A Timeline For The Party of NO

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Interesting in that this shows how the Right Wing has held the country hostage
for months and months based only on continuing tax breaks for the rich.

---------------------------------------------------------

By Sarah Ayres, Michael Linden | November 21, 2011 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/11/republican_taxes_timeline.html)

The inability of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as the "super committee,” to come to an agreement on a plan to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion is just the latest turn of events after months of negotiations on deficit reduction.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/11/img/republican_taxes_timeline_onpage.jpg
SOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite
Members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction hold a public hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on October 26, 2011.


A review of the major developments in this debate over the past year shows that taxes, especially on high-income households, have always been the major sticking point. While the two parties have been able to agree to various levels of spending reductions (including $1 trillion in spending cuts as part of the deal that created the super committee), negotiators have repeatedly come up against a wall when it comes to including higher taxes for rich people as part of deficit reduction.

The following timeline highlights key happenings in the deficit negotiations.

February 14, 2011: President Barack Obama submits budget for 2012 with about $2 trillion in deficit reduction, half of which come from spending cuts.

April 15, 2011: House passes Ryan budget, which includes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts along with tax cuts for the richest Americans.

May 5, 2011: Vice President Joe Biden begins debt talks.

May 11, 2011: Speaker John Boehner says he will not raise debt limit without spending cuts that match how much the limit is raised.

June 23, 2011: Majority Leader Eric Cantor walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split.

July 7, 2011: President Obama and Speaker Boehner begin debt-ceiling negotiations.

July 9, 2011: Speaker Boehner walks away from President Obama’s “grand bargain”: $4 trillion in debt reduction comprised of $1 trillion in revenue and $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms.

July 19, 2011: The Gang of Six proposes a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, including $2 trillion revenue.

July 22, 2011: Again, Speaker Boehner walks away from negotiations after President Obama offers $1.2 trillion in revenues and $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlements.

July 31, 2011: Debt ceiling agreement is reached, cutting $1 trillion in spending immediately and establishing the super committee to reduce deficits by at least an additional $1.2 trillion.

October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicans’ first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction that includes no new tax revenues.

November 8, 2011: Republicans’ second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.

November 10, 2011: Democrats’ second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.

November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

Sarah Ayres is a Research Associate in the Economic Policy Department and Michael Linden is the Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The party of NO sounds off again.



------------------------------------------------------------
Senate rejects, for now, extending payroll tax cut (http://news.yahoo.com/senate-rejects-now-extending-payroll-tax-cut-014608582.html)

APBy ANDREW TAYLOR and DAVID ESPO | AP – 4 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Thursday sidetracked rival plans to extend a Social Security payroll tax cut, in dueling votes that pave the way for negotiations on a compromise on a core component of President Barack Obama's jobs program.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/HQxHLs1S2rc2oOusFI_c8w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjkzMjtjcj0xO2N3PTM1NTk7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTE1NztxPTg1O3c9MTkw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/52d15df9f8e5131a000f6a7067002e18.jpg
House Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

First, Republicans defeated Obama's plan to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of next year while also making it more generous for workers.

Minutes later, in a vote that exposed rare divisions among Senate Republicans, more than two dozen of the GOP's 47 lawmakers also voted to kill an alternative plan backed by their powerful leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to renew an existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut.

Many Republicans and even some Democrats say the payroll tax cut hasn't worked to boost jobs and is too costly with the federal deficit requiring the government to borrow 36 cents of every dollar it spends.

The defeat of the competing plans came as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said for the first time that renewing the payroll tax cut would boost the lagging economy, a view many in his party don't share. Boehner also promised compromise on a renewal of long-term jobless benefits through the end of 2012.

The payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits are at the center of a costly, politically-charged year-end agenda in which Democrats seem poised to prevail in renewing a tax cut that many Republicans back only reluctantly. But Republicans are insisting — in a switch from last year — that the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits be paid for by cutting spending.

Both parties are seeking the political high ground as next year's elections loom, with Democrats accusing Republicans of siding with the rich, and Republicans countering that Democrats were taxing small business owners who create jobs.

The first payroll tax plan to fall was a Democratic measure that was the centerpiece of Obama's jobs package announced in September. It would cut the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent next year and also extend the cut to employers, with its hefty $265 billion cost paid for by slapping a 3.25 percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million.

CONT...

Boehner made clear that all costs must be paid for, and said higher taxes were a non-starter.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Republican opponents "insist on helping the very wealthy while turning their back on the middle class," while another member of the leadership, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans were in full-blown retreat just days after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said on "Fox News Sunday" that "the payroll tax holiday has not stimulated job creation. We don't think that is a good way to do it."

[Blart]

Tax cuts are only good for rich people, duh!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-do-nothing.gif

[Bronx33]

both sides are the parties of no ( quit pretending)

[Blart]

I don't buy that there's a hidden centrist argument here, despite the attempts of corporate news media. The GOP created a crisis this summer, and wouldn't budge until they got "98 percent (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/boehner-got-98-percent-of-what-he-wanted-in-debt-deal/)" of what they wanted.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

both sides are the parties of no ( quit pretending)Really? Want to expand on that statement?

I've put forth examples showing Democrats have agreed to both massive spending cuts in entitlement programs and ending the tax cuts for the rich (increasing revenues).

What have Republicans agreed to do?

[mosca]

Cutting future increases in spending and pretending that it's a 'spending cut' doesn't count, Beerslug. Dems haven't put forth any ideas that realistically address out-of-control spending.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cutting future increases in spending and pretending that it's a 'spending cut' doesn't count, Beerslug. Dems haven't put forth any ideas that realistically address out-of-control spending.

Uh, out of these proposals, who offered to cut entitlement programs (spending) and raise revenues and who didn't...

October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicans’ first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction that includes no new tax revenues.

November 8, 2011: Republicans’ second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.

November 10, 2011: Democrats’ second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.

November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

[mosca]

Uh, out of these proposals, who offered to cut entitlement programs (spending) and raise revenues and who didn't...
Sorry, but both ideas are crap. "Cutting" 2 or 3 trillion in projected increases over 10 years means nothing if net spending continues to increase. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these gimmick supercommittee plans.

"If skinflint Republicans propose a budget with $8.5 trillion in spending increases over 10 years, the CBO will report that as an historic, unprecedented cut of $1 trillion in federal spending. The national media would then blare that the Republicans have proposed radical, severe, extreme budget cuts of $1 trillion, even though they are all the while actually increasing federal spending by $8.5 trillion."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/08/04/a-budget-cutting-deal-that-boosts-federal-spending/2/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Really? Want to expand on that statement?

I've put forth examples showing Democrats have agreed to both massive spending cuts in entitlement programs and ending the tax cuts for the rich (increasing revenues).

What have Republicans agreed to do?

http://thetyedyediguana.com/product_images/l/343/097612400410_ZM-41_Can_O%27_Crickets__78458_zoom.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sorry, but both ideas are crap. "Cutting" 2 or 3 trillion in projected increases over 10 years means nothing if net spending continues to increase. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these gimmick supercommittee plans.

"If skinflint Republicans propose a budget with $8.5 trillion in spending increases over 10 years, the CBO will report that as an historic, unprecedented cut of $1 trillion in federal spending. The national media would then blare that the Republicans have proposed radical, severe, extreme budget cuts of $1 trillion, even though they are all the while actually increasing federal spending by $8.5 trillion."

Uh, no, cutting spending and raising revenues is not "crap".
Better to just do nothing right? There has to be "dialogue" to start reigning in spending and raising revenue and right now the Republicans answer to that is "NO".

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0O2CPGcOPk0/SIBSXSbb_-I/AAAAAAAABnQ/hAQzn2EAFI8/s400/Jackassery.png

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I have nothing of value to add to this thread

We know.

[mosca]

Uh, no, cutting spending and raising revenues is not "crap".
It'd be nice if one of the plans actually cut spending, then. Cutting some future projected spending increases while still allowing overall spending to go up by $8+ trillion over 10 years and pretending that it's "cutting spending" IS crap.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It'd be nice if one of the plans actually cut spending, then. Cutting some future projected spending increases while still allowing overall spending to go up by $8+ trillion over 10 years and pretending that it's "cutting spending" IS crap.

I guess you will have to define the difference between "spending" and "spending".

If there is no dialogue then there is NO chance that ANY spending will be cut (besides the automatic 1.2 trillion cut that Democrats added earlier).

Right now, Republicans refuse any "spending" cuts that include rolling back tax cuts for the rich (increasing revenues).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

(http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-exclusive-republicans-disclose-private-call-too-dangerous-175828684.html)http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rqsax7ENrSzlfl8VN4QmSw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTg2O3E9ODU7dz0xMzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/076def9b4b65731b000f6a70670073e3.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-exclusive-republicans-disclose-private-call-too-dangerous-175828684.html) GOP urged to curb attacks on Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-exclusive-republicans-disclose-private-call-too-dangerous-175828684.html)

Yahoo! News exclusive: Republicans on a private RNC conference call Tuesday warned party surrogates to refrain from personal attacks against President Obama.


Party surrogates....that would be EpicFail and UltimateDoDo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

8 Year Old Boy Educates Michele Bachmann On Gay Rights (VIDEO) (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/06/8-year-old-boy-educates-michele-bachmann-on-gay-rights-video/)

A little boy named Elijah had something he wanted to say to Presidential candidate and staunch social conservative, Rep. Michele Bachmann. '...Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing.'

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/boners-iceberg.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The spirit of Joe McCarthy lives @ Fox !!!!

https://s-external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQB1k4Td7o1dplsL&w=90&h=90&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F426584%2Ft humbs%2Fs-PIGGY-KERMIT-large.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/fox-news-the-muppets-are-communist_n_1129173.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=318212,b=facebook)The Muppets Are Communist, Fox Business Network Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/fox-news-the-muppets-are-communist_n_1129173.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=318212,b=facebook)

It ain't easy being green, but according to Fox Business, Kermit the Frog and his Muppet friends are reds. Last week, on the network's "Follow the Money" program, host Eric Bolling went McCarthy on the new, Disney-released film, "The Muppets," insisting that its storyline featuring an evil oil baron...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/taxes-never-raise-kos.jpg

[Spider]

8 Year Old Boy Educates Michele Bachmann On Gay Rights (VIDEO) (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/06/8-year-old-boy-educates-michele-bachmann-on-gay-rights-video/)

A little boy named Elijah had something he wanted to say to Presidential candidate and staunch social conservative, Rep. Michele Bachmann. '...Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing.'

people have no shame using kids to get their message out ............news flash homos and other peoples , your kids should not be used as political messengers ...shame on em for using the kid this way

[TonyR]

These conservatives aren’t conservative. The Republicans Party has gone so far to the right that it has arrived on the other side of the political spectrum...Over the years, a series of public policy choices as well as banking and tax legislation has redistributed wealth upwards. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, preferred trade status with with China, the Bush tax cuts, Medicate Part D, and the $7.7 trillion that the Federal Reserve loaned to big banks since 2008 — all of these have sucked wealth from the bottom for the benefit of the rich. Up or down, it’s all the same when government is responsible for moving wealth around. John McCain called it by name in the 2008 presidential race — for the wrong reasons. It’s socialism.
http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/12/06/how-the-gop-became-americas-socialist-party-66360/

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Republicans say NO again because tax break for rich not included...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans And Business Groups Unable To Find One ‘Job Creator’ Who Opposes A Tax On Millionaires (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/09/385989/republicans-job-creators-taxes/)

By Tanya Somanader (http://thinkprogress.org/author/tanya-somanader/) on Dec 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Yesterday, Republicans again shot down (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/08/385468/breaking-gop-filibusters-middle-class-tax-cut-again/) an extension of a payroll tax break for middle-class families due to their objection to a 1.9 percent (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AD648BC4-7089-4754-B797-14E46551D248) tax increase on the top 0.2 percent of income earners (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/surcharge.pdf).

Naturally, Republicans are recycling (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/28/376616/kyl-payroll-tax/) their spurious claim (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/19/322193/small-business-taxes-lies/) that taxing America’s millionaires will somehow hit small businesses and stifle job creation. “It’s just intuitive (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much) that, you know, if you’re somebody who’s in business and you get hit with a tax increase, it’s going to be that much harder, I think, to make investments that are going to lead to job creation,” said Sen. John Thune (R-SD).

Hoping for more than Thune’s intuition, NPR put out a request to Republican offices and the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax to find business owners who’d be affected. Unsurprisingly, Republican leadership and the business groups came up empty:
We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to. A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.
There’s good reason why Republicans came up empty. Just 2 percent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/millionaires-surtax-would-hit-the-top-1-percent-of-small-businesses/2011/11/29/gIQAO9de9N_blog.html) of people with any business income, large or small, would be affected by this tax increase.


Contrary to the GOP’s rhetoric, NPR found several business owners who’d be affected who insisted that the tax wouldn’t hurt hiring at all (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much). “It’s not in the top 20 things what we think about when we’re making a business hire,” said one business owner. It “didn’t even make it on the agenda.” Another business owner said that, even with slightly less disposable income, the marginal tax rate “has nothing to do with what my business does.”


Indeed, business owners have long been telling Republicans that the marginal tax change makes “zero difference” in hiring (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334762/business-taxes-zero-difference/). “I’m no sure what the connection is” between raising tax rates and hiring, said Anchor Brewing CEO Keith Greggor, adding that not a lot of “small-business owners I know are millionaires.”

But Republicans like Thune refuse to let facts challenge their dogma. “I think most small-business owners who are out there right now would argue that raising their taxes has the opposite effect that we would want to have in a down economy,” he said (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much).