Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Hill: White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:29 AM
Original message
The Hill: White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements
White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements
By Sam Youngman
07/09/11

Boehner "couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans," a White House official said.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) all but extinguished hopes for a big deficit reduction deal because he refused to support any tax increases for the wealthiest Americans, a senior administration official said Saturday night.

The White House official also disputed the charge that President Obama was not willing to give ground on entitlement programs, saying that is "not true."

"(Boehner) couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans, he walked away over that," the official said. "They are telling people we couldn't do entitlements, not true."

Boehner releases a statement Saturday night that said he was backing away from a large-scale debt deal because "the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes.

But one Republican source told The Hill, A gulf also remains between the Speaker and the White House on the issue of medium and long-term structural reforms.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170553-white...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. I see the unrecs are out in force today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Palmer Eldritch Donating Member (369 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Somebody doesn't like the fact that Obama is winning this fight. Wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. so Boehner is lyiing about the negotiations
Obama and Boehner go into private negotiations, Obama negotiates in good faith, and then Boehner comes out and baldly lies about those private negotiations? That seems like something that should not stand, something that goes beyond the normal rough-and-tumble of politics. Something that Obama should become visibly, publicly outraged about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Boehner lying? Say it ain't so!
of course he's lying. He's a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. He's done this methodology before---when it came to budget talks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
42. He's against closing tax loopholes? He's against raising taxes on high income? I'm shocked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. A couple of good posts by Steve Benen
Boehner abandons his own debt-reduction goal

President Obama and congressional Democrats were prepared to move forward on an ambitious Grand Bargain, which would have achieved more than $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) embraced the White Houses goal and believed he was a strong enough leader to deliver on the agreement.

Yesterday, Boehner realized hes not nearly as strong a Speaker as hed hoped.

<...>


The White Houses tactical victory

With House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) no longer willing or able to pursue his own debt-reduction goals, its worth pausing to appreciate how the politics have played out in the White Houses favor. Jay Newton-Smalls take sounds right to me.

(T)he collapse of the grand bargain leaves President Obama in a more favorable political position. If both parties agree to cut $2 trillion from the budget with minor tax increases, hell notch a bipartisan accomplishment. But he can also say he tried something more ambitious in putting cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table without facing the political fallout of actually slashing those programs.

(Obama) went big and congressional Republicans not to mention the noticeably silent 2012 Republican presidential candidates didnt. It will be Republicans who will have to justify bowing to the extreme wing of their party and walking away from a deal that included some ten times more spending cuts than revenue increases.

All things being equal, this certainly looks like a tactical win for the White House, at least at this point. From the perspective of the political establishment, the president was willing to do something ambitious, even risking the ire of his partys base. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have now said they dont want a massive debt-reduction package if it means asking the rich to sacrifice even a little.

Put it this way: as of this morning, which side of the political divide appears more concerned with fiscal responsibility*? The president with the plan to cut the debt by $4 trillion or the House majority that cares most about tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, none of which are paid for?

Did President Obama deliberately present GOP leaders with an ambitious solution, knowing theyd blink and hed end up looking better in the end? We may never know, but if Boehner isnt asking himself that question this morning, hes not paying close enough attention.

<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. 'GOP leaders who claim to be frantic about a non-existent debt crisis have been exposed as frauds.'
Democrats need to hammer this line from your link from Benen.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Score one for Obama, excellent moves against the psychos on the other side nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I disagree.
Obama is under attack from his own base for the mere hint of putting Social Security and Medicare benefits on the table.

Boehner is smart enough not to put his party on record before a presidential election pushing benefit cuts to these popular programs.

Now Pres. Obama is in the position of having to accept $2+ trillion in spending cuts with no revenue increases ... or letting the federal government default.

Who has a 'tactical' victory?

Pres. Obama's crappy negotiating skills has put him in a lose-lose situation -- he won't get any revenue increases to speak of and he will have to take all the spending cuts and their resulting unemployment and anti-stimulative effects.

What a mess ... but the odds now favor a total Repuglican-Tea Party 'victory' on the whole debt ceiling debacle.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. PBO is under attack from his own 'base' if he wakes up and breathes.
He never put those benefits on the table, he cited going after the pork and not on the backs of the elderly by reducing benefits. I am really tired of the obvious distortion on what was said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Obama put everything on the table. To be rejected by Boehner which is what he expected.
This is a set up. Obama did something similar on the Budget talks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. You mean the ones that extended the Bush Tax Cuts? n/t
Edited on Sun Jul-10-11 11:28 AM by Tom Rinaldo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Palmer Eldritch Donating Member (369 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. Wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
localroger Donating Member (663 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Boehner knows he doesn't have the R votes
The teabaggers will not vote for any tax increases, and Boehner knows this. In fact, it's starting to be kind of obvious that he doesn't have the R votes for any sort of deal at all. When Boehner's corporate masters start tapping their toes and tell him to stop pulling this shit, his only avenue is going to be to get help from the D's, and I think the recent activity with "putting SS on the table" has just been positioning for the terms under which those negotiations will take place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. The teabaggers won't vote on anything after the budget talk fiasco.
In effect, these constitutional connoiseurs end up being fucked up by their own constitution because Obama takes over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
10.  "They are telling people we couldn't do entitlements, not true."
Okay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Duly noted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. It's the framing, Obama calls
SS and Medicare "entitlements". And they are open to cutting entitlements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. if i say that 'we can do entitlements'
do that mean I have said that I will be cutting benefits

or did i say that i will be looking for ways to reduce the fraud and loopholes and as such reduce the COST and not the benefits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. As I said, that's a real problem in framing.
I don't know that he's going to cut "entitlements" and you don't know that he is "looking for ways to reduce the fraud and loopholes and as such reduce the COST and not the benefits".

Sorry but just going on his Insurance Finance Reform, I am not very optimistic about reducing cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. i guess i just don't see where he said he is willing to 'cut' "entitlements"
he just said that he was willing to put them on the table, and they do indeed need to be on the table for changes to be made to it(even in the area of reducing the costs)

So I'd say that in regards to framing, you might want to brush up on it a bit yourself since your framing is weakening the president and to some degree the democrats by framing your points with words not said and as such creating more doubt yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Sorry, not my job to make him strong. He is either strong or
weak . The rest of your post is just nonsense. He said " entitlements are on the table" , not my fault if he speaks so as to have plenty of wiggle room. I think it's wise to have doubts about any politician and IMO he certainly has done things in a way to create doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. true, its not your job in the slightest
Edited on Sun Jul-10-11 05:00 PM by Bodhi BloodWave
but its somewhat hypocritical in my eyes to complain about his framing when yours are equally bad

And just because its not your job to make him strong or weak, why would you want to weaken the democratic position with bad framing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. What nonsense you push.
In my post, when I said that Obama is open to cuts in "entitlements" (right out of the horses mouth) and since he calls SS and Medicare entitlements, I have a problem with his framing, where do you figure I am making him weak. I'm just a fucking poster on a message board. I don't have to worry about framing. If I can weaken the Democratic position by that, then the Democratic position must be very lame ass weak and really suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
43. do you know the definition of the word "entitlement"? those programs are entitlements.
it doesn't matter if the GOP deosn't like that word. it is, by definition, what they are.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
20. The WH is PROUD that the prez is "willing to give ground on entitlement programs"???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. the programs needs to be on the table for changes to be done to
reduce cost and closing of loopholes and fraud. Just because a program is on the table does not mean its BENEFITS will be harmed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Has no place in THIS discussion - to allow it in is crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. Thats what the Republicans keep saying about tax policy
That it has no place in a debt ceiling discussion, needs to be talked about separately. Fact is that these things only get discussed under the pressure of these kinds of negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. ding, ding, ding - we have a winner :: thank you 4 not falling into hysteria n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Hey, I DINGED first!, lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. What?!?!!!
Are you trying to be logical and all? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. SS and Medicare need to be addressed separately from the Budget
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 08:38 AM by bahrbearian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Ding Ding Ding Ding
That is the real news here. We seemed to have dodged a bullet for now.

The White House called the wrong Republican bluff. Democrats had offered trillions of dollars in spending cuts and showed willingness to settle on closing a couple of outrageous tax loopholes that even Bohener couldn't defend with real conviction. The spending cuts Democrats were poised to sign off on cut 4 or 5 times much from the deficit than the loophole closings would have contributed.

That was when to call their bluff. Republicans got to slash trillions from government spending in return for sacrificing stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in America who get more from the government than they give to it. Try to sell refusing that deal and forcing an economic crisis instead to the American public, and you can see how weak a hand Bohener was holding.

By not simply calling that bluff instead of offering a grand bargain instead here is what the Democrats lost. Number one, as unlikely as you say it may have been that Republicans would ever have taken that deal, stranger things have happened before in politics. Yes it was a long shot, but would you feel comfortable playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a hundred chamber gun instead of in a standard six shooter. It is reckless to unnecesarily bet your politcal soul no matter how good the odds are in your favor

Number two, Democratrs just blunted the best political argument in their favor heading into the 2012 elections by putting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security on the potential chopping block. The clearest most winning contrast to Republicans that Democrats had was a reputation of being time tested true guardians of those programs who will defend them to their political death. Now that no longer is so clear cut. Now it looks like Democrats could sell them out if the price is right.

Number three. An offer once made never simply vanishes without a trace. It permanently establishes that Democrats were open to making that type of deal with Republicans. You might hsave noticed that the need to raise the debt ceiling has a tendency to come along again every so often. What if Republicans insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits be placed on the table for the next round of talks, and what if Republicans prove slightly more flexible next time? It is harder to refuse to do something that you have shown a willingness to do before.

I'm pretty certain what the next Republican move is going to be now. They will propose taking the notes from those never completed negotiations with Biden and pulling out of them all of the spending cuts that Democrats showed a willingness to consider. They will say, "This isn't enough, we need more, but for the sake of the nation we propose moving forward now and craft a solution that implements those cuts and doesn't raise taxes. It's a compromise we all need to make for our country even though no one is getting exactly what they want." What will Democrats do then?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. This should be an op!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Please, please, please....
make this a separate topic! Bravo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I just did. It's in this forum with the subject: "Calling the Wrong Bluff". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. Take entitlement programs entirely off the table and then we will support you President Obama. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
40. So proud that they put them on the table,," here dig in, entiltlements yummy"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
36. Boehner has his marching orders
And if he comes out of negotiations without those tax cuts intact, he's gone in the next cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatteLibertine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
38. The Tan man
is putting on a show for the Tea Party. A deal will be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 10th 2014, 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC