruths must be a most nauseating experience.
Tell us about that. Because anything else is poppycock.
Your clues about Obama accusing Romney of being a cold capitalist that ultimately caused the death of the wife of a laid off man, Joe Soptic, who worked for a company bought by Bain Capital and lost his health care, is not real complicated.
Tell us all about Obama, the defender of truth, who no doubt gave a thumbs up to his Deputy Campaign Manager and or fomer WH lackey Bill Burton, for the totally BS campaign ad about how Romney laid off a guy, his wife was sick and died of cancer - with clear inference Romney had a direct hand in her death with his fanatical, maniacal allegiance to capitalism.
That's right! I forgot. An Obama super PAC headed by his former WH Staffer Bill Burton made that BS ad!
However, under federal law, the president's campaign may not coordinate its activities with independent groups such as Priorities USA Action who produced the ad under the direction of Burton.
Then there was the ugly little recording of a conversation between the accuser Joe Soptic and Stephanie Cutter in which she lead Soptic on a fairy tale about what killed his wife - and it was decidedly Romney for both liars. Now we have three liars.
Justify that with a question mark. It is what lefties do best.
BTW the DCM was Stephanie Cutter a totally useless POS in my book.
In case you can't tell I hate liars. And she is a liar not to mention a fool.
poor rebel.
You did NOT make factual claims and when asked for substance you lashed out and attacked me instead of substaniating your positions.
LOL I love the fact that yuou counter your own spin. Cutter spoke with soptic on a conference call in may and was asked if you knew the facts about his wifes death in Aug when the ad was made so where is your proof that they coordinated with the PAC to create this add months later? You do have proof don't you? Oops!
Is this what you call factual claims? LOL
P.S. even if you could prove that stephanie cutter was lying how is that proof of Obama lying? LOL
David - where is Obama from? Chicago? Do you understard the Cook County Machine from which Obama gleaned much of his campaign strategies? Obama would miss nothing involved with his campiagn.
I live here. ems are more croked her than Tammany could ever hope to be. That is fact.
Want to respond and ignore the point with more parsing moron? BTW, I do not use moron to insult it is just a fact based upon your responses.
Same old political BS!! The two parties are worse than my 4 and 6 year old. At least I can get my two kids to play nice ...
I'm so sick of both parties ... I think it's time they get locked in a room, and they are not allowed to come out until something is done. No bathroom breaks ... no food ... and no water. Let's see how long it would take them to come to an agreement then.
It's the fault of Obama. GOP is trying to not let this current recession, 4 years running, sink even deeper as it is already - check the Q4 GDP numbers andI predict we'll see they contract more. Not a good sign.
They have made a concrete outline to work on and Obama doesn't want to do it. He thinks he can BS his way out of this one, too, by tweeting to uninformed fools.
He won't be able to do it.
Actually rebel republicans are part of the reason we are stuck where we are.
Red states laying off public sector workers adds to unemployment keeping unemployment high.
Their obstruction on the debt ceiling when their own budget would have required the same increase cost us our credit rating.
Their obstruction and attempts to make obama a one term president has blocked jobs bills from being passed.
How can it be a "concrete" when it lacks specificity?
The term "concrete outline" is an oxymoron all on it's own.
David - bag the lefty BS. Public workers do not create exconomic expansion so the other side of the coin is not relevant to this economy as a whole.
What an incredibly stupid point you just made!
The debt ceiling? That is also not relevant its political poppycock that's been going on for decades. The only relevant point is we need to stop adding to our debt.
A one term president? Because we who oppose are racist? Say it lefty. Lefties are the racists in our society and reverse racism is even more ignorant than that practiced by a majority over a minority based upon color. We oppse his policies so yes, we wanted him to be a one term pres.
Concrete? You are parsing just to make a point and ignoring the root and core of the meaning. It is "concrete" in that it outlines a policy with the aim being both sides negotiate a solution that won't raise taxes in a recessionary environment that will only further contract the economy. You don't get that. Don't worry you are not alone 50.7% agree with you. I am not writing for dough but for quickness as I have other chores and your reference to oxymoron is intellectual BS.
BTW, David. I am from Chicago - bang bang! - home of one of the most corrupt Dem poliitcal machines ever the Cook County Machine. I am certain in your racist mind you believe I am a redneck.
Rebel
I stated facts sorry you have a problem with reality.
Public workers earn money and spend it. Their purchases help businesses. Businesses continue to hire or retain workers to serve their customers. How does that not effect the economy?
The debt ceiling is a part of this because the downgrade of our rating is costing us more money and increased our debt.
Where did i say anything about race? Typical, when Republicans have no valid point to make they create a work of fiction, assign to a target so they can attack them for something they never said. Thanks for your lack of integrity.
You claim it's "concrete" in a desperate attempt to make it seem to be more than it is. It's barely an outline based on how it states amounts but says nothing about specifics on where they will actually get the money.
Actually my reference to oxymoron applies to your phrase. You added "concrete" to "outline" in a desperate attempt to give strength and substance to something that is by essence weak and lacking of substance. That is by definition an oxymoron.
What does where you are from have to do with anything. Does that or calling me a racist based on your work of fiction validate your arguments? Nope but I certain you will keep trying. LOL
David the very few aditional spenders creted by increasing public debt loads with salaries and legacy costs do very little to expnad the economy.
Your point is not based on reality but hope ans overly optimistic talking points spewed by your lefty Keyensian enthusiasts.
David, you have never promoted any kind of solution in the private sector. You make the points to work around then get at it. The GOP offerto negotiate those goals is concrete.
You are the typical lefty I see at social events. Standing in a corner alone with a frown because everyone thinks he is a pompous man who thinks he knows it all.
poor rebel
How sad that you lack the substance to support your arguments or counter mine. Do your attempts to tear me down validate your claims or counter mine? Nope.
In the end your spin was countered and all you are left with are personal attacks that show once again that you've got nothing to offer.
P.S. doing very little to expand the economy still effects the economy. Thanks for that concession and counter to your own claim that it does not expand it.
I heard the NO PLAN of the GOP this morning and "WHERES THE BEEF". Man they just DO NOT STOP CON-JOBBING the CITIZENS of this COUNTRY do they!!!
It is a PATHETIC NOTHING when you have NO CLEAR understanding as to EXACTLY WHAT are the DETAILS for the DEFICIT REDUCTIONS.
At this point ALL I SEE IS MORE HURTING FOR THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. We take the HIT as they say.
wqrw
The GOP is committing political suicide by failing to compromise with the President. The Republicans really do not have a plan, and if they did, they would lack the courage to take responsibility for their plan. They have no clue what to do at this point and their leadership lacks the intellectual capacity to deal with the issues. Its time to throw McConnell and Boehner over the cliff and let two sensible moderate Republicans handle the crisis. The entire country is being held hostage to the failures of these two incompetent nincompoops. When will we finally see some leadership emerge from amongst the Republicans, surely someone in their ranks has a broader vocaulary than " just say no"! The entire country is sick and tired of this. If the GOP doesn't step up now they will be facing a disaster in 2014 for sure. The party is rapidly approaching irrelevancy.
wow fail you show up 12 hours later and regurgitate the same rw propaganda that was addressed yesterday. Imagine that. LOL
It take two to comprimise when is your side going to come to the table with something that could not be passed even with your side????
CU it takes two?
Funny but that all depends on if republicans will come to the table with something besides romney's already rejected proposals of closing loopholes while failing to provide specifics and lowering rates in the hopes that growth will magically appear out of thin air and increase revenues.
Fail,
My guess is that Boehner and McConnell haven't even read the Republican Plan except to note the political talking points for the TV Cameras. They have never taken responsibility for the Bush administrations trashing of the US economy why would they accept any responsibility now? Moreover they are proposing the same failed policies of the Bush years except with more austerity and more taxes for the middle class. As to food stamps I don't see how that comment is relevent. Food stamps are a farm subsidy administered by the Dept. of Agricutlure to make sure that a bunch of already rich, stupid Republican farmers don't go broke bidding their own prices DOWN. You know, just like Republican businessmen want to $hit on Unions and bid wages and salaries DOWN so they can get richer.
The House are MENTAL CASES that really need to be CLEANED OUT. in the next 2 years.
They are in it for themselves and their RICH CRONIES or ASS KISSERS.
The GOP, NKA, teabaggers, have always bowed to the top 1%. They are owned by the top 1%. Amazingly most teabaggers can't see it. They are blind to reality. Amazing/mystifying. But so be it. We will just seize all political power and help the teabaggers out as best we can. They are fellow Americans, they are just dense to politics. I really must laugh when you hear a teabagger say "I don't want the government to touch my medicare or VA benefits that I am entitled to)
u still on this food stamps stuff, man give it up. the sh!t didn't work before the election and it sure as hell aint gonna do you no good now. stop all your whinning and "Buck Up"..
I'm in the bottom 47% and doing quite well for myself. So for the record who is these welfare people you speak of.
This is an example of "Voodoo Economics." Doo-doo that voodoo that you know just smells. Beware, don't step in it or everyone will know where you are (or is that where you're AT?).
All this bickering back and forth, while entertaining is of little help.
Only one thing is absolute.
If the republican version of supply side economics (trickle down) worked - we would not be here argueing...period.
Therefore; logically we can say that this is a truth, supply side theories do not work.
I believe it was Stanford University that analysed when putting money into the economy - if injected at the bottom it was spent up to 5 times before it reached the invester class; that 5 times people paid taxes (at higher percentages) on it, it generated consumer demand all the way through.
When injected at the top Supply side Trickle down it was spent 1.5 times before reaching the invester class and people paid less taxes on it at lower percentages.
This study was done around the time Bush sent all us tax payer $800.00 and I'm sure his reasoning was it would work - It didn't spark the economy because people were behind on their obligations and many saw it as a way to pay off debt - it was spent less than 2 times before it reached the invester class.
Question is - how do we inject $$ at the bottom without direct payments such as the $800.00 gift ala Bush?
One way - Increase wages. Well that not going to happen because Corporations have found extreme profitability by reducing their labor costs (due to the down turn - can you say across the board wage cut?) and they like profitability more than their mothers.
I do not pretend to know the answer or the solution these are just the facts.
There's a class war going on and the American public is losing - In my opinion President Obama is the only one fighting for the "Majority" interests.
2nd way -
Don't attack me by name calling.
Bush was the worst President by any standard you want to measure him by.
A snap shot in time does not an administration make.
When you look at trends you will find he was abismal...Even the hated Jimmy Carter afforded more jobs than bush...and by a factor of 3.
Bush was is and will always be the down fall of America.
fail
Still refusing to credit the housing bubble for propping up W? Typical.
BTW Democrats had the filibuster proof congress for roughly 9 months. They lost is when Scott Brown was sworn in. Furthermore, democrats never filibusterd like Republcians have over the last few years.
Personlly I think they should change the rules make them actually engage in the act of filibustering since they are so willing to abuse it.
fail
That "snapshot" as you call it did not miraculously end the moment W left office. It's effects were long lasting and hard for any president to deal with even IF he had the full support of congress and obama has had to deal with what W left behind while being obstructed by a republican party who put party before country as they tried and failed to make Obama a one term president.
failed, just finished listening to his buddy Sean hannity. Hannity fed him all the talking points for the day and he brings it to FR.
failed = nut job with no FACTS..
Failed, You said in a previous post that 47% of the population is on welfare. You know those free loaders right.
Well dumb ass, you are wrong again
Only 4.1% of the population is on welfare and here's my source to back it up
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
All you do is lie an lie so more with your right wing nut job rants. You just prove to everyone you are stupid as f*ck..
poor fail
Still have nothing valid to offer I see. LOL
Why should I accept responsibility for the housing bubble? Personally I think it's hilarious that you refused to even acknowledge it until you tried to blame democrats for it bursting. lol
The bubble propped up W you pretend it was all W's doing ignoring the bubble. The bubble bursts and you blame the left despite the fact that it began it's decline on W's watch with an all republican congress back in 06.
You've got nothing. lol
The other day when the dems came up with their preposterous plan that would virtually give the admin and congress unlimited spending power all the dems said the repubs were being obstructionists and they wouldn't even discuss the plan. Are you people nuts or what? Can't you see and understand what this government is doing to us???? It is taking us down a path of destruction while they are getting richer and more powerful like the communist leaders in Russia during their overthrow of the Czars. I can't believe that the dems and libbers have people in such a trance that they actually believe that this spending and funding of welfare and social programs can continue. Who will support it when you tax the rich and working all into poverty? Someone needs to snap their fingers and wake these people up. What the repubs have offered is not a good plan either but it gives a starting place but odumbo won't have anything to do with it. Getting rid of deductions and loopholes in the tax code scares odumbo and the dems because they know that would mean people couldn't get back more money than what they have paid in and the rich would have to automatically pay more because they couldn't write off their otherwise taxable income. And if you believe the dems want to tax the rich any more than the repubs you're absolutely dreaming. Where do you libbers think the odumbo campaign got its contributions. If you think dems don't patronize the rich you are blind and stupid. Raise taxes, cut spending and get the budget in balance or get fired. That is the message the people should give politicians but what message did we give them---we voted all of the do- nothings back in to office in November--BRILLIANT.
Raise the tax rates on the top 2%, close tax loopholes (gifts), put price control on prescription drugs, tort reform so defensive medicine and unecessary medical tests are not done, limit costs of expensive medical technology, eliminate incentives for doctors and hospitals to overtreat, put obese people (who run up Medicare costs) on a diet or dont pay their medical bills.
2nd Truth
Did any of you noticed that the money always flows up hill to the invester class? Regardless of where it is injected?
The only thing that delays it from reaching it's ultimate destination is who and how many times it's spent and taxed.
So the 1% can cry, hire lobbyists get their republican lapdogs to short circuit the money flow as much as they can afford to pay congress...it doesn't change the fact they end up with it anyway.
Truth sucks doesn't it?
I don't argue with Trolls...but thanks for playing.
Goodbye.
Our fiscal situation is like a computer virus. We are too busy talking about everything except coming up with solutions.
We must restore our operating system to the last known working configuration...The Clinton tax policies. Then we can move forward.
The Bush tax policies were a mistake. Let's just admit it and move on!!
If so why did President Obama Extend them for two more years? They are no longer the Bush tax cuts , they are the current Presidents tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts ended in 2010.
This entire process is laughable at best. It is nothing more than grandstanding for their constituents.
The Republican plan is based on the report issued by the Alan Simpson / Erskin Bowles budget commission, the findings or conclusions of which were outright dismissed by the Democrats when the report was first issued. Why is this no surprise.
Obama has not changed his plan at all since he floated last year, knowing that Republicans would not support it, and now the Republicans are doing the same thing. Both sides are equally to blame for this stalemate.
Now, however, if there are true negotations, there is no reason why some of what the Republicans offer, such as the reduction in tax credits for those in higher income brackets, cant be combined with a moderated tax increase on those say perhaps making $350,000 or more? Incorporate a long term capital gains tax of 17.5% with a provision that if the ecomic figures improve to (x) and it can withstand it, then it could be increased to 20%.
That way, each side gets some of what they are looking for, there is additional revenues generated (most likely more this way than with either plan by itself in the long road), and then concentrate on the cuts they can identify that can be made immediately and then work on getting the spending under control
Another item that I never see either side speak about is reducing the FICA tax by 1.5% or so, but at the same time doing away with the cap that individuals pay into it. This would equate to a tax break for people making $150,000 a year or less, and would pass more of the burden on to those who are in a better position to bear it.
It is fiscal management, and it isnt rocket science. They have done it before so there is no reason why it cant be done again.
Raising the Tax rate on the top 2% from 35% to 39.6 % really does not get them to pay any more taxes. The real money they make is in Capital gains and dividends with is at 15% Let the House keep the tax rates the way they are today. Raise the Capital gains and dividends to 20%. That will bring in more revenue. Of course that does not mean the government will reduce the dept. It could mean that they will just have more money to spend
Yet the American people support President Obama's plan by a large majority.
Another thing it's called "Integrity" when you believe in it, and do not change your position.
President Obama has integrity - The Republicans do not; the American people just aren't that stupid...at least the "Majority" of Americans anyway.
A “balanced approach to reduce our deficit”? Obama’s initial bid proposed cutting nothing, raising taxes $1.6 trillion and giving himself unlimited authority to raise the debt ceiling. At least if we go off the cliff they’re seeing to it that there will be plenty to laugh at.
With obama, it's "my way" or the ruin hiway.
Obama's plan did contain cuts but they didnt take effect until down the road, when what is needed is increased revenue and cuts immediately.
Republicans favored raising the debt ceiling when they voted for the ryan budget so why were they so against it when Obama asked for it?
I think the point that sonman was making was that we should not get rid of the debt ceiling and that Congress needs to keep voting to raise it.
How is the FACT that republicans favored raising the debt ceiling when it was required by their own budget a joke?
BTW
It's even more hilarious when you engage in the very hypocrisy you accuse other of engaging in. Funny how you refuse to address the fact that republicans voted against raising the debt ceiling out of pure policis and put party before country even as they supported and votetd in faovr of a budget that would have required it.
At least Obama's flip flop was from 2006 as a junior senator giving him plenty of time to change his mind. However, the republican flip flop on being for it and then against it were almost concurrent. LOL
One point I do need to make is that even with all of this talk, and the Simpson-Bowles plan, that plan would reduce the deficit spending by $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
At the current rate of spending, our national debt will still increase by $7 to $10 trillion in that timeframe.
The Ryan budget plan would have continued deficit spending until 2040 why would republicans support such a plan?
I would like to know why in hell do the Republicans want to protect the Wealthy? Did the wealthy make them a secret promise that everything will be roses if they didn't have to pay their share? It has been PROVEN over and over that "trickle down economics" does not work! As a matter of fact and proven by Mitten's own actions, is that when the wealthy get more money, it just goes into their Caymans bank account. The only way to stimulate job growth is to increase the demand for goods. That demand comes from middle class consumers, not the wealthy.
Who is protecting the wealthy? Republicans have already put increased revenue on the backs of the "wealthy" on the table. In fact, the Republicans increased revenue brings in over $150 Billion more than Obama's increased tax rates on the top 2%.
Rweber
Apparently you have bought into the class warfare rhetoric.
The wealthy already pay a good chunk of the pie, but there is perhaps room for them to take a slight bit more, especially in reducing their deductions and closing loopholes.
By the sounds of your post, it appears as though you want their taxes to go up by 15% or more.
Here is a little secret. Even if the taxes on the top 3% of wage earners were 99%, the revenues generated would run the government for roughly 7 months...meaning there would still be a deficit.
Explain that one away if you dare.
By capping deductions....like Republicans want to do, you will limit the amount the "wealthy" can deduct. The lower you cap it, the more revenue the government will bring in.
So the question is not why do the Republicans want to protect the Wealthy, the question is, why do Democrats want to keep obvious loopholes open to the "wealthy"??
TheDougler
When you look at the net worth of our elected officials, you will get your answer. ;)
The poor do NOT create JOBS for anyone except government workers. Time for the wealthy to create jobs so we can get America back to WORK.
Steve
In order for that to happen, there needs to be more stability being shown in Washington.
The stock markets and the job markets are the same in that they both abhore volatility.
politicoguy
is there a newsletter that gives Republicans talking points?
I have to ask because several of you have repeated that moronic argument of
But that is a strawman since NO ONE not even republicans are planning on paying off the deficit in one payment. So why bring up a strawman like that other that in an attempt to obfuscate?
The "wealthy pay more" argument is ridiculous too since even if at a flat tax they would still pay MORE than the poor because they have MORE.
So unless you are arguing that everone should pay the same exact amount then please drop this ridiculous argument that the "wealthy pay more"
David, Are you then admitting the wealthy (top 10% of wage earners who pay 70% of federal income taxes) are being fairly taxed? Or, do you want the top 10% to pay 90%?
Danno
Did I say anything of the kind or are you one of those loser who like to make up fiction assign it to others so you can attack them for something they never said?
I will let you answer that one.
Danno - David does NOT answer straightforward questions. A dozen tries or so and he will not take a stand. I do not know what he thinks.
Go off the cliff! Obama is not God, nor a rock star. Despite what the media thinks. Let it go. Try the blame game one more time. We no longer care.
Lets get rid of these CAPITAL COMMUNIST from the the HOUSE.
It is about time we take care of our CITIZENS and this NATION of the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE.
Not CORPS, CRONIES, TOP RICH %, SPECIAL INTEREST, LOBBYIST. Everything that has nothing in common for the MASSES of CITIZENS or this NATION.
Alain
One thing... it is not tax cuts that got us into this debt mess that we have, it is Washingtons out of control spending, coupled with the fact that we have the lowest rate of people participating in the workforce in more than 35 years.
facts hurt politicoguy........they will never understand how to fix the problem, if they are completely ignoring the problem to begin with.
TheDougler,
The sad thing is that this is a constant and never ending problem with Washington
Spend spend spend...run out of money.... spend spend spend.... increase the debt... spend spend spend. hit the debt ceiling. Hmmmmm.... Okay lets vote to raise the debt ceiling. spend spend spend.
Complain to the voters that the opposition is to blame, when all they need do is look in the mirror each morning to see who is actually to blame, and then come up with the stupid idea that this is all the fault of the wealthy so they need to pay more in taxes, so we your elected officials can keep on spending like the fools that we are.
When someone suggests to them that their spending is the problem, they look at this person like they are dellusional and disregard any comments from them.
Actually politicoguy we didn't have a spending problem until W and republicans cut revenues while increasing spending as they tried to "starve the beast"
The best way to deal with it is a combined approach that includes both spending cuts and tax increases.
@ David.
Make sure you tell democrats that, because largely democrats in Washington don't want to touch spending cuts. And the ones that do, make them so insignificant and/or delayed, that they are essentially ineffective.
dougler
The problem is that obama has offered cuts but republicans have responded with the same vague lack of specifics on cutting loopholes and deductions while lowering rates that Romney proposed and were rejected by the American voter.
You guys keep saying they are going to lower rates. No one is lowering any friggin rates, what are you talking about? Either the rates stay the same as they are now, or they go up. I've yet to see anything that says that any rates are going to be lowered, except the corporate tax rate that Obama wants to reduce.
Romney did propose lowering taxes, but he's obviously out now, and I've been told over and over again by you guys to get over it. Ok, I'm over it, and no one is talking about reducing rates.
Regarding the taxes themselves, there is no need to name specifics on what to cut, because there is no cut except for capping deductions. Capping deductions is a win/win for everyone!!!
Everything else is up for discussion. So republicans are trying to offer up bipartisan guidelines, and you guys are just bitching about it.
The cuts Obama has offered have been an absolute joke. There are no real cuts when it comes to democrats plans, and you guys want it that way. That way you can always try to blame the republicans for having to make real cuts, so that you guys can save face. I get it, it's politics, but atleast of the balls to call it for what it is!!!
It's in their plan at the bottom of page 2
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/letter_to_wh_121203.pdf
How does that foot in your mouth taste?
Perhaps if you kept reading, you'd understand what it actually said.
This wasn't a call for reducing tax rates.
It was a call to use Bowles/Simpson as a starting point, and something to negotiate from. Bowles/Simpson called for rate reductions, but nowhere in that letter does it indicate that rate reductions were an unremovable stance.
Again, Republicans are actually trying to set up bipartisan framework, and democrats are bitching about it.
Doug
How does what you quoted change the meaning of my quote which shows boehner asking for lower rates? IT DOESN'T!
He said clear as day that
So what did he mean by raising revenue by lowering rates if he was not referring to lowering tax rates??
FACT is you made a claim, I proved you wrong and your best defense is to post a quote claiming it countered my quote when it has NOTHING to do with it.
Why can't republicans just admit it when they are WRONG?
Again, I guess I have to repeat myself. When you read the whole thing and take it into context, you understand that he wasn't specifically asking for a tax reduction. He was stating what Simpson/Bowles stated, and Simpson/Bowles called for a rate reduction. So what.
So again, he was simply putting forth a starting point, not an actual plan. Why is that difficult for you to get?
doug
and again part of his starting point was closing loopholes and deductions WHILE LOWERING RATES.
YOU asked where it was from, accused me of making it up so I showed where in their own proposal republicans are talking about lower rates.
Playing semantics and claiming that it's not a plan but a starting point? Really? That's just sad.
It's there and you were WRONG. Claiming I didn't read it all when I did doesn't change the FACT that you were WRONG.
The fact still remains, it was only a starting point, and not a stance that can't be removed.
Had they actually set forth policy that called for reducing rates, then I would totally agree with you.
However, this wasn't a policy sent to the President, it was a guideline for a starting point, and nothing more.
I don't think Republicans really think they are going to get rates lowered, in fact, they've gone the other direction offering up increased revenues.
So what's wrong with using Simpson/Bowles as a starting point for negotiation?
Doesn't change the FACT that it IS in there to begin with when you said it wasn't and basically accused me of making it up. Why are you moving the goalposts? I said it was part of their plan you said it wasn't. At no time was it's removal part of my argument so why the shift?
You are still trying to make lame excuses instead of admitting that you were wrong.
My point was valid, your counter that it wasn't is FALSE.
Why can't you just admit it? That would be the honest thing to do.
Dude, seriously, there was no actual plan. It was a guideline based on a bipartisan study, that republicans are setting forth to use as a starting point for negotiations. That is not a plan David!!!
You are trying to argue that the republicans have a hardline policy to reduce tax rates, and that's it, end of story. You couldn't be more incorrect in that assertion.
I have nothing to admit. other than the fact that you can't pay attention long enough to see past your democrat bias.
Like I said previously, if they actually had a hardline policy, then I would agree with you, but that's just not the case here. At the end of the day, the letter was nothing more than a starting point for negotiations. If you seriously can't understand that, then you have some personal problems bro.
And yet boehner claimed it was a plan. LOL
So now you are trying to redefine my argument in order to give your point validity but I never said anything about it being a "hard-line policy" I merely said it was in there asking what I was talking about and saying that it wasn't there.
Seriously you are embarassing yourself by going so far as to split hairs on whether it was a plan or a guidline in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong. LOL
It doesn't matter how you define it or how you try to redefine my argument. I said it was in there, you said it wasn't. Therefore I was correct and you were WRONG.
Once again, David, I admonish you to try and learn and share ideas rather than trying to earn debate points. It seems inportant for you to find yourself to be right. You are still totally upside down on the Medicare thing. Try to learn and understand.
I bet fiesty is already off of here but will try to get a response from her.
Fiesty I heard that the dems were the party that likes others yet your post are full of hate. I take it you never heard the OLD saying if you have nothing nice to say then say NOTHING.
Have a good day.
Steve
There are posts on here from both sides that are nothing more than hateful diatribe, and have no substance other than insult included in them.
Yes I have seen it on both sides but Fiesty is the one that posts FIRST on this site, she must have inside info on when they are putting it out or that is her life wait for the next thread she can post on I have no clue which.
Steve, are you jealous of Fiesty's acumen.
It's "Feisty".
Did anyone know that the RICH or whomever has the CADILLAC HEALTH PLANS get HUGE TAX BREAKS! The rich make out like ROBBERS that they all are. The better the PLAN the MORE TAX BREAKS!!!
Yes, Republicans I WANT TO HEAR THE MEAT of this YOUR DEFICIT PLAN. The frosting will not do without the CAKE PLEASE!!!!
What a BUNCH of CON-ARTIST this HOUSE of REPS have become. DECEIVING the CITIZENS, just like in this past election. LIES !!!!
Alain
You mean like those that we elect to do the peoples business.
WE pay for their healthcare (lifetime), their salaries, their pensions (lifetime guaranteed), but THEY are exempt from Obamacare. Makes sense right? NOT!
The meat of Obamas plan is to tax and spend now and then....... way down the road..... cut spending.
If you want to talk about LIES then look no further than the DEMORATS, they spewed all kinds of them to get OBLAMER re-elected.
Now we need this administration to actually work across the isle not just do the blame game.
Is that Gilligan's Island you're referring to, Steve?
Really Steve?
I'll call you on that...Prove it.
I will go so far as to match what you would call a "lie' with 5 from Romney.
What in the Wide Wide World of Sports are you talking about, Alain? There is a 40% tax in PPACA on Cadillac plans, not a tax break.
Personally, I think we should raise the tax rate on John Boehner's tanning sessions and wipe out the deficit by lunchtime on the Friday before the Superbowl.
why is boner's picture om business section of web?that's right he gets kickbacks from corporate america along with insider trading tips from wall street,and they say la cosa nostra are bad people.
poor fail
I just loove it when you try to attack others accusing them of engaging the the only tactics you have to offer.
Throwing bombs of unsupported allegations and then ignoring it when they are countered is all you've got.
That's why we have had to repeat the housing bubble conversation a few times. LOL
by his own admission along with pelosi a ways back,you google it schmuck.
"We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that. What we’re putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way," the Ohio Republican added.
I'm surprised Boehner could keep a straight face while saying that.
Yes he is trying to save America from OBLAMERS tax and spend policy. That is how.
Now we need the DUMBO's on the left to wrok with them to get something done.
Why?
Why? Because he's putting forth the same vague plan that he's been putting forth all along and pretending it's a compromise. That's why.
Its the plan that was put to the administration by the Simpson / Bowles commission that the President put together.
Once the plan was issued, it was ignored. Boehner is trying to make the administration respond to the plan that their own commission basically put forth
politicoguy
Even bowles has said that's not true.
BTW did you get my response to your appropriations bill claim?
“While I’m flattered the Speaker would call something ‘the Bowles plan,’ the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan. In my testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I simply took the mid-point of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time. The Joint Select Committee failed to reach a deal, and circumstances have changed since then. It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today.” -- Erskine Bowles
www DOT momentoftruthproject DOT org/publications/bowles-statement-speaker-boehners-letter-president
Everyone's taxes would have to go up for it to do any real good unless you're going to cut A LOT of spending. Cut the pork that ends up in the fine print of bills. End oil subsidies or any other subsidy going to a billion dollar industry. Reform welfare. People DO need help in this country but make it more difficult to sit home and have babies while getting paid. Provide some sort of subsidized childcare and job training so these people, if able bodied, can WORK and pay taxes. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely and re-evaluate what military bases we really need all over the world. Make members of Congress follow the same healthcare rules as ordinary citizens. Increase taxes for companies who ship labor overseas and re-examine all corporate tax loopholes to see if changes could be made there. Just some thoughts.
Why end them just for billion dollars companies. I say end the favoring of one company over the next at all levels.
A lot of good points. One thing I dislike about Obama is that when he had all the power to pass laws, he failed to enact legislation that would protect American jobs and improve our economy greatly.
He focussed instead on creating a welfare state.
parkour
Everyones taxes would have to go up significantly in addition to significant and immediate cuts in order to have a real effect on reducing the deficit.