'Cliff' talks: White House waiting on GOP move
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans have to stop using "political math" and say how much they are willing to raise tax rates on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and then specify the spending cuts they want, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Just four weeks from the proverbial "fiscal cliff," House Speaker John Boehner countered that Republicans have a plan for providing as much as $800 billion in new government revenue over the next decade and would consider the elimination of tax deductions on high-income earners. But when pressed on "Fox News Sunday" for precise details, the Ohio Republican declined to say.
There are "a lot of options in terms of how to get there," Boehner said.
Both Boehner's and Geithner's latest remarks indicate it could be some time before serious negotiations begin between the White House and Republicans on how to avert economic calamity expected in less than a month when President George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts kick in.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening plan: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and enhancing the president's power to raise the national debt limit.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him.
Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.
"I was just flabbergasted," Boehner said. "I looked at him (Geithner) and I said, 'You can't be serious.'" Boehner described negotiations as going "nowhere, period," and said "there's clearly a chance" the nation will go over the cliff.
Geithner, the administration's point man for negotiations, was slightly more optimistic while saying the ball was in Boehner's court. But the treasury secretary also said he didn't expect a counteroffer right away, as Republicans work to sort out tensions within the party in the wake of bruising national elections that left Democrats in charge of the White House and the Senate.
Boehner acknowledged in his interview, aired Sunday, that he wasn't happy with public remarks by Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who said he was ready to go along with Obama's plan to renew expiring income tax cuts for the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates on top earners later.
"They're trying to figure out where they go next," Geithner said of Republicans, "and we might need to give them a little time to figure out where they go next."
He called the back-and-forth "normal political theater," saying all that's blocking a timely deal is the GOP's reluctance to accept higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"It's welcome that they're recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. But they haven't told us anything about how far rates should go up ... (and) who should pay higher taxes," Geithner said.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she will try to force a vote on the Senate-passed bill favored by Democrats to avert a fiscal cliff. But she was unlikely to line up enough Republicans to succeed.
Republican leaders have said they accept higher tax revenue overall, but only through what they call tax reform __ closing loopholes and limiting deductions __ and only coupled with tough measures to curb the explosive growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
"If we gave the president $1.6 trillion of new money, what do you think he'd do with it?" asked Boehner. "He's going to spend it. It's what Washington does."
Cole didn't back down Sunday on his earlier comments that Republicans should agree to Obama's plan for continuing Bush's tax rates for middle-class America and focus the negotiations on the other issues. Doing so, he said, would make the GOP position even stronger.
"The reality is, nobody can look at this budget and think if you don't reform entitlements you can balance it. You can give the president every tax increase he's asked for, you'd still be in the hole," he said.
Geithner appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week" and "Fox News Sunday." Cole appeared on ABC "This Week."
___
Associated Press writers Mark S. Smith in Washington and Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., contributed to this report.
Just four weeks from the proverbial "fiscal cliff," House Speaker John Boehner countered that Republicans have a plan for providing as much as $800 billion in new government revenue over the next decade and would consider the elimination of tax deductions on high-income earners. But when pressed on "Fox News Sunday" for precise details, the Ohio Republican declined to say.
There are "a lot of options in terms of how to get there," Boehner said.
Both Boehner's and Geithner's latest remarks indicate it could be some time before serious negotiations begin between the White House and Republicans on how to avert economic calamity expected in less than a month when President George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts kick in.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening plan: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and enhancing the president's power to raise the national debt limit.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him.
Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.
"I was just flabbergasted," Boehner said. "I looked at him (Geithner) and I said, 'You can't be serious.'" Boehner described negotiations as going "nowhere, period," and said "there's clearly a chance" the nation will go over the cliff.
Geithner, the administration's point man for negotiations, was slightly more optimistic while saying the ball was in Boehner's court. But the treasury secretary also said he didn't expect a counteroffer right away, as Republicans work to sort out tensions within the party in the wake of bruising national elections that left Democrats in charge of the White House and the Senate.
Boehner acknowledged in his interview, aired Sunday, that he wasn't happy with public remarks by Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who said he was ready to go along with Obama's plan to renew expiring income tax cuts for the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates on top earners later.
"They're trying to figure out where they go next," Geithner said of Republicans, "and we might need to give them a little time to figure out where they go next."
He called the back-and-forth "normal political theater," saying all that's blocking a timely deal is the GOP's reluctance to accept higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"It's welcome that they're recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. But they haven't told us anything about how far rates should go up ... (and) who should pay higher taxes," Geithner said.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she will try to force a vote on the Senate-passed bill favored by Democrats to avert a fiscal cliff. But she was unlikely to line up enough Republicans to succeed.
Republican leaders have said they accept higher tax revenue overall, but only through what they call tax reform __ closing loopholes and limiting deductions __ and only coupled with tough measures to curb the explosive growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
"If we gave the president $1.6 trillion of new money, what do you think he'd do with it?" asked Boehner. "He's going to spend it. It's what Washington does."
Cole didn't back down Sunday on his earlier comments that Republicans should agree to Obama's plan for continuing Bush's tax rates for middle-class America and focus the negotiations on the other issues. Doing so, he said, would make the GOP position even stronger.
"The reality is, nobody can look at this budget and think if you don't reform entitlements you can balance it. You can give the president every tax increase he's asked for, you'd still be in the hole," he said.
Geithner appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week" and "Fox News Sunday." Cole appeared on ABC "This Week."
___
Associated Press writers Mark S. Smith in Washington and Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., contributed to this report.
I just read an article about this cretin telling his WIFE to "just listen" and stop offering her ideas and thoughts for any other possible solutions to the "fiscal cliff" issue. If he won't even engage his spouse in conversation about this or anything else, what business does he have leading his party in these and any other issues that face our nation. You'd think the GOP would be running out of feet to shoot themselves in by now!
Obummer needs to get down off his high horse and meet them at least part way. Both parties need to bend a little. You cannot make up the whole deficit in one session but there has to be a common ground somewhere in the middle. The Repulsives have at least submitted a plan not the best but at least talk about it.
Â
Greece is about to look like the sandbox down at the corner daycare.
If history has proven anything it is that tax cuts promote spending that generates more money for the government. Every dollar that stays in the hands of the private citizens hands gets spent over and over generating more tax money every time that it is spent. When the government takes that same dollar it is out of circulation for ever. The reality is that you just can't tax your way out of recession! It has never worked!
Â
Of course the liberal mentality is that they are smarter now and they can make it work this time. That mentality proves just how stupid they really are.
Two things that should be brought up:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdfÂ
Â
As I can tell from your interest in historical knowledge; you do ample research so I am sure you will give it at least a quick read, I would like to point out one thing which is taken for granted by the author is the 'r' value attributed to data sets. Â This is a very relevant measure and more can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient
Â
 @Freedom1267Â
Â
"If history has proven anything it is that tax cuts promote spending that generates more money for the government."
I have never seen actual data that supports that comment.
Â
When people got their "super refund" checks a few years ago as a stimulus attempt that money was spent, but energy costs ate it. So really it became a supplemental subsidy for oil companies.
Â
In reality the people who get some of the biggest tax deductions by volume of actual dollars spend very little of it. Most ends up being used as fodder for day trading that builds no equity in any firm but yields huge rewards in a multitude of small margin, high volume trades that just feed more money into the system that makes more money. None of which helps the companies being âbought and soldâ.
Â
And you CAN tax yourself out of a recession. Indeed you can't lower taxes to stimulate an economy.
Â
That was the solution to the 1929 crises. But the more austere the system got, the worse it got. The only way the world got out of it was massive debt spending (that was WWII).
Â
Now I don't advocate for that, but evidence suggests what you're saying is not how the economy will recover.
Â
Austerity and lower taxes are good tools to lower a deficit, but they are not good tools to stimulate an economy.
Â
A headline today in major newspaper, "Congressman Boehner's Terror Alert Skin Set Back To Orange"
 @sargerator Funny comment, really. But imagine if Boehner was Black, and you or I made a joke about his skin color. I'm on your side, i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of others.
from the "onion", they make fun of everybody !
 @last boyscout  @sargeratorÂ
Â
I don't know, an "Afican American" with orange skin would still be funny.
 @last boyscout  @sargerator Do you not recall making fun of a white Michael Jackson?
Â
Generally a person has to hit rock bottom before they mend their ways. Letting the country do the same would be good medicine. To hell with votes. Go over the cliff and force American "citizens" to be responsible again (47%). This is the only way things will ever improve.
 @TimBurr I can tell you haven't gotten the word from your fellow red team members, but "47%" has been determined to not be politically expedient toward being taken seriously.Â
 @last boyscout @darren vandervort  @TimBurrÂ
Â
Duh.
Â
Obama is a politician; the only thing certain about the âgenuinenessâ of a politician is that they want to be elected.
Â
 @darren vandervort So are you suggesting that Obama was, to say the least, 'disingenuous' to use and promote the term 'the 47%' knowing that it was non sequitur?
 @TimBurrÂ
The "irresponsible 47%" are filled with federal workers (mostly military), retirees, and the exceptionally poor. All of whom, already pay state income, parole, sales taxes and who don't pay berceuse they; work FOR the feds (and thus asking them to pay BACK what they ere just given is stupid), don't work (and likely already paid federal income tax on their current "income"), or make so little as to not warrant the IRS to even look at them.
Â
There is a really small subset of the "47% who make millions and because of loopholes don't pay any "adjusted" federal income tax, but I don't think you're talking about them.
Â
But generally I agree with you. Democrats don't want benefit reforms when that accounts for nearly half of out debt. Not tenable. Republicans don't want tax reform when much of the wealth has been moved up the income scale based purely on tax incentives given to the wealthiest. Not reasonable.
Â
So they will (should) both lose.
Â
Although I see them coming to some "temporary" agreement that will last until the next election cycle.
Â
I mean what else would they fight about to win votes if they didn't?
Â
Your comments border on the ridiculous!
Â
Hummm . . Â
Â
Are you saying that the 1st step in the 10 step plan is NOT more drugs ????
 I really hope that there is no agreement by the end of the year. The tax rates will go up and the spending get dramatic cuts. Both sides win. The the Obamination and the Dems wants  tax hikes they can have them- across the board not just for 1% of the population. I can afford to pay 2300 more a year.  Put in a sales tax on top of that so the illegals that the Obamination"s administration are protecting can pay their fair share too. Too bad the spending cuts included in the cliff will make the dems and the Obamination cry but , hey, all is fair right . Is not the catch phrase of the Obamination " people need to pay thier fair share"???
What I dont like seeing is The last time I checked it was Obama who's president. It's up to him to lead and build a consensus. All he's done to date is say ""It's my way or the highway." That's not leadership. That's dictatorship. Until Obama learns to compromise we're heading for the cliff...........This is bigger than tax increases and spending cuts. Last month's election was about the White House. This time is about the gray house, and the brick house, and every other home acoss America. They had better not screw this up
Â
.
 @shadowwalker "All he's done to date is say ""It's my way or the highway." That's not leadership. That's dictatorship. "
Â
Remember "either you're with us or you with the terrorists" seems like this is an ongoing problem with our presidents!
Â
"They had better not screw this up"
They being congress and the president right.....they are all accountable, not just the democrats or republicans but ALL of them!
Â
"Until Obama learns to compromise"
As bad as his plan it, it is a compromise but it won't matter!  The fiscal cliff is a joke, the deficit is over 1 trillion, they are talking about cutting 1 trillion over 10 years, that's only 100 billion a year out of 1 trillion!  Can you imagine that, if you over spend your yearly budged by 10k and decided the fix was to cut 1k a year......what a joke!
Â
Â
" they are talking about cutting 1 trillion over 10 years" !!!   You actually get it !! Â
Â
Their absolute MUST HAVE TO FIX can only help 10% on the problem.   Where the hell are the large items ????
 @shadowwalker "Until Obama learns to compromise we're heading for the cliff":
Â
The cliff IS the compromise.
If memory serves, less than a month ago, cutting any money from Medicare was anathema to Republicans. But now it is a necessary part of any fiscal deal....
Â
Austerity is the cliff. Cutting spending now would be horrible for the economy. And the funny thing is that Republicans know this - when they talk about the cuts to defense.Â
@Max Quinn
For a great number of our population, austerity is a way of life already! Class warfare/divisions exist.
Â
We have been over the "cliff" for years! Â Certainly "progressively" (pun intended) worse for the full 4 years of Obama and the Dems spending. Expect to see that for another 4 years and more unless the House stops it now. There are more people on food stamps than the entire population of 26 States combined, and that doesnât consider all the other bennies! Â
Â
Obama encourages negotiations to fail and the Bush cuts to expire which will raise taxes without the write-offs of yesteryear under the same margins........ Â
Â
His first proposal off the campaign trail is a direct flip of his promises not a week before the election. A four to one increase/cut proposal was laughable and did bring snickers and belly laughs to both Dems and Republicans. Another jihugeous fake stimulus is being proposed on top of everything else?
Â
Obama has already had 4 years to bring a budget to Congress and his only attempts were rebuffed even by the Democrats. It is HIS job to negotiate, but he sends his minions to do faux dscussions.
Â
Obamacare alone increases taxes by a huge percentage while killing softly unless the House can and should defund it. With what this nation is facing that is the LAST thing we should be even thinking about let alone trying to fund. The Feds canât run anything well.
Â
There is not enough taxable money to make a dent in what we as a nation owe to multiple countries, (who for the most part donât like us at all except for what we buy from them) let alone run the Government the way Obama proposes. They will like us even less if we donât have the money to pay them or buy their products. They will use every ounce of leverage they have against us while they collect not in cash, but our natural resources.Â
Â
@eruditeÂ
âThere is not enough taxable money to make a dent in what we as a nation owe  . . . â  Amen. And we are trying by taxing it on the way in and on the way out. Â
Â
Here is an article that points out the kind of leadership that Obama needs to muster to help.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/opinion/zelizer-obama-budget-deal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1     It points out, at the moment more effort is the planning to protect them politically from the fallout of failure rather than working to avoid failure. But it does show that other presidents have benefited from * really * reaching across the aisle and working.Â
Â
An article in the Sunday Oregonian (New York Times) points out some of the parallels to our current juncture and the Great Depression and specifically the 1939 FDRâs âexperimentâ to once again pump the economy by giving consumers the possibility of consumptive spending;: They didnât.  FDR admitted it didnât work in 1941.  Â
Â
We are faced with another âexperimentâ.  History suggests we canât spend our way out of this mess.
@Max Quinn @NorthernBlackBear  """ His mistake was worrying about the deficit after the 1936 election"""""
Â
Thanks for proving my point that govt spending doe NOT create long term jobs. IIRC, FDR cut back on the govt. make work jobs in 37 or 38 and the unemployment rate spiked.
 @NorthernBlackBear I didn't see the Oregonian article - yes, moving Thanksgiving in an effort to increase holiday spending was not his best idea. You you are right about having to spending wisely on infrastructure.
The article specifically references FDR's 'experiment' of moving Thanksgiving to increase the holiday spending season . . . it only caused a shift in when they spent, not how much.
Â
By the way, as a seperate note, I whole heartly agree with aid provided in return for building infrastructure. But we have to be smart about it, and I don't have 'the crystal ball' depicting life in 2087.    You are absolutely correct we should not blindly mail checks.  Everyone can contribute - everyone has some talent to offer in return.   And for those that are truly disadvantaged, we have compassion.Â
 @NorthernBlackBear FDR did a tad more than give consumers the possibility of consumptive spending - through consumptive spending could include spending on items such as food. He also employed people by building infrastructure. His mistake was worrying about the deficit after the 1936 election - he slashed spending before the economy had fully recovered.
Â
History suggests that the government can step in after a financial crisis and maintain employment by building infrastructure (as opposed to mail checks to everyone). Our greatest infrastructure project was WWII. There was no shortage of people predicting a return of the depression after the war when all of the government spending decreased.
Â
Â
Nothing is going to change until the two parties that got us into this mess no longer have control. Wait, I don't think they are in control. Never mind.
Blah, blah, blah.
Â
People, POLITICIANS don't care about you or your interests. They only care about what gets them re-elected or grants them more power and influence. And since most power and influence comes from rich people and big corporations, guess where you fall in the scheme of things...stuck at the bottom looking up at the backsides of those with more influence than you, and they're looking up at those with more influence than them, and so on.
Â
The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is who pays them to do things.
Â
Your vote? Essentially worthless. And we the people sit idly by, afraid of our government and play the blame game instead of flushing the whole lot of them into the sewers where they belong. Oh there are a few who try to enact changes, but instead of supporting them, they get laughed at and scorned and told to shut up, go home and get a job.
Â
No one is to blame for anything that's happening in this country but US.
Â
 @Mikey ~  Exactly..!   Thank you! Â
@margay1 @Mikey ........I've said for years..........if everyone affiliated with these two parties re-registered as independent, these corrupt people would see their power base go away and scare the living s h I t out of them.
Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something â an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy â that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.
The bottom line, folks...once again... is that NEITHER the Dems NOR the Repubs have had our interests at heart for probably the last 4 or 5 decades... Â and yet, we've just kept the collective blinders firmly in place, electing and re-electing people from these same 2 corrupt and morally bankrupt parties again and again and again.
Â
We can spend from now 'til eternity trying to "assess blame" on one person or another - or even one PARTY or another... but the "real" blame lies with we-the-voters... Â Americans are notoriously apathetic, unless someone stomps on our tail - hard...eg: Pearl Harbor... Â We didn't see the light even after 9/11... and that failure has gotten us to where we are now... Â I hate what has happened to our country...
@margay1 ........well said Margay and my sentiments exactly !
 @Rob C 503  @margay1 ~  Thank you, Rob..!
I hate that orange, whiny, alcoholic bonehead. I'm sick of his stupid looking face, can"t wait for him to get voted out in 2014.
@QuandoQuandoQuando .......and you know he's an alcoholic how?
 @Rob C 503 Here's another example, watch and tell me if you think he's sober. And this is just one example, did you watch his tearfest on 60 Minutes earlier this year?
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SJRnnc7ldo
 @QuandoQuandoQuando QuandoQuandoQuando wrote, "I hate that orange, whiny, alcoholic bonehead. I'm sick of his stupid looking face, can"t wait for him to get voted out in 2014."
Yes, hate would be the operative word. A reasonable person might say that he or she disagrees with Congressman Boehner and advocates his electoral defeat. An unreasonable, hard-line partisan hack would say that he or she hates Mr. Boehner and lists perceived irrelevant failings concerning his appearance and alleged alcoholism.
 @mikew A reasonable person isn't going to take someone else's comment so seriously and personally. I hate this bonehead, I'm sick and tired of his stupid, destructive games he's playing and I wish he would go away. He's obstructing any progress from being made, and that's just about all he's ever done. Who is he speaking for, other than himself? He just doesn't want to see his OWN taxes go up, and maybe a couple of his rich friends. He's not speaking for the majority of his constituents or most of America. There, is that better?Â
 @QuandoQuandoQuando You're still talking about hating those who disagree with you politically. You equate intelligence with agreement with your political philosophy (your childish "bonehead" insult.)
Quando wrote, "I'm sick and tired of his stupid, destructive games he's playing" You equate pursuing his political philosophy and that of his constituency with "stupid, destructive games."
Q "Who is he speaking for, other than himself?"
He is speaking for his constituents who elected him and many millions of others across the country who share some of his political views.
Q: "He just doesn't want to see his OWN taxes go up, and maybe a couple of his rich friends." Perhaps. Or, perhaps his political philosophy holds that it is the long-term best interests of all of us to keep taxes low.
Q: "He's not speaking for the majority of his constituents or most of America." How do you know he's not speaking for most of his constituents? The fact that his constituents keep electing him suggests otherwise. As to him not speaking for most of America, that's not his job. Members of the House of Representatives speak primarily for their constituents and speaking for America-at-large is secondary (precisely the way the Constitutional framers designed it.)
No political philosophy and no political party has a monopoly on wisdom. It is entirely appropriate for a citizen to disagree with politicians and political parties. But when one ceases to be civil and crosses the line into hatred and a complete denial of the right of anyone else to disagree, they have gone too far.
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
Considering what is happening to this country there are a lot of us that are ready to cry.
 @2012 Hope and Change ~  I don't want to cry; I want us to FIGHT BACK..!
 @wahoo And this is relevant because...?
 @mikew  @wahoo He likes saying "boner".
Â
You know, he says that word and snickers like Beavis and Butthead and says to himself, "Heh heh, you said boner! Heh heh!"
 @Mikey Likening wahoo to Beavis and Butthead raises his credibility ten fold. Nearly to the level of imbecile.
1. Geithner is nothing but a tax cheat himself
2. BHO - quit screwing with the SS system - stealing money from it by reducing the employee contribution by 2% to pay for your pet projects
3. Perhaps it would be good to fall over the "cliff". That way, everyone, including the currenet 47% of the population who pay no taxes can pay their "fair share".