Boehner rejects call to pass tax cuts now for <$250K

Boehner rejects call to pass tax cuts now for those making less than $250,000

Anyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.

House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.

Cole (R-OK) on Wednesday reiterated his call for Congress to pass an extension of the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 first and then work on the extension for higher-earners later, a major break from the Republican's strategy in fiscal-cliff negotiations.

“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.”

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... 50000?lite

This is why the GOTP will be come more and more extinct. They keep proving beyond all shadow of a doubt, that they are nothing more than shills for the rich, and their goal is nothing other than wealth-preservation for the rich....(which history proves does NOT trickle-down in the form of jobs...It just buys more toys...and car elevators...)

Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'...

Who do you think builds those car elevators? Robots?

Let us go over the fiscal cliff, unemployment benefits go back to 32 weeks, and with everyone paying taxes, the debt won't rise as fast.

This is the same ole story from Washington all the time. Bonehead and the rest of them better get thier heads out of it real quick and realize that they could cause a major problem in this country if they do not get something done asap. I don't see it happening.

navycpo7 wrote: This is the same ole story from Washington all the time. Bonehead and the rest of them better get thier heads out of it real quick and realize that they could cause a major problem in this country if they do not get something done asap. I don't see it happening.

Yep... The campaign ads for 2014 are already writing themselves: "And who voted against tax-cuts for the middle class, just to protect the richest 2%?"

"Some people say" that's a winning strategy, and they follow things like the Rasmussen polls.... rofllol

On the topic of recalcitrance:

Democrats must move on entitlements in cliff deal, Bowles says

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2 ... wles-says/ ?

Democrats need to move on reforming entitlements to get a year-end budget deal, former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles said Wednesday after talks between House Republicans leaders and chief executives of big U.S. companies.

But the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have indicated that they won’t consider cuts to Social Security as part of a deal. Moreover, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who is close to Obama, said on Tuesday that a cliff deal shouldn’t touch Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security

“There has to be a compromise. People have to yield on things that they’re quite convicted about,” he said.

Definition of Compromise:

-A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

-Something that combines qualities or elements of different things.

-A concession to something detrimental or pejorative.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compromise

So let me get this straight. The Dems want the Republicans to "give" on taxes, but they WILL NOT budge on curbing entitlements. In the spirit of compromise, flexibility and doing something right by the nation, do you see anything flawed in the Dems approach?

Be honest now. :faint:

Social Security is not adding one dime to the deficit. That is a smokescreen by Republicans. Any changes to Social security will not affect the economy or the deficit.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Social Security is not adding one dime to the deficit. That is a smokescreen by Republicans. Any changes to Social security will not affect the economy or the deficit.

More naive. Right now the Social Security system creates a surplus. The Feds take this surplus to make the debt look not as bad. (LBJ started this to hide the true costs of the Vietnam War.) And they leave an IOU in the SS lockbox. So when SS starts running in the hole, they won't have that surplus to spend. Those IOU's can't be cashed because the debt levels will be over 20 trillion dollars.
There is no Social Security trust fund.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Social Security is not adding one dime to the deficit. That is a smokescreen by Republicans. Any changes to Social security will not affect the economy or the deficit.

More naive. Right now the Social Security system creates a surplus. The Feds take this surplus to make the debt look not as bad. (LBJ started this to hide the true costs of the Vietnam War.) And they leave an IOU in the SS lockbox. So when SS starts running in the hole, they won't have that surplus to spend. Those IOU's can't be cashed because the debt levels will be over 20 trillion dollars.
There is no Social Security trust fund.

Once again, Social Security does not affect the deficit or the economy. The Feds DO NOT take the surplus. They BORROW the surplus with Treasury issued bonds which MUST be paid back. So unless you are advocating that the US government default on those Treasury instruments (which requires a majority vote of Congress), any changes to Social Security is not being done to solve the deficit.

Standard right-wing talking-points... Let us know when you have something legitimate... The bonds that represent the trust-fund earn interest, and even if they dip into the interest to prop up the program, it is still solvent.

And if they remove the cap on the first $106,800, it will be solvent for 100 years....And it STILL does not represent ONE DOLLAR of the deficit.

"Raising the Social Security cap – which would make some or all earnings above $106,800 subject to the Social Security tax – has gotten some attention as a way to help alleviate Social Security’s long-term budget shortfall. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders plans to introduce legislation to keep the current cap at $106,800, but to also apply the Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $250,000. It is similar to previous bills and echoes a proposal by then-Senator Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. While this would leave those making between the current cap of $106,800 and the proposed cap of $250,000 paying the lowest rates, it would help secure the solvency of the program and avoid an increase in taxes on the middle class."
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/15-10

If the Fed is having to borrow to not only pay the current goverment debt but also re-pay Social Security for years of IOU's, the interest rates on those loans will be much higher and take a bigger part of the budget.

Essentially 50% of incoming tax receipts would go to only making the minimum payment on the loans.
Leaving very little for discretionary spending and requiring means testing and hiking age eligibility. Watch Europe and the austerity they are forced to go through right now.