Reply With Quote
So there's still no specifics? What en lements they want to cut? What tax deductions go away?
I didn't put words in your mouth, though. All I did was take your words, and twist them slightly to show how it might sound coming from a blue teamer. Maybe the way you're saying something isn't coming out quite like you intended. When you bring up a topic, then lament dumb voters, the two tend to be conflated.
So there's still no specifics? What en lements they want to cut? What tax deductions go away?
So I assume from the posts that blue teamers are happy to just "raise taxes on the rich" and kick the whole SS and medicare cluster down the road?
Faulty assumption.
I'm not sure any blue teamers (besides boutons and maybe dan) have said that. I'm also fine with tax reform.
But if Republicans are going to ask for a large amount of spending cuts, maybe they should specify exactly what they'd like to cut. Claiming that revenue should increase because you change something doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I want them to come up with actual areas they want cut, and how they plan to do it, so we can have a public debate.
SS and Medicare are a cluster because of the cost of healthcare. We need to address the cost of healthcare. What is the new "free-market" plan to address healthcare costs now that O stole the idea for a mandate?
tbh, I was under the impression that neither team wants to touch SS right now... that's not going to be part of the talks on the 'fiscal cliff' from what I read.
You rival it, so I defer to your expertise.
I had a good day.
You? Not so good, tbh.
It's understandable you'd be unwilling to claim your own bs, when called out on it. Your predictions suck.
That's not an attack. It's an observation. Also, true. You make predictions, often wrong.
I'm not sorry if that hurts.
correct. neither side has the guts.
nor the sense of responsibility, though they do have the power
I get the feeling the question here is not if Barry will give in, but when... at the end of the day, the true rich folks will keep on stashing their money in tax havens, so the change of rates don't really matter to them.
Which really puts into context what this discussion is all about: posturing.
Pretty much. I do wonder what sort of deal will be done, if any. I'm expecting some sort of craven half measure that both sides will say the other side forced them to.
If Barry doesn't fold, it'll be a first, tbh
Obama can't be elected again, so that could change the math, but you're probably right.
Folds faster than patio furniture, is the pattern.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...983453958.htmlThe GOP offer was immediately rejected by the White House, but it provides the most detailed statement to date of what Republicans are willing to concede for now. It comes days after the White House put forward its opening bid in the high-stakes deficit talks. With both sides now having made preliminary offers, the parameters for future negotiations between Republicans and the White House are becoming clearer.
Monday's proposal would make $600 billion in cuts in Medicare and other health programs over 10 years, compared with the $350 billion the president proposed. It would also slow the growth of Social Security benefits, a move most Democrats oppose. The tax-revenue figure is one Republicans say could be achieved without increasing income-tax rates, one of their core objectives.
"What we are putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House," said House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), in a briefing for reporters.
The proposal was made in a letter sent to the White House and signed by Mr. Boehner and other GOP leaders, notably including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who has been an opponent of any tax increase both in Congress and as Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate. His support will be vital to any final deal.
The offer's outlines are similar to a budget deal that was emerging in private talks between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner in mid-2011, when Mr. Boehner agreed to $800 billion in new revenues but Mr. Obama sought more. Those talks collapsed with each side blaming the other for the breakdown.
The immediate Democratic reaction was dismissive. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the plan "includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve."
He stuck with the president's insistence that the GOP agree to raising tax rates on upper-income Americans.
Administration officials were surprised by the GOP offer. They played down its potential to advance talks, saying Mr. Obama continues to wait for Republican leaders to soften on higher tax rates.
Still, officials said, congressional leaders and the president could meet by the end of this week. Their last meeting was nearly three weeks ago. Discussions between congressional and White House staff continued over the weekend, officials said.
House Speaker John Boehner calls the new proposal 'a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House.'
On Capitol Hill, congressional Democrats made clear they would not be satisfied until the GOP gave ground on raising upper-income tax rates.
Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said Republicans were in "a state of denial" if they believed they did not have to concede on tax rates.
"The recent election was not a status quo election, but rather a validation of the president's often-stated position on taxes," said Mr. Levin.
Beyond the question of what to do with the top tax rates, another likely sticking point for Democrats in the GOP proposal would be how it treats Social Security. Republicans want to change the way cost-of-living increases are calculated, a shift that would save money by slowing the growth of benefits without fundamentally altering the structure of the program. Many Democrats want to exclude the program from the deficit discussion, because they don't think it contributes to the nation's deficit problem.
Despite the public bantering, typical of a negotiation with weeks to run, the proposal represented modest movement in the face of a deadlock between the parties on how to avoid the fiscal cliff, the $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts due to take effect in January.
The White House last week irked Republicans by making an opening bid in the budget talks that largely summarized the president's most-recent budget proposal, one that was heavy on tax increases and light on spending cuts.
If nothing else, the GOP offer gives Mr. Obama something more specific to respond to.
Republicans said they were tempted to respond by offering their own most uncompromising proposal—the House-passed budget from Rep. Ryan that called for a far-reaching overhaul of Medicare and no tax increases.
Instead, they drew on a proposal from Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who has been pushing for bipartisan deficit-reduction plans. The proposal was narrower than that recommended by the president's 2010 deficit-reduction commission, known as Simpson-Bowles.
Mr. Bowles distanced himself on Monday from the GOP proposal, which had been drawn from his testimony before Congress's 2011 deficit-reduction "supercommittee," noting he had simply taken "the midpoint of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time," Mr. Bowles said in a written statement on Monday.
In their counteroffer, Republicans did not accept Mr. Obama's bottom-line demand that income-tax rates increase for the top two income brackets. GOP aides describing the plan said they believed the proposed $800 billion revenue target could be met without raising rates, but by closing loopholes and deductions in a broad rewrite of the tax code.
The proposal represented a series of targets without much policy detail on how they would be met, such as the specific loopholes and deductions Republicans would get rid of.
Asked if the plan called for an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, the GOP aides didn't answer directly, but one said, "I don't think there is any way to get a comprehensive deal without it."
The proposal did not say how the plan would fit into the two-step legislative process that leaders of both parties have tentatively embraced. That would include a small deficit-reduction package crafted and passed by year's end, setting the stage for a broader effort next year to revamp the tax code and curb Medicare and other en lement spending.
The proposal also did not specify how Congress would address the $110 billion in spending cuts set to take effect Jan. 2 in defense and discretionary spending. The GOP aide suggested the plan's savings would be enough to allow the "sequester" to be postponed or replaced.
In a signal of the political pressures facing Mr. Boehner as he seeks compromise with the president, he came under fire Monday from some conservatives for an offer they said conceded too much.
"Speaker Boehner's counteroffer today offers disappointingly small spending reductions," said James Valvo, policy director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political group.
Why? (eliminating debt ceiling)
Washington's Serious People Are on the War Path Against Middle-Income and Poor People
The Serious People in Washington, such as The Washington Post (both the opinion and news sections), the Wall Street Campaign to Fix the Debt, and the Republican Congressional leadership are in full budget-cutting frenzy. They demand cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and everything else that benefits middle income and poor people because, well, because the market demands it.
And we know the market demands these cuts because the Serious People told us the market demands these cuts. The fact that the cuts have the effect of redistributing income from the rest of us to the Serious People and their friends is just a coincidence.
Those of us who focus on numbers and data might see that we actually have near-record low interest rates on U.S. government debt, suggesting that the markets aren't at all concerned about budget deficits. We can also point out the obvious truth that budget deficits are supporting the economy, given the loss of more than $1 trillion in annual construction and consumption demand as a result of the collapse of the housing bubble.
But the Serious People in Washington don't have the time to deal with the stinkin' numbers. They have worked themselves into a full-fledged budget-cutting frenzy.
Corker's plan, the Fiscal Reform Act of 2012 includes items like cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which are described in classic Washington fashion as "reform."
But the best part of Corker's plan is his proposal for cuts in the wages and benefits of the federal government's workforce. These cuts average $$180,700 for every federal employee. That is not a typo. The figure comes from taking the $397 billion in savings that Corker wants to come from "Federal Employee Hiring and Benefit Reform" and dividing it by the 2,197,000 employees on the federal government's payroll.
That one is worth mulling over for a few minutes.
We're talking about $180,700 in wage and benefit cuts for every nurse and custodian working at the Veterans Administration's hospitals; $180,700 in cuts for every letter carrier who delivers our mail; $180,700 in cuts for every meat inspector at the Food and Drug Administration who ensures that our food is safe.
As always, the folks who were the central cause of the economy's wreckage and the large current budget deficits escape largely unscathed in the Serious People's offensive on the debt. For some reason, the Serious People never consider the idea of a modest tax on Wall Street speculation. Hey, they don't even consider the idea of cutting the pensions of folks like Alan Greenspan, whose astounding incompetence as Federal Reserve Board chairman allowed the housing bubble to grow so big that its collapse would destroy the economy.
But going after the rich and incompetent would not be Serious. In Washington, "Serious" means beating up on people without money and power. It's that simple.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13105...nd-poor-people
8 Reasons Wall Street Greed Is the Cause, and the Solution, To Phony Fiscal Cliff Crisis
1. The Wall Street Crash Lies at the Heart of the Problem
Once again our politicians and pundits are showing signs of financial Alzheimer's. They just can't remember that Wall Street's insatiable greed caused the Great Crash of 2008 -- not poor people buying homes, not the government's interference, not the auto-industry, not the debt. In a matter of months, 8 million American lost their jobs. Business and personal tax revenues plummeted, as expenditures rose to assist the unemployed. That's why deficits rose.
2. Wall Street Never Paid For the Bailouts
Finance is the bloodstream of capitalist production. The crash was like a heart attack, crippling the vital organs of the economy (and the saturated fats in the bloodstream were all those glutinous financial innovations). The bailouts and stimulus programs were designed to prevent the patient -- the economy -- from dying. Giving Wall Street all that money and debt guarantees should have been accompanied with immediate reforms, including removal and punishment of top management. Instead it was treated as part of the bonus pool for those who pushed the economy over the cliff. All that free money pushed up government deficits.
3. Wall Street Is Still Collecting Obscene Bonuses
While the rest of America suffers, Wall Street bonuses continue like nothing happened at all. Just look at this revolting chart below on Wall Street bonuses in New York. And total compensation is heading even higher according to recent reports:
New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli reports that total compensation at Wall Street [3]firms rose 4% last year to more than $60 billion, near pre-crash levels—and the third highest level ever.
Think about that for a moment: The folks who took down the economy and then got bailed out, are getting bonuses like they had nothing at all to do with the crash. And they are the first to call for "fiscal responsibility" and the cutting of "en lements.
4: Wall Street Was Never Held Accountable
Not one Wall Street executive was indicted for crashing the economy. Sure, about 50 hedge fund honchos have been nailed for insider trading, but none of those trades had anything to do with the crash. Those who deliberately puffed up the housing bubble and who pedaled junk securities were not personally punished. Few even lost their jobs. Had they been running small banks instead of too-big-to-fail behemoths, the FDIC at least would have taken away their toys. Even the finance-friendly Reagan administration jailed over 1,000 savings-and-loan crooks.
5. Wall Street Hedge and Equity Funds Pay Only 15 Percent in Taxes on Their Incomes
All this talk about raising the top tax bracket from 35 percent to 39 percent is a joke for Wall Street, and a cruel one for the rest of us. That's because much of the trillion-dollar hedge fund and private equity syndicates pay themselves with something called "carried interest." Instead of getting an income, they get this special version of capital gains so that their income is capped at 15 percent. If this loophole isn't eliminated during these fiscal negotiations, you'll know that Wall Street owns both parties.
6. Wall Street Is the Only Industry Without a Sales Tax
Wall Street buys and sells trillions of dollars of stocks, bonds and derivatives each year. And none of those sales are taxed...unless they take place in London which has a financial transaction tax on stock sales (and it's been in place for the past 300 years or so).
I asked Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, why we don't have one. Here's how a "Treasury Department official" responded on his behalf:
A financial transaction tax (FTT) is not an idea we are planning to support in the U.S.
FTTs are hard to implement globally, are generally borne by retail investors, are prone to regulatory arbitrage, depress asset prices and trading volumes, and increase capital costs.
The Obama Administration's Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee applies at the ins utional level, levied as a tax on certain liabilities of large financial firms in order to discourage excessive leverage. This is fully consistent with the principles agreed to by the G-20 Leaders. In our view, a tax on liabilities is a better way to generate funding while addressing excessive leverage.
Not only would Geithner's proposed fee be minuscule, but guess what? That fee hasn't been implemented and was never even mentioned during the campaign. So Wall Street is still paying bupkis for the damage it has done.
7. If President Obama and the Democrats Had the Guts to Take on Wall Street, There Would Be No Need for Fiscal Cliff Debates
A small financial transaction tax on all of Wall Street's transactions -- from stocks and bonds to every exotic instrument our greedy financial "engineers" dream up -- could easily generate more than a trillion dollars of revenue over the next decade. Eliminate the vulgar carried interest loophole and you'll generate another $200 billion. Better yet, take some of that money to put our people back to work and to pay for our kids to go to public colleges tuition-free. Then you'll have an economic boom that will make our debt nearly vanish as a percent of GDP.
8. Making Wall Street Pay for the Damage It has Done Is an Easy Sell to the American People
Wall Street has got to be the most hated ins ution in the entire country -- excepting Congress, of course. Nearly every American is furious about what financial elites get away with. There's a reason why Occupy Wall Street hit such a raw nerve. If the president went to the American people and said it was time to make Wall Street pay and sacrifice like the rest of us, he would ignite a tidal wave of support.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-re...sis?paging=off
Because as big a pain in the arse the debt ceiling is to deal with, it's still the only speed bump we have on the road to insolvency. It's existence will at least force a discussion about our financial problems that wouldn't occur otherwise.
"on the road to insolvency."
You Lie, total bull . The US won't be insolvent. What's your real objective behind bull scare-mongering?
If you really think there's no need to deviate from the financial tract we're on, feel free to state your case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
