let s do it your way. the republican plan that oy? passed the house of pas representatives, and the rsent republicans were in the senatele would in the cbo require ben beneficiaries of medicare to pay $6500 a year more, $6,500 a year more for medicare thanoda they do today. and why are they doing that?ey d it is because they want to preserve i don t think the w speaker says this, but it is tax cuts for the top americans that we cannot afford. demonshey demonstrated in their plans, and itr give them credit for this, that if you try to balance our budget without revenues and without tax revenues, then you aren forced to put in place juceptionally harsh cuts not just for medicare b beneficiaries, but for medicaid. remember this country, this gret great nation with our great resources one in eight americans are eligible forht food stamps today. 40% of americans born todayto
that would cut over a trilliont dollars in spending and raiset the debt ceiling into next year. and then there would be a mechanism for more cuts that if approved the debt ceiling would be raised past the 2012 21 election. will the president sign that into law? me pr chris, let me tell you what we are trying to do. rs first and most important we need to lift this shred of default from the economy for the next 18 months. we have to take that threatctio. off the table through the election?t t try through the election. mak but we want to make sure we can come together 1k3 lock in s some long-term savings to getous our fiscal house in order. we need to do both those things so congress can get t the back and make the economytronged stronger and get moreamericans b americans back to work. so for lack of a better o word we will call it the boehner plan, would theett. president veto that? let me step back.k there are two types of planseco. on the table now.
deductions. you agree to $800 billion? $800? yes because i thought webecat could get new receive.ev - revenues out of a growingomy t economy that had more americans working, moreaying americans paying taxes and the t fact that a fairer, flatter tax code means we would have had a more efficient system ofm people. they are understanding what their tax obligations were and w the ability to collect whate. was due.be between the two, i believedat that we could accomplish $800 billion without raising taxes. but that was raising it wasn t raising tax rates. tax it was raising taxes. it was not raising taxes. n if you look at how it was outlined we agreed the taxes be would have to be reduced from the current law, the current policy all the way down some 2.7, 2.8 trillion dollars from what the current law is. yes it is $800 billion over what the current policy is,urrey but i thought we could achieveat that amount of money through a
reform, lowering all of thelso rates, but also closingph loopholes and endinggrd deductions. you agree to $800 billion? $800? yes because i thought webecat could get new receive.ev - revenues out of a growingomy t economy that had more americans working, moreaying americans paying taxes and the t fact that a fairer, flatter tax code means we would have had a more efficient system ofm people. they are understanding what their tax obligations were and w the ability to collect whate. was due.be between the two, i believedat that we could accomplish $800 billion without raising taxes. but that was raising it wasn t raising tax rates. tax it was raising taxes. it was not raising taxes. n if you look at how it was outlined we agreed the taxes be would have to be reduced from the current law, the current policy all the way down some 2.7, 2.8 trillion dollars from what the current law is. yes it is $800 billion over
medicaid. remember this country, this gret great nation with our great resources one in eight americans are eligible forht food stamps today. 40% of americans born todayto are born to families eligibleor for medicaid.dea the idea that you can ask thehe american people to balance this budget on the backs ofks the elderly and the most vulerab vulnerable with no murder through tax reform on the mostoe fortunate americans is fundamentally unacceptable. they knot going to happen. it is not going to become law. and we have made so much m progress over the last fourour m months with the republicans and trying to bill consensusensu for a more balanced approach.ane i give the speaker a lot of credit for that. let s turn in the time we we have left to the economy. last august you wrote an op edy ad and the headline was,eres w welcome to the recovery. that was not our headline. it was the new york times stoe headline. let s put it up on the you d screen, if we can.on what you did say i