Printable View
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/1...e+Raw+Story%29
meanwhile, Reid names Blue Dog/Dino Max Baucus as one of the 3 Senators.
So it looks like the votes are gonna be all 4-2 (oops, the super panel is top secret!) and/or totally deadlocked with nothing exiting the panel, so all the triggers will be pulled (except the military cuts, they'll cut only the poor, sick, old, young, disabled).
is anyone surprised? this "commitee" was bullshit for "let's both stall and then see what we can get from these idiot americans in the next election"
this next election will be as brutal as they come. In the end the only one paying for this mess is the american public exempting the top 1% of course.
If Democrats insist on tax increases there will never be a deal. It simply can't pass the House. Democrats know this. If they want to play politics with class warfare and fall on their sword for tax increases they know it will result in the trigger being pulled on across the board cuts.
Do you realize every expert in economics has stated without revenue increase this country is still fucked?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I'm just stating facts. Tax increases will not pass the House. All your internet bluster won't change that.
Most Human-Repugs poll that that taxes must go up.
oh I agree. that's why this country is fucked until real rock bottom is hitQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
If revenue was increased we'd still be fucked. I wish we'd just take our lumps. You never grow anything on mountain tops.
So you're in the "we're screwed" camp?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I'm not saying I'm against tax changes. Not necessarily Obamas bullshit "corporate jets" and "fat cat" rhetoric, but I'm ok with revising the tax code to increase revenue as long as there is like a 5 to 1 ratio of spending cuts.
Since all 6 Repugs have "pledged" never to raise taxes, and Reid said tax raises were going to be required by the Dems (except of course DINO Baucus), it sure looks like the super's gonna fail and automatic cuts to be triggered (but I'm sure there'll be waivers for MIC and corps).
Reid has already conceded tax increases with his selections to the debt panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Because, as we all know, there's only one variable that contributes to the debt.
STOP SPENDING!
Reid didn't "concede" anytting.
The morning after the superpanel was announced, and before he appointed anyone, he said absolutely the tax increases would be proposed by the Dems.
But Republicans upfront saying they won't pay any tax increases ISN'T playing politics. Interesting idea of compromise you have there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Wait, you actually thought there was going to be a deal? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lmao
We are screws until we put people back to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
Of course they will propose, that's not the question. The question is who will blink to avoid a deadlock...Baucus is already a shoe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
"we put people back to work."
"Where are the jobs, Obama" --- Repugs in 2010 campaign.
How many jobs programs from the House Repugs?
The good middle class jobs are gone, either engineered out of existence with technology, or exported, and they aren't coming back because the UCA doesn't want or need them back.
The Repug insistence on cutting spending, aka pro-cyclical, is guaranteed to kill jobs and deepen and prolong Banksters' Great Depression.
Poll: Majority wants super committee to tax the rich
Republicans appointed to a congressional deficit panel will have to buck public opinion if they intend to block tax hikes on the rich.
A CNN poll (PDF) released Wednesday found that a majority of Americans want Congress to compromise by raising taxes on the rich and cutting government spending.
In all, 62 percent believed that "[t]axes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people." Only 34 percent believed that taxes on the rich should be "kept low because they invest their money in the private sector and that helps the economy and creates jobs."
Sixty-three percent said they would like to see higher taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans, while 36 percent disagreed. Major cuts in spending and domestic programs should also be part of a compromise, according to 57 percent of those polled.
Only 47 percent wanted major cuts in military spending. At 35 percent, major changes to Medicare and Social Security were even less popular.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Monday that he favored cuts to popular safety net programs but opposed tax hikes on the rich as part of a plan to rein in galloping U.S. debt.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/1...e+Raw+Story%29
Four House Republicans Soften Stances on No New Taxes
ounter to more than six months of House Republicans insisting that they would not raise taxes ever, four House Republicans indicated they might be willing to accept tax hikes to help reduce the deficit Tuesday night. At at town hall in Virginia Tuesday night, The New York Times' Jennifer Steinhauer reports that three of the four men floated specific tax increases they would consider. The congressmen were responding to audience questions about the bipartisan congressional "super committee"--created by the debt ceiling compromise--which is tasked with coming up with a way to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion in order to raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion.
The maybe-tax-revenue-raisers were Virginia's Scott Rigell, a freshman*, Indiana's Larry Bucshon, another freshman, Georgia's Phil Gingrey, and Tennessee's Phil Roe. Gingrey and Roe are members of the Tea Party Caucus; all four are members of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
The possible revenue raisers:
Rigell: Cutting subsidies to oil companies.
Gingrey: Letting the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $700,000 a year expire.
Roe: Closing loopholes. Roe cited General Electric, which paid no taxes in 2010, saying "GE ought to pay some taxes."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...w-taxes/41097/
St Ronnie and Ike would be considered flaming socialists by today's extremist smash-mouth Repugs. Example of the pro-rich, extremist migration to the right:
FLASHBACK: In 1990 Campaign Ad, McConnell Said ‘I Think Everyone Should Pay Their Fair Share, Including The Rich’
‘Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says in a campaign ad.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...ich-flashback/
It was a campaign ad, so we can assume he was lying.
LOL, when has the will of American voters meant a damn thing? The 2008 bailouts are about as clear a picture as there can be of what public opinion is worth in this nation.
Meet The GOP's Not-So-Super Committee: 6 Members Of Congress Shaping Your Economic Future
Here’s what you need to know about each of the GOP super committee members:
REP. JEB HENSARLING (TX): Super committee co-chairman Hensarling only has a tenuous grasp on economic facts, repeatedly making false claims about the deficit and debt and “falsely characteriz[ing] the debt limit fight as a consequence of spending policies enacted by President Obama and past Democratic congresses.” He has called Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid “cruel Ponzi schemes,” and believes that recessions are just “a part of freedom.” Hensarling has said corporate tax dodging is a good reason to cut the corporate tax rate. He also consistently carries water for Wall Street’s biggest banks, saying that bank profits should trump consumer protection.
SEN. JON KYL (AZ): Kyl is the number two Republican in the Senate and takes a hard line on taxes. He walked away from debt ceiling negotiations because Democrats wanted to raised taxes on those who make more than $500,000 a year, but he insisted there should not be a dime of increased revenues. He has also strongly defended tax subsidies for oil companies, and opposed ending an accounting gimmick that deprives the Treasury of up to $72 billion over the next five years incorporate taxes. He is also a staunch defender of military spending and is not afraid to twist arms to get it. For example, he held up the START treaty and extension of the Bush tax cuts late last year to extract more money for nuclear weapons. Like many Republicans, he has voted to privatize Social Security and supported the House Republican budget, which would effectively end Medicare. To his credit, however, he said he did not support tying an increase in the debt ceiling to a Balanced Budget Amendment.
SEN. PAT TOOMEY (PA): Toomey firmly believes in the GOP fantasy that tax cuts don’t actually cost anything, telling Fox News that “it’s not clear” that extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting corporate taxes would decrease revenues. He is firmly in favor of privatizing Social Security because he believes that “personal [Social Security] accounts lead to personal prosperity.” He has said he supports the budget passed by House Republicans (which would effectively eliminate Medicare) andreleased his own budget proposal that would turn Medicaid into a block grant, severely slash domestic discretionary spending, and likely result in a big tax increase on the middle-class that would fund tax reductions for the rich and corporations. However, Toomey does support cuts to defense spending, saying, “There is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want.”
SEN. ROB PORTMAN (OH): President George W. Bush put Portman in charge of his Office of Management and Budget in order to meet “our goal to cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009.” Under Portman’s watch, the deficit nearly tripled. During the debt ceiling debacle, Portman was one of the GOP senators who actually entertained defaulting as an “opportunity to get our fiscal house in order.” Considering privatization “the greatest force in the universe,” he also suggested privatizing Social Security to bail out bad investors and voted in 2005 to divert Social Security dollars to create private accounts. He did hedge on all-out support of Ryan’s budget plan, but ended up supporting it. Believing that “spending, not tax cuts, causes future deficits,” Portman ran on the idea that “any tax increase would hurt the fragile economy.” As such, he’s continually advocated to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and is pushing to balance the budget in 10 years without a single tax increase. However, Portman did state in the past that he would support defense cuts as “the Pentagon has to be part of the discussion.”
REP. DAVE CAMP (MI): As the lower chamber’s chief tax writer, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Camp is a dogged defender of the wealthy. During the debt ceiling debacle, Camp actually declared that he’d rather have a bigger deficit than see taxes go up on “rich people.” In his struggle to find “a least damaging place” to raise revenue, Camp landed on one “free-riding” group of people that could stand to pay more: the poor. Of course, the preservation or pursuit of tax cuts — like the Bush tax cuts — will further increase the deficit. Camp, however, offers the familiar GOP idea that their expiration creates “uncertainty” and point blankly stated, “I don’t think you have to pay for extensions of current law.” Indeed, the only tax policy Camp seems to be (rightly) wary of is a tax repatriation holiday. Having already declared tax increases “off the table” on Obama’s previous debt commission, Camp is more likely to push a balanced budget amendmentand the other disastrous cuts he backed in the House Republican “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan. As for entitlement programs, Camp waveredand then voted in support of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to end Medicare.
REP. FRED UPTON (MI): Though best known for his hard shiftrightward toward global warming denial, Upton also backed the radical House Republican budget, the even more radical “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan (which would take spending to a level not seen since the 1960s), and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. However, his position on revenues is a bit wishy-washy. He has said tax increases are “just not going to be part of the equation,” but has not ruled out tax reform that lowers rates but brings in more revenue through the elimination of tax loopholes and credits.
All of the GOP members of the super committee, meanwhile, have signed anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s pledge not raise any taxes under any circumstances and support a Balanced Budget Amendment, which even former Reagan economics adviser Bruce Barlett calls unworkable, “dopey,” and “mind boggling in its insanity.”
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151981
and public opinion expressed in actual votes is worth the same: nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
100% disenfranchisement of Human-Americans.
Government of the UCA, by the UCA, for the UCA.
So, when you take out the 48% of people that pay NO taxes that means that 14% of the population that pays taxes agrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
It's well established that the majority of Americans are comfortable with someone besides themselves having to pay more taxes.
boutons, I'm especially supportive of you having to pay more taxes.
Who are these people? No sales tax, gas tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Or you mean only federal income taxes?
Do you think that small business owners will open up their pockets in this economic climate even with a hefty tax cut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"So, when you take out the 48% of people that pay NO taxes"
CC spews the richie's LIE: these "no tax" people pay the extremely regressive FICA, property tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, vehicle tax, etc, etc. So GFY and your richie LIES.
He is correct when we talk about federal income taxes. The number used to be 47%, but has creeped up to 48% of federal income tax filers who owe no net federal taxes, or get money like Earned income Credits.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Small business owners will employ people as demand arises. It's the larger blue collar manufacturing jobs I'm talking about. They keep getting outsourced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
Fucktard.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
If you are too stupid to follow just because I didn't spell out "Federal Income Tax" when the conversation is about Federal income tax then you might want to just read and not post.
Fucktard, so 48% of people do pay taxes, just not federal income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Fed income taxes. And, while wildly sensationalistic, there is a basic point here. When almost half of the tax base (I'll repeat Federal Income Tax base for boutons:lol) is either not paying taxes or actually netting a credit refund, then the problem is not entirely on undertaxing the top (pick a random number) percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Sure Teysha. And I don't think it's minor either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
However, when people throw around the 'pay no taxes' you get the impression that they actually pay zero taxes. That really isn't the case.
You know there is more than one tax. If uncertain, ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Can we just go ahead and acknowledge that everyone here recognizes that everyone pays sales and gas taxes, and that references to people not paying taxes refers to federal income taxes? If not forum wide, at least in a thread where the OP is about a group of politicians who don't want to raise federal income taxes?
Ok, Ok... fucktard apologizes :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
You know, I specifically was adamant about it because of fucktards like you, who love to tell us how much people live off government returns like they don't pay any other taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And it's a really stupid argument.
As long as everytime Heritage stink tank or WSJ or Fox or similar assholes here say not "47% pay no taxes" which is the say it to inflame the bubbas, but "47% pay no federal income taxes".
btw, the rural bubbas, red staters are getting screwed by Repug debt deal, the Repugs they voted for:
Debt Deal Leaves Americans Living in Rural Poverty Behind
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...mmunities.html
Paul Ryan signaled his willingness to include revenue increases through tax code reform the other day on Fox News. Something along the lines of $1 revenue for every $3-4 in spending cuts. While he was not placed on the select committee, I'd expect that to be the template for compromise, particularly if the market continues to be this volatile.
So Ryan is saying he will violate the Grover Norquist pledge to NEVER raise taxes?
If Ryan was really serious, rather than lying, about the deficit, he'd support $1 increase revenue for $1 spending cuts.
$1 tax for $4 cuts means he's lying about the deficit, only about destroying govt that supports Human-Americans. Let's see if Ryan and such trashy ilk EVER support more taxes, less tax expenditures, subsidies on UCA.
Semantics. Norquist has said that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not technically a tax increase. If there's enough market pressure to get a deal done that helps with financial stability, they'll find more wiggle room.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I thought Speaker Boner was smarter.
Why Looming Budget Battles Might Still Shut Down the Gov’t
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health and Human Services could face partial shutdowns this fall, as a politically polarized Congress faces a Sept. 30 deadline to approve a new federal budget.
During the contentious budget process, Congress typically passes "continuing resolutions" to fund federal agencies while legislators work out their differences.
But in an environment of political hostage-taking, the funding for some agencies could be put in limbo until a deal is reached, resulting in the suspension of more services such as the Federal Aviation Administration's temporary shutdown last week. During the shutdown, the agency's airport safety inspectors had to continue their work without pay while also paying their travel expenses.
Two prominent congressional scholars, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution, said the upcoming battle over the federal budget could result in agency shutdowns.
http://www.readersupportednews.org/o...the-government
The 'Super Congress' Is a Scam Designed to Force Cuts To Popular Programs and Keep Taxes On The Rich Low
It's a Set-Up
Here's how the deal was supposed to play out, according to the White House: Congress cut around $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years as a “down payment” on a larger package in exchange for raising the debt limit through the 2012 election. The Gang of 12 is then supposed to come up with at least another $1.2 trillion in debt reduction through a mix of additional cuts – possibly to include cuts to Medicare and Social Security – and revenue increases. If seven members vote on a package along those lines, it will get an automatic up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress – amendments won't be allowed.
If they can't cut a deal – or can't cut a deal that passes a deeply polarized Congress -- an automatic “trigger” kicks in, forcing an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts. Democrats had wanted it to include a mix of cuts and revenue increases in an effort to make Republicans negotiate in good faith, but that proved a sticking point with the GOP caucus. Eventually, the parties settled on a 50/50 mix of security and non-defense cuts – the the defense cuts were supposedly something Republicans would find intolerable.
The Democrats would have yet more leverage, they said, because the trigger would kick in at the same time as the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, which in theory would allow Obama to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans if the Gang of 12 comes up with a deal that isn't “balanced.”
It's an interesting legislative story, but none of it is going to happen.
Designed to Fail
The “super congress” that emerged from the deal offered a way to kick what had been an unbridgeable divide down the road a ways, but it doesn't alter the contours of the debate. While some Republicans have indicated that they might support closing a few loopholes to raise revenues, the party as a whole remains committed to their no-tax pledge. Democrats – especially House Democrats – have repeated that we need a “balanced” approach to cutting debt like a mantra. They've signaled they would be willing to accept some cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not cuts sufficiently deep to entice enough GOP support for a package with new revenues.
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151993
Number One Donor To GOP’s Super Committee Co-Chairman Aids And Abets Tax Dodging And Outsourcing
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...mittee0811.jpg
his number one campaign donor makes its money aiding and abetting tax dodging and outsourcing:
Hensarling’s number one career donor, for instance, are the employees and PAC of accounting giant KPMG, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His campaign committee has received $62,250 from company donors.
A few years ago, “KPMG — one of the ‘Big Four’ that dominate global accounting work — admitted it helped wealthy individuals in the US evade tax on billions of dollars of income between 1996 and 2002.” The company agreed to pay “$456 million in fines, restitution and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm, the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced today.”
In 2011, KPMG was rated second place in the “World’s Best Outsourcing Advisors,” by the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals, “the leading professional association for organizations and individuals involved in transforming the world of business through outsourcing, offshoring, and shared services.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...r-outsourcing/
Super Congress already providing jobs, for lobbyists
Washington lobbyists, who usually spend their days and nights tracking the progress of dozens of bills and chasing after hundreds of members of Congress, will have a single place to focus their attention this fall: the 12-member “supercommittee” [...] “Supercommittee means superlobbying,” says John Feehery, who was a top aide to former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and is now director of government affairs at Quinn Gillespie & Associates, one of Washington’s most prominent shops.[...]
The real money is going to be poured on by the health industry—hospitals, drug companies and medical device makers—and defense industry. If the committee doesn't come up with $1.5 trillion in cuts in other places, those two take the big hit in the automatic trigger. So what we'll probably see is the health industry arguing for cuts to the benefits of its direct consumers—Medicare beneficiaries—so that providers don't get the hit, and the defense industry lobbying for veterans benefits to take the hit, so that all important defense contractors stay in the money. Oh, and don't forget the oil and gas lobby, because the Democrats on the committee are definitely going to be targeting their tax breaks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Debt panel mulls punting the details back to gridlocked House committees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us...agewanted=1&hp
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog...+in+Between%29Quote:
The anything-but-super committee was set up because the regular committees and legislative process could not agree on what to do about the deficit. But rather than make those decisions, the super committee may decide that the best way to deal with this situation is to throw it back to the two tax-writing committees that, because they were unable to come up with a plan in the first place, gave the job to the super committee.
And the most inane, stupid, absurd, remarkable thing about this is that the definitely-not-super committee will claim that this make-someone-else-do-the-hard-work-later process complies with the legal requirement to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.
The country is 15,000,000,000,000 in debt. At some point EVERYBODY is going to have to be a grown up. Spending has to be cut a lot (and that includes Medicare and SS). Taxes have to go up a lot (on everyone; rich, middle class, corps). Austerity measures, bitter pills; call it what you will. The piper must be paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
"Spending has to be cut a lot"
which will causes Ms of job losses, more foreclosure, lessened demand, aka, "the austerity trap"
"Taxes have to go up a lot"
Repug will block any tax increase, even if renamed/lied as something else.
USA is so fucked.
SF Fed is predicting 50%+ chance of double-dip recession (for the 99%) due to Euro crisis hitting US finances.