Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal

[ProSense]

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

[Skinner]

1. That might actually be the best proposal yet.

[ProSense]

4. Yup, everyone should push for this

or the cliff.

[Fridays Child]

2. So...put something out there that was designed to expose Boehner for the teabagging douchenozzle

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

[lasttrip]

3. that's what I was hoping for

maybe the President was waiting for all this crap to go down first.

[frazzled]

5. This is what should have been done all along

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]

12. If he lets it pass on mostly democrat votes, then it is passing against GOP votes.

So bye bye speakership. Won't bring it up

[jrobbi]

6. I'm just sitting her enjoying the implosion of the conservative movement.

Also in before some teabaggers go on TV and say Obama's demands are unreasonable or some other BS talking point Rush says.

[DCBob]

7. Thats what I expected to happen.

kick the can down the road.

[Mr Peabody]

8. then it will just move the fight to debt extension.... gov't shutdown will be the new hostage.. n/t

[ProSense]

9. No, it will not.

The tax cuts for the rich will be history.

Republicans really have no leverage.

[Enrique]

23. he/she is talking about the debt ceiling

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

[ProSense]

24. Right, and Republicans will have no leverage

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. ha, 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.

[ProSense]

29. Huh?

"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]

10. Sounds good to me

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.

[bigtree]

11. kick

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. It's a 'band aid" approach, but it's not bad.

If the Republicans don't go for it, then it's the cliff.

[magical thyme]

14. this I can live with

Phew! Thank you, Prosense...

[Liberalynn]

15. This I could go for

[Autumn]

16. Sounds like a damn good idea to me.

rec

[kentuck]

17. Repubs are rushing to the Greyhound station...

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

[hfojvt]

18. well that plan favors the rich

but not as much as what Obama previously offered.

So how is this offer supposed to pass the House?

[ProSense]

19. The plan allows the tax cuts for the rich to expire.

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]

20. I suppose the plan woud be to pass with mostly Democratic votes?

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]

21. Possibly, but

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]

22. I don't see it passing the Republican House.

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]

36. Tea Party will own the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as we know it.

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

[hfojvt]

26. no, actually it keeps many of those tax cuts for the rich

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]

30. Please cut the nonsense.

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]

39. 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.

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]

41. You can

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]

45. the tax brackets do NOT apply to everyone

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.

[ProSense]

52. Don't be absurd! n/t

[woo me with science]

34. Those numbers are OUTRAGEOUS.

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.

[hfojvt]

40. I've been posting those numbers like a broken record now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

The net result of my effort is perhaps that another 5 people now have me on ignore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1777348

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021824827

[woo me with science]

25. Everything we get now favors the rich. It's a given now.

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]

31. "We won the election by a landslide"

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. No.

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]

35. Your graph doesn't make your point.

"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.

[woo me with science]

37. Bullshit, Prosense.

Just bullshit.

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

[ProSense]

38. Bullshit, woo me with science

"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]

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

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]

44. Admit?

"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]

47. but going in the wrong direction is bad

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

[ProSense]

50. Progress isn't the "wrong direction"

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.

[woo me with science]

53. It's like arguing in a funhouse, isn't it. nt

[ProSense]

54. P is for propaganda. n/t

[hfojvt]

43. I wish that graph would include the baseline of "going over the clifff"

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]

46. Actually, it's a

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]

49. I didn't know that the health care law

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]

51. Regardless!

"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]

55. It's stunning that they get away with this, and claim to represent us.

We truly live in the corporate Matrix.

[AndyTiedye]

28. Yeah, This One

[Scurrilous]

33. K & R

[Faryn Balyncd]

48. Sounds tentatively encouraging.

[spanone]

56. never seen government so dysfunctional in the good ol usa

[IMG][/IMG]