White House: No debt deal unless tax rates on top earners go up
Source: The Hill
White House: No debt deal unless tax rates on top earners go up
By Amie Parnes - 11/29/12 01:52 PM ET
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday there will be no deficit deal unless Republicans agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest households.
There can be no deal without rates on top earners going up, said Carney, who reiterated that the president will not sign legislation that extends the Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy.
This should not be news to anyone who was not in a coma during campaign season," Carney said of the presidents stance on taxes.
Carneys ultimatum came on a day in which both sides dug in and appeared to move farther apart on a deal to prevent tax hikes on most households and crippling spending cuts to defense and non-defense budgets set to hit in January.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/270139-white-house-no-deal-unless-tax-rates-on-top-earners-go-up
patrice
(47,992 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)...there should be no more pain for the Middle Class and the poor.
Raising the age of SS and medicare shifts the costs from the Federal Government to us and to doctors and ends up actually being more expensive! The richest, whose income has gone up over 280% since 1970, should start contributing at a level and in a way that is finally fair.
Adding to the costs of medical insurance and losing the mortgage rate deduction for the vast middle will slow the recovery yet again!
Obama's 10:1 or 3:1 ratio is not in the least fair to 98% of us.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)blue_heron
(223 posts)My understanding, they can't pick and choose what to cut. So it would damage programs that should not be cut
blackspade
(10,056 posts)My point was more about the wording.
In know way are the defense cuts crippling.
Non defense I totally agree with you.
julian09
(1,435 posts)Should end a lot of bases in Europe, Asia and weapons systems military doesn't even want. How many skirt chasing generals do we need?
John2
(2,730 posts)I claim he has the Republicans in a rock and a hard place. Those cuts, hurts their constituents mostly. I know, that the military is a big part of the economy in North Carolina,Georgia,Alabama,Texas,Wyoming and kansas. If the Republicans accept cuts in those states, it will kill them. Those Republican Governors will be defenseless too. Their economies will tank. That is the Federal Government assistance they get. And they want to talk about States supporting themselves. Then go for it. You can add Oklahoma and Arizona to that list also. They are just as important to those states as GM or the auto Industry is to the Midwest. So will the Republicans throw them under the bus just for the wealthy? It is Boerhner's and McConnell's move. This is a high stake's game they are playing.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)human spirit can be overcome with our ability to kill, instead of educating ourselves and becoming the nation who builds great things. Cutting funding would prove a barrier to that.
I look at the old science fiction stuff and see pictures and descriptions of big cities, people flying around in their personal Jetson-mobile, everyone looking fit, (except for the boss), jetting between planets, you only break a sweat for fitness. I can count on few fingers the number of those who foresaw shortages of health care and food,
They assumed we would keep investing in ourselves like we were.
Instead we are moving toward islands of private jets surrounded by tar paper shacks, while 20% of the country insists that what we used to invest in our people and tools should revert to payments into their personal bank accounts, they then use those funds to buy politicians and others to do their bidding, and invest elsewhere in the world for greater profit.
And we help them just by living our lives as we do.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)A lot of that science fiction wasn't 'old' stuff to me!
Then again there are all of the post apocalypse and dystopian future stories and movies.
Tragically they seem to be closer to the truth.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)for the most part. And my favorites were the sci fi's.
Seems like a majority of the stuff I got from American authors from the 50's through the early 70's envisioned a better future than the later stuff seems to. And I remember the little newspapers, the architecture experiments, labs, people trying things, because we were still investing in our neighbors and our country. It is interesting to note the change in the literature as we let people sell off our future...
Martin Eden
(12,786 posts)I grew up in the 60's, and most of us believed that technological progress & increased productivity would substantially improve our standard of living. Average Americans wouldn't have to work as many hours and could spend more quality time with their family and doing all kinds of things that enhance quality of life.
Well, there have been amazing technological advancements & increases in productivity ... but the benefits and financial rewards have been skimmed off the top by an ownership class that is amassing huge wealth while the American Dream for most people is in decline.
The Republican Party is fighting tooth & nail to perpetuate & accelerate that decline. When is the other half of this country gonna wake the fuck up and see they've been slitting their own throats voting for those assholes??
csziggy
(34,115 posts)In her books that featured the "Dipple" - an interstellar refugee camp turned slum. Lots of very poor people with a few very very rich. The poor survive by scrounging or stealing with many in effective slavery. Refugees from planets destroyed by war or pollution stuck in slums on planets with no space or use for them.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)I kinda preferred more mechanical and electrical engineering sci fi than those that centered more around mind fantasy and characters. Comes from being a fixer of things, I think. (Though I really liked Stranger in a Strange Land, so not always, eh?).
Anyway, we were on our way to building those visions, maybe wouldn't have had to worry about food stamps and housing. Why did we choose this divergence? I forget.
csziggy
(34,115 posts)Though there were rough times between the 1960s and when Kirk was made Captain! We all just thought about the wonderful future with no thought of how we'd get there.
BeyondGeography
(39,226 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)pepperbear
(5,648 posts)SummerSnow
(12,608 posts):sleep:
midnight
(26,624 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Remember, most of Congress are in the 1% or at least represent the 1%. They kindly allow us to vote but that doesnt mean they represent us.
midnight
(26,624 posts)distribution of resources....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)In the meantime, we have too many Republicans in the HOR.
midnight
(26,624 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)True on Halloween, and most likely now too.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)my president!
as proud (if not more) to have voted to re-elect him as i was to elect him.