Skip to main content

Man with shocked expression on his face
Pretty much sums up my reaction.
Breakthrough!
House Speaker John Boehner privately told President Barack Obama that he’s prepared to consider more than the $800 billion the GOP has already proposed in new tax revenues — but only if the White House will back much deeper cuts to entitlement programs, according to several sources familiar with the talks.
Except:
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said: “Speaker Boehner has always been and remains opposed to raising tax rates because raising tax rates costs jobs. He has said that publicly and privately.”
I guess by floating the idea that Boehner is open to more revenues than he's previously said is an attempt by his office to make him sound reasonable, but if you say that you'd be willing to support an even bigger tax increase as long as taxes don't go up, you don't sound reasonable—you sound crazy.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:25 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Boehner can't lead a herd of cats (TeaJadists) (6+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:34:08 AM PST

    •  That's okay with me. (10+ / 0-)

      Also, his ideological premise - "raising tax rates costs jobs" - is bullshit.

      The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

      by psnyder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:45:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Herd of Feral Cats. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill

      There doesn't seem to be a shred of coherence in the the GOP. But then there doesn't seem to be much coherence in the Dems at times. Our guys, at least seem to be able to respond to the public. The GOP are the whores of the corporate overlords.

      "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" oder "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

      by drpmeade on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Say NO to cuts in SS and Medicare (0+ / 0-)

        The reason there doesn't seem to be much coherence among Dems is because of their leader, President Obama.

        President Obama needs to stop telegraphing that he's willing to cut Medicare and Social Security in order to make a "fiscal cliff" deal with republicans.

        First of all, the American people by large majorities in recent public opinion polls say they don't want ANY cuts in Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid. They also strongly support raising tax rates on the wealthy.

        Second, by saying that he's willing to cut middle class entitlement programs, Obama is helping to create discord among Democrats in Congress which in turn is only emboldening republicans to dig in their heels and refuse to offer any serious proposals to increase tax rates on the rich.

        Obama holds all the cards in his "fiscal cliff" dealings with republicans. It's time that he starts seriously playing them and STOP saying that he's willing to support cuts in middle class entitlement programs that the American people clearly say they don't want him to do.

    •  Hello?? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, Churchill

      Does Boner also have magic dust to make us all go away after he and his teabagging repubs kick us all to the curb?  What the hell!  Cut cut cut, but says nothing about the real flesh and blood that will be severly hurt.

  •  We're all in favor of more revenues. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, TKO333, Icicle68

    So long as it doesn't come from the rich.  That's Boehner's position.  He'll fight to the death (not to the pain) to defend lower tax rates for the rich, but he won't mind a minimum tax rate for the poor so that the 47% have to pay some federal taxes.  The rich, who can take advantage of loopholes and so they don't have to pay taxes, or at least more than 13-14%, well they're already doing more than their share by creating jobs and distributing money to the poor huddled masses yearning to be free...

    •  The difference between raising rates and raising (5+ / 0-)

      revenues, is that wealthy can dodge raised revenues, but they can't dodge raised rates.  

      dcnw's Second Law of Conservation of Tax Revenue:  When one loophole closes another loophole of equal or greater size opens elsewhere.

      •  Also, limiting deductions hurts the middle (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, JerryNA, dcnw

        and upper middle class much more than the very wealthy. There are already limits to how much you can deduct, and the common deductions do not take much off a tax bill if you are in the multi-millionaire or billionaire stratum. But raising rates does hit the very wealthy, and in proportion to their income, especially if you increase the capital gains and dividend rates.

        •  Yes. Diarist is clouding, not clarifying, issues. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, JerryNA, dcnw

          The diarist is really doing us no favors by saying Boehner is both for and against raising "taxes." Boehner is somewhat clearly saying he'll accept more revenue via limiting deductions or credits, but is against raising marginal rates.

          What makes us better than the GOP base is that we're smarter and more honest. We pay more attention to what's really going on. We don't try to distract the public away from the real issues by making false accusations based on distortions (like "you didn't build that," or the Shirley Sherrod brouhaha).

          Headlines like the one on this diary make us dumber. That may score a point in today's spin cycle, but in the long run that hurts us more than it helps.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:55:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What's the First Law? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:43:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rec for Princess Bride (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey, ColoTim

      reference "to the pain".

      Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah?
       Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
       Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capo Ferro?
       Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you?
       Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have.

  •  Negotiations are obviously at a 'delicate' point.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, Vote4Obamain2012

    lol

  •  Rank incompetence. If most professionals (5+ / 0-)

    behaved like this, they'd be fired. These heartless wonders fetishize the rich and ignore reality at the expense and welfare of living breathing human beings. Disgusting.

    "Say little, do much" (Pirkei Avot 1:15)

    by hester on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:40:53 AM PST

  •  I'm officially leaning towards..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, MarciaJ720, JerryNA

    "jump".  

    I love that the way the President has handled this situation but I also don't think that Boehner is going to give us an acceptable counter before December 31st.  

    I know the economy will take a hit.  And that could affect me as a small business owner.  But in the long run, I'm okay with the 90s tax rates and deep defense spending cuts.

    So....jump.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:42:44 AM PST

  •  This is another semantic battle between (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, JerryNA

    raising rates and raising revenues that republicans like to play. Sure Boehner would not mind raising hundreds of billions in revenues through tax code reform (if possible) but rasing rates is off the table in his eyes. Romneynomics lives.

  •  Boehner was already tarred and feathered... (6+ / 0-)

    by conservatives for the 800 bill offer; this will get him eviserated.  No wonder he backed tracked off as fast as he did.

    The GOP is imploding over this issue and the Dems need only stand back and let it burn.

    As the old adage goes; when your enemy is sinking, throw them an anchor.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:44:40 AM PST

  •  That's like saying you won't have a curfew, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newpioneer

    if you don't leave the house.

    That said, I don't see the point in raising or lowering tax rates for people who don't pay taxes on their income anyway.

    What we have is a problem of hoarding and rations.  The Congress has been rationing the distribution of dollars and, perhaps in consequence, people are hoarding money in the same way they hoard whenever a necessity is made rare.

    Do we get people to stop hoarding by announcing that, if they open the cupboard the tax man will collect their stash?  I don't think so.

    But, what is really irrational is the Congress, which can issue as many dollars as needed, arguing that rationing is needed. That rationing is irrational may not make sense at first glance, but we know from experience that you don't get more by providing less.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:44:54 AM PST

  •  Hell, let's just give all our (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    money to the wealthy via TAXES.

    Either they can pay less or we pay more for all of their privatized companies that the CEO's make a killing on but pay their employees crap.

    Yes, let's go all FOX on this country....

    I am truly worried about today's Gerrymandering and what impact it will have on the future of this country.  I can only hope that the Republicans will get so extreme people will leave them in droves....

    I know, I'm dreaming of a White Christmas in Houston.

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:46:11 AM PST

  •  The evidence seems inescapable -long term abuse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    of Man Tan has led to permanent brain-damage to the Speaker's cerebral cortex.  The sad man is now controlled by the reptilian brain . . . .

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:47:04 AM PST

  •  Based on the 8 years under Bush, (3+ / 0-)

    during which time millions of jobs were lost and tax rates were lowered, how is it that raising rates causes job losses? I really don't understand the logic. Maybe that's because there is none.

  •  Closing loopholes will raise very little (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7, JerryNA

    revenue. We must raise marginal tax rates on income above 250k to 39.6 %. And raising eligibility ages for Medicare saves a microscopic 3% of the federal budget even when combined with reducing COLA tied to SS .
    And those two moves in addition to not making any appreciable dent in the federal budget deficit will hurt lots of seniors who have little income and little to no ability to sustain such hits. OTOH, the wealthy by definition have tons of cash and have benefited greatly from the infrastructure that we all built. And raising marginal rates for them will help the budget deficit a lot. It really is that simple.

  •  He Was Against Flip-Flops... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    before he was for them.

  •  Visionary Republican Watch (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, TKO333

    I'm just waiting for someone to propose user fees for civil rights enforcement.  You know, maybe the tax could be levied at when minority citizens go to the polls.  We could raise billions!

    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 Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:51:46 AM PST

  •  Go John! The Republican Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caniac41, TKO333

    has political capital to spend after it's recent spectacular success in the election.  Use it now!  

    Here are a couple of suggestions:  get McCain busy on Susan Rice and BENGHAZI again.  Voters love bitter losers who lie.  Get Cantor out there protecting the civil rights of white rapists.  The rapist demographic is all yours for 2016 if you play this card right.  Let's get Paul Ryan out there too, talking about all moochers on Medicare and SS.  

    You're doing a great job!  Ratchet up the rhetoric and you're in clover with the electorate!  Maybe Mitt could rehire the illegals who do his yard work to solve your Hispanic problems?

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:11 AM PST

  •  BoehnerSpeak: Orwellianism defined. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirk McQuigley

    Yes is No.  Up is Down.  Lie is Truth.

    I count even the single grain of sand to be a higher life-form than the likes of Sarah Palin and her odious ilk.

    by Liberal Panzer on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:40 AM PST

  •  I'm tired of this whole notion of... (0+ / 0-)

    "trading"  tax increases  for spending cuts, as if they balance each other out in some fashion.   They only balance each other out politically, but economically, they are the same thing:

    Tax increases and spending cuts both have the advantage of reducing the deficit and the disadvantage of possibly slowing growth.

    So people should be saying "We'll only raise taxes if there is a corresponding INCREASE in spending"    OR we'll only cut taxes if there is a corresponding cut in spending.

  •  That's been their position for decades (0+ / 0-)

    low rates = more revenue.  See the Laugher Curve.

    •  You mean the Laughter curve? };> (0+ / 0-)

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:49:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's what they've been saying (0+ / 0-)

      but of course that isn't what the Laffer Curve shows.

      Laffer Curve

      The curve shows tax revenue rising as you raise rates until you hit some undefined point after which revenues fall. So low rates equals less revenue unless your rates are high enough to inhibit work and investment. Sorry, but their Laffer Curve nonsense drives me nuts because it is so obviously wrong as demonstrated by the decline in revenues due to the Bush tax cuts.

      •  The problem with macroeconomics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA

        ...is that the real world has thousands of independent variables while a chart only has one.

        The Laffer Curve is, mathematically, unassailable. All other things equal, the relationship between tax rates and revenues simply must behave that way.  It is inconceivable that it would not.  Both a 100% and a 0% tax rate would produce no revenue, so somewhere in the middle there must be a maximum. We can argue about the shape, but the fact that a maximum exists is unavoidable.

        The problem comes in because all other things are never equal, and therefore we can't know for sure where that maximum is.

        The only way your argument that the Bush tax cuts demonstrate that we're on the left side of the Laffer curve works is if we assume that wars are free and recessions don't affect the economy.

  •  Reasonably crazy (0+ / 0-)

    More head-pounding stupidity from Le Grande Orange (apologies to Rusty Staub).

  •  What is the saying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TKO333, JerryNA

    Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Costs. It is the Republican Way?

    I have had that on my 'fridge since the Bush era.

    Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

    by Caniac41 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:00:46 AM PST

  •  It's like negotiating with a car salesman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff G, JerryNA

    who mistakes you for a mark, and doesn't understand that no means no. Every time he comes back from his manager's office with a "new offer", it's the same exact offer as before, with some minor cosmetic or wording changes to make it seem new and improved. He wants to make a deal, but he can't or won't do what it takes to make it happen. You almost feel sorry for him and his stupidity.

    But, of course, eventually you just get up and leave, because no really means no.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:02:08 AM PST

  •  It's a trap! He just wants something to use (0+ / 0-)

    in the next election. Republicans need the older vote, it's all they have. This way they can con seniors, get ready for - Democrats wanted to end Medicare as we know it, but Republicans said HELL NO.

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

    by We Won on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:04:54 AM PST

  •  Repubs might as well offer a trillion (0+ / 0-)

    in additional revenue. They can't seem to prove how they could magically gain $800 billion by closing loopholes and lowering rates so why not? Until they say what they plan on cutting the number is totally arbitrary.

  •  Tax rates and tax revenues are not the same thing (0+ / 0-)

    as was pointed out yesterday in the article about a side-effect of chained CPI whereby many of us would see small tax increases through the mechanism of CPI indexing tax brackets.

    If Boehner can find ways to bring in new revenue without raising tax rates (or too many rates too much), it would let him say that he held the line even if taxes (as opposed to rates) go up.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:16:09 AM PST

    •  Yes, Taxes Can Go Up Even If Tax Rates Don't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, dinotrac

      increase - and eliminating certain tax deductions will cause people to pay more. The problem I have with the Republican plan is this: the wealthy can afford to hire expensive tax lawyers to find another loophole to exploit, while the middle class can't afford to do that. One tax deduction is eliminated? No problem for the wealthy - they just look somewhere else for another loophole to shield their money from taxes.  The end result is that the middle class ends up paying more in taxes, while the wealthy skate away again. Another problem I have is that the Republicans have NOT been specific about WHICH tax deductions they want to eliminate. Until they come up with specifics and exactly how much revenue eliminating deductions will bring in, I am for raising rates. In my estimation, increasing tax rates on the wealthy (income, capital gain, dividend and estate tax rates) makes it harder for the wealthy to dodge paying taxes.

      •  The right loophole closings will hit the wealthy (0+ / 0-)

        more than the middle class.

        And -- there is one obscenity that Boehner could get populist cred were to advocate its closure: the ability of hedge fund managers to treat payments by their investors as capital gains.

        It's only $4 billion a year, but it's a glaring puss-spewing sore on any pretense of tax equity.

        Capital gains are supposed to be gains in assets, not payments for service rendered.

        A genuine capitalist should object to that loophole.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:44:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Agree With Eliminating The Hedge Fund Manager (0+ / 0-)

          "carried interest" loophole.  Now the question is, WHICH tax loopholes does the GOP want to eliminate. As I said in my post above, they have NOT offered specifics, and I DON'T trust them to get rid of loopholes that favor the wealthy.

          •  No, and that will only hurt them. (0+ / 0-)

            They need to understand that voters matter.

            Voters are more powerful than politicians like to admit -- but only when we are engaged.

            If Boehner can come up with a specific package that will catch the public interest, he can get something done.

            If not...he's screwed.

            Reassuring, actually.  That's kind of the idea behind representative democracy.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:52:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Do repubs have leverage on Jan. 1st? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jo Bob

    There seems to be a general consensus that President Obama and democrats have to let the country go over the "cliff" and the repubs will take the blame.

    It seems that republicans have decided they won't budge on taxes... So fiscal cliff here we go...

    But I have a big concern.  We can assume that the House will vote in January for getting back to the Bush tax cuts for everybody, while the Senate will vote to bring them back only for revenues of 250k and more. Then it's stalemate again. Are we sure that republicans are the only ones who will get blamed for holding the middle class tax cuts hostage?  When the middle class see their pay checks affected, will there be an equal resentment towards the president and democrats for holding their tax cuts "hostage" in pursuit of the goal of taxing the rich???

    I'm asking this because it seems to me that republicans look more determined now than a few weeks ago. The shock of the election has passed. It looks like they have come up with a plan. I know of their plan of a showdown on the debt ceiling, but they could have a more elaborate strategy. Like I've said above,  I certainly can envision a scenario where Their first step would be a vote for a bill reestablishing the tax cuts for everybody on January 1st.

    Republicans are horrible at governing, but they have demonstrated great abilities in politicking because they have this way with their slogans and lies to fool the public. Of course they know they can count on the media to repeat their talking points, and on big money backers to twist arms  on the Hill.

    It will become a public relations battle. Given the experience of the past four years, I'm concerned. Yes, President Obama and democrats have the advantage right now, but will this advantage hold? Will the opinion polls begin to shift in  january?

    •  I don't think politically they can get away (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA

      with a slash and burn strategy but I also don't think they care if it's popular politically. At this point, I think they've decided that they will crash the entire global economy (via the debt ceiling) unless rich people get tax breaks and Medicare and Social Security get cuts. The only way I see that not happening is if Republicans' corporate masters can convince enough of them to stop the insanity but I'm not sure if that will happen, since Wall Street can expect another bailout from taxpayers if the global economy goes south.

      Let's not let 2014 be anything like 2010. Republicans only win when we stay home!

      by Tim D M on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:57:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe what you said will happen. (0+ / 0-)

      After listening to Boehner this morning, I'm convinced he won't back away from his hard line. Cliff diving anyone?

  •  Cuts Are a Non-Starter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim DeLaney, JerryNA

    They could make about $35 billion of cuts in military spending. But beyond that cuts are a non-starter. Cuts don't make the problems go away. If they are going to shift costs to individuals, how are they going to increase incomes for those people so that they can address those problems?

    What would make the problems go away would be to expand income to the poor. If Republicans want to get people off these programs then they need to do something to get them the money they need to pay for their lives or reduce costs.

    There are several hundred billion dollars that could be cut from healthcare costs. The way to do that is to expand public healthcare to eliminate for-profit healthcare insurance. That's what soaks up hundreds of billions each year in unnecessary costs.

    Or, they could improve our trade imbalance by raising tariffs and encouraging companies to expand production in the U.S. That would expand jobs here and increase incomes for workers.

    Or, they could raise the minimum wage. Just raising the minimum wage increases money in the working part of the economy and incidentally raises taxes--especially for retirement programs where it seems to be needed most.

    There's no equivalency between raising taxes and cutting federal spending. Cuts to social programs need to be offset with one or more of the changes above. We need to talk about how, if they want to make these cuts they need to offset that with better economic policy, so that the problems are addressed, not just offloaded on poor people.

    How soon can we move to income-based politics? How soon can we see these people refocus on the top line?

  •  It's Really All Very Simple (0+ / 0-)

    Boner knows he's going to lose on rates, but he's hoping to come out of this able to campaign in 2014 against "Democrats who cut your Medicare & Social Security!"  This requires waiting foe Obama to mention it first.  Hopefully, Obama won't be suckered.

  •  There's no contradiction (0+ / 0-)

    There's no contradiction between raising tax revenue and not raising tax rates. It's clever, too. Eliminating "loopholes" sounds like a good idea, when what they would have to do to raise real revenue is eliminate tax deductions (mortgage, healthcare) that are primarily of benefit to the middle class. And they're cleverly doing things to benefit the rich at the expensive of the middle class, while phrasing it as if it's good for everyone. Cunning!

  •  Boehner Is Talking Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth (0+ / 0-)

    one side of his mouth is talking to the GOP/rabit right wing Teabagger base crowd (we will NOT agree to increase tax rates), and the other side is talking to the moderates and independents the GOP needs to BS, to make them think they are being "reasonable" and offering something to the Democrats (we WILL agree to increase tax rates).

  •  Help me understand their 'secret' rationale. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    I understand the comments peppering the diary above about 'raising rates' vs 'raising revenue'. The ultra wealthy seem to escape paying while the just plain wealthy pay more. Closing loopholes creates a revenue bubble in the upper brackets while not affecting those above. And I suspect over time, the 'extra' revenue gained remains relatively static while incomes continue to grow above the bubble (In effect, pushing the bubble downwards - neat trick).

    This seems intuitively accurate and I can see why the mega donors prefer this.

    But has anyone here ever actually heard the Republican's argument explained in detail? I never have. Of course I suspect they don't have one (other than putting a smiley face on the argument I gave above). But you would think the question has been asked before and at least a flimsy answer given. All the times Romney said this I never really heard what the Republican rationale actually was.

    Anyone ever heard a Republican explanation?

    •  The biggest loophole of all: business (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Derffie, themank

      Businesses can deduct their expenses. All of them. That isn't going to change. A business needs paperclips to survive? Deduct it. A business needs to pay for an office? Deduct it.

      Humans can only deduct certain expenses (mortgage interest, retirement savings, charity contributions, etc. etc. etc.). A human needs food to survive? Too damn bad, not deductible, never has been. A human needs to pay for a home? Too bad, we eliminated that, it's not deductible anymore.

      The GOP is now trying to spin these human deductions as loopholes.

      Raising the tax rate affects both humans and businesses. Eliminating deductions hurts humans but doesn't touch businesses. This is why if they have to "compromise" the GOP would much rather raise taxes on people by eliminating deductions than raising taxes on business by raising rates.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site