26 Feb

Senator: If Boehner Agrees To Tax Hikes He’s Finished As Speaker

                                       

boehner sequester

Is he right?

I don’t think so. Boehner has caved many times already and he still got elected to the speakership. How many times have I pondered ‘is THIS the time the Republicans will show some backbone’ and each time I am disappointed.

Girding for disappointment again:

WI Sen. Ron Johnson warned yesterday that he believes John Boehner would lose his speakership if he caved on higher taxes.

“I don’t quite honestly believe that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens. I think he would lose his speakership,” Johnson told FOX News’ “Special Report.

Boehner is sending the right signals….again:

Speaker John Boehner reportedly told his colleagues to hold their ground, even as Democrats ramp up their public-relations campaign on the sequester. “He told us to stay on offense,” says a second GOP member. “He wants us to stand up and articulate our position. He encouraged us to talk about the replacement packages that we’ve already passed, and to not worry about every story in the press.”

Boehner did not signal any movement toward a deal with the president. The meeting was “light” and “relatively boring,” according to a House staffer. “It was an update. People came back after a week back home, caught up, and heard more of the same on the sequester.”

But as I said….prepare for disappointment if history is any lesson.

Meanwhile The Democrats are sending the bat signals out with the doom and gloom over 85 billion in cuts whilst they had no problem adding 6.2 TRILLION to the deficit. Behold the gradual demise of this one great nation:

1. Sequestration cuts of $85 billion are impossibly painful, the equivalent of asking Uncle Sam to perform an appendectomy on himself with a nail file, but

2. ObamaCare adding $6.2 trillion to the deficit – nearly 75 times the size of the sequester – is no big deal… and even that new projection might under-estimate its cost, because

3. ObamaCare includes a massive expansion of Medicaid, which reluctant states like Florida, and now New Jersey, have been bribed to accept with bags of federal money, and

4. We’re about to extend citizenship to a huge new population of people who will soon enough qualify for this expanded Medicaid coverage – it’s inconceivable that their “access” to such programs will not be swiftly demanded, but

5. Obama’s releasing waves of illegal immigrants from detention because he says that tiny sequestration spending cut makes it impossible to keep them in custody.

Welcome to Obama’s America!

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Congress, Economy, John Boehner, MSM Bias, Obamanomics, Politics, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, February 26th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
| 288 views

12 Responses to Senator: If Boehner Agrees To Tax Hikes He’s Finished As Speaker

  1. snakeeyes says: 1

    This has been said before about Boehner, but he survives. Simple answer: there is insufficient will in Congress to cut spending for fear of not being re-elected.

    ReplyReply
  2. MOS 8541 says: 2

    Did not the idiot and the congress approve these cuts? So now the ohio “suck up” wants to cave. What do you expect from an 8th district, navy( 8 weeks, bad back dropout). Only holds a BS ( bullshit degrees).
    This is where readers have to appreciate that the US voting population returned 80% of the old lackies in both houses and the senate. And America wants change….
    Ohio, is broke, industries are leaving and you have a wimp as the speaker of the house.. Now I know where ohio’s head is… The governor is real close behind.
    He does like a mayor of columbus, so he makes most of the official speeches state of state out of the capital.

    ReplyReply
  3. Bobachek says: 3

    I have zero confidence that Boehner can hold his ground or suddenly develop a spine that is so sorely needed amongst many so called conservatives. He’s a careerist and at the end of the day he will do what’s best for Johns career, not this country.

    Honestly if you can’t survive a 2 percent budget cut in your home finances, your business, or in your government then you sure as hell aren’t running things right which with the federal government kind of goes without saying.

    I do have to admit I have been having some fun reminding some of my whiny liberal friends that their President fully supported sequester up until recently when it was no longer popular to do so. It’s surprising how pissy some people become when you point out the blatantly obvious about their President.

    ReplyReply
  4. MOS 8541 says: 4

    Pres dough bag? opie and the chicago crew has destroyed this country. You only hope that China take this country before the muslims. No joke. The TOC’s are knocking at america’s door

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    What’s the moral justification for allowing corporations and some of the highest-income taxpayers to get away with paying lower effective tax rates than many middle class Americans?

    Until republicans either convincingly explain that, or abandon support of the policies that allow that to happen, they’re going to gain little or no political traction with a majority of American voters.

    ReplyReply
  6. Alias Inkhorn says: 6

    @greg, the practice you lay at the feet of a bow legged Republican Party is a practice of the dental perfect smiles of the Democrats. The fact that both parties write tax code favorable to corporations goes back generations before you were born (and it’s not a secret). However, I could write a bestseller on the theme, but why be just another hated rich man? :) The problem is quite simple, even juvenile . When I describe a problem to children like our national money woes, children say stop spending so much money. When I say they’re are other children that want to take more money from other kids that have more money they say that is wrong and insist (in most cases) to still stop. I love kids. Compared to many ground up citizens, they’re geniuses :)

    ReplyReply
  7. Scott in Oklahoma says: 7

    @Greg: so Greg, where do you draw the line for success? Just how much are YOU suggesting the government take from those who, through hard work, smarts, effort and a little luck actually succeed in business?
    Funny, we have a presidnt who has done NONE of the things it takes to be a success, yet he has you and your ilk so totally convinced of the excesses of those who have made the effort and sacrifices.
    You’r president, and his supporters, are pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  8. Scott in Oklahoma says: 8

    Oh yeah… Boehner will cave. He ain’t gotta pair when the time to bow up arrives.

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 9

    @Alias Inkhorn, #6:

    However, I could write a bestseller on the theme, but why be just another hated rich man?

    What would happen if you did?

    The tax code treats all royalties from book sales as self employment income. Let’s assume that you’e an employee, and single, and have enough net taxable income before book royalties in 2013 to put you into a 25% tax bracket. A mere $36,250 of net taxable income from your day job is all it would take to do that.

    Any net income you have from book sales over $600 will be taxed at a rate of 40.3%. That consists of your 25% federal tax rate, plus an additional 15.3% in Social Security tax. A federal tax rate of 40.3% has effectively kicked in at the point your earnings reached only $36,250. Then come the state and the county tax collectors. What’s left after they’re done is yours, but in my own state you could look forward to being taxed an additional 7 cents on every dollar when you eventually spend your money.

    Would such a person be annoyed to learn that a presidential candidate paid an effective rate of only a bit over 14 percent on annual income of $13.7 million, and pretty much dodged Social Security taxes altogether?

    If devoting weeks and months of toil to researching and writing a book isn’t an example of risk taking, I don’t know what is. Talk about an incentive-killing, creativity-stifling tax policy.

    My point being that I see no justice in tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest, when it’s the little guys who do the work of the world that are most commonly getting screwed. The GOP may tailor their sales pitches to such people, but they’re not the ones in whose interests the GOP has actually been working. Were they, we wouldn’t have the starkly different treatment of some hypothetical struggling writer vs. a high-end earner like Mitt Romney.

    ReplyReply
  10. johngalt says: 10

    @Greg:

    What’s the moral justification for allowing corporations and some of the highest-income taxpayers to get away with paying lower effective tax rates than many middle class Americans?

    That is the wrong question, Greg, because it assumes that those corporations and highest income taxpayers are “getting away with it” at the expense of the middle-class, as well as other Americans, including some other high income taxpayers, that pay their “fair share”.

    The real question should be; Why is the government involved in “charity” of any kind, be it to business or individual income tax payers or the poor. That was never intended as a legitimate function of the federal government, yet when the progressives insisted on regulating fair ‘outcomes’ of citizens, that inevitably led to favoritism at the top. And despite the outraged cries of people like the OWS crowd, it is not a condition established solely by those on the “right”. The example of GE, most recently, shows that it is a condition that elitist politicians, of whatever party, have given us.

    And why? Because for nearly a century the federal government has been in the business of consolidating as much power as it can, at the expense of the States and the local governments, creating the elitist atmosphere in DC that inevitably leads to corruption, whether it’s vote-buying of the poor, funding by the big businesses by exchanging favorable legislation, or outright favoritism for specific individuals or groups of individuals, at the expense of what is truly just and fair.

    It is the ideology that you espouse, and presented as two sides of the same coin by the Democratic party leadership, and the establishment GOP, that have made nearly everyone in these United States losers. We can thank people like you for what has befallen. You can thank yourself for it as well.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 11

    @johngalt, #10:

    Everyone in these United States are losers, and people such as myself have caused it?

    I think such statements have far more to do with the extreme polarization that currently afflicts the nation than with anything remotely resembling the truth. America and her people have benefited greatly owing to liberal/progressive thinking.

    Generations of Americans have lived far better lives because of Social Security, Medicare, public health services, and public education. Collective programs have electrified the nation, built ports and dams, built our airports and roads and highways. The internet and our satellite telecommunication systems all grew out of government programs. Public health and safety and the environment we live in are all enormously approved because of government intervention. To suggest that self-seeking private interests and totally unregulated economic activity would have achieved such results on their own is, at least to my thinking, ludicrous.

    The sad thing about the recent GOP is that their all-too-obvious focus on those already enjoying the highest degrees of success and advantage is making the party an ineffective counterbalance against the collectivist paradigm. Any philosophy taken to its extreme—no matter whether right or left—becomes impractical and dysfunctional. A GOP genuinely focused on a broad range of middle class interests from the conservative perspective is what wins elections, and allows them to effectively moderate the progressive impulse. It takes two empowered parties, each talking common sense from its own philosophical perspective, to keep the nation on its proper course.

    ReplyReply
  12. johngalt says: 12

    @Greg:

    Everyone in these United States are losers, and people such as myself have caused it?

    You continue to vote for the progressives, not me, Greg. And progressivism is nothing more than a journey down the road from freedom and democracy into statism and tyranny.

    It’s amusing that you mention “extreme polarization”, yet then insist on demonizing the “right”, or the GOP, for all of the ills that have befallen us, while proclaiming progressivism as some kind of cure. You display the Overton window effect as clearly as anyone could, even if they were trying to do it on purpose.

    For most of the 20th century, progressivism has been either behind the scenes, or at the outright forefront, in what both major political parties have pushed for. Yet, when I mention progressive, you immediately think that I’m talking solely about the Democratic party. Your perspective is skewed because you are too close to the effect, Greg. My guess is that is why you believe that conservatism is somehow an “extreme” belief now, while progressivism is normal. And the liberalism of yesteryear has been pushed into the middle, verging on a political “right” belief system.

    The problem that you make, and millions of others as well, is that you equate political belief with political party. Hence, when someone mentions liberalism or progressivism, you automatically equate that with the political parties. You couldn’t be more wrong, Greg. Not that you’d actually notice it, though.

    The progressive right gave us the Patriot Act. It gave us an expansion in a major government program. It continued to spend money on social programs it had no business spending it on. And all the progressive left has done, since 2007, and especially since Obama was elected, is not only continue the outrageous spending on social programs, but expanded the role of government into our daily lives by a massive amount.

    And when the role of government into our daily lives is expanded, it necessarily means that freedoms and liberties are taken away. That is progressivism in a nutshell. How long before that government intrusion, and removal of freedom and liberties, becomes uncomfortable, even for someone like you?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>