Boehner opens door to tax hikes, shifts fiscal cliff talks

Comments (14)
morbas wrote:

George Washington: “The power under the [federal] Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.”
Honorable Boehner, best to fully support Obama’s position, albiet a very small positive step. Perhaps you could counter with elimination of business taxes, thus the federal government becomes single payer. (Want to retire the Federal,state,municapility budget deficit use three surtax levels: 0-20K money 0 tax, 20k-200K money 30% tax, 200K-up money 90% tax. Couples freely share income.)

Dec 16, 2012 10:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
michael10sley wrote:

At paragraph House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: ‘Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland’……is he the
representative for Maryland of Maryland ? How many Marylands
do we need ?

Dec 16, 2012 10:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Boehner is scared. Very scared.

So scared that he is willing to risk alienating a lot of his ‘base’ by agreeing to raising taxes, just to try and salvage a little bit from his defeat.

He is doing this so he can say, in January, “We agreed to raising taxes, but Obama refused”. Of course, he knew Obama would refuse because Republicans still want to kill the US economy through spending cuts.

Dec 17, 2012 12:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
PortlandME wrote:

Lowell_Thinks…it always refreshing to hear such idiocy from people who blame others for the economic problems created by the GOP. Guess you did not worry that Boehner, Bush, Ryan were spending America’s money on two costly wars, tax breaks and prescription drug programs that put us in economic hole. And, I see you left out the parasites from the oil companies, who are making huge profits, but get billions of tax breaks for nothing. Dude, your problem is not that you factually incorrect, which you are, but you are too stupid to know any facts.

Dec 17, 2012 3:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Lowell_Thinks wrote:
“And how do spending cuts ruin the economy”

Common sense. What happens to the shop on the corner if nobody spends money in it? What would happen to WalMart if nobody spent money in it? What would happen to Apple if nobody spent money on their products? What would happen to the car industry if nobody spent money on cars? What would happen to the software industry if nobody spent money on software?

Are you getting the idea yet?

Now try this: what would happen to the US economy if nobody spent money?

Look at Europe for actual real-life examples of what spending cuts do.

Lowell_Thinks wrote:
“What will save our economy is if every lazy swine stopped being a parasite on the government and started producing.”

Most of those lazy swine were productive, until Republican economic incompetence destroyed America. Blame the victims… it is the GOP way.

Dec 17, 2012 4:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

Don’t believe anything you read about a fiscal cliff compromise. The Republicans are the defenders of the wealthy snd no one else, which is why they want to cut back on Social Security, which they have never supported and Medicare, which President G. W. Bush expanded with Part D (prescription coverage) without ever increasing the corresponding tax. These are the only programs which benefit the lower 80% or so of Americans.

Dec 17, 2012 4:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikefromaz wrote:

Boehner is through. He is just the last one out and needs to shut the lights off. America has had enough of the Republicans defending the rich at the cost of everyone and everything else. I mean seriously…..Over 370 fillibusters in President Obamas first term! Thats more than the last ten presidents combined. Obstructionism is nothing more than ruinous of this and any other government. Anywhere else it would be considered treason.

Dec 17, 2012 9:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueOkie wrote:

Over the cliff we go!!!!

Dec 17, 2012 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mainspring44 wrote:

This ‘offer’ suffers from tardiness. Minority Leader and a few other Democrats and Republicans suggested this change seven months ago to a $1 million threshold, four times the income threshold of $250K. At that time, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities evaluated the idea and found it would sharply curtail the revenue collected, and thus weaken the budget deficit reductions so widely agreed being needed.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 30 May 2012

A search engine (Google, Bing, Yahoo) will deliver plenty of prior dialogue about this ineffectual income tax threshold.

Dec 17, 2012 9:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bobo_9 wrote:

People seem to really miss the math about all of this – it’s only an incremental increase of 4.6% people, not enough to be that big of a deal.
Don’t get me wrong now – I’m definitely a fiscal conservative, & we need to drastically cut government spending, but this tax incerase on the big earners isn’t going to hurt them.
Let’s use Romney’s last released income figures -
He made (all rough figures) 21 million, paid 3 mill in taxes, let’s say he spends another 3 mill on cars, food, & stuff, so that leaves 15 mill he put in the bank or into stocks & bonds.
This extra 4.6% means he’ll have to pay an extra 1 mill in taxes, now he only puts 14 mill into his bank.
He’ll never miss it.
Someone earning 250K likewise has a small tax increase — rough numbers again, the 250K person ends up with maybe 130K going into the bank, will now have to pay an extra 11.5K in taxes, so only has 118.5 to put into the bank now.
No big deal, so let’s put this thing to bed.
What we cannot allow is to bury the couple living check to check trying to pay their bills, then we’re going to take 2 or 3 grand from them ?? THAT’S what the real cliff is as that couple suddenly cannot pay their mortgage or put gas in their cars, etc.

Dec 17, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bobo_9 wrote:

BTW, my tax plan is really simple.
1st 30 grand is tax free, next income level up to say 150K taxed at 20%, next step up to say 400K taxed at 30%, then maybe anything above 1 million taxed at 40%.
Not 100% sure if the math works out, but combined with a 30% cut in government spending I believe we’re running a surplus.
One key is to dump all of the current Senators & Reps, & load up with accountants & small business owners in Congress, & someone who’s NOT a socialist in the White House.
In other words, people who actually know the value of a dollar need to be running our governemnt, not this bunch of lawyers we have today who apparently have no sense of reality.

Dec 17, 2012 9:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bobo_9 wrote:

OK last tax note – my plan allows zero deductions for anything, for everyone that 1st 30 grand is at zero taxes, lastly between 400K – 1 million (that I missed above) taxed at 35%.

Dec 17, 2012 10:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Bobo_9: “Not 100% sure if the math works out.”
I am sympathetic. The earning statistics are scattered on the web. Took me a couple of months to assimilate the data, the top 2% personal income is difficult to decode. I can share my spread sheet is you would like to simulate an answer. I have no means to get to you.
In your research be sure to include state and municipality budgets as the federal is less than half the total USA budgets. Hint, the municipality is the most labor consuming statistic.
I recommend you strike your paragraph of prejudice, you are burning your bridges. Other than that, you are the first proposal for a solution I have heard.

Dec 17, 2012 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Even if Boehner concedes all the tax hikes Obama wants it will not begin to solve our fiscal problems; any proposal without serious spending cuts is a futile effort that will not be passed by the GOP…and rightfully so.

Dec 17, 2012 1:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.