OK

Thinkprogress reports that Boehner says that there is "No ‘Difference’ If Revenue Comes From Middle Class Or Super Rich" on Chris Wallace's show.

CHIRS WALLACE (HOST): You talked about the fact that the President won and you came out with a concession the day after the election and they point out that the president campaigned on raising tax rates, you know, and it was the big issue, between him and Romney, and, they say, just as he had to cave, after your victory, in the 2010 midterms, now, it is your turn to cave on tax rates.

BOEHNER: Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the President wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.

To be honest, it's not quite clear to me that's what he meant. He could be talking about the difference between increasing tax rates and increasing revenue through ending loop holes. But I have faith in ThinkProgress's ability to interpret comments. If he's saying that it doesn't matter whether we have revenue from the rich or spending cuts from the rest, this is pretty devastating. It shows how out of touch they are with the middle class, and if I was Obama, I would hammer that every day.

And there must be serious push back against Boehner's claim that increasing tax rates makes it difficult for the economy to grow- he makes this claim over and over, as does every Republican.  

When I tried to argue this point against conservatives, they try to obfuscate the issue, arguing that the reason Clinton had the economic boom wasn't because he raised taxes but because he was lucky to have a "dot com" boom and blah blah blah. But Im NOT arguing WHY he had the boom and for the purposes of this argument I DON'T CARE. Republicans don't realize that. Im simply saying that if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false at its face. I don't care what bull shit rationale you have for why we shouldn't ever make a rich guy slightly unhappy: "they'll pass on the cost to the middle class, blah blah blah". The point is, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, so stop saying it will.

When I've argued this simple point with conservatives, it left most in silence. They simply never thought about it that way.

A corollary to the argument is the reminder that cutting spending ALSO harms the economy. So if you really want to decrease the deficits, we need to make, what Boehner calls, "sacrifices", including taxing the rich. We also need to have, as Boehner put it, "courage" in order to face up to bull shit threats made by some CEOs. Except it takes little courage to harm the weak and elderly, and a lot of courage to stand up to the rich and powerful.

 Boehner shouldn't be allowed to repeat this silly claim. He might as well start claiming that "God kills kittens when you raise taxes on the rich". Just as believable.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.