GOP caves, Speaker Boehner says taxes will be raised on the rich

GOP caves, Speaker Boehner says taxes will be raised on the rich

&action_type_map=[%224576257638669%22%3A%22og.likes%22]&action_ ref_map=[]]www.examiner.com

Speaker of the House John Boehner has publicly stated that he is in favor of raising taxes on the rich, and is now politically positioning himself and his party to save face while a deal is struck with President Barack Obama to avoid sending America's economy over the 'fiscal cliff.'

Choosing to break from the far majority of his fellow party members, John Boehner, the top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives said:

We have got to cut spending and I believe it is appropriate to put revenues on the table.

According to CNN.com Boehner went on to say:

Now, the rev

(visit the link for the full news article)

It is happening. I don't know if this has been posted yet. Opinions? I know this will be a heated debate. Im not in favor of socialism, and I dont think Obama is either, But to go back to Clinton rates, will bring the economy back. I fully believe that. The bush tax cuts had their time, and their ramifications, ie the recession of 08. Now its time to try something different. Who knows, it just might work!!!

&action_type_map=[%224576257638669%22%3A%22og.likes%22]&action_ ref_map=[]]www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If you'd care to see what other ATSers are thinking about this, you might like to visit this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...
See you there!

What a worthless, spineless, good for nothing WEASEL of a man. He's jello in a bowl. He reminds me of the Stay Puff Marshmallow man before the Ghostbusters got to him. Jelly Fish are more meaningful. At least they STING;... Jeeze.... I have one word for this fool. FIRED! I hadn't mentioned this earlier but I caught a campaign started on another right leaning site I'm at for the removal of Boehner as Speaker in the new Congress. I'm 100% for it.


Now it's VERY important to note in my mind here, that I'm not against the guy finally getting a DROP of intelligence to not stand like a statue on ideals while the whole basis it's for is falling apart. No, the end result had to happen..although if he caves on the debt ceiling control issue, I'd think of him as a traitor. There are limits...and the Constitution doesn't do fine print...

The PROBLEM is, but the quotes??? He's making it sound like HIS idea or like he was all for this all along and really... just hadn't shared it with everyone before now. I'd appreciate him just saying that as distasteful as it may be, this is just the way it has to be to save the alternative from happening. I'd even be fine if he were honest to say his constituents and fellow Congressmen were pushing him too hard to do otherwise...

.....but to have the nerve to make it sound like raising taxes to solve this is now a solution he may as well have invented himself?? Oh.. no... he's GOT to go. Out Out Out. When is he up for re-election?? Out as speaker, then OUT of Congress. Enough with the mealy mouthed double speak...even when the ACTION is the RIGHT thing to do. They STILL can't say a thing straight or honest.

reply to post by charles1952


I beehive this story was more of an update. Should be wrong

I encourage you to check the other thread. Boehner isn't saying anything different from his earlier position. He won't raise the rates, but is willing to look at closing loopholes or deductions. But that isn't news.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So then id assume you are completely against the idea of just not having a debt ceiling.... Even though we raise it every time? Not saying I am but I'd like to know your thoughts.

Originally posted by charles1952
I encourage you to check the other thread. Boehner isn't saying anything different from his earlier position. He won't raise the rates, but is willing to look at closing loopholes or deductions. But that isn't news.

I'm just repeating the title of a credible source.

I would think that we will see a bunch of stock selling until the end of the year as investors take gains before taxes go up.On top of that funds that track indexes but not their dividends per say, like double and triple long S &P 500 will see their prices fall as these companies pay out these "special" year end dividends without recouping but a portion of these dividends. If you are smart you will figure out how to take advantage although we are only talking about 5-8% here, albeit it over a few weeks and it likely is not repeatable,

reply to post by bknapple32

Dear bknapple32,

My sincerest apologies, I meant no criticism. It's a fine OP and headline. My only suggestion is, that since a number of these issues have been raised and discussed elsewhere, you might find it convenient to work with the existing discussion. But, if not, that's fine.

With respect,
Charles1952

Let's say Boehner holds out. Austerity kicks in and taxes go up for everybody including the top 2%.

Let's say Boehner compromises. The Bush Tax cuts and the AMT adjustment goes into effect for the other 98% and the top 2% still get taxed.

No matter which way you spin it the top 2% was going to lose this one.

ETA: If Obama set his sights on the top 25% the above scenario still plays out. He's holding all the cards in this situation.

reply to post by bknapple32

Of course I'm against not having a debt ceiling. Shall we issue Americans shiny new American Express Black cards with total disregard for their credit history or ability to ever pay back anything? I mean, that is what we'd be doing for this Treasury Department and President...and don't ever think Congress would get this power BACK once given away. It'll take the Supreme Court as the 3rd branch to intervene ..If they will. So, imagine Bush with absolutely no need of so much as a 'By your leave' to Pelosi in totally unrestricted debt spending?

It doesn't matter which side of the isle your on because eventually THAT decision and bad move will come home to roost....like a pigeon with the runs. Pardon my colorful imagery.

The Republicans never had a real shot in this battle.

If we get to 1/1 with no deal, they will receive the majority of the blame. GOP has no option but to get as many spending cuts as they can in exchange for the Bush cuts expiration on people making 250K+

Thing is, im never for one party having all the power. Im a moderate liberal myself. An I do feel tax rates under Clinton/ Gingrich were the best situation. Sure we had an internet boom. But we still had it... despite those rates. So rates really dont curb growth in my opinion. We prospered under those rates. I feel if they dont work, then sure we revert back to giving the rich their measly 3-7 percent back. But I honestly think it is worth a shot.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
The Republicans never had a real shot in this battle.

If we get to 1/1 with no deal, they will receive the majority of the blame. GOP has no option but to get as many spending cuts as they can in exchange for the Bush cuts expiration on people making 250K+

And there should be spending cuts... But lets face facts here. Obama won. HE won running on raising taxes on the rich. At some point, shouldnt the experiment of the 90's be repeated?

reply to post by bknapple32


That internet boom was also called a "bubble". It popped. Remember?

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by bknapple32

 

That internet boom was also called a "bubble". It popped. Remember?

Still happened despite the tax rates. Thats my point. Everything is a bubble. nothing is constant. But the bubble happened despite the tax rates. The republican mantra is NOTHING can happen under these rates. Which history prove sis false.

reply to post by bknapple32


I don't want to sound unsympathetic or totally lacking in apathy but is anyone REALLY going to be bothered by this? One comical aside, in the last election I remember the news station I was listening to was calling the election and when Massachusetts, California and New Hampshire went to Obama the news made a point to say Romney had lost in his "home" state (meaning he lived there) all three times.

"Massachusetts - yup, he lost and he's from there"

"New Hampshire - yup, he lost and he's from there"

By the 3rd "California - yup, he lost and he's from there"

I started to notice, saying how many damn HOME STATES does Mitt Romeny have? LOL

Point being - they have the money, they can afford it.

reply to post by bknapple32


Well, there is Hauser's Law which states that the tax rate doesn't matter. Federal revenue from taxes will be about 19% of GDP. It corresponds well to the Laffer Curve.

Anyway, I don't really thing a bubble economy is the way to go. There is no real growth there. Just money rapidly changing hands and regular folks having their wealth evaporate when the thing pops.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Well, there is Hauser's Law which states that the tax rate doesn't matter. Federal revenue from taxes will be about 19% of GDP. It corresponds well to the Laffer Curve.

Anyway, I don't really thing a bubble economy is the way to go. There is no real growth there. Just money rapidly changing hands and regular folks having their wealth evaporate when the thing pops.

edit on 6-12-2012 by GreenGlassDoor because: Typed wrong number

edit on 6-12-2012 by GreenGlassDoor because: I can't type.

And thats the kind of educated debate we need on ats... valid point... i disagree.. but valid none the less. i think everything is a bubble.. form housing, to gold to tech.. its all a bubble. when land becomes a bubble, anything is.