Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 33 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

White House rejects Boehner's 'Plan B' option to avert fiscal cliff

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 07:56 a.m. HST, Dec 18, 2012

WASHINGTON » The White House is rejecting House Speaker John Boehner's plan to push a backup tax bill as a way to deal with the "fiscal cliff."

In a statement, White House spokesman Jay Carney says Boehner's "Plan B" approach can't pass the Senate. And he says it does little to address the nation's fiscal challenges.

Unless the White House and Congress reach a deal, a series of tax increases and spending cuts begin taking effect on Jan. 1.

Boehner is calling for a separate bill to address only taxes. He wants lawmakers to extend tax cuts for people making up to $1 million.

Carney says the president is willing to continue working with Republicans to keep from going over the fiscal cliff.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 33 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
SteveToo wrote:
All King Obama wants to do is make the Republicans look like they are the bad guys. He says he wants to work w/them then rejects anything they say. The man's a pain.
on December 18,2012 | 07:02AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
All Speaker Boehner wants to do is make President look like he is the bad guy. He says he wants to work with the President and then rejects anything he says. -See how silly that is? It's a negotiation... that's how it works. And don't forget that Mr. Boehner's candidate for President lost.
on December 18,2012 | 07:25AM
Taisho808 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 18,2012 | 07:37AM
Highinthesierras wrote:
Can't happen, county by county Republicans rule. State by state, and nationally, Democrats rule. Just the way it is. Lets go over the cliff together. fair, everyone loses something - broad tax increases and significant spending cuts. What's not to like? Otherwise the can will just get kicked down the road - again.
on December 18,2012 | 10:15AM
Matsu wrote:
The Plan B that Boehner proposed was Pelosi's plan. It is now becoming clear that Pelosi simple threw that plan out there as a diversion, and it was never serious. Negotiations call for a give and take. Obama refuses ALL of the Republican proposals. The only serious players are the Republicans. The Dems simply want to raise taxes, period. They know that raising taxes on the rich will not solve anything. Even if you made the "rich" pay 100% it would only cut into about 2% of the massive federal spending. Any serious adult understands that you can't solve a debt problem without cutting spending, but Obama just wants more money so he can keep spending. This keeps his constituents happy; forget about the disaster that coming down the road. Folks, take a good look at Greece, Spain and Italy. That is where we are heading, and heading there fast.
on December 18,2012 | 10:55AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
And the Republicans refuse ALL of the President's proposals. For 4 years.
on December 18,2012 | 12:20PM
Matsu wrote:
The Democrats in the Senate have failed to submit a Budget for three years (it is REQUIRED by law). Every budget Obama has submitted to Congress has been voted down with ZERO votes in support- that is Zero from both the Republicans and the Democrats. So how is this the Republicans fault? Obama only wants to increase taxes and NOT reduce spending. Explain why the Republicans should accept these crazy plans that will cause us to spiral into ever depening debt?
on December 18,2012 | 01:24PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Keep repeating the talking points... it doesn't make them true.
on December 18,2012 | 02:14PM
Matsu wrote:
So are you saying what I said is false? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see, that eveythoing I stated above is accurate. Instead of your snippy liittle retorts, try checking your facts. So, according to Downtown Green, the Deomcrats Senate did submit a budget each of the last three years. Whoops, wrong. So according to Downtown Green, the budgets submitted by Obama where approved by the Dems in Congress- Whoops, not a single yes vote. How we doing so far Downtown Green?
on December 18,2012 | 03:33PM
Ripoff wrote:
The Republicans are the reason we are in this mess!!!!
on December 18,2012 | 10:04AM
false wrote:
Someone please tell JOE SOUKI! LOL
on December 18,2012 | 11:52AM
OldDiver wrote:
Glad to hear President Obama is not going along with the Republican plan to stick it to the middle class, AGAIN!
on December 18,2012 | 07:05AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Right, OldDiver. And Obama’s plan to increase the national debt by $1 trillion a year will stick to all Americans, rich, poor and the middle class in between. That is when the term “shared sacrifice” will have true meaning.
on December 18,2012 | 07:41AM
serious wrote:
You got it. Ordinarily, another trillion in debt would be horrible, reduce the federal credit rating, but with the fiscal concerns in Europe---which are the same as ours--spend too much!! Nations, investors have to find a spot to put their long term safe $$$$ and we are still the best place to invest. Economic history tells us that when you tax the "rich" to pay their "fair share" whatever that means--there is less investment in plants, hire less! Investors/corporations want to know what the heck is my tax rate next year, five years from now, etc. They can't PLAN--and we have a President who has never had to meet a payroll--other than printing more money---his advisors are also non business people--he should have a couple of CEO's of major companies do the negotiating. As the CEO of GM said, I thought we were in the business of making cars--not in the health care and welfare business.
on December 18,2012 | 08:22AM
kainalu wrote:
Yep. Apparently there's still many from the more-than 97% of-the-rest-of-us still guzzling that poisoned-tea. The Romney's and Koch brothers need not worry, their money alone makes more than most of do clocking in 8-hours a day ... and then some.
on December 18,2012 | 09:24AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Obamacrats are a much different breed than the liberal Democrats. Economic hardship is perfect breeding ground for the Obamacrat doctrine of changing the US into a Socialism.
on December 18,2012 | 09:39AM
Matsu wrote:
Okay Old Diver let's prove how wrong you are: The tax cuts that are benefitting the middle calss- they are Bush's tax cuts. Funny how Obama wants to take credit for them now. Let's make this point VERY clear. Democrats are the ones alkways trying to RAISE taxes, and the Republicans are the ones always trying to lower taxes. As a matter of FACT, once the Bush tax cuts tok affect, the Federal revenues hit records levels. Funny how you libs miss that point The crash was not a result of Bush's policies, they were a result of the sub prime housing bubble. You know that it was Jimmy Carter that started it. You know that it was Bill Clinton that really ratcheted it up and you know that it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a number of other the Democrats throughout the 2000s which kept this program alive under the whole concept of affordable housing. The housing crash was the culmination of two generations of housing policy which was intended to make the prices of houses go up by means of zoning, building codes, rent controls, and favorable taxation, and to make it tolerable to succeeding generations by allowing them to finance housing without savings or risk. The 30 year fixed rate low or no down-payment mortgage is a risk bomb containing default risk, collateral risk, maturity risk, and interest rate risk. It would not have been possible without government sponsorship in the form of Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie. The inability to keep the pyramid scheme going was inevitable.
on December 18,2012 | 10:46AM
OldDiver wrote:
Matsu, you are living in a delusional Fox News world.
on December 18,2012 | 11:40AM
Matsu wrote:
Okay- First. I don't watch FOX news, I pay attention to what is going on around me. Now, explain to me exactly what is wrong with what I just wrote. Give me point by point details as to where I am wrong.
on December 18,2012 | 01:25PM
Matsu wrote:
Where are you OdDIver- I am waiting for your facts and figures. Just spouting the standard "blame it on FOX" line won't work. Let's debate like adults. I will provide my data, then you come back with your facts and figures to counter. The problem, is when dealing with actual data, the best the left has is, "Oh yeah? Well your just a dumb FOX watcher, so there".
on December 18,2012 | 03:43PM
Matsu wrote:
And what was Obamas great plan again? Oh yeah, tax the rich, period. Even if we get Obama's plan, all income over $250,000 taxed at 39.6%, you would raise enough money to run the government 11 days. We're not talking serious revenue here in the first place. This is all about politics. It's all about expanding government. It's all about shrinking the private sector. It's about redistribution of wealth. It's not about revenue. It is not about the government having more money to operate. It's not about deficit reduction.
on December 18,2012 | 03:44PM
Highinthesierras wrote:
Let's see the Obama cuts - never happen. Everyone knows the Senate will not allow any cuts. Kabuki theater, but at least it keeps them in Washington. Over the cliff already and move on.
on December 18,2012 | 07:45AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Boehner is just so much smarter than the democrats collectively. Now that several offers have been rejected the nation is realizing Obama is the real bus driver heading us toward the cliff.
on December 18,2012 | 08:19AM
kainalu wrote:
Again, it's the working-class stiff that stands to lose here. The Koch brothers and Romneys will survive the cliff dive - their monies tucked away safely in an overseas account. Raise your hand if you have "off shore" accounts? That's what I thought.
on December 18,2012 | 09:22AM
Kuniarr wrote:
That's the baloney that Obamacrats preach. Raising taxes on the wealthy who actually bear the greatest tax burden looks good but in reality is poison to the US economic system of Capitalism. Obamacrats exist simply because the US economy is in ruin because Clinton opened the door for our factories to move to China and North American Countries (like Canada and Mexico) by entering into the China Free Trade Agreement and the North America Freed Trade Agreement in 1999.

Our economic system of Capitalism lives and breathes on Capital which is why removing the source of Capital from the private sector and placing it in the hands of the government is poisonous to our economic system of Capitalism.

An economic system of Socialism or Communism lives and breathes on Taxes.
on December 18,2012 | 09:49AM
kainalu wrote:
Total BS - straight up. Keep guzzling that poisoned tea, but please - don't spit it back in our faces.
on December 18,2012 | 11:07AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
When they give up their subsidies and the rest of the corporate welfare built into our system, maybe their argument will have some intellectual honesty... but don't hold your breath.
on December 18,2012 | 12:23PM
Matsu wrote:
Corporate welfae might not be good, but at least these corporations provide JOBS. The other welfare, which is growing by leaps and bounds, does not provide jobs, it just produces a population who are becoming comfortable in taking and not producing. One thing growing the welfare roles does produce is many more Obama voters, since they know where their paychecks are coming from.
on December 18,2012 | 01:30PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
But, but, but.... are you advocating for getting rid of corporate welfare? Corporate welfare that benefits rich people =GOOD, welfare that helps poor people=BAD. Got it. The class warfare talking point is getting old.
on December 18,2012 | 02:18PM
Matsu wrote:
Corporate welfare that allows companies to HIRE more people- GOOD. You do understand that corporations are made up of thousands of EMPLOYEES. That means you and me. You are so stuck on your liberal talking points that you can't see the nose on your face. It is the LI BERALS who push the Class Warfare, (those nasty rich people mimmy) does not get generated by the right. Open your eyes. By the way- speaking of corporate welfare how about the Billions of Dollars Obama gifted to those beloved green industries that then went under. The last one who took Obamas money is now selling out to the Chinese. There goes OUR money.
on December 18,2012 | 03:39PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
In a true capitalist system there is NO welfare, corporate or otherwise.
on December 18,2012 | 07:33PM
Highinthesierras wrote:
Over the cliff together. Fair, everyone pays, get significant cuts and politicians get to make noise about how the other guys blew it. What could be better?
on December 18,2012 | 10:11AM
entrkn wrote:
President Obama is doing all the right things and he just has to hold his course...
on December 18,2012 | 10:33AM
false wrote:
With this fiscal cliff approaching can you imagine that they will give Hawaii 1.5 BILLION for a rail? I don't know?
on December 18,2012 | 11:51AM
false wrote:
The goal of Obama has always been to overload the system so it crashes. And then all his followers will be told to blame the Bushes.
on December 18,2012 | 01:18PM
Breaking News