Source: Boehner offered Obama tax hike on millionaires
Signaling new movement in “fiscal cliff’ talks, House Speaker John Boehner has proposed raising the top rate for earners making more than $1 million, a person familiar with the negotiations said. President Barack Obama, who wants higher top rates for households earning more than $250,000, has not accepted the offer, this person said.
The proposal, however, indicated progress in talks that had appeared stalled. The person would only discuss the plan on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.
As part of a broader budget deal, Boehner is still seeking more spending cuts than Obama has proposed, particularly in mandatory health care spending. Boehner has asked for a long-term increase in eligibility age for Medicare and for lower costs-of-living adjustments for Medicare.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
So you’re okay with slavery?
ButterflyDragon on December 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Getting people affordable health care is quite simple.
First step, create an environment where people can get a freaking job.
Second step, get government the hell out of the medical industry. You’d see costs plummet. It’s the mandates by government (even before ObamaCare) that caused costs to skyrocket.
ButterflyDragon on December 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Every single problem in health care the politicians crow about is the politicians’ fault. There is not a “we need more government” trope in health care that was not generated by government in the first place.
gryphon202 on December 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Can you come up with a few that aren’t headquartered in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia?
It doesn’t really matter whether the culture of a company — or it’s leadership — worships progressivism or not. If they are successful, it’s because they’re excelling at capitalism, so really what that makes Facebook, Google and Apple is a bunch of hypocrites — not some liberal success story.
NoLeftTurn on December 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM
It has to do that for most of or all the economy in order to be Socialist. The government in the UK does run the NHS but it is not the exclusive health care provider and clearly the UK is not Socialist.
The video is interesting but misleading. Constitutional Republics have the potential to cover a pretty wide ideological spectrum from the far-right to the far-left and everything in between. The video suggests that the early Roman Republic was some sort of early incarnation of Classic Liberalism and that simply isn’t the case.
Depending on who you read, Western governments are to varying degrees evolved products of liberalism. Laissez-faire liberals on the ‘right’ side (market liberalism) and social liberals (liberal-socialists to some) on the ‘left’ on a spectrum of liberalism. The common denominators are a belief in individual freedoms and free markets with a high degree of international trade activity being broadly encouraged. The difference between left and right is about the degree to which government should play a role in alleviating or restricting the extremes in wealth and poverty produced by free markets. I think that broadly covers the variation in Westen and Central Europe, North America, and a number of other countries.
Socialism really is something different.
lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM
For those who think socialized medicine is the way to go here is my story.
Four years ago I got a melanoma on my arm. It was removed and further preventive minor surgery was done. It showed clean so I likely could have done without it. I was 59 at the time. In Canada there was an identical case of a 34 year old husband and father of two. He did not get the follow up and went to stage four cancer. He was in the news because he was trying to get Canada to pay for treatment in the USA.
I am alive and he is dead.
BullShooterAsInElk on December 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Health care should be each individual responsible for him- or herself alone, with informed decision making aided by medical professionals of that individual’s choosing. Matters regarding personal physical health are the closest I’ll ever come to being a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist.
gryphon202 on December 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Actually it’s closer to $13/hr., but don’t let facts get in your way or anything. That’s a livable wage in many parts of the country, BTW.
NoLeftTurn on December 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM
How much innovation and social mobility comes out of these European social democracies? None. Facebook doesn’t happen in Sweden. Google doesn’t happen in Norway. Apple doesn’t happen in the UK.
Innovation doesn’t happen in liberalism.
p0s3r on December 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM
After less than three years at Walmart, I made almost $10/hour as a front-end cashier. And I would have continued getting pay raises had I not quit there due to some unfortunate personal circumstances. It’s really not that bad a place compared to any other retail giant you can go to work for.
gryphon202 on December 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Socialism is all about “equality” … equality of income, food, health care, gender, sexuality … everything. Since people aren’t equal, the only way for socialists to make them equal is to treat people unequally. Using the force of government of course.
darwin on December 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Not usually on board for your posts, but that particular thought is one of the most cogent a viable assessments that I’ve come across.
It wasn’t JUST that simple, or just that, but a major reason indeed.
Genuine on December 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM
I still think we should just go over the cliff. It’s the only way we’re ever going to get any kind of spending cuts out of these jokers. Let the taxes go up on everyone and people can see what it is they voted for. Maybe they’ll get angry enough then to vote them OUT. And marginal tax rates go up and down all the time depending who is in office. It will be painful for awhile, but Obama and the Dems will have to own the sh!tty economy that will come with it, which should bode well for us in 2014 and 2016, and when we finally have some actual conservatives running things again, the marginal rates can be lowered again. That’s a whole lot easier to accomplish than massive spending cuts. If we have a chance to get some here — even if just a little bit — I’d be willing to punt for now on the taxes to do it.
Of course, we’ve seen this deal promised before circa early 1980s. So I don’t know how we ensure they actually make good on the spending cuts.
NoLeftTurn on December 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Really simple way to approach this: assume that they won’t make good on the cuts. It goes without saying that we can’t continue down this path forever, but bracing for the worst (LiB, baby!) will at least blunt the worst of the effects. Somewhat. For some people.
gryphon202 on December 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Right, because forcing everyone’s taxes to go up, automatic cuts to take place, and a recession that will likely follow because you couldn’t protect the tax rates for the wealthy who benefitted the most from the Bush tax cuts and needed it the least, is gonna work out to a great election campaign season for us.
Sounds like solid reasoning to me. /
Genuine on December 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM
You seem to be working from the assumption that the Republicans somehow deserve electoral success. If you really do believe that, make your case; it’s not axiomatic.
gryphon202 on December 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM
They came from a blog post which claims they came from the center for responsive politics without providing any links.
Darth Executor on December 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Good move by Boehner if it’s true. Now all he has to do is hold a press conference stating that Obama rejected a proposal by Republicans to raise tax rates on incomes over $250k.
Everybody complains that the Democrats play chess while the Republicans play checkers. Well, this is what chess looks like.
Caiwyn on December 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM
I’d accept a millionaire’s income tax surcharge if it accompanied real entitlement reform. This of course assumes we keep the sequestration spending cuts or substitute them with other cuts.
Wigglesworth on December 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM
When the money runs out completely (after the looters have crushed all free enterprise) everyone will die. Congrats.
fossten on December 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Perish.
Bmore on December 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4