Boehner: Democrats need to propose spending cuts
By The Associated Press
This article was published November 29, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
PHOTO BY AP/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE
House Speaker John Boehner Ohio, left, talks with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, during a news conference after a closed strategy session.
- Comments (33)
- aAFont Size
WASHINGTON — After meeting with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, House Speaker John Boehner said Democrats still haven’t recommended cuts to government benefit programs as part of a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”
Boehner said the meeting was frank and direct, but gave no indication of any progress toward averting the blend of tax increases and spending cuts due to hit at the turn of the year.
The Ohio Republican noted that the GOP has agreed to higher revenues as part of any deal, but only if accompanied by serious spending cuts.
Democrats have said they are open to savings from Medicare and Medicaid, but so far have given no indication of what changes they will accept.
Geithner also was meeting with other congressional leaders in both houses, as was senior White House aide Rob Nabors.
Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Comments on: Boehner: Democrats need to propose spending cuts
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
brado says... November 29, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
This is not what Obama voters wanted...they want more "Santa Claus"! Why this talk about cutting benefits? The "takers" in America voted so just keep redistributing more and more. Print more money but we gotta keep those food stamps and Obama-phones coming!
( permalink | suggest removal )
TomN says... November 29, 2012 at 12:23 p.m.
Why am I not surprised? Is any one seriously thinking that Democrats will cut any thing from "give-away" programs? Yes, Democrats still believe Santa Claus exists, and that it's more blessed to take than give. Welcome to Obama land!
( permalink | suggest removal )
LETSBEREALISTIC says... November 29, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
The Democrats are to blame for America's situation. Just look at the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, no budget, spending grown at record speed (size of Gov up 50% in last 4 years. I afraid it will be later than sooner when the unknowing Democratic electorate discovers that money really doesn't grow on tree and value doesn't come out of printing presses, and they will wake up one morning looking at "Greece" style America and wonder what happened, well look in the mirror you fools did it!
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... November 29, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
So me the cuts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... November 29, 2012 at 6:10 p.m.
The DemocRats don't want spending cuts, they want MORE MONEY to spend and redistribute. The Obots are going to love it when their President confiscates their 401K and redistributes
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... November 29, 2012 at 9:47 p.m.
brado.....You ignorance is showing, Ronny RayGun started the free phones, just do your research and engage brain before mouth.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... November 29, 2012 at 9:55 p.m.
T6...You need to do the same as brado, with your brain and mouth.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... November 30, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
BillSmith.....I didn't know there were FREE cell phones back then. Just like every helpful program the Republicans start, the DemocRat party morphs it into giveaways and WE PAY FOR IT. You suffer from rectal cranium insertion.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... November 30, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.
Democrats would be stupid to propose spending cuts. If they did and Republicans accepted them, then Republicans would make headlines out of it during the next elections. Democrats cut Social Security - Democrats cut Medicare, etc. Republicans should state cuts they want and if they convince Dems to agreeing, then the consequences would fall in the correct place.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... November 30, 2012 at 11:14 p.m.
RonalFos, you make an excellent point.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 1, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
RonalFos WHY should the Republicans propose anything the DemocRats WON the election let them propose cuts. They don't want spending cuts which is why they want 1.6 TRILLION in new taxes. The DemocRats want Obama to be able to raise the debt ceiling to infinity.
DemocRats are HYPOCRITES. They call for higher taxes but when it comes to paying the higher rate, that's a horse of a different color. The co-founder of Costco, Jim Sinegal, gave a speech praising President Obama at the Democratic National Convention in September. To get out of paying the higher tax rate on dividends as a result of the deficit reduction talks, prompted some firms to issue special dividends or move up plans for dividends.
The latest example is retailer Costco Wholesale Corp , which said it will pay a special $3 billion dividend to investors. According to CNN, that allows investors to pay the lower 15% tax rate currently in effect on dividends
washingtonexaminer. com/biden-goes-to-costco-after-executives-cozy-up-to-the-white-house/article/2514670#.ULeLg6zAcaA
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... December 1, 2012 at 11:04 a.m.
The Republicans are making plenty of proposals - all of them are what they won't do! It's time for them to put country ahead of party.
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... December 1, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
It's nice to reqad your comments ronalfos, because yu tell the truth. Folks would you listen to yourselves? You criticize the Democrats for not proposing the cuts that the GOP wants? Why should they? The President has proposed the way he thinks sequestration should be avoided. If the GOP disagrees and wants major cuts to Social Security and Medicare instead, then let them say so and defend why these are good ideas. Instead they call for nonsensical cuts to NPR and Planned Parenthood that don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the deficit. Their hypocrisy is astonishing.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cdawg says... December 1, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
It's hard to get Republics to claim anything they want cut. But we do need to blame the Demos for not preventing Bush's total wrecking of the economy.
.
It's all the Demos fault letting the King of Crawford run up ten trillion in deficit. Passing Medicare Part D with no funding provisions. Passing Medicare Advantage with no funding provisions. Starting TWO wars and instead of increasing revenues to pay for the wars they put it OFF BUDGET.
.
Those Demos are to blame for all that.
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... December 1, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Did BHO win the election? Yes. Shouldn't that mean he should lead? I guess not. As it has been the last 4 years, he wants someone else to do the heavy lifting and dirty work, then take the credit if it works and blame the others if it does'nt. Typical leading from behind we have grown to expect from the Liar in Chief. No new ideas, no encouraging of bi-partisanship, no trying to fdo what is best for the country, just what is best for the blind BHO minions and the Dumbocrats.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 1, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
brado,TomN,Letsberealistic,Qui,T6,Gaitor.... Something YOU people do not understand.
*
A little Constitutional Law.
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
*
This means cuts as well as increases in revenue. DUH!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 1, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.
1. Obama's answer is another 255 MILLION in stimulus spending.
2. 1.6 TRILLION in new taxes
3. Confiscation and nationalizing of IRAs and 401Ks, 403Bs
4. Run those presses printing our worthless dollar 24/7, 8 days a week
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... December 1, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.
Well Gates proposed a 500 billion dollar cut in defense and the Republicans said they wanted an increase the budget. So don't try to act like Republicans don't want deficits. Romney even said he wouldn't balance the budget in 8 years. The Ryan plan only spent 400 billion less in ten years than the Obama plan and that is with more tax cuts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 1, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
T6 and the FREE cell phone...... his lack of knowledge on his comments is astoumding.
There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist.
Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.
The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue
*
It is aparent that T6 will not let a little thing such as facts muddy his comments.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 2, 2012 at 1:17 a.m.
T6, the story about Obama wanting to confiscate 401k's got two Pinocchio's from the Washington Post years ago. Try to keep up. It's easier if you visit legitimate news sites.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 2, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.
Hey Inquire..... You're laughable. It got 2 Pinocchio's, Huh? IN 2008, House Democrats invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular (401 (k)) retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should.
~
In 2010 this idea was STILL bantered around. A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
"This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could," explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone. A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."
Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."
Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.
nationalseniorscouncil. org/index.php?
( permalink | suggest removal )
gabe816 says... December 2, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
The free gifts is what put Bo back in office. Mitt said he would put 12 million back
to work, the dems don't want any part of this. They want the rich to give them a free
ticket from hospital to the grave. With his views on the illegals and more voting
every year I don't believe there will ever be another republican to be in the white
house. There is talk from the left that after the rich pay their tax, they, will be
assesed on the value of their net worth. They want the money spread around. Bo said
in the late nineties that this is the way the US should be. What should happen, the
House should not vote to increase the debt another dime and let Washington shut
down and take chapter 11 or 13 like calif , mich or ny will surely happen in the near
future. When the money runs out, and it will, it will not be safe to leave your house.
Black friday this year set a record for gun sales, over 150,000. The US as we know it
today is over. God bless our kids and grand kids
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 2, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
According to both Media Matters and Business Week, the administration never proposed moving retirement savings to a government run system. After so many lost part of their 401k's in the market downturn, the administration did consider ways to promote the idea of annuities sold on the private market as a voluntary alternative for people who would otherwise take a lump sum cash payment upon retirement.
The truth is not to be found on wingnut websites that exist only to work wingnuts into an ever increasing, though ignorant, fury.
Did the words voluntary and private market sink in at all?
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 2, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.
“[T]he National Seniors Council has announced that ‘Obama (has) Begun to Push for a New National(ized) Retirement System.’ According to them, a recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRAs and 401k plans.”
( permalink | suggest removal )
harley1305121514 says... December 2, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
Inquire...why is it that you reference sites are the only crediable sites and everyone elses site of reference is, as you put it, wingnut websites? You are not the expert on anything just because you look things up that others have spoken about. You have "no actual proof" of anything you ever post. If the government could buy you for what you are "actually" worth and sell you for what you "think" you are worth, the debt problem could be solved!
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 2, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.
Business Week, Jan. 8, 2010. Business Week is hardly a bastion of liberal thought. It is the wingnuts who fail to provide mainstream documentation, not me. Your venom cannot change the truth.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 2, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
www*marketoracle.co.uk/Article37638.html
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... December 2, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented the president's proposal to address the looming tax increases and spending cuts set to kick in, if a deal is not reached by January. GOP Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, warned that the president's proposal takes us backward, moving us "significantly closer to the cliff." Anonymous Republican aides were immediately dispatched to trash the proposal of revenue increases and spending cuts as "a joke," "an insult" and "a complete break from reality."
These remarks, coming on the heels of a sound rejection of Mitt Romney's fidelity to America's 1%, indicate that the ones suffering from a break with reality are the Republicans deaf to the mandate of this election. Their delusional commitment to eviscerating social insurance programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- while allowing the rich to get richer shows a remarkable disconnect from the shared experience of most Americans.
Decades of underinvestment in our country by the wealthy class, two Bush wars paid for on credit, and an unrestrained culture on Wall Street that treated the economy like a poorly run casino has unarguably left America strapped for cash. The only question at hand is whether we'll finally be treated to genuine accountability and sound fiscal policy in this deal. - By Ilyse Hogue, Special to CNN
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 2, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
www^youtube^com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LO2eh6f5Go0
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 2, 2012 at 8:06 p.m.
RonalFos... WHERE can we go to see those tax proposal's of the President's that Geithner put forth?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 2, 2012 at 8:22 p.m.
I propose cutting this.........
One grateful local yacht owner calls it a federal subsidy: Several tax dodges, ranging from perfectly legal to dubious, are helping wealthy owners keep their big pleasure boats on the water, in Puget Sound and across the country.
Some ultra-rich yacht buyers are expecting to deduct millions from their income tax next year by depreciating their pleasure craft under the provisions of the Bush administration's tax-relief program passed by Congress in 2003. About 500,000 boat owners nationwide can decrease their income-tax bill every year by declaring their vessels a second home. Some others collect healthy deductions from putting their boats into charter arrangements that may skirt the provisions of the tax code. And some corporations take deductions on yachts that seem to stretch the definition of a business resource.
Several yacht sellers gathered at the floating boat show on South Lake Union last month said most of the big pleasure boats on the water are supported by tax incentives.
"I would imagine that most of the people with boats over 50 or 60 feet are probably working some kind of tax dodge," agreed Jimmy James, a semiretired certified public accountant from Kingston who has advised many boat owners. "People with enough money to buy those boats got there by having tax dodges."
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 2, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
Hey Bill.. Was John Kerry's yacht there? Did John Kerry ever pay the taxes he owed for his $7 million yacht docked in RI. to get out of paying MA taxes?
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... December 3, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
BillSmith: Correction to your Free Phones post: The plan to subsidize local phone service (land lines) did begin under Regan, expanded under Clinton in the 1996 Telecommunications Act and morphed to fee cell phones, as you state. The morphing to include cell phones began well before 2008, but during the Bush administration. The one major correction needed to your post though is that the plan is called the "Universal Service Fund" plan. It is not funded by the phone companies, or some non-profit group as you stated, but through a government (FCC) mandated charge on federally regulated land line and cell service paid for by the service users (customers). You can find it on your bill and referred to as the USF or on my cell bill as "Fed Universal Serice Charge". Technically not a tax, but a US government mandated charge billed to all cell phone coustomers and land line interstate long distance call customers. So it is very tax like in every aspect, except in name.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.