Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:43 PM Dec 2012

Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal

Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal

As the clock winds down and the fiscal cliff looms closer, the White House is considering a scaled back deal to avert the fiscal cliff, Politico reported Friday:

So the White House is turning its focus to a smaller package that would extend the Bush-era tax rates on income below $250,000, pause the across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester and renew unemployment insurance benefits, according to senior administration officials.

It would hold off a significant portion of the fiscal cliff, minimizing any economic shock in the new year. But it means a host of tax provisions would likely expire, little would be done to address the debt and deficit, and no process would be set up for overhauling the tax code next year. There would be no agreement on entitlements, and none on raising the debt ceiling.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-white-house-considers-smaller-fiscal-cliff-deal

56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal (Original Post) ProSense Dec 2012 OP
That might actually be the best proposal yet. Skinner Dec 2012 #1
Yup, everyone should push for this ProSense Dec 2012 #4
So...put something out there that was designed to expose Boehner for the teabagging douchenozzle Fridays Child Dec 2012 #2
that's what I was hoping for lasttrip Dec 2012 #3
This is what should have been done all along frazzled Dec 2012 #5
If he lets it pass on mostly democrat votes, then it is passing against GOP votes. julian09 Dec 2012 #12
I'm just sitting her enjoying the implosion of the conservative movement. jrobbi Dec 2012 #6
Thats what I expected to happen. DCBob Dec 2012 #7
then it will just move the fight to debt extension.... gov't shutdown will be the new hostage.. n/t Mr Peabody Dec 2012 #8
No, it will not. ProSense Dec 2012 #9
he/she is talking about the debt ceiling Enrique Dec 2012 #23
Right, and Republicans will have no leverage ProSense Dec 2012 #24
ha, they'll have no leverage Enrique Dec 2012 #27
Huh? ProSense Dec 2012 #29
Sounds good to me Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #10
kick bigtree Dec 2012 #11
It's a 'band aid" approach, but it's not bad. Lone_Star_Dem Dec 2012 #13
this I can live with magical thyme Dec 2012 #14
This I could go for Liberalynn Dec 2012 #15
Sounds like a damn good idea to me. Autumn Dec 2012 #16
Repubs are rushing to the Greyhound station... kentuck Dec 2012 #17
well that plan favors the rich hfojvt Dec 2012 #18
The plan allows the tax cuts for the rich to expire. ProSense Dec 2012 #19
I suppose the plan woud be to pass with mostly Democratic votes? kentuck Dec 2012 #20
Possibly, but ProSense Dec 2012 #21
I don't see it passing the Republican House. kentuck Dec 2012 #22
Tea Party will own the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as we know it. Panasonic Dec 2012 #36
no, actually it keeps many of those tax cuts for the rich hfojvt Dec 2012 #26
Please cut the nonsense. ProSense Dec 2012 #30
I'd like to have Obama cut the nonsense hfojvt Dec 2012 #39
You can ProSense Dec 2012 #41
the tax brackets do NOT apply to everyone hfojvt Dec 2012 #45
Don't be absurd! n/t ProSense Dec 2012 #52
Those numbers are OUTRAGEOUS. woo me with science Dec 2012 #34
I've been posting those numbers like a broken record now hfojvt Dec 2012 #40
Everything we get now favors the rich. It's a given now. woo me with science Dec 2012 #25
"We won the election by a landslide" ProSense Dec 2012 #31
No. woo me with science Dec 2012 #32
Your graph doesn't make your point. ProSense Dec 2012 #35
Bullshit, Prosense. woo me with science Dec 2012 #37
Bullshit, woo me with science ProSense Dec 2012 #38
aha, so you admit "nothing" is an alternative hfojvt Dec 2012 #42
Admit? ProSense Dec 2012 #44
but going in the wrong direction is bad hfojvt Dec 2012 #47
Progress isn't the "wrong direction" ProSense Dec 2012 #50
It's like arguing in a funhouse, isn't it. nt woo me with science Dec 2012 #53
P is for propaganda. n/t ProSense Dec 2012 #54
I wish that graph would include the baseline of "going over the clifff" hfojvt Dec 2012 #43
Actually, it's a ProSense Dec 2012 #46
I didn't know that the health care law hfojvt Dec 2012 #49
Regardless! ProSense Dec 2012 #51
It's stunning that they get away with this, and claim to represent us. woo me with science Dec 2012 #55
Yeah, This One AndyTiedye Dec 2012 #28
K & R Scurrilous Dec 2012 #33
Sounds tentatively encouraging. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #48
never seen government so dysfunctional in the good ol usa spanone Dec 2012 #56

Fridays Child

(23,998 posts)
2. So...put something out there that was designed to expose Boehner for the teabagging douchenozzle
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
Dec 2012

that he is, and then offer something that comes a lot closer to msking sense? I hope that's what's happenong.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
5. This is what should have been done all along
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:58 PM
Dec 2012

Break out the tough stuff from the rest. And it's my impression that it is pretty much what the WH wanted all along (remember all those "I've got the pen" statements in which he urged Congress to just pass the $250K and under extension as a stand-alone)? I think they had to look as if they were trying to get a Grand Bargain--a complete package that addressed both revenues and cuts and tax reform ... but I think they guessed such a bargain was never going to meet with any success in this Congress.

I hope this package works. Will Boehner let it come before the House? All we need are the Democrats plus a couple dozen non-insane Republicans. (Do that many exist? Maybe some of the ones who got defeated won't give a shit anymore.)

 

julian09

(1,435 posts)
12. If he lets it pass on mostly democrat votes, then it is passing against GOP votes.
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:29 PM
Dec 2012

So bye bye speakership. Won't bring it up

jrobbi

(4 posts)
6. I'm just sitting her enjoying the implosion of the conservative movement.
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:00 PM
Dec 2012
Also in before some teabaggers go on TV and say Obama's demands are unreasonable or some other BS talking point Rush says.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
23. he/she is talking about the debt ceiling
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:22 PM
Dec 2012

which will need to be raised sometime in the next year.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
24. Right, and Republicans will have no leverage
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:32 PM
Dec 2012

Do you see them holding the debt ceiling hostage to pass new tax cuts for the rich?

I mean, everyone is talking about the debt ceiling in the context of the current negotiations. After the tax cuts expire and if sequestration kicks in, they lose leverage.

If a deal is reached before the end of the year to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and kick the can down the road on sequestration negotiations, what are they going to hold the debt ceiling hostage for?

Even in that scenario, those negotiations will have a time limit, with sequestration still looming.



Enrique

(27,461 posts)
27. ha, they'll have no leverage
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:43 PM
Dec 2012

but when the time comes around, you will be telling us they have INFINITE leverage, Obama is powerless because the GOP will do this or that if he doesn't meet their demands.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
29. Huh?
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:43 PM
Dec 2012

"they'll have no leverage but when the time comes around, you will be telling us they have INFINITE leverage, Obama is powerless because the GOP will do this or that if he doesn't meet their demands."

What the hell are you talking about? President Obama isn't "powerless." He can't control what the GOP decides to do, but that has nothing to do with his leverage or power.

Witness Boehner talking shit before his humiliating defeat on Plan B...by his own party.



Proud Liberal Dem

(24,539 posts)
10. Sounds good to me
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:09 PM
Dec 2012

I still can't get over how Congress approved the BCA and didn't see this coming- though I suspect that they did but figured that they'd either never have to go through with it or could quickly fix it later.

kentuck

(111,264 posts)
17. Repubs are rushing to the Greyhound station...
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:26 PM
Dec 2012

...they can't wait to get back to Washington to agree to this "deal", I am sure....

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
18. well that plan favors the rich
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:30 PM
Dec 2012

but not as much as what Obama previously offered.

So how is this offer supposed to pass the House?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
19. The plan allows the tax cuts for the rich to expire.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 PM
Dec 2012

It also means all the other tax breaks (capital gains, dividends, estate taxes) that would have been negotiated also expire.

"So how is this offer supposed to pass the House?"

That's Boehner's job.




kentuck

(111,264 posts)
20. I suppose the plan woud be to pass with mostly Democratic votes?
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:36 PM
Dec 2012

If they can get 30-40 Repubs to votes for the taxcuts for the 98%, then they may be able to pass the House?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Possibly, but
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:48 PM
Dec 2012

do you see that happening?

I doubt Republicans will allow tax cuts for the rich to expire. Who knows, maybe there are about 30 vulnerable Republicans who would support this.

kentuck

(111,264 posts)
22. I don't see it passing the Republican House.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:20 PM
Dec 2012

The majority of votes will have to come from the Democratic side for a deal like this. That could be the challenge? The Repubs that vote for such a deal would probably be vulnerable in the next election, giving Democrats a chance to take back the House, and back into the proper hands.

 

Panasonic

(2,921 posts)
36. Tea Party will own the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as we know it.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:00 PM
Dec 2012

It'll be called the Tea Party after it is said and done.



hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
26. no, actually it keeps many of those tax cuts for the rich
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:40 PM
Dec 2012

the top 1% still get $40 billion a year in tax cuts
the top 4% still get another $40 billion a year in tax cuts
and the other 15% that makes up the top 20% get another $80 billion a year in tax cuts

$160 billion a year in tax cuts for the top 20%
$42 billion a year in tax cuts for the bottom 40%

clearly a plan that favors the rich

and actually it is not Boehner's problem to get it past the House. He can take the high ground and swat that offer away. Clearly with this offer a) the President is not being bi-partisan, because he is only offering his original tax plan and b) is doing nothing about our serious long term debt problems.

Heck, how does this plan even pass the Senate?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
30. Please cut the nonsense.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:47 PM
Dec 2012

Everyone knows the tax code is progressive to the extent that each bracket applies to everyone.

The fact is that everyone gets a cut below $250,000.

You're advocating nonsense.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
39. I'd like to have Obama cut the nonsense
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:20 PM
Dec 2012

a $250,000 limit is nonsense.

Most families in this country are not even close to $250,000 in income.

Median household income in 2009 was $50,000. Only 20.1% of households made over $100,000. Only 3.8% made over $200,000.

Keeping tax cuts up to $250,000 simply provides much bigger benefits to those making over $100,000 than it does to those making under $50,000.

Let them all expire and replace them with something much fairer.

That's what Democrats should be proposing - IF they cared about the bottom 60%.

The silence of Democrats who care about the bottom 60% is deafening right now.

At least it speaks volumes to me.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
41. You can
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:27 PM
Dec 2012
I'd like to have Obama cut the nonsense

a $250,000 limit is nonsense.

Most families in this country are not even close to $250,000 in income.

Median household income in 2009 was $50,000. Only 20.1% of households made over $100,000. Only 3.8% made over $200,000.

Keeping tax cuts up to $250,000 simply provides much bigger benefits to those making over $100,000 than it does to those making under $50,000.

....oppose the tax cuts below the $250,000 without the nonsense about how it impacts those who earn over that amount. The tax brackets apply to everyone.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
45. the tax brackets do NOT apply to everyone
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:54 PM
Dec 2012

median household income (again) is $50,000.

For over half the country the only tax brackets that apply are the 15% bracket. Which goes up to AGI of $65,100 and if you include the standard deduction and exemptions for a family of four, that goes up to $91,500. And if a family maximizes their IRA deductions they can have income of $101,500 and still only pay at the 15% rate.

Thus the rates over 15% which Obama is determined to cut - only impact the richest 20% - those with incomes over $100,000.

The HAVES if not the have mores.

But whether Obama settles at the $250,000 limit or the $400,000 limit, which he also proposed, those who have more, GET more of the benefits as that limit goes up.

Even the $250,000 limit gives about the same in benefits to the top 1% as it does to the bottom 40%.

That's not nonsense. It is just the facts.

Facts that most people don't know or admit, but still facts.

It doesn't have to be that way, and a progrssive worthy of the name would be fighting for something better.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
34. Those numbers are OUTRAGEOUS.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:45 PM
Dec 2012

They are nothing short of absurd, particularly given the results of this election. If we ever needed clear proof that our party is working for the one percent, there it is.

Yet we are told the party is working for us.

I wish you would take those numbers you just posted, and maybe also the graph I posted below, and make an OP out of it.

People need to clearly see what passes for representing the people, following an election we won.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
25. Everything we get now favors the rich. It's a given now.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:37 PM
Dec 2012

The Third Way has successfully shifted our expectations of this Party.

We won the election by a landslide, but we are supposed to be happy if the deal we get is not as bad as a hypothetical, senior-starving deal that could have possibly happened.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party.

How corporate propaganda works to change our expectations of the Democratic Party
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022033331

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
31. "We won the election by a landslide"
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:00 PM
Dec 2012

which means that Democratic utopia has been reached?

Any, and I mean any, deal out of Congress is going to suck in some ways. You don't have to be happy, but don't pretend there is an alternative.

I mean, you can close your eyes and pretend that Republicans don't exist and that they're not the majority in the House. You can also play a game in your head where you envision them doing anything to make you happy.

There are only three things coming out of this Congress: a half-bad (or half-good depending on your perspective) deal, a bad deal or nothing.

You can push for nothing if it's bad, but for the rest you have to decide what's good enough to accept. If that's unacceptable, go back to pushing for nothing.

That's the reality.






woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
32. No.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:29 PM
Dec 2012

It FAVORS the rich.

We won. It should FAVOR us. Given the theft and looting of the poor and middle classes over the past 30 years, it should overwhelmingly favor us. But even if that were not the case, it should FAVOR us based on the results of the election.

However, a deal actually favoring the American people has not been on the agenda of the corporate neoDemocratic Party for some time.

When the negotiating graphs look like this, we clearly have a serious problem within our own party:

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
35. Your graph doesn't make your point.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:55 PM
Dec 2012

"When the negotiating graphs look like this, we clearly have a serious problem within our own party: "

Obama's first offer was strong. He should have stuck with that.

His third offer sucks. The problem is negotiating with Republicans.

We can go on all day about the logic behind the President's third offer, but the end result is: no deal. Boehner rejected it.




ProSense

(116,464 posts)
38. Bullshit, woo me with science
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:17 PM
Dec 2012

"You have Newspeak down, but you can't change the facts."

Don't get mad that your propaganda doesn't work on everyone.

I'm not going to post a "blue link" to distract you, but again, here's a reality check:

Any, and I mean any, deal out of Congress is going to suck in some ways. You don't have to be happy, but don't pretend there is an alternative.

I mean, you can close your eyes and pretend that Republicans don't exist and that they're not the majority in the House. You can also play a game in your head where you envision them doing anything to make you happy.

There are only three things coming out of this Congress: a half-bad (or half-good depending on your perspective) deal, a bad deal or nothing.

You can push for nothing if it's bad, but for the rest you have to decide what's good enough to accept. If that's unacceptable, go back to pushing for nothing.

That's the reality. You can scream "bullshit" all day long, but you can't change reality.


hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
42. aha, so you admit "nothing" is an alternative
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:32 PM
Dec 2012

I claim that "nothing + progressive proposals A, B and C posted here http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10021894779)

is much better than a terrible, horrible, no good very bad deal.

It's better to fight for something good and lose, than to fight for a cow pie and win and then try to tell the people that the cow pie is really chocolate cake and that we won.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
44. Admit?
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:45 PM
Dec 2012

"aha, so you admit "nothing" is an alternative"

Eureka! Nothing is always an alternative. I for one prefer going over the cliff.

"It's better to fight for something good and lose, than to fight for a cow pie and win and then try to tell the people that the cow pie is really chocolate cake and that we won."

Simplistic. Fighting for "something good" and losing doesn't mean nothing. Sometimes pushing for nothing instead of accepting the next best option is idiotic. It depends on what the next best option represents. "Doesn't go far enough" isn't synonymous with "bad"

That was the case with health care reform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022037724

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
47. but going in the wrong direction is bad
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:59 PM
Dec 2012

and "not going far enough" is not the same thing as "going in the wrong direction"

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
50. Progress isn't the "wrong direction"
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:08 PM
Dec 2012

Expanding Medicaid isn't the wrong direction.

This: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

...isn't the wrong direction.

Letting the tax cuts for the rich expire isn't the wrong direction.



hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
43. I wish that graph would include the baseline of "going over the clifff"
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:41 PM
Dec 2012

because that would show probably $4 trillion in tax increases.

And to me going from $4 trillion to $1.55 trillion is NOT a tax increase, it is a tax CUT of some $3 trillion.

And the top 20% get about $1.6 trillion of that $3 trillion total tax CUT. ($160 billion a year for ten years or more as their income contiinues to grow faster than the median income)

And yet a $1.6 trillion tax cut for the rich, is being sold as a tax increase.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
46. Actually, it's a
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:57 PM
Dec 2012

slight increase for the top one percent because there are also tax increases built into the health care law.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3210&DocTypeID=2




<...>



Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.

Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)

It’s true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes — and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
49. I didn't know that the health care law
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:05 PM
Dec 2012

was part of the Bush tax cuts.

Here I thought they were two separate pieces of legislation.

But by all means, let's let that piece of crap be our excuse to give the top 20% $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. A health insurance mandate must be worth at least that much to the working classes.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
51. Regardless!
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:15 PM
Dec 2012

"Here I thought they were two separate pieces of legislation."

You see the chart shows a slight increase over the pre-EGTRRA law, and it increases a little more with the taxes associated with the health care law.

"But by all means, let's let that piece of crap be our excuse to give the top 20% $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. A health insurance mandate must be worth at least that much to the working classes."

Again with the nonsense. If you limit the cuts to people earning less than $100,000, there will still be a dollar amount associated with high-income earners.

You seem to be pretending to not understand that.

You can argue for a completely different program, but that is not being discussed. Want to talk about increasing the minimum wage?

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
55. It's stunning that they get away with this, and claim to represent us.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:49 PM
Dec 2012

We truly live in the corporate Matrix.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Report: White House Consi...