View Full Version : John Boehner's tax bill suffers a major setback.
freein05
12-21-12, 12:38am
Boehner can not even get his own party to vote for plan B which would raise taxes only on those making over 1 million dollars a year. The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party. Whatever type of increase in taxes if any coming out of the House will require Democrats to vote for it to get enough votes to pass.
He must work with Democrats to get something passed or we go over the fiscal cliff. He probably won't and one moderate Republican said today if that happens Obama will win. After the 1st of the year a bill will be put forward to reduce the taxes on anyone making less than 250K per year. He said who in the house would vote against such a bill. I think he is right.
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 12:42am
Good. If we have gridlock, it means Social Security cuts are off the table, it's a good thing.
Ok, going to ask a logistics question. There are 435 votes in the House (242 [61] Republicans [Tea Party], 193 Democrats.) So why does Boehner need to court the Tea Party anyway? He's not Tea Party. It seems to me that he could blow off the entire Tea Party caucus and just negotiate and compromise with the Democrats and stuff would actually be accomplished in the House (and by extension, Senate) and we could just flat out avoid the fiscal cliff --not that I really care that much if we go over.
I don't know how these Tea Party people so have Boehner by the balls.
Anyone care to explain this to me?
Well, number one, Boehner wants to remain House Speaker, so he doesn't want to ruffle many feathers.
Even though the 'regular' republicans still outnumber the tea party members, there is still Grover Norquist and his pledge, which the majority of them had signed. Sure, his power is slipping, he still wields quite a bit, along with the bully pulpits of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. All these are poised to tear into any republican who steps out of line.
And three, that line. It's in their platform. No new taxes of any kind, no matter what the cost (which is usually grandma, or poor kids)
There are several things at work here. Tea partiers, of course, but also there are some republicans who would love to see the President fail and leave a legacy of failure. Sure, he won the re-election, but for some it's gone beyond that. It's personal, and they really don't care who they toss under the bus to achieve that. (Mitch McConnell comes to mind) These are the ones who see it as a personal failure if anything positive happens under Obama's watch.
I think Boehner and Obama had actually made huge concessions each in these negotiations, and were pretty close to agreement, but Boehner just couldn't sell it to his party.
I think Boehner and Obama had actually made huge concessions each in these negotiations, and were pretty close to agreement, but Boehner just couldn't sell it to his party.
I believe that the concessions made were on taxes, not on cuts. One side insists that a slight decrease in scheduled spending increases equals a cut even when it does nothing to address the problems which brought on the entire fiscal cliff scenario, and to make matters worse, those few folks willing to stand on principle are made out to be the bad guys.
It also seems likely that unless one side completely caves on their stance, the Senate will not bring any House bills to the floor for a vote. This is political theater at its very worst, designed to create a political winner and a loser and the citizens be damned.
I believe that the concessions made were on taxes, not on cuts. One side insists that a slight decrease in scheduled spending increases equals a cut even when it does nothing to address the problems which brought on the entire fiscal cliff scenario, and to make matters worse, those few folks willing to stand on principle are made out to be the bad guys.
It also seems likely that unless one side completely caves on their stance, the Senate will not bring any House bills to the floor for a vote. This is political theater at its very worst, designed to create a political winner and a loser and the citizens be damned.
It wasn't problems that brought on the fiscal cliff - granted the fiscal cliff involves some really big problems, but the problems did not create the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff is the result of the timings built into several bills that were passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. It was intentionally designed.
I don't know how these Tea Party people so have Boehner by the balls.
Anyone care to explain this to me?
I think the Speaker is actually working very hard to find some middle ground, but (as peggy pointed out) it's not an easy sell. Putting ANY tax increase on the table, even one for high earners, is a pretty dramatic departure from the status quo. The Tea Party is also relevant here because some of its members are pointing out that the economic discussion regarding the middle class is absurd. The administration is presenting not changing the current tax code for middle income earners as a tax cut. The "logic" is that if we go over the cliff those people's taxes will increase so reaching a compromise will result in savings for the middle class. It's like you budgeted spending $500 on a Christmas gift and ended up finding something perfect for $400. Did you save $100? No, you didn't. You spent $400. Just because you expected to spend $500 doesn't mean you saved anything by spending less. Just because people's taxes COULD go up, but don't, it would not mean they got a tax cut.
This is political theater at its very worst, designed to create a political winner and a loser and the citizens be damned.
Well said Alan. Unfortunately, I could not agree more.
This is political theater at its very worst, designed to create a political winner and a loser and the citizens be damned.
Exactly so.
Our "leaders" are mostly interested these days in re-election, and filling their campaign coffers. They no longer have much interest in actually governing, it seems.
Exactly so.
Our "leaders" are mostly interested these days in re-election, and filling their campaign coffers. They no longer have much interest in actually governing, it seems.
Most of them never really did.
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 1:00pm
Sometimes I suspect the middle class people so afraid of a tax increase aren't really middle class at all, if you are really middle class some slight cost increase (in anything) doesn't faze you (though you don't necessarily like it), you have the cushion, now the full fiscal cliff impact is a large and sudden tax increase it is true, but I don't get the "no middle class tax increases at all" position, whatever, and just watch Social Security cuts hurt the middle class more in the long run ....
I got an email from some liberal organization yesterday saying that on your SS and Medicare statements the government is now calling them entitlements and government benefits.
We and our employers paid into the programs. They are not entitlements!
Obama is now selling out SS and Medicare to make a deal. SS has enough money to last till 2040 and Medicare has enough to last 10 years. There is no reason to put a quick fix on the table. These programs are too important to our seniors. Don't let the republicans kill these important programs.
Don't let the republicans kill these important programs.
Maybe I've missed something but I'm not aware of anyone advocating killing these programs. I think the issue is whether or not we have the political will to do what's necessary to keep them available for our younger citizens. At the moment, it doesn't appear so.
I got an email from some liberal organization yesterday saying that on your SS and Medicare statements the government is now calling them entitlements and government benefits.
We and our employers paid into the programs. They are not entitlements!
Obama is now selling out SS and Medicare to make a deal. SS has enough money to last till 2040 and Medicare has enough to last 10 years. There is no reason to put a quick fix on the table. These programs are too important to our seniors. Don't let the republicans kill these important programs.
Actually they are entitlements and benefits - you and your employer are not paying into some account you draw out of later. You're paying to fund SS and Medicare for those currently in the programs, the idea being that when you are older you will be covered by those paying into the system then.
No one is going to kill these programs - however they will change under the auspice that a monthly check is a monthly check so that people can say these programs still available, even if that check is only worth a fraction of what it used to be.
Maybe I've missed something but I'm not aware of anyone advocating killing these programs. I think the issue is whether or not we have the political will to do what's necessary to keep them available for our younger citizens. At the moment, it doesn't appear so.
The Republicans want to use the starvation method to kill them. They are too smart to kill these programs outright.
The Republicans want to use the starvation method to kill them. They are too smart to kill these programs outright.Starvation or diet? Or, does it matter as long as there are Republicans to blame?
Actually they are entitlements and benefits - you and your employer are not paying into some account you draw out of later. You're paying to fund SS and Medicare for those currently in the programs, the idea being that when you are older you will be covered by those paying into the system then.
No one is going to kill these programs - however they will change under the auspice that a monthly check is a monthly check so that people can say these programs still available, even if that check is only worth a fraction of what it used to be.
Social Security has over 1 trillion dollars in it's trust fund, that is to be used when current payments into the fund are not sufficient. So it is a combination of trust fund and entitlement. Conservative republicans don't like the program and would kill it if they could. That is a fact. I have been following politics since the 1960s and the republicans have had SS in there sights most of that time. When there is a budget problem they almost immediately want SS on the cutting block.
Social Security has over 1 trillion dollars in it's trust fund, that is to be used when current payments into the fund are not sufficient. So it is a combination of trust fund and entitlement. Conservative republicans don't like the program and would kill it if they could. That is a fact. I have been following politics since the 1960s and the republicans have had SS in there sights most of that time. When there is a budget problem they almost immediately want SS on the cutting block.
The trust fund is actually a pile of IOU's - the money has already been spent elsewhere. They'll either have to use new debt, new revenues (taxes), or move money from other programs to cover it. Or cut SS payouts.
The trust fund is actually a pile of IOU's - the money has already been spent elsewhere. They'll either have to use new debt, new revenues (taxes), or move money from other programs to cover it. Or cut SS payouts.
That is the problems. The government both Democrats and Republicans have issued worthless IOUs to the trust fund.
Starvation or diet? Or, does it matter as long as there are Republicans to blame?
You are so right min SS recipients are on a diet already.
Obama is now selling out SS and Medicare to make a deal......Don't let the republicans kill these important programs.
Interesting view point free. Regardless, all 435 seats in the house and I believe at least 35 Senate seats (including DeMint and Inouye's) will be up for reelection in 2014. With seniors voting more regularly with the Republicans relying heavily on those votes I don't think they are going to strangle SS or Medicare.
ETA: Hadn't thought of it this way before, but in 2014 there will only be (at most) 65 members of Congress, out of 535, who are not campaigning. Why is it again that nothing gets done?
That is the problems. The government both Democrats and Republicans have issued worthless IOUs to the trust fund.
I wonder if that's the real reason it comes up for discussion during cuts - they cut SS enough and they won't have to come up with as much money to redeem those IOU's when the time comes if at all.
Naw...those IOU's are nothing more than mud that gets scraped off their shoes when they parachute out of Congress. I'll wager there isn't a single member that voted to let them pile up who plans to be around when they come due.
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 2:52pm
I think the issue is whether or not we have the political will to do what's necessary to keep them available for our younger citizens. At the moment, it doesn't appear so.
I'm under 40, got a good 30 years before I could collect at full retirement age, I know just exactly what is being done, and it's not to help younger citizens, because MORE is being cut from their SS benefits than those who are older. Because that's just the math, if you undercount inflation year after year, the more years that go on, the less the payouts, and younger people have many more years to wait before older people (not that it won't impact older people as well, I think this is scheduled to start now, so yea it will start to impact people that are already collecting as well, but it's still cutting much more more from younger people than them).
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 2:56pm
Naw...those IOU's are nothing more than mud that gets scraped off their shoes when they parachute out of Congress.
Are we at least chaining their pensions to the chained CPI? Not that it matters, since they get most of their money from bribery of course, but at least the symbolism is good.
Are we at least chaining their pensions to the chained CPI? Not that it matters, since they get most of their money from bribery of course, but at least the symbolism is good.
I still can't believe they still get pensions - they so do need to walk the talk. If they got a 401k with no match they'd still be doing better than most workers.
ApatheticNoMore
12-28-12, 3:50am
I wonder if that's the real reason it comes up for discussion during cuts - they cut SS enough and they won't have to come up with as much money to redeem those IOU's when the time comes if at all.
then their solution to the national debt is selective DEFAULT on part of the debt, and if that's what they plan it should be said at such, they plan to default on the national debt - the part owed to SS. Selective of course, no bond holder will be harmed, what do you think this is Iceland or something.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.