Skip to main content

That's not my line. That's a Reuters story released Sunday (and carried by the AP), bylined to Alister Bull, with the following lead paragraph:

"A senior Republican senator voiced confidence on Sunday that U.S. lawmakers would forge a deal on the year-end "fiscal cliff," while a top aide to President Barack Obama signaled a willingness to compromise over raising tax rates on the rich."

The senior Republican is Bob Corker (R-TN) on Fox News. The Obama is David Axelrod on Face the Nation. Axlerod is quoted as saying:

Top Obama aide David Axelrod, asked if it was possible to raise enough revenue to curb the deficit without increasing the top tax rate, praised the 'encouraging' remarks by Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, on the need to tackle the problem.

'Obviously, there is money to be gained by closing some of these loopholes and applying them to deficit reduction,' Axelrod told CBS's Face the Nation. 'So I think there are a lot of ways to skin this cat, so long as everybody comes with a positive, constructive attitude toward the task.'

Nothing in the quote attributed to Axelrod that says what Reuters says he said, that the President might compromise on tax rates for the wealthy.

The issue is very significant. Stay with me here ...

In his statement to the press Friday afternoon, President Obama discussed this very point. Here's The New York Times report of his remarks, expressing a little smidgen of doubt:

'We can’t just cut our way to prosperity,' he said. 'If we are serious about reducing the deficit we have to combine spending cuts with revenue and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.'

His word choice here is worth noting, and maybe worth worrying about. Mr. Obama said 'taxes,' not 'tax rates,' and he used the word 'revenue.'

So ... what's up here? Would a President who repeatedly campaigned expressly on the taxes paid by the wealthy and tax rates in particular, being so much lower than the average Americans who work for them, actually pull back and talk revenues and tax reforms that would balance out, etc? That is what Mitt Romney campaigned on, not Barack Obama.

The media - the mainstream media - is confused and making mountains out of thin air.

Practically, there's no way Congress has time in its lame duck session to enact anything complicated on taxes. It could simply extend the Bush cuts; the President took pains to say he wouldn't sign such a bill. It could pass some stopgap for a few weeks or months while it figured out out to do deal with more complicated issues. Nope: here's President Obama on Friday:

While there may be disagreement in Congress over whether or not to raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody — not Republicans, not Democrats — want taxes to go up for folks making under $250,000 a year. So let’s not wait.
He said the Senate had already passed such a bill. The House's work could be easy - follow the Senate's lead.

The issue here is a big one. Campaign debates and stump speeches raised precisely this issue and President Obama - who challenged the very notion of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the very rich - won.

To back off - no matter how much the media would like to generate controversy and therefore readership - would betray the re-elected President's chief campaign promise. He won't do that.

Is there a way later to make adjustments in rates and tax reforms? Of course. Bring 'em on. But it will take months to put that kind of thing through, with a strong likelihood that the lobbyists and special pleaders will stop any meaningful attempts to kill or meaningfully restrict their favorite deductions, credits and preferences.

And the Republicans would portray - correctly - any backing off on Obama's campaign promises as a huge victory for them ... and for Romney's basic approach.

So sally forth, media, and chatter this thing up to a fair thee well. Cuts in tax rates on the wealthy - meaning the top rate brackets - Will. Not. Be Extended ... by this President.

Poll

In the lame duck session, President Obama will ...

64%113 votes
22%40 votes
12%22 votes

| 175 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Here we go again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty, cph, OldDragon, lostinamerica

    Progressives gave, and I did, the President complete support, with misgivings of course. in his run.

    Why win when you give away victory?  I hope the President will not compromise on the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

    Maybe we will have to rely on Harry Reid?  Who knows?

    Even though I put money and effort into Obama's campaign, I have always been prepared for his worst.

    I hope it does not happen.  

  •  Personally, I expect Obama will sell out (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dabtl, Roger Fox, cph

    the middle and lower classes.  But I hope I'm wrong and that I'll be surprised.

    •  3 to 1 (6+ / 0-)

      cuts to revenue increases is the ratio that Obama and Dems have committed to. If eliminating deductions - mortgage interest deduction, state and local taxes, retirement contribution, health care exclusion, etc. for those that make over $200k get to that figure, then so be it. It may even be more efficient because folks like Romney know how to hide the ball so they actually pay much less than their tax rate. This seems to be more acceptable to R's than raising rates. I don't know what their logic is for this - it's money out of the 3% pocket one way or another. I don't necessarlily want to crush their balls (ok maybe I do), but if an environment can be created where our policy goals are met - including some of the stimulative measures Obama has called for - while allowing R's to hold some measure of self respect, then the end justifies the means IMO.

    •  Obama has not sold out (26+ / 0-)

      the lower and middle classes. There is no reason to think that he will now.

      The media is engaging in the SAME bullshit they did in the last four years - throwing out distorted rumors to get certain factions angry at the President. Making it seem like he is "caving" in to the Republicans, and the Republicans in turn are getting everything they want exactly as they want.

      If that were true in the last four years, Karl Rove and the GOP would not spend billions to get rid of this president.

      We've seen this movie before.

      •  Not so fast there. PBO did institute (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisePiper

        austerity in his first term, whether or not one wants to call it selling out...

         

        We've had austerity lite whether we want to admit it or not

        by digby

        I've been detecting quite a bit of smug, self aggrandizement coming from certain Democratic quarters about the brilliance of the stimulus and how it deftly avoided all the problems that Europe and the UK are facing with their harsh austerity programs. It's a nice story and there's no doubt that the US dodged the UK bullet but there's no doubt that the administration has not only been talking up austerity since they came into office, they've actually enacted it.

        That's a fact.  If you don't think so, why not try, say, asking all the federal middle class workers who had their fricking pay frozen? Will the Pres go further this term, or not? We are ALL speculating at this point imo.

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:24:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  By all means..... (39+ / 0-)

    ....let's assume the absolute worst so we can start, in early November, the march to another 2010.  

    Because the political guy, not the policy guy, made a mild statement that the closing of loopholes is part of the solution.  

    Good God.

  •  Frankly, I think people ought to focus on (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, nextstep, TheKF1, VClib

    the amount of revenue raised rather than rates.  The President's proposal raises $80 billion a year.  If Republicans came to him with a proposal that raised $80 billion  from that group, say with an increase of more than 4.9%  on incomes of maybe $750,000 or $1 million, and elimination and/or deductions on the $250,000 - $1 million crowd, I'm sure he'd take it.  

    If they came to him with a proposal to raise rates on incomes over $1 million and to eliminate deductions/exemptions on the $250,000 - $1 million crowd that raised say $50 or $60 billion, I suspect he'd take it.  It would be a compromise by Republicans and I suspect he'd feel some pressure to take it.  And the extra $20 or $30 billion a year doesn't do a lot for deficit reduction because it's a small amount in the scheme of things.  

    The question I have is how much in spending cuts is he going to offer to tie to those tax revenue increases?  

    •  Bye, bye Medicaid and Medicare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell

      Revenue is easy.  I expect the gutting of the poor, elderly and middle class.

    •  no, the rates go up automaticly (4+ / 0-)

      So we don't need any kind of deal there just wait and let them be implemented. I'm confident that's what Obama will do because of the way he was forced to accept the GOP bullying last time to protect from a default. He was damn adament about the fight next time so I believe he'll stick to those guns and let the Bush cuts expire. Other good things will flow from doing that and he'll put himself firmly in the drivers seat.

      Sequester is a different fight but again Obama has the option of waiting until after it takes place and he has two more Senate votes to work with.

      btw, there is no such thing as a fiscal cliff and some very influential GOP senators (MCCain) are willing to compromise to save their Defense Industry patrons. Once again Obama is in the drivers seat.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:26:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why does it matter to you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anne Elk, TheKF1, VClib

        whether we get $80 billion a year from households over $250,000 but raising rates, or whether we get $80 billion a year from households over $250,000 from capping their exemptions and deductions, or whether we get $80 billion a year from households over $250,000 from some combination of those?

        Isn't it the additional revenue -- the $80 billion a year -- that matters?

        Why on earth would someone be willing to risk sliding into recession because they want households over $250,000 to pay extra tax dollars because of rate increases (keeping deductions and exemptions intact) rather than paying those same extra tax dollars because deductions and exemptions are taken away from that group?

        Marginal rates -- if you look at those ALONE -- don't matter.  What matter is EFFECTIVE tax rates.  If you are a two-income working professional couple each making $200,000, and you pay $100,000 in federal income tax, what matters is that you pay $100,000 in federal income tax, NOT whether that $100,000 is based on the fact that you have a higher marginal rate or based on the fact that you got fewer deductions and exemptions.    

        •  It matters because the "temporary" Bush tax cuts (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluezen, divineorder

          become permanent.

          And if you are a 2 income working couple making $200k ea and paying $100 you should thank your lucky stars (or your acct).

          Same as if you're a presidential candidate making $20m and paying 15%.

          •  we need to do both, rates up and exemptions cut (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuck utzman

            We need to both let the tax rates go back up to Clinton levels AND stop the special exemptions the super rich have bought for themselves over the years. Corporate welfare for big oil and other favored industries should stop. Lower taxes on investment income should be raised to earned income levels.

            The entire tax code is full of perks for the 1%, they need to be taken out asap as part of any bargain and unconnected to tax rates.

            In other words the 1% needs to pay their entire 39% tax bill. Ne exemptions except chairities and a couple of those that are needed for the common good.

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:55:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bugsy - there is no reason that any of the Bush (0+ / 0-)

            tax cuts need to become permanent as part of some grand bargain. Even if there is a deal to raise more revenue from the top 2% the tax cuts for everyone else could still be temporary for two years.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:00:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  if it's not a big deal one way or the other -- as (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheLizardKing, divineorder

          you've repeatedly commented on numerous threads -- why not let the rates go up?

          marginal rates DO matter, apparently, otherwise the r's wouldn't be fighting them being raised.

          the chances of a recession aren't as great as you seem to believe, at least not as far as paul krugman is concerned, & i believe he has a nobel in economics.  

          •  Because this is a way of getting a deal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            raising tax revenue from families with household income over $250,000.  The Republicans have signaled that this lets them "save face," and the President gets that additional revenue that he wants.  

            •  the diary says there's little chance anything (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cacamp

              this complicated could be done in the lame duck session, tho.  and r's are notorious for obstructing anything the d's propose, so it's wise to be dubious about the real motivations behind such a deal.  the last thing the r's want is to see the bush tax cuts expire on their benefactors, especially after the hosing they just took in bankrolling the failed election last week.

              if paul krugman thinks it's a bad idea, that's good enuf for me.

            •  There is no need to deal on this. Its a fabricated (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PorridgeGun

              crisis.  Here:

              Rep. Alan Grayson calls the ‘grand bargain’ an artificial crisis to steal from the middle class

              http://current.com/...

              Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

              by divineorder on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:35:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Because eliminating the exemptions and deductions (0+ / 0-)

          would hit those under 250k as well? And at a much higher percentage?

          Or any of the other things designed to help the middle class that the 1%ers use as well??

        •  One priority more important than marginal rates (3+ / 0-)

          is the need to bring capital gains under control in line with what Ronald Reagan believed. There is absolutely no reason for hedge fund managers (and Mitt Romney) to be paying less than 15% tax on their income. That is an evil more profound than low top rates on income.

          For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

          by Anne Elk on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:53:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  no, you're wrong on your assumptions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuck utzman

          We need to let the tax rates go back to Clinton era tax rates AND cut out the discriminatory exemptions the wealthy have been able to buy over the years. They shouldn't have anything to do with each other.

          But where you're very wrong is in saying by taxing the wealthy a bit more we risk sliding into rescession. That kinda of scare tactic is straight out of the 1% playbook.

          We need revenue and the middle class has been squeezed dry by Reaganomics so the beneficiaries of all that redistribution of wealth upwards need to do their part now.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:45:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't say this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, nextstep
            But where you're very wrong is in saying by taxing the wealthy a bit more we risk sliding into rescession. That kinda of scare tactic is straight out of the 1% playbook.
            I did not say that AT ALL.  What I said is that by not getting a deal to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff," we risk sliding into recession.  But that is not my conclusion.  That is what the CBO said.

            If that deal involves more tax revenue from households over $250,000, that would not involve risk of a recession.  

            •  here's where you're wrong again (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, the CBO did say that but they meant IF the entire thing were not fixed. I'm saying the fix can wait until we have two more senate votes sworn in and people like McCain get tremendous pressure from the defense industry and others to make such a deal. There is no such thing as a fiscal cliff, the term is silly on its face when so many fixes are readily available.

              It's another scare tactic pure and simple designed to keep America from dealing with the real fiscal problem of jobs. I say use the lameduck to pass jobs bills and a better stimulus so states can put their laid off people back to work. After Jan we can start from scratch and get a deal on taxes and the deficit ( a deficit which will be fine once jobs are addressed).

              America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

              by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:08:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Coffee, it matters because it's not just money ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... at stake. How you get the revenue is also important ...

          -  For policy. The decisions implicitly underlying which deductions and credits you restrict. After all, that's why us wonks call these things "tax expenditures" - they're a backdoor way to favor certain activities via the tax code rather than by direct government spending on programs.

          -  For the politics and political gyrations necessary to get things accomplished. Keeping some rate cuts and doing away with others - adjusting the brackets - is relatively simple. Nothing else is that simple and therefore accomplishable in a short, tense, pre-hoiday lame duck session. Limiting or capping the use of deductions and credits (and maybe preferential rates) by high income taxpayers sounds simple ... but that would be its own brouhaha politically, by those interests who favor those deductions, credits and preferences.

          I believe an lame duck bargain or short-term "temporary" extension of the Bush tax cuts bargain is a Trojan Horse to kick the can down the road and to draw Obama into a quagmire where the end game is not at all as clean as the proposal.
          If the House really wants to reform taxes - the GOP House? to reform taxes? Permit me to doubt! - let the GOP-controlled Ways and Means Committee start doing so as its first and most important order of business in 2013. If they do it right and well, Democrats can embrace the end result ... and we'll be able to see clearly what's available for spending cuts in domestic and military budgets. We cannot see clearly now ... so let's keep it simple.

          FORWARD to 2014: Win back the House. Build up the Senate.

          by TRPChicago on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:34:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, gramofsam1

      it is the  effective rates that matter, not the freaking marginal rates. It isn't that complicated.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:26:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget. Cap Gains go up to 25% or so. (0+ / 0-)

        That's part of the fiscal flip due on Jan 1, whatever you call it, already.

        Adding cap gains to income tax at income tax rates might be a possibility. I'm not sure how much income it would generate for the gummint but my suspicion is a whole lot, probably a very useful amount.  Certainly closing the loophole that allowed Mitt and others to earn income from Bain, but only taxed at CG rates. If you got it for work, you ought to pay income tax on it.

        Taxing at local rates income jiggered to be realized overseas and not taxable is another possibility.

  •  Don't give in (0+ / 0-)

    Stick it up the GOP;s butt, to show them you mean business, even though it might raise taxes on everyone

  •  As long as major policy goals are met (4+ / 0-)

    I don't care how they do it.

  •  This is not inconsistent with what the President (7+ / 0-)

    said.  He said that the wealthy would have to pay more and that middle income tax rates should be preserved.  He has set the marker at 250k, but I do think he would look at a compromise, but rates would have to go up in any compromise.  If the GOP doesn't want to include a rate increase that they would have to vote on, then Obama will simply let the top marginal rate go up automatically.

    The irony here is that for Republicans to limit the tax bite on those who have adjusted gross income above the 250k threshold, they will have to agree to and affirmatively vote to raise tax rates.  For example, Obama could very well agree to increase the threshold to AGI of 350k or above.  However, in order to do that, Congress would have to affirmatively approve it, which means enough Republicans would have to vote to raise taxes on the rich in order for it to pass the House.

    The box that the GOP is in is almost too delicious for words.

    If the GOP cares more about their Grover Norquist pledge (seriously, does this guy have dirt on every GOP member?  How does someone with no formal position have such power?) than keeping taxes low on the wealthy, then they will end up causing tax rates to rise for all income above the 250K AGI threshold.  If they truly do care about reducing the tax hit on at least a portion of those who earn AGI above 250k but say not 350k or 500k, then they will have to break the Norquist pledge and raise taxes.  Either way, the GOP will either break their pledge or screw the rich and bend to Obama's will.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:57:23 PM PST

    •  well put (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, mahakali overdrive

      I remember when Obama was boxed in and had to extend the Bush cuts. He was pissed and openly said he was doing it under duress and is willing to fight for letting them expire next time.

      He said "if you don't believe I'll fight, try me".

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:33:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (3+ / 0-)

      if boehner doesn't get this sorted in the lame duck session, all dems have to do is let the bush cuts expire and try again with the new, shiny congress where boehner's caucus is some 20 people smaller and at least two teabaggers down.

      so yah, he can try to use what's left of his leverage now and consent to some tax increases or dig in his heels and fail norquist's bathtub pledge outright.  that would make him look so weak, he'd cry.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:18:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Give me a carbon tax (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Nowhere Man, divineorder

    And I don't care what happens on tax rates for the rich.

    Seriously.

    Tax rates will go up and down, but enacting a carbon tax would be an historic shift in national priorities.

  •  The president has been clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    about the tax issue, the wealthy need to pay more and that will mean both a higher rate of 39% and possibly some closed loopholes. There should be concern though that by way of compromise he lets Soc Sec benifits get cut.

  •  I want rich people to pay more in taxes. IDK how. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat, gramofsam1

    If the taxes paid by people making over a quarter million dollars a year go up significantly, I don't give a flying donut how they're calculated.

    What a silly thing to freak out about.  This is just the media making drama.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:04:06 PM PST

  •  President Obama has ALREADY (13+ / 0-)

    raised taxes on the rich, particularly on the investor class. It's called Obamacare, and it increased the Medicare tax by .9% on incomes over 250k, and more importantly, it took away the exemption for investment income - so investment income over 250k got a 3.8% tax increase already.

    That's why the GOP was hell-bent of fighting it.

    As for the coming storm, closing loopholes could hurt many top income people more than raising the tax rate.

    As for those who pay less than their secretaries...that's investment income, not INCOME. When the Bush tax cuts expire, capital gains goes back to 20%.

  •  Why do some Democrats object to increasing (8+ / 0-)

    the average tax rate for the wealthy by reducing deductions taken by the wealthy instead of increasing their marginal tax rates?

    When we see the very wealthy paying exceptionally low average tax rates it is most frequently due the lack of limitations on deductions, moreso than not having marginal tax rates at the Clinton rates.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:06:44 PM PST

    •  Exactly. What matters is the amount (4+ / 0-)

      people pay in taxes, NOT the marginal rates.  People need to focus on EFFECTIVE tax rates, not marginal rates.  And effective tax rates are affected not just by marginal rates but also by deductions and exemptions.  

      What I heard some Democrats say this morning is, the President's proposal to raise marginal rates on households over $250,000 raises about $80 billion a year.  If Republicans can come up with a proposal that raises that amount of revenue from that group in some other way (eliminating deductions), they'd take it.  That's how I see this comment.  The President is not firm on increasing tax rates.  That's not saying he will give up on his requirement that the rich pay more in tax revenue.

      In truth, to get somewhere near that number, the proposal will likely have to be a combination of raising rates on really high incomes -- say over $1 million - and eliminating deductions and exemptions on household above $250,000.  Doing something like that should be fine with the President if it raises the revenue he wants, and it would give Republicans some cover -- they could say they compromised  and raised for "millionaires and billionaires" while at the same time protecting "small business" from an increase in rates.

      But -- as I've said elsewhere -- the President has made clear that, if he gets that additional $80 billion in tax revenue,  he will accept significant cuts in spending in the name of deficit reduction.  I can see how the revenue side gets there.  I am more interested in seeing what cuts the President will propose, and if they are anything like the cuts he proposed last year in his negotiations with Boehner.

    •  why do all r's object to increasing taxes on the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      rich?

      if it's so inconsequential, as you suggest, why not just let them go up?

      •  Where did you get "if it is so inconsequential" (0+ / 0-)

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:57:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  context. the way in which you frame the (0+ / 0-)

          syntax.  you make it seem as if reducing deductions matters more than increasing marginal rates.

          paul krugman thinks closing tax loopholes AND increasing marginal rates are equally necessary.  not one or the other.  & since he has a nobel in economics, i tend to believe him over you.

          •  Kurgan is proposing a much larger tax increase (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            than what even Pres Obama did in the campaign - so he needs to say all is required.

            BTW, Krugman consistently proposes policies that are very far away from what governments ever put into practice.  I suspect he does this because he does not factor in what is possible, or he prefers to not run the risk of proposing something that would actually be adopted - and then linking his reputation to a real world policy that might actually fail in the real world.

            Can you cite even one major economic policy proposed by Krugman that was then adopted by government?

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:32:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  so, lemme get this straight . . . paul krugman (0+ / 0-)

              doesn't know what he's talking about b/c govts haven't adopted his recommendations -- ??? -- & he's only right b/c he relies on his reputation -- !!

              i suppose his warnings that implementation of austerity measures during the current financial crisis would result in exactly the same kinds of conditions currently playing out in european countries that failed to heed his advice isn't evidence enuf for you of his expertise . . . but the talking blovators on the sunday morning talk shows who couldn't find their asses without a map, do -- ?

              contrary to what the rw propaganda machine would have everyone think -- & apparently, you, too -- the world will not come to an end if sequestration kicks in. your only argument seems to be the d's need to give the r's what they want b/c . . . well, just b/c.

          •  bluezen - this isn't about who is right or wrong (0+ / 0-)

            we are all just speculating about where a deal could get done and the House Republicans would approve it.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:10:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Please take a chill pill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, gramofsam1, VClib

    The main goal is to stimulate the economy and avoid drastic cuts to the programs we like. I would be okay with a compromise that raised revenue to the same amount that the expiration of the Bush tax cut on the wealthy would raise. In any case I don't see the Bush tax cut being renewed for more than 2 years if it is even extended at all.
     Now remember we are talking about negotiations here . Everybody is trying to appear willing to compromise. So if  The Rs come out and say they are willing to accept revenues , I expect the Administration  to do the same so people don't see them as intransigents . Cut them some slack until real details start to emerge . Then we can start screaming  

  •  Progressives need to get to work (3+ / 0-)

    We seem to have three sides in the fight so far;
    The conservatives who back the Norquist pledge and won't budge.

    The GOP leadership who are between Norquist and doing a compromise.

    And the democrats who are willing to find a grand bargain even if it means doing a deal on "entitlements". I include most democratic Senators and Obama in this group.

    What is lacking is a progressive side who are determined to hold the line on SS and see the Bush tax cuts expire along with letting the Clinton rates stand for the 1%. If progressives don't make their voices heard soon it will be too late.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:12:40 PM PST

    •  Senator Reid has made clear that Social Security (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, cacamp

      is OFF the table. I have Kerry on my favorites bar, going to add others. Obama said, "Make me do it." There are 300K Kossacks. Enough of us to pressure congress critters to pressure the President, enough to pressure him, too.

      The grassroots re-elected him, he owes us. Time to collect.

      The meeting he is having should include Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren.

      2012-2016 President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Warren. For a LIFETIME, federal judges. Get the filibuster changed. Harry, the people have spoken. To all Democrats: do not reach across the aisle, your hand will get cut off. Steamroll.

      by CuriousBoston on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:05:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Sen. Warren should be on Senate Finance. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cacamp, CuriousBoston

        She could also be on the Senate Banking Commitee, but if she has to choose one, I hope it's Finance. Over the next two years, we need her more there, attending to taxes and tax reform.

        FORWARD to 2014: Win back the House. Build up the Senate.

        by TRPChicago on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:08:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. She should also be at the meeting (0+ / 0-)

          President Obama is going to have this week.

          2012-2016 President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Warren. For a LIFETIME, federal judges. Get the filibuster changed. Steamroll. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

          by CuriousBoston on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:26:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Alas, it's not likely she'll be invited. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CuriousBoston

            It would be quite a surprise to have a new freshman Senator invited to a meeting of Congressional leadership at the White House. It's even more unlikely because Elizabeth Warren is not yet a Senator.

            But her time will soon come, as will the time of other new female Senators. I'll wager the old-boy Senate will fairly quickly reflect the presence of these new female incomers.

            The 2012 elections boost the Senate to 20 women, the House to at least 81/435ths (some races are still undecided) of voting members, slightly above the current proportion. However, I'm cynical - because of the durable presence of some hard core conservative House women (think Bachmann and Foxx, or better, don't think of them) - that much will change in the House because of a few more women members. We can only hope.

            FORWARD to 2014: Win back the House. Build up the Senate.

            by TRPChicago on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:19:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  everyone write the whitehouse (4+ / 0-)

    right now.  raise taxes on the rich or else.  period. that's what we voted for and that's what we want.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ~JFK

    by TheUrbanRevolution on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:16:23 PM PST

  •  Been there, done that (4+ / 0-)

       In 1987 congress lowered the tax rates and deleted a lot of deductions. The law also teated all income, including capitol gains and dividends, equally. However, over the years the deductions and exclusions for the wealthy were put back in the tax code. I want the rates raised because it's way too easy for congress to slip those preferences back into law.

    •  marv - a nit it was 1986 (0+ / 0-)

      The Tax Reform Act of 1986 a transformational change in the IRS code of how individuals were taxed. As part of the TRA86 the top marginal rate was reduced to 28%. There was no differential for long term capital gains because at 28% the tax on capital gains was low on a historical basis. The reason that capital gains tax rates, which had always been lower than earned income, began to again be separated is that over the years the top marginal rate was increased from 28% to nearly 40%. For decades the long term capital gains rate was half your income tax rate. In your tax form you would just cut your capital gains income in half and add that into earned income and determine your level of tax.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:16:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans won't compromise at all, I predict. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thatpj, divineorder

    The sequestration and automatic tax increases will happen. And I for one will be happy.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:18:27 PM PST

    •  Rich - I agree that's what will happen (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think the House Republicans feel any significant pressure to make a deal. They are counting on the fact that some economists, including the CBO, think the country will slide back into recession if we go "over the cliff" which puts pressure on the White House.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:19:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have some faith in President Obama. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TRPChicago, Cedwyn

    Brand new favorite RSS feed of Daily Kos Radio Podcasts http://kagrox.libsyn.com/rss
    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

    by We Won on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:29:28 PM PST

  •  Come on folks… (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    have a little freaking trust and faith. Why feed the opposition with worry and fretting, especially from the ones among us who think THEY have this President all figured out. That I doubt very much. He's the Pres., and we are supposed to be the troops. When he gets more than we expect, we say wow. When less, he's a weak, dumb, pandering bum who simply doesn't understand the complexities of the issue or who he is up against. Again, I doubt that very much. Duh, what say we give him credit for being able to get more than any of us could without screwing the pooch, and hold the whining down a tad more than last time around. Opinions on issues are one thing, but heaven forbid the man has to deal with hoards of disparate all-knowing pundits when it comes to his personal strengths, weaknesses, every thought and inclination. He gets enough of that from the other side.

    I voted for the UPPITY ONE

    by qua on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:32:57 PM PST

  •  So they plan on (0+ / 0-)

    Closing deductions and loopholes WHILE LOWERING THE CORPORATE TAX RATE but not raising the marginal tax rate on those earning 250k or more WHICH YOU RAN AND WON ON.

    Once again, the rich play by different rules.

    "I don't want a line in the Sand lines can be moved. They can be blown away. I want a six foot trench carved into granite."

    by theone718 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:37:58 PM PST

  •  President Obama does not need to veto anything (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    renzo capetti, Eric K

    for taxes to go up on people making 250,000 or more. Those rates will go up automatically. When they do Democrats can vote for tax cuts for people making less than 250,000 see if Republicans will filibuster that.

    Brand new favorite RSS feed of Daily Kos Radio Podcasts http://kagrox.libsyn.com/rss
    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

    by We Won on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:41:55 PM PST

  •  dabtl, drsampson, you might enjoy -- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    -- a quick dish of sauteed garlickey greens.

    Wash enough dark greens for each person and cut into chukcks of thin slices. -- careful, they cook down a LOT.  Leave the water clinging to them.  In a skillet, put a little oil and saute some garlic (crushed, minced or sliced thin) just until it turns golden.  Toss in the greens (careful, water/oil may splash) and saute until greens have wilted.  Sever over good wholegrain toast.  A cut-up hardboiled egg over the top is a great addition.

  •  Won't happen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, gramofsam1

    if Congress won't pass it.  Congress won't pass it if their constituents give them enough hell.  Pressure the White House by all means, but most of our energies should be focused on our congressmen.

    Like Bill Maher said a few months back, we need congressmen "who Obama can point to and say, 'You know, I'd love to renew your Bush-era tax cuts, but I have to deal with these crazy motherfuckers over here.'"

    That a lot more likely to produce a desirable result than just agonizing and speculating and parsing words trying to determine what the administration might or might not be thinking.

    “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

    by puakev on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:46:52 PM PST

  •  let the mind games begin. (3+ / 0-)

    the media will be pushing back hard on this for their corporate overlords.

    "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

    by jazzence on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:40:05 PM PST

  •  no raising involved,just/expiring (0+ / 0-)

    consider these terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout famine, acceptance of nature

    by renzo capetti on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:53:10 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site