Reply With Quote
why not?
Oh, and please submit your answer in youtube format.
<ouch>
why not?
Oh, and please submit your answer in youtube format.
Last edited by Drachen; 11-11-2010 at 09:48 AM.
DarrrinS is typical.
Screw everybody else, but don't touch my tax breaks.
Oh and the congressional reaction to this makes it seem all the more that it is the right thing to do. With all of them saying "I like some, don't like the other", it means that it is probably the perfect way of doing this.
14 of 18 commissioners have to approve the report before it's sent to President, who is not required to do anything with it.
Agreed. Unfortunately the hard part is getting both sides to accept a good chunk of the parts that they don't like.
A deficit commission that proposes to reduce deficits by cutting taxes is an absurd joke.
There is plenty to dislike, but it's the first coherent plan, and we are unlikely to see one from either party.
I like it too. Unfortunately it has zero chance of getting even close to a vote in congress. They just described a "flat tax" without using the words. Congress gets it's power/money by allocating tax breaks, credits, and through discretionary spending (which gets cut). No WAY they give that power up.
greeters at W-M ?I can't even fathom what it's like to be looking for a job at 65.
Is the analysis complete that this results in a net tax decrease?
Looking at the commissions presentation it looks like the 8/14/23 breaks are just a consolidation of the existing 6 brackets we have into 3.
Also important to note that those rates assume elimination of all tax expenditures. Those rates go up if things like the child tax credit and the EITC are kept.
Whatever the commission does I hope charitable deductions remain.And yes, the full SS retirement age should continue to rise; no reason it should stop at 67 given the expected increases in life expectancy.
This will cost us a boatload, because we write off home interest and charitable deductions (a lot more in the former than the latter). But the home interest is going down since we're on a 15-year note so it would just end up a little faster than we expected.
Sad, but probably accurate.No chance in our gutless representatives would ever vote for something so progressive.
From the presentation it looks like the proposed tax reforms generate an additional $750 billion of tax revenue between 2012-2020. Only it's called $750B worth of "defecit reduction".
But it would be the right thing to do.
Simpson/Bowles: A Predawn Raid on the Middle Class
Today the Presidential Deficit Commission's co-chairs released a radically right-wing budget proposal. They acted without any prior announcement, just three weeks before the entire Commission was scheduled to deliver its collective report. Consider it as a sneak attack on the middle class, a pre-dawn raid on the American dream.
Many things can and will be said about this draft proposal, but first and foremost it must be considered an admission of failure. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson were asked by the President to lead a commission that was to agree on a set of proposals most of its members could endorse. This proposal is their admission that they've failed, and it should be read with that failure of leadership in mind.
It's also important to remember that this is not an isolated act. The release of their proposal today was the culmination of a highly coordinated and extremely well-funded assault led by deficit hawks willing to harm our already-weak economy in order to cut government, and who would slash important programs like Social Security and Medicare to advance their agenda.
And the timing of this proposal was no accident. Simpson and Bowles know they don't have the 14 votes they need to issue a report. Releasing this proposal may be a desperate attempt to pressure some of their Commission own members. Or they may be trying to deliver some "shock and awe" by issuing a proposal so extreme that any subsequent package of cuts, no matter how unfair, will seem reasonable by comparison.
their agenda is a radical upward redistribution of national wealth and resources, with budget policy as the vehicle and "deficit reduction" as the rhetorical smokescreen.
the do ent they released today would send the economy right off a cliff. They're proposing major cuts to public spending that start in 2012, when most economists expect the economy will still be weak and fragile. Even if your only goal is a balanced budget, that's a bad idea. A smart deficit hawk would first work to create jobs, increase income, and expand business activity, all of which reduce deficits in the long run. These are not smart deficit hawks.
Co-Chairs Simpson and Bowles acknowledge that Social Security contributes nothing to the Federal deficit.
==========
The VRWC is relentless: America, citizens, The American Dream, by fleecing the lower 98% and enriching the top 2%.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/debt-...heir-chances/gBut what if my conjecture is proved incorrect and a roughly similar set of reforms is enacted in 2011? Remember that our fiscal problem is of a long-term nature. It is produced by an aging population; rapid health care cost growth; slower revenues from a flagging economy as a large cohort of experienced workers retires; slowing education and skill acquisition by younger workers; and slower capital formation as more resources are consumed by an aging population. The commission’s reforms have to be enacted and maintained for at least 30 years to deliver its “target” debt-to-GDP ratio of 40 percent. History tells us that such an outcome is quite unlikely. For example, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 — that helped President Clinton ac ulate his now much touted laurel as a fiscal conservative — was maintained for just 12 years — until Congressional Budget Office projections revealed “budget surpluses as far as the eye could see” in 2002. With those projections in hand, lawmakers raced to the exits: the BEA was abandoned and federal spending shot through the roof. Even as conservative a policy maven as Alan Greenspan shone a green light to adopt budget busting tax cuts.
To improve the chances that history does not repeat itself, the commission’s proposals need to be combined with proposals to reform the budget process. The first thing to consider on that score is to use better budget measures to assess if reforms are achieving their goals. Stating those goals in terms of the national debt and annual cash flow deficits is unlikely to work – just as those measures have not worked for the European Union in the context of their now defunct Stability and Growth Pact.
Deficit commission plan would kill 4 million jobs
"Using the rule of thumb that a 1% increase in GDP increases payroll employment by 1 million jobs, we estimate that Co-Chairs’ Proposal would thus reduce payroll employment by roughly 723,000 jobs in 2012, 1.4 million jobs in 2013, and 1.9 million jobs in 2014,"
austerity policies and slow economic growth would create "more job losses and less deficit reduction."
"produce far less budgetary savings than they assume, as the cyclical effects of depressed economic activity on the budget will largely defray the savings from spending cuts and tax increases."
Critics of the (deficit commission) proposal have dubbed the group the "catfood commission" because seniors who see their benefits cut would have to reduce their expenses or find additional sources of income.
"In the present economic environment, the near-term austerity measures proposed by the co-chairs would be fiscally counterproductive and crippling to states, communities, and families, delaying a robust economic recovery for years."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/d...nalysis-finds/
iow, any commission with SocialSecrurity-killing hyper-wealthy Pete Peterson and Americans-are- -suckers Simpson is just another VRWC battle in the war on the lower 98%, behind the smokescreen of "deficit reduction".
How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load?
How many more jobs could we have right now if we didn't have to spend $400 billion a year on interest?
"How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load"
Fear-mongering, STFU, and scare us again about the threat Saddam and Iran's imagined nukes are.
How small would the deficit be without Repug tax cuts since 1980?
Without dubya's bogus and botched wars?
Without dubya tripling the national debt during his Reign of Error?
Bring better , next time, .
+1
You beat me to it.
There is stuff in there I hate, and stuff that I like. That is how I know it is probably the right thing to do.
Too bad there will not be any political will to do it.
How do we know what an "unsustainable debt load" is?
The answer to your second question is that I doubt anyone could unravel things enough to tell.
Let's play devil's advocate for a second though:
What are the benefits of US government debt?
lol @ bouton's forum quality control.
lol @ everything = Repug, dubya, VRWC.
GFY.
^^^^^^This^^^^^^^ +10+1
You beat me to it.
There is stuff in there I hate, and stuff that I like. That is how I know it is probably the right thing to do.
Too bad there will not be any political will to do it.
Well we all know that getting rid of the home-mortgage interest-rate deduction is a non-starter. I mean, can you imagine what would happen to the already listless housing market if that was actually implemented? Plus the bankers would never allow it.
All of you guys who have indicated that the proposal, taken as a comprehensive whole, is probably a good thing because it hurts everybody, are right.
Those who inidcated that, regardless of how good it is, it has no future in the land of gutless politicians, are not only correct but have obviously been paying attention for the last 20 years or more.
It strikes me as a bit sad that so many of us recognize this reality, and are powerless to change it.
Exactly, the bankers plus the home construction industry make policy, not the govt.
"no future in the land of gutless politicians"
more accurately, in the land of bought politicians, they do as they are paid by the private sector to do.
"are powerless to change it."
Welcome aboard the America-Is- ed-And-Un able train, bandwagonner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
