From the 'Light a Candle"...

"It would reduce but not eliminate tax breaks on mortgage interest, higher-cost health plans, charitable deductions, retirement savings like individual retirement accounts and tax-free savings accounts known as 401(k)s, and tax credits for families with children."

I'm not gonna cry, because for the last few years I've gotten a pretty big chunk back in taxes... but this list seems to be straight out of the 'middle class' pocket book. I save a little on each one except a 'higher-cost health plan'... I don't think my High Deductible Healthcare Plan is what they are talking about... but I do have a tax free Health Savings Account... they'll probably start taxing those a little!
 
They are 'talking' about a bunch....

loophole closures. Personally I would rather see across the board closure of virtually all of them and a matching reduction in marginal rates - that way the tax system is for raising revenue and if the middle class winds up paying more taxes, at least the 'class warfare' charges that are always thrown at the Democrats can be put aside.
Besides-in the big, big picture this compromise, if followed out, is a "Nixon in China" moment. The Republicans should be jumping at the chance of getting a Democrat president to front deficit reduction on the basis of a cut heavy, taxation light, entiltements reform, tax reform basis. If they tried this on their own every liberal in America would make their business to get them out of power.
The problem is, and it is a big one for the GOP, is that agreeing to this will give Obama bragging rights and put him in a much better position next year. It has everything including the holy of holies "bi-partisanship" The GOP will instantly become a junior player the second they are no longer merely opposing and have become a partner in the solution, and junior because it will Obama signing the bill not some Republican. It's getting to be pretty good entertainment now that something is really on the line.:p:p:p Finally some fun out of D.C.:):)
 
Disregard that thrill up your leg...

If an individual - you for example - actually believes their total of $3.7T in alleged savings over a span of 10 years AND believes it is a major achievement, please recognize that it amounts to about 24 months worth of current deficits over a decade.


And if Republican Senator Jeff Sessions’s total of $1.2T in savings over a 10 year span is a more realistic figure, we're still talking about needing a decade to address approximately 75% of this year's deficit.


Both scenarios are insufficient and both direct productive, taxpaying lemmings - all of us - over the cliff.
 
You're right.....

let's just give up and stick our collective heads in our collective ovens.
Better some movement in vaguely the right direction instead of this pointless stalemate in which nothing at all gets done because there is no way to square the circle, especially when the right wing has decided that the best way to make their case that government sucks is to make sure that it does.
 
I have a hard time believing that any deal to raise the debt ceiling will pass this Congress and be signed by the president. I honestly hope nothing does if for no other reason just to show that it's not that big a deal and there will be no default like a few irresponsible people are claiming. No deal is essentially balancing the budget by default which I think is why so many people are getting hysterical about it. Also, I suspect if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling the government will just borrow the money anyway.
 
Shamtravesmockery

"Better some movement in vaguely the right direction instead of this pointless stalemate in which nothing at all gets done because there is no way to square the circle, especially when the right wing has decided that the best way to make their case that government sucks is to make sure that it does"

The Gang proposes a reduction in tax rates, while concurrently wants to raise takes by at least $1T.

In addition, the Gang proposes only to slow the rate of growth of government, not actually cut it. The only cuts you can count on amount to a mere $500B of the $3.6T touted (important to note the tax hikes are twice as much).

This has nothing to do with the debt ceiling or the debt, but everything to do with re-electing this president.

And then there's this... Conn Carroll writes: "The Gang of Six “Bipartisan Plan to Reduce Our Nation’s Deficits” claims their tax reforms would be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as a $1.5 trillion net cut. But no details are provided on how they arrive at this number other than saying they will abolish the Alternative Minimum tax. So how can this plan claim to be a “balanced approach” (which means higher revenues), yet also claim to be a $1.5 trillion tax cut?


This probably means they are using a CBO baseline that assumes the AMT continues as written today and that the current Bush rates expire. Last August, the CBO said those policies would amount to a $4.8 trillion tax hike. Which means the the Gang of Six plan probably raises taxes by about $3+ trillion over current rates."


 
Last edited:
Except the plan...

calls for marginal rate reductions with the very top one at one at 28%. The proposal as stated is an almost exact rerun of RR '86 reform.

It somehow isn't of any interest to the 'no more taxes' folks that Fed revenue as a % of GDP is running at post war low by some considerable margin. I know this just fine with that group but as a practical matter how can the country both not make any politically feasible cuts and run such relatively low revenue intakes and not just make the whole thing much, much worse.

The attitude I hear is that 'if we can't remodel the house to precisely our liking then let's just burn it down or let it collapse.
 
The ceoilng will be raised....

either with some deficit reduction plan or without it. Reid and Mc Connell are burnishing the plan that lets it rise without the fastidious GOP getting their fingerprints on it and if it comes to it on AUG 1 it will get the nod. Or as you say Obama might just risk the bogus Constitutional route and say he can raise by that authority. But in any case, based on his past actions, he won't call the bluff and have a default on his watch.

Probably nothing very bad would happen if there was a default, the markets seem to be pretty sanguine about thee whole thing. China has just raised its stakes in Treasuries another $74B
 
You've always had the option of writing a check

over and above what you may owe your state OR the feds.

"It somehow isn't of any interest to the 'no more taxes' folks that Fed revenue as a % of GDP is running at post war low by some considerable margin. I know this just fine with that group but as a practical matter how can the country both not make any politically feasible cuts and run such relatively low revenue intakes and not just make the whole thing much, much worse.

The attitude I hear is that 'if we can't remodel the house to precisely our liking then let's just burn it down or let it collapse."
Look... the Gang of Six has basically proposed a plan (it's actually a talking points flyer of sorts, per Jeff Sessions) in which the Repubs would hand over control of the budget process to Democratic senators and then just hope for the best. Yes, a grand bargain, indeed!

Please, refresh my memory... who again are the open-minded Democrats who have offered to discuss Paul Ryan's budget proposal or the "CCB"?


In addition, the Gang of Six proposes only to slow the rate of growth of government, not actually cut it.



America is in deep, deep trouble if Democrats actually want to continue this way.
 
The House has passed something. They should let the democrats come up with a plan (that won't likely have any significant cuts) that a handful of Republicans will vote for and the president will sign. Let that come to a vote and pass. Then spend the next 15 months debating on a permanent fix so that becomes the central issue of the 2012 election. Whoever wins that election can implement their plan. The Debate will be between cuts and a balanced budget amendment and whatever the Democrats come up with. I don't know who will win, I think it will hinge heavily on events, but at least then maybe we will end up with some sort of consensus. :pigsfly:
 
Your first suggestion is of course.....

is along the line of 'if you want to stop global warming you are welcome to stop driving your car. An useless suggestion except for-what is your term-snark value?
And the Cut-Cap-Balance symbolic legislation admits that 18% of GDP (not 14.7%) is the sweet spot. That's there expenditure level but if you know someone who believes that it wouldn't also become the new revenue level, let me have their names, there is swapland I would like to sell.


As far as who frames the budget, well, get used to the fact that there are in fact two parties in the Congress of the USA and that somewhere along the line it is going to be either a Republican or Democrat that drives the thing (unless they turn it over to Lieberman)

So, hey, let's make sure through nihilistic naysaying that we don't even arrest the growth of the budget. Let's go ahead and default and at minimum accelerate the growth because of increases in interest when the Congress finally does the inevitable and raises the ceiling anyway. Assuming there is anything at all to the Gang of Six proposal(and even Cantor says there is something) $3.7T is still money. As to it being talking points-what isn't until it is formalized into law. What are you wanting? Moses ( or Heston) trotting off the mountain with a stone ledger sheet?

Paul Ryan made the Medicare voucher a central part of his plan (and for damned good reason and it might make sense entirely dependent on how much the voucher is worth and how expensive premiums become-it is not a bad idea in principle ) But the most open minded democrat on the planet is going to take one look at that say 'No thanks, i like being in Congress. Get real. This is SOP for the current crop of republicans-always, always present your schemes with a poison pill. You get to scream closed mindedness on the part of your opponent and you look like Mr. Integrity to your contituents. How open minded would the GOP be to a balanced budget that asked for defunding of half the Pentagon budget (not a bad place to start IMHO) but Jeff Sessions would turn inside out over the mere suggestion. This open mindedness thing is a 'kettle-and-pot' propostition.

Yes the country is in deep trouble (probably not as deep as the hysterical conservative press says, but bad enough to get our attention) and given that why doesn't the GOP come to the table in some spirit of compromise instead of just framing their legislative proposals around the last Pledge they made to His Norquistness? Constitutional Amendments, Mediacre Vouchers, humbug start to finish. Not even trying to be serious, just throwing raw meat to their crowd.
 
And their "raw meat" still doesn't go where we need to go. I don't think they should compromise with the Democrats because even if they pass exactly what they want it's still far far away from where they need to be. And besides, this has nothing to do with the debt and everything to do with the next election. The solutions to our problems are so far outside the mainstream that there is virtually no chance there will be anything close to a solution until there is a complete and total economic catastrophe. The GOP should just do what they can to frame a debate they think they can win because they aren't going to address the problems seriously anyway so why not? This whole thing is an exercise in futility because the real fix for our problems will cause so much pain in the short run that it just isn't politically possible for anyone from any party. I'm just looking for good political theater until the situation becomes to dire too play politics with.

Actually, the best strategy might be to make sure the Democrats win the next election because when this thing comes unglued whoever is in power will get blamed for it.

What would the GOP do if they won anyway? The only way to stay in power is to keep driving the country over a cliff and hope we don't hit bottom before the next election. If the GOP wins and does what they say they want to they will lose the next election. If they continue with anything remotely resembling the status quo the economy will totally collapse. They might as well let the Democrats bring on the inevitable so the country will blame it all on the Democrats and big government rather than blame it all on the GOP and the "free market" and "deregulation".

I guess I have trouble taking any of this very seriously because I'm already convinced what the outcome will be in the next few years and I don't think more than a few people in the GOP have any clue how much trouble we are in. Certainly the entire Democratic party is completely oblivious to it and think the that pouring gasoline on the fire is the best way to put it out.
 
Interesting

"and I don't think more than a few people in the GOP have any clue how much trouble we are in."

Which Republicans "have any clue"?
 
A good start?

I say we give the heave ho to any Senators what join a gang. :devil:

And vote for politicians who actually want to fight for fiscal sanity and vote the mushy, sh*theeled, status quo types out of office.
 
Fairly drastic

"Certainly the entire Democratic party is completely oblivious to it and think the that pouring gasoline on the fire is the best way to put it out."

So... we have to burn "the village" down to save it? What you're talking about will lead to insurrection, mass hysteria, cats and dogs co-habitating and the destruction of our civil society. Is that really where you think we need to go?
 
You lost me there

How does my opinion that the Democrats think the best way out of this mess is to do more of what got us into it advocating "burning down the village"?

However, doing what needs to be done won't be popular which is why it won't happen and why the government is going to collapse whether we like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top