Obama Tells Progressives He Won't Budge On Bush Tax Cuts

[Kulindahr]

The House has the responsibility to produce a bill that will get the senate's majority vote, and the president's signature. The point of legislation is not to make bills that doomed to fail, it is to create a bill that can pass all the OTHER parts of the government.
. . . .
If you can't manage the process of legislation, then you need to not be in charge of legislating.

That's a good point. The responsibility of Congress is to actually legislate, not to merely pile up binders full of bills.

[Benvolio]

No, clearly the framers of the Consttution intended that the House would lead on revenue, not the Senate or the President. It is not the duty of the House to follow the Senate nor to rubber stamp profligate spending.

[jackoroe]

The House has the responsibility to produce a bill that will get the senate's majority vote, and the president's signature. The point of legislation is not to make bills that doomed to fail, it is to create a bill that can pass all the OTHER parts of the government.

They have no such obligation. The objective of our legislative system is not to facilitate legislation but to prevent it in keeping with the founders intent of limited government. Think about all the ways legislation can be derailed. That's not by accident.

[BostonPirate]

That's a good point. The responsibility of Congress is to actually legislate, not to merely pile up binders full of bills.

right

Legislators legislate. When they convince their minions that their job as legislators is to NOT legislate then you KNOW how pathetic both they, and the rank and file GOP members of the party of Mud are.

[rareboy]

Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process—legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. However, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills. The House initiates impeachment cases, while the Senate decides impeachment cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

I don't have time to look for a better source, but this is how I understood the role of the Legislative Branch.

[jackoroe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

I don't have time to look for a better source, but this is how I understood the role of the Legislative Branch.

Your correct. They are equal partners. There is no obligation for one house to do something to the satisfaction of the other. That's why there are conference committees to work out differences in bills. But you have to actually pass something first in order to get to conference.

[jackoroe]

right

Legislators legislate. When they convince their minions that their job as legislators is to NOT legislate then you KNOW how pathetic both they, and the rank and file GOP members of the party of Mud are.

More hypocrisy? No budget from the dems again next year. That'll be four years without a budget resolution!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-doing-budget-

What was that about their obligation to legislate? Your argument rings just a bit hollow.

[BostonPirate]

More hypocrisy? No budget from the dems again next year. That'll be four years without a budget resolution!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-doing-budget-

What was that about their obligation to legislate? Your argument rings just a bit hollow.

How can the dems pass a budget RESOLUTION when the GOP controlled house wont pass a BILL that the constitution states MUST originate from them.

They can't even get the senate to consider some of their fucked up legislation because they pass a bill for budget and add abortion legislation onto it, to insure that the president will never sign it.

The GOP is going to be left holding this bag of shit. The polls state it, and the last election indicate it. If the rethugs of the Mud party can't get their act together on this and soon, they are going to get their happy asses heaved out in two years.

The voters are just getting warmed up.

[rareboy]

Your correct. They are equal partners. There is no obligation for one house to do something to the satisfaction of the other. That's why there are conference committees to work out differences in bills. But you have to actually pass something first in order to get to conference.

You didn't read the whole thing....

while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.

[jackoroe]

How can the dems pass a budget RESOLUTION when the GOP controlled house wont pass a BILL that the constitution states MUST originate from them.

They can't even get the senate to consider some of their fucked up legislation because they pass a bill for budget and add abortion legislation onto it, to insure that the president will never sign it.

The GOP is going to be left holding this bag of shit. The polls state it, and the last election indicate it. If the rethugs of the Mud party can't get their act together on this and soon, they are going to get their happy asses heaved out in two years.

The voters are just getting warmed up.

Do a little research. The house has passed a budget every year. They fulfilled their Constitutional obligation. The Senate, not so much.

[jackoroe]

You didn't read the whole thing....

while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.

Yes I did and so what?

[BostonPirate]

Do a little research. The house has passed a budget every year. They fulfilled their Constitutional obligation. The Senate, not so much.

Do you really want me to list all the riders that they added in to insure the Senate would never take the bill up for consideration?

Shall we delve into abortionland, rape legislation, repeal ACA terriory et al?

The house of Reps has been building bills designed to NOT pass, and the obstruction that THIS behavior caused enraged the electorate to the point of Throwing Romney and Ryan, and a host of senators out on their happy asses. If the House had not been gerrymandered they would have lost it, as they lost the popular vote.

So this is it.

Obama won the election with orders from all of us to stop all of THIS.

He has no re elections to think of now. Meet Obama 2.0. You guys need to adapt or you are going to give the whole government to the Dems in Obama's last two years in office.

Unbridled power awaits Obama, and the GOP is still mindlessly playing his political long game.

What a bunch of chumps.

[jackoroe]

Do you really want me to list all the riders that they added in to insure the Senate would never take the bill up for consideration?

Shall we delve into abortionland, rape legislation, repeal ACA terriory et al?

The house of Reps has been building bills designed to NOT pass, and the obstruction that THIS behavior caused enraged the electorate to the point of Throwing Romney and Ryan, and a host of senators out on their happy asses. If the House had not been gerrymandered they would have lost it, as they lost the popular vote.

So this is it.

Obama won the election with orders from all of us to stop all of THIS.

He has no re elections to think of now. Meet Obama 2.0. You guys need to adapt or you are going to give the whole government to the Dems in Obama's last two years in office.

Unbridled power awaits Obama, and the GOP is still mindlessly playing his political long game.

What a bunch of chumps.

So pass a fucking budget without the riders and amendments and send it off to committee. What's so fucking difficult about that?! Quit being a partisan for a minute and look objectively at the budget process.

[BostonPirate]

So pass a fucking budget without the riders and amendments and send it off to committee. What's so fucking difficult about that?! Quit being a partisan for a minute and look objectively at the budget process.

WHAT????

That is a tortured logic loop you have there, buddy.

The GOp is peachy for putting the shit in the bill, but the Dems are bad for not removing the shit? Have we talked about the filibuster in congress?

Do you think you can just change the bill in the senate without having it filibustered? Do you really want me to make THAT list in this thread???????

So how do you change the bill in the house and avoid the GOP filibuster? Those asshats filibuster jobs bills for returning veterans of the aghanistan war, just for fun.

of course.... We DID kick brown to the curb for it, as a strong warning to ALL OF THIS that the GOP is doing.

America is no longer buying a ticket on the GOP clown car ride. Abandoned on the side of the road.

[rareboy]

Yes I did and so what?

This explixitly means that it is the House that initiates the legislation...not just sits there and blocks it per your earlier post.

[GiancarloC]

No, clearly the framers of the Consttution intended that the House would lead on revenue, not the Senate or the President. It is not the duty of the House to follow the Senate nor to rubber stamp profligate spending.

The country operates under the Constitution, not the ARticles of Confederation. Read the constitution again please.

[Kulindahr]

More hypocrisy? No budget from the dems again next year. That'll be four years without a budget resolution!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-doing-budget-

What was that about their obligation to legislate? Your argument rings just a bit hollow.

Since when have the Democrats controlled the House, from which all bills about spending are to originate?

[Kulindahr]

So pass a fucking budget without the riders and amendments and send it off to committee. What's so fucking difficult about that?! Quit being a partisan for a minute and look objectively at the budget process.

How is the Senate supposed to pass a budget when budget bills are supposed to originate in the House? All the Senate can do is vote on what the House has passed.

By passing only bills that the Senate isn't even going to look at, the House Republicans are in violation of their oaths of office. Too bad Alfie isn't around any longer to ask:

WHY DO THEY HATE AMERICA?

[JayHawk]

Do a little research. The house has passed a budget every year. They fulfilled their Constitutional obligation. The Senate, not so much.

C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E

That is the magic word say it slowly... republicans are finally willing after being rejected by America ... finally willing to compromise. Don't tell me you pay this close attention and didn't realize that the GOP was demanding their budget or the highway for the last three year so smug asshats in the GOP could claim no democratic budget passed. It is in no way genuine.

This year you will see a congress that actually works with the other side of the two party system and hammers our a spending plan.... and then passes it... either that or the rather austere version they agreed to if they continued to fight like children will go into effect.... what is that thingy we keep calling the fiscal cliff? Is it a plan on how we will spend and how much sometimes referred to as a budget?

I sincerely hope BHO is serious and takes the GOP right off the fucking cliff and then they will gladly sign a tax increase for millionaires.....

[JB3]

Good. He shouldn't. They should be allowed to expire in full, but the middle class can't exactly afford to have their taxes raised at this point, so the expiration of the upper tier is the only option. They also need a new (or several) top tiers for the ultra wealthy. (I would also say that individual trusts, like Romney's, need to be taxed if they're over a certain amount as well)

[GiancarloC]

Good. He shouldn't. They should be allowed to expire in full, but the middle class can't exactly afford to have their taxes raised at this point, so the expiration of the upper tier is the only option. They also need a new (or several) top tiers for the ultra wealthy. (I would also say that individual trusts, like Romney's, need to be taxed if they're over a certain amount as well)

One of those times I do agree with you... lets hope that can happen. It'll cover the deficits this country is facing.

[Jack Springer]

Good. He shouldn't. They should be allowed to expire in full, but the middle class can't exactly afford to have their taxes raised at this point, so the expiration of the upper tier is the only option. They also need a new (or several) top tiers for the ultra wealthy. (I would also say that individual trusts, like Romney's, need to be taxed if they're over a certain amount as well)

Raise them all -- raise taxes even higher on the wealthy -- the really rich ones have ways of getting around any increase anyway.

[Jack Springer]

One of those times I do agree with you... lets hope that can happen. It'll cover the deficits this country is facing.

Again -- you think that eliminating the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the rich would take care of our problems.

It's a drop of water from an eye-dropper into a 50 gallon barrel.

[Kulindahr]

Again -- you think that eliminating the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the rich would take care of our problems.

It's a drop of water from an eye-dropper into a 50 gallon barrel.

If they let all the Bush tax cuts expire and raised the individual exemption by $2000, it would be 15% of the deficit. That's not inconsiderable. I forget the amount, but if a surtax on incomes above $500k were added, we could get 25% of the deficit. That's far more than a "drop... into a 50 gallon barrel".

Raise the taxes that way. Make enough cuts to cut another 50% of the deficit. Then implement a growth freeze on all departments. In about five years we'll be back to surpluses -- and that will be the time for a "no new spending" bill until the debt is paid. And along the way, slowly eliminate corporate welfare and lower corporate taxes to balance it, to the point of dropping taxes on (real) small businesses to zero.

Then we'd see some prosperity.

[BostonPirate]

If capital gains were treated as normal income, we would have a HUGE revenue boost.

[Jack Springer]

Why not do away with all deductions and special deals -- you pay current rate taxes on your income -- no what where that income comes from -- democrats as well as republicans would never go for that.

[GiancarloC]

Again -- you think that eliminating the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the rich would take care of our problems.

It's a drop of water from an eye-dropper into a 50 gallon barrel.

Actually it would cover much of the budgetary shortfalls.

And your analogy is wrong and not supported either way. There has to be spending cuts... like cutting the military. Cutting education and food stamps is just despicable.

[Benvolio]

Actually it would cover much of the budgetary shortfalls.

And your analogy is wrong and not supported either way. There has to be spending cuts... like cutting the military. Cutting education and food stamps is just despicable.

Nonsense. Our budgetary shortfall, i.e. deficit, is a trillion a year. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those rich Americans you hate so much would not begin too eliminate the deficit and would just inspire Hussein to spend more. Food stamps should be limited to citizens.

[Kulindahr]

Why not do away with all deductions and special deals -- you pay current rate taxes on your income -- no what where that income comes from -- democrats as well as republicans would never go for that.

That's because they want the nation bankrupt. Politicians have to be judged by their actions, and the actions of House Republicans and Senate Democrats show that they are in love with debt.

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense. Our budgetary shortfall, i.e. deficit, is a trillion a year. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those rich Americans you hate so much would not begin too eliminate the deficit and would just inspire Hussein to spend more. Food stamps should be limited to citizens.

[GiancarloC]

Nonsense. Our budgetary shortfall, i.e. deficit, is a trillion a year. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those rich Americans you hate so much would not begin too eliminate the deficit and would just inspire Hussein to spend more. Food stamps should be limited to citizens.

ERRR Wrong. The Bush tax cuts are more than that... if income tax and capital gains tax were both made the same it would eliminate much short fall. And blaming social programs again I see? Wrong again. Social programs are a fraction what this country spends on the military, corporate subsidies and multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

[JayHawk]

The bottom line with Obama was to \raise taxs to then be dealing with a realistic bottom line for basing how they would effect cuts.

the cool thing is that McConnell has already conceded that revenue is on the table.... Boehner has already said so as well... looks like taxes are going up and Obama is going to win the first round of the new term....

Now if they can move onto Immigration reform since republicans feel they need that to regain a party base then it is high time to figure out that mess as well.

[Kulindahr]

ERRR Wrong. The Bush tax cuts are more than that... if income tax and capital gains tax were both made the same it would eliminate much short fall. And blaming social programs again I see? Wrong again. Social programs are a fraction what this country spends on the military, corporate subsidies and multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

Can't find a cite at the moment, but I recall a figure of ~40% of the deficit if the Bush tax cuts were dropped and all sources of income were treated the same.

Add a surtax on incomes of $500k or more and we could do the job half with taxes and half with spending cuts.

[GiancarloC]

Can't find a cite at the moment, but I recall a figure of ~40% of the deficit if the Bush tax cuts were dropped and all sources of income were treated the same.

Add a surtax on incomes of $500k or more and we could do the job half with taxes and half with spending cuts.

I'm not sure if this is what you're quite looking for:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/b...s-and-deficits



But it's a good enough representation of how much the Bush tax cuts cost this country... republicans like to downplay and say "well social programs cost more!!!"...

Various sources have called for the expiration of these tax cuts...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ax-cuts-expire

I'm sure something can be worked out for the middle class, but the upper 5% shouldn't be getting such major tax breaks.

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure if this is what you're quite looking for:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/b...s-and-deficits



But it's a good enough representation of how much the Bush tax cuts cost this country... republicans like to downplay and say "well social programs cost more!!!"...

Various sources have called for the expiration of these tax cuts...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ax-cuts-expire

I'm sure something can be worked out for the middle class, but the upper 5% shouldn't be getting such major tax breaks.

Add the surtax on incomes over $500k, and then raise the individual exemption by $2k, and we'd have a surplus (the $2k exemption increase would cover the middle class).