Boehner: ‘We’re willing to accept new revenue’

Let’s see who wants to compromise.

Tie any tax-based revenue increases directly to all spending cuts on the same schedule as well as immediately open off-shore & government lands to energy leases.

Royalties from energy leases would bring in revenue, create jobs, & lower the price to consumers.

Tying revenue increases directly to spending cuts (which would have to be year-over-year reductions; not reductions in “rate of growth” or in future years) with failure to enact either invalidating the legislation for the other introduces an element of trust to the agreement.

So someone said “working together”??

-SD

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is what I thought you linked the first time Brocephus lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie @ 10:41

Hey, I didn’t design the deal. If it were my baby to birth, the cuts and increases would happen at the same time and be phased in over the course of a few years. I’d set economic indicators as triggers to enact the next part. I would also legislate it to be damn near impossible to back out of by enacting different legislation down the road.

I didn’t like the idea of the fiscal cliff because I didn’t think it would work. What I would have done instead would have been to design a gradual turning of the ship as I described. I would have imbedded the fiscal bomb, with an immediate trigger, as a mechanism to keep legislators from trying to change it down the road.

• Link
• Report this comment

DDR: I don’t care WHO the cowardly assed sock puppets are. They have shown they AREN’T men.
they are DEVO

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

November 8th, 2012
10:52 am

How much should anyone earn and who decides?……….answer……Dem/Libs
Why do welfare recipients only get so much? and who decides that level?…….Dem/Libs
Who decides what is fare?…….Dem/Libs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Learn how to spell your lies correctly please. The hysterical lies themselves make you look foolish, misspelling them makes you look like a complete dumbass.

• Link
• Report this comment

No I don’t want to sell the land and buildings sitting idol that is owned by the gub’ment just because they are owned by the gub’ment. They are not being used and who owns them? US.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, “Team Rape” suffers a crippling blow: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/49736431

• Link
• Report this comment

S. Dave — “Let’s see who wants to compromise.”

Yes, let’s.

“Tie any tax-based revenue increases directly to all spending cuts on the same schedule as well as immediately open off-shore & government lands to energy leases.”

Sounds great. And while we’re at it, let’s renegotiate the royalties paid by energy companies, because that fee schedule hasn’t changed in DECADES. Even energy companies themselves admit that the fee schedule is way overdue to be renegotiated (and raised, based on market conditions).

“Royalties from energy leases would bring in revenue, create jobs, & lower the price to consumers.”

Ergo, *increasing* those royalties would be desirable and good.

“Tying revenue increases directly to spending cuts (which would have to be year-over-year reductions; not reductions in “rate of growth” or in future years) with failure to enact either invalidating the legislation for the other introduces an element of trust to the agreement.”

Fantastic idea. And while we’re doing year-over-year reductions, let’s ensure that we’re realizing year-over-year increases from tax revenue streams and not simply encouraging the discovery and deployment of new tax shelters. If revenue streams don’t product greater year-over-year income, then clearly the legislation should be invalidated.

“So someone said “working together”??”

Yes, I could have sworn I heard someone say that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Are the 47% blameless and totally innocent?……..That percentage will be climbing soon……people will be “forced” more into it…….Government is Lord…….Right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat it is not me or you, it is America, starts with a US. We aren’t blaming anybody we won Tuesday night, and with you cooperation we will win again in the next four years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

November 8th, 2012
11:00 am

Are the 47% blameless and totally innocent?……..That percentage will be climbing soon……people will be “forced” more into it…….Government is Lord…….Right?
++++++++++++++++++

Personally I am tired of you traitors badmouthing our combat troops. I’ll bet your chicken hawk traitorous ass didn’t even serve. How dare you bad mouth combat soldiers and wounded veterans you cowardly traitor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa Doom

November 8th, 2012
11:02 am

So what’s the over under on how many times today Fred is going to accuse someone of being a rushbot, a boortzbot, or a hannitybot? Is that all u effing do Fred? If you disagree with someone you throw out that tired old bullshyte that they’re just listening to rush? You need some new material.
++++++++++++++++++

And you need a new brain, some new lies, and some new insults.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh and Doomy? You need some honor and integrity as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not to be a jerk or anything, but aren’t the ‘welfare recipient’ and the ‘Federal employee’ BOTH subsisting on gubmint money?

That’s not a jerky comment. A Fed$ is a Fed$. But one could argue that a Fed$ spent at the sub base in St Marys benefits more people than just the Georgians that get a paycheck there.

• Link
• Report this comment

BRO

Amen on the fiscal cliff concept..I agree about phased in cuts and tax increases in an agreed ratio gradually over time…best route..IMO its’ too political to do the right thing…

Part of me thinks we should fall right off cliff..that would solidify a common front for us to work together to make real change

KEEP,

I said nothing about cutting legitimate safety nets so I’m not sure where you are coming from there. My point is and as Margaret Thatcher said referring to socialism (to be clear we are FAR away from that but the trajectory of tax burdens is not inconsistent with same) “socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money to spend..”

Again, don’t put words in my mouth suggesting I feel we will ever be true socialist, but how long can we really afford to spend 30% more than we collect, giving credits to lower 40% to stimulate growth…which we are not seeing of course (government trickle down)which is off limits, and counting on the top 20% to ultimately foot the entire individual tax (about 45% of total revenues)burdens??

• Link
• Report this comment

Subject: sockpuupets & con bloggers –

now, we haven’t got all wires (tubes) hooked up here yet
at the Fema HOPE Camps, so you may not see the cons
on here for a little while. Its NOT ’cause they let their big
rude mouths overload their asses, or they’re failed idiotology
is full of crap, or anything like that.

We’re running out of Permanent Markers here at the HOPE camps.
After painting big Rs on their foreheads before treatment.
We chose R to save ink. When they leave, the R means Re-educated.
As it should.
Gotta go. Here comes another load of…er..patients now.

• Link
• Report this comment

BRO

Yes it is in the past but why should things be different? I’ve heard your argument about WH influence on Congress which I see as BS, the minimum he can do is make the same efforts to try to obtain some spirit of consensus..I don’t see that anything has changed…

• Link
• Report this comment

I think Android is beating Apple….

But I don’t have a poll yet to prove it

• Link
• Report this comment

G. Heathen — “That’s not a jerky comment. A Fed$ is a Fed$. But one could argue that a Fed$ spent at the sub base in St Marys benefits more people than just the Georgians that get a paycheck there.”

Not sure I follow. If Cooter the Homeless Dude uses a Fed $ to buy a biscuit and a cuppa joe at the Golden Gallon, and Steve The Civilian Submarine Engineering Specialist spends a Fed $ at the same Golden Gallon for *his* biscuit and cuppa joe, what’s the difference?

• Link
• Report this comment

Not sure I follow. If Cooter the Homeless Dude uses a Fed $ to buy a biscuit and a cuppa joe at the Golden Gallon, and Steve The Civilian Submarine Engineering Specialist spends a Fed $ at the same Golden Gallon for *his* biscuit and cuppa joe, what’s the difference?

The subs defend the whole nation and not just Georgia.

• Link
• Report this comment

the minimum he can do is make the same efforts to try to obtain some spirit of consensus..I don’t see that anything has changed…

Stevie Ray

That AIN’T his job. Obama’s job is to be the head of the Executive Branch. Given all that falls under that branch, you would think he would be too busy to have to teach Congress how to get along with each other. They’re all grown assed adults up there, or at least they are by age. We have three distinct branches of government by design. I like it that way, and I don’t see why anybody else would want the head of the Executive Branch trying to be the head of the Legislative Branch. That goes against both, the Constitution and the way our founders thought things should work. We don’t want nor do we need a dictator, and that’s what you’re asking for when you want the president running congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Couldn’t get past the first commenter . . .”New revenue will not tame the’“soaring debt’ Jay. Maybe a little curb on the spending like we all have to do in our own households?”

This is among the more typical, and wrongheaded, responses. Firstly, we lead off with the fallacy that household budgets and national budgets are equivalent, with each hewing to the same simple principles. “This much for our weekly food budget is the equivalent of budgeting for the Department of Agriculture . . .” I’d hoped by this far into the process that simplistic thinking like this would be absent from the discussion. Really, besides vacationing in Myrtle Beach, do your families have a foreign policy? What’s your family defense budget? Geez. The needs and interests and reach of the family, and its “government,” are in all things important to our national budget simply inapt.

And, again, the appeal to “spending cuts,” how true to form. Have a look at the federal budget for the past four years, and try to notice that federal spending, in real terms, has declined. Purging the nation of the perceived evils of food stamps, etc. will accomplish little in budget terms: the amount of federal spending devoted to these programs is nearly de minimus. The real savings are in defense cuts, cuts, by the way, which the Pentagon supports and suggests. Frankly and truly, the entire discretionary federal budget outside of defense is minor, and can be let alone, or mildly increased, and cause no damage to our deficit.

“Entitlements,” too, are resolvable. Social Security can be made forever solvent by a simple extension of the FICA tax to incomes above the present cap, and making the tax itself progressive. In fact, the retirement age need not be raised a smidgen – and, by the way, YOU go tell the manual laborer who now spends 30+ years in his or her trade that they must, by all means, work an extra five to ten years to earn their paltry social security check. “Haven’t you heard? The average life span has increased. Get with it, live longer!”

Medicare and Medicaid, ah yes, THERE is where we can cut like a gang of headhunters! Well, no. The problems of Medicare and Medicaid are cost problems related only to the nearly continual rising cost of healthcare itself. The incentive system put in place by the health insurance regime is the cause, and the Affordable Care Act is built upon removing that enabler by reducing insurance companies to players from their long-held position as leaders. ACA is based upon a preventive care model rather than a crisis care model. To use the family budget idea here – do you not maintain you car’s “health” by routine maintenance, or do you simply wait until your pistons have been driven through the engine block because you haven’t changed your oil in three years? That’s an analogy that holds. The ACA insures that a path to health maintenance is available to all Americans, which reduces the need for expensive crisis care in the future. The reduction in national health care throw this will be simply stunning over the next two decades.

Enough of this family budget “analysis” . . . We need to increase tax revenue form the top earners, implement and expand the ACA fully, cut defense spending according to the Pentagon’s own requests, etc. Finally, let’s help self-serving Randian portion of our right wing GOP and libertarian cohort realize that within our country’s basic ethical framework is a simple foundational idea. It’s inside the Preamble to the Constitution, and is a good way to insure we are a country, and not just a collection of balkanize states, a phase I’d bet we all memorized long ago: “to promote the general welfare. . .” Not the particular welfare, not you own welfare absent others’ needs, but the general welfare. To use your analogy , it’s just like you encourage in you family, I’d bet . . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Hussein Mama:

Fair enough. If our Leaders (Democrat & Republican) approach the discussion in the way that you and I just did, there’s a possibility of getting to some resolution.

I’ve got no problem with a property owner (in our case, the U.S. Government) negotiating the royalties it receives from resources that are produced from its land. Frankly, its good business sense because both parties only benefit with the recovery. The alternative (in places like off our Gulf Coast) is simply that other interests tap the same reserves in international waters and we get nothing.

Likewise, implementing policies that promote economic growth leads to year-over-year increases in tax revenues as evidenced by both historical figures from both Kennedy, Reagan, & Clinton.

We disagree on a lot. The current logger-head results from a lack of trust.

In my opinion, American Taxpayers have been lied to in every “budget compromise” in history. Tax increases occur immediately while spending cuts are either “reductions in rates of growth” (aka less of an increase than planned) or ignored altogether (because the recipients of the program / benefit / transfer payment “need” it). Speaking as an individual, I have no interest in another “compromise” that confiscates what I earn, but releases the beneficiaries from their end of the agreement.

The onus is not on America’s Taxpayers; we have done our job. It is up to the beneficiaries of programs, benefits, and transfer payments to accept the responsibility for their own lives and quit expecting others to do for them what they should do for themselves.

If they are willing to work in cooperation to resolve the mess that we are currently in, great – let’s work.

We shall see.

-SD

• Link
• Report this comment