PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Gang of Six unveils new plan to warm reception


orange
07-19-2011, 12:19 PM
***WARNING: HuffingtonPost***

Gang Of Six Unveils Debt-Reduction Plan [UPDATED]

First Posted: 7/19/11 12:07 PM ET Updated: 7/19/11 02:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- More than half the Senate was convened early Tuesday morning by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) for a briefing on a deficit-reduction plan being negotiated by group of five senators from both parties once known as the "Gang of Six."

The gang had previously comprised six lawmakers before Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) abandoned the talks, rebuking Democrats for being unwilling to cut Social Security or Medicare. Yet Coburn had heavy praise for the plan outlined Tuesday morning, raising hopes (and fears) that the gang may be getting back together.

Senators were effusive about the plan after the briefing meeting, calling it "great" and saying it would likely gain support from a majority of the Senate. The plan includes $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, managed by spending caps and cuts to government programs.

"We've gone from a Gang of Six to a mob of 50," said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) after the meeting.

More than half of the Senate arrived to hear about the debt-reduction plan Tuesday morning, and the general atmosphere was positive, said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

"Everyone felt a sense of relief that there was a bipartisan, carefully constructed plan before us," she told reporters outside the meeting.

A Senate Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations with Coburn said that the Oklahoma senator had refused Democratic entreaties, even after cuts to entitlements were offered. But now that the five other Senators are moving forward without him, the aide said, Coburn is more interested in being involved again.

"This type of a wider audience may make him less important, particularly if there are other Republicans willing to step up," said the aide.

A different Senate aide said it remains unclear whether there is enough time to move forward with the plan before Aug. 2, the date the Treasury Department predicts the federal government could begin defaulting on its debt. But Collins said the Gang has completed enough work on their deal that it could be ready in time for a pre-Aug. 2 vote.

"They have done so much work that a lot of the issues have been gone through, and they're in the midst of drafting statutory language," Collins said. "I believe it should be considered in conjunction with the debt ceiling plan."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the plan could gain traction in the Senate and even in the Republican-controlled House, which is committed to major spending cuts.

"I think if you look at the details here, they will see it does lots of things they've called for," Hutchison told reporters.

"They have come up with a plan that can get a majority vote in the Senate, very likely 60," she said, adding she would vote for the plan. "The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts."

UPDATE, 1:45 p.m.: President Barack Obama expressed some support of the Gang of Six plan during remarks to the press on Tuesday, calling the plan a "very significant step" that is "broadly consistent with the approach that I've urged."

"What it says is we've got to be serious about reducing domestic spending, both in domestic and in defense," he said. "We've got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way and we've got to have some additional revenue so we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice."

UPDATE 2:10 p.m.: The Gang of Six plan is laid out in a summary flyer obtained by HuffPost and details the group's proposal for cutting the deficit by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

The plan would immediately cut $500 billion in spending to bring down the deficit. It would also include major tax cuts, with about $1.5 trillion in overall tax savings, by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and bringing down other rates.

Much of the Gang of Six plan would require other agencies and Congressional committees to work to find savings, setting up guidelines for $80 billion in armed service cuts and $70 billion from health, education, labor and pensions. Under the plan, the Budget Committee would be required to set spending caps that would extend over the next decade.

Michael McAuliff contributed to this report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/gang-of-six-unveils-debt-reduction-plan_n_902999.html

orange
07-19-2011, 12:20 PM
Summary flier here: PDF Doc (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/gangofsix.pdf)

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 12:22 PM
I love when Obama says we need to make domestic spending cuts. He comes across so strong and sincere.

Calcountry
07-19-2011, 12:30 PM
Of course Collins was elated, she hates tough votes.

Calcountry
07-19-2011, 12:31 PM
For the record, I think that Warren Buffets businesses should be targeted for massive tax hikes, as should all hedge funds.

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 12:34 PM
Summary flier here: PDF Doc (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/gangofsix.pdf)Whole lot of if's there.

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 12:34 PM
For the record, I think that Warren Buffets businesses should be targeted for massive tax hikes, as should all hedge funds.

Look at the last page of Coburns Proposal....

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 12:35 PM
What does this mean?

Maintain or improve the progressivity of the tax code.

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 12:38 PM
No ObamaCare Repeal?

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 12:52 PM
FWIW this doesn't even cover the interest payments on our debt during that time period.

vailpass
07-19-2011, 01:06 PM
I love when Obama says we need to make domestic spending cuts. He comes across so strong and sincere.

Yep.
I accidentally tuned in to Daily Show last night and was shocked to see him absolutely ripping onto obama for being indecisive and unable to muster any respect from Senate or House.

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 02:30 PM
Warm reception may take on a different flavor..... http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/gang-six-plan-raises-taxes-3-trillion?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29feed&utm_content=feed&utm_term=feed


(Washington Examiner) — 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.

alnorth
07-19-2011, 02:33 PM
What does this mean?

It basically means even though rates might be decreased, they wont be flattened. ie, if "the rich" are paying x% more of their income than the "middle" pays as a percent of their income, that difference should be maintained.

If the 29% rate is currently 16% higher than the 25% rate, then if you lower that 29% rate to, say 25%, then the 25% rate has to be lowered to at least 21.55%.

In that way, tax rates are cut, while still maintaining progressivity.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Have to love creative bookkeeping, we have to make due with less so the government can have more.

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 02:37 PM
It basically means even though rates might be decreased, they wont be flattened. ie, if "the rich" are paying x% more of their income than the "middle" pays as a percent of their income, that difference should be maintained.

If the 29% rate is currently 16% higher than the 25% rate, then if you lower that 29% rate to, say 25%, then the 25% rate has to be lowered to at least 21.55%.

In that way, tax rates are cut, while still maintaining progressivity.Where defines "or improve"?

alnorth
07-19-2011, 02:40 PM
I think this has a very good chance of going somewhere, because it gives Democrats, realistically speaking, a tax increase. Not much of a tax increase, only a few hundred billion over 10 years going by their numbers, but at least its a bone for them. On the other side of it, Republicans can, technically, claim it is a huge tax cut, and get political cover for voting for it.

The difference is how you score tax increases vs tax cuts as regards the AMT. The AMT is drastically cut every single year, so some people just build that into their assumption: even though the law says the taxpayers will get hit with a big AMT next year, some just presume that will be fixed, and they give congress no credit for a tax cut.

On the other hand you can, rightfully so, refuse to take anything for granted. "The AMT is the law, I'm not presuming anything will get 'fixed', and if it is 'fixed', I score that as a tax cut".

This plan goes farther than the annual fixes, in that it permenantly gets rid of the AMT forever, and that is apparently worth $1.7T in tax cuts over 10 years. When revenue increases are figured in, that gets whittled down to $1.5T, and we never have to go through the AMT debate and hand-wringing again.

Dems can quietly say to themselves that the existing AMT will always get "fixed" anyway so some of those tax decreases are only on paper, and some republicans who oppose the plan and try to label it as a tax hike will use the same logic.

But, according to the law and ignoring history, it is on paper a really huge tax cut.

alnorth
07-19-2011, 02:46 PM
Where defines "or improve"?

in this context, I'd say "improving progressivity" in political-speak means to make it more progressive. In my example, you cut the 29% rate to 25%, and cut the 25% rate all the way down to 18%, everyone gets a tax cut but you also made the tax system more progressive.

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 02:47 PM
in this context, I'd say "improving progressivity" in political-speak means to make it more progressive. In my example, you cut the 29% rate to 25%, and cut the 25% rate all the way down to 18%, everyone gets a tax cut but you also made the tax system more progressive.Yeah that's the way I read it so, no, it's a non-starter for me.

alnorth
07-19-2011, 03:00 PM
Yeah that's the way I read it so, no, it's a non-starter for me.

In that case, you will probably never see a tax reform pass that you are happy with for as long as you live, because flattening the tax rates is a non-starter in Washington.

Chiefshrink
07-19-2011, 03:06 PM
Bottom line: Does it raise the debt ceiling? Democrats get their tax increases?

As the ol saying goes "devils are in the details". Just like Obamacare that gets worse and worse the more we learn.

The big red flag for me is that "O'Marxist" likes it:shake:

alnorth
07-19-2011, 03:26 PM
Bottom line: Does it raise the debt ceiling?

well yeah, obviously. Not raising the debt ceiling this year is completely and utterly insane. If we default, at this point with all that has gone on, the GOP would get annihilated in 2012.

At this point, the trick now is trying to figure out how to do it without letting Obama get too much credit, because the GOP has allowed themselves to get maneuvered into a corner with their refusal to take an incredibly generous offer.

ROYC75
07-19-2011, 04:54 PM
It's not enough ! Baby steps for 10 years, the government will find a way to over spend in that 10 year period and we will not of helped our kids that much with the debt.UPDATE 2:10 p.m.: The Gang of Six plan is laid out in a summary flyer obtained by HuffPost and details the group's proposal for cutting the deficit by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

I bet this 3.6 trillion is a blown up # for the Lib's to throw out there for the country to see, only to have it fail and fall short of expectations. Kinda like the unemployment results......

If true though, it will only take close to 40 years to get the country back to debt free ........Only! and that's in a perfect world.

Like I said, it's just not enough, the chances of any credible debt being eliminated is a pipe's dream with the way both parties within the government that likes to spend.

mlyonsd
07-19-2011, 04:55 PM
In that case, you will probably never see a tax reform pass that you are happy with for as long as you live, because flattening the tax rates is a non-starter in Washington.Yeah but I'm consistent that way.

Calcountry
07-19-2011, 05:05 PM
FWIW this doesn't even cover the interest payments on our debt during that time period.
But its bipartisan!!!1 And it makes Obama look like a skinflint.

Jaric
07-19-2011, 05:06 PM
***WARNING: HuffingtonPost***Argh!!! It burns!!

Calcountry
07-19-2011, 05:09 PM
What if, a "gang of 6,000,000". Some, weird, hypothetical way, pulled off a flashmob teaparty in washington.

Quickie
07-19-2011, 05:47 PM
I love when Obama says we need to make domestic spending cuts. He comes across so strong and sincere.

Well yeah, that's easy when NBC, CBS, and ABC are your propaganda machines.

alnorth
07-19-2011, 05:56 PM
I think this has a very good chance of going somewhere, because it gives Democrats, realistically speaking, a tax increase. Not much of a tax increase, only a few hundred billion over 10 years going by their numbers, but at least its a bone for them. On the other side of it, Republicans can, technically, claim it is a huge tax cut, and get political cover for voting for it.

The difference is how you score tax increases vs tax cuts as regards the AMT. The AMT is drastically cut every single year, so some people just build that into their assumption: even though the law says the taxpayers will get hit with a big AMT next year, some just presume that will be fixed, and they give congress no credit for a tax cut.

On the other hand you can, rightfully so, refuse to take anything for granted. "The AMT is the law, I'm not presuming anything will get 'fixed', and if it is 'fixed', I score that as a tax cut".

This plan goes farther than the annual fixes, in that it permenantly gets rid of the AMT forever, and that is apparently worth $1.7T in tax cuts over 10 years. When revenue increases are figured in, that gets whittled down to $1.5T, and we never have to go through the AMT debate and hand-wringing again.

Dems can quietly say to themselves that the existing AMT will always get "fixed" anyway so some of those tax decreases are only on paper, and some republicans who oppose the plan and try to label it as a tax hike will use the same logic.

But, according to the law and ignoring history, it is on paper a really huge tax cut.

Based on what I'm reading now, this may have not been the complete picture, but not completely wrong.

Based on what the gang of 6 identified, it is a $1.5T tax cut, or a one or two hundred billion tax hike over 10 years, depending on if you count getting rid of the AMT or not.

However, the plan also charges the finance committees with a mandate to find other ways, other than increasing tax brackets, to find more revenue until the new sources of revenue equal $1T.

So, it is either a roughly 500-700 billion tax cut, or a 1 trillion tax increase over 10 years, depending on whether you give credit for repealing the AMT or not.

Republicans who are bound by the tax pledge will point out that the AMT is on the books and repealing it should absolutely count, so they passed a tax cut. Democrats will quietly tell their constituents that most of the AMT cant ever be counted on anyway, so it'll be realistically a tax increase.

Saul Good
07-19-2011, 07:55 PM
At this point, the trick now is trying to figure out how to do it without letting Obama get too much credit, because the GOP has allowed themselves to get maneuvered into a corner with their refusal to take an incredibly generous offer.

How do you figure? This is a (R) proposal.

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 08:05 PM
After review this is more bullshit

HonestChieffan
07-19-2011, 08:17 PM
Harry Reid.....No.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/172285-reid-refuses-to-back-gang-plan-open-to-using-parts?utm_campaign=hillsonthemoney&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

KILLER_CLOWN
07-19-2011, 10:46 PM
National News
See other National News Articles

Title: $1 TRILLION IN NEW TAXES?!
Source: Yahoo Finance/AP
URL Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt- ... es-Gang-apf-120819518.html?x=0
Published: Jul 19, 2011
Author: AP
Post Date: 2011-07-19 20:09:23 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: $1 TRILLION IN NEW TAXES, Debt Ceiling Crises, 2012 Depression
Views: 552
Comments: 25

Debt hope: Obama praises 'Gang of Six' plan

Obama, some Republicans laud Senate 'Gang of Six' deficits plan as a way ahead on debt limit

David Espo, AP Special Correspondent, On Tuesday July 19, 2011, 7:44 pm ap

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama and a startling number of Republican senators lauded a bipartisan deficit-reduction plan Tuesday that includes $1 trillion in higher taxes, raising hopes of a last-minute compromise to repair the nation's finances while averting a government default. Wall Street saluted as well.

Obama said he hoped congressional leaders would "start talking turkey" as soon as Wednesday along the lines of the Senate "Gang of Six" proposal, which quickly overshadowed a no-tax-increase alternative that conservatives spent Tuesday pushing toward an evening vote in the House.

At the White House, the president warned that financial markets could soon begin to post worrisome losses unless gridlock is broken and the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit raised. But stocks soared for the day, propelled by the deficit plan's emergence and Obama's decision to seize on it as well as by strong earnings reports. The Dow Jones industrials rose 202 points, the biggest one-day leap this year.

In the House, the focus was on spending cuts.

"Our bloated and obese federal budget needs a healthy and balanced diet, one that trims the fat of overspending and grows the muscle of our nation's economy," said Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, one of the 87 first-term House Republicans determined to reduce the size of government.

Democrats said the measure, with its combination of cuts and spending limits, would inflict damage on millions who rely on Social Security, Medicare and other programs. "The Republicans are trying to repeal the second half of the 20th century," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan.

Obama has threatened to veto the bill, which would raise the debt limit in exchange for what supporters said was an estimated $6 trillion in spending cuts and congressional approval of a constitutional balanced budget amendment for ratification by the states.

In a recognition of the political realities, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters before debate began on the bill that it also was "responsible to look at what Plan B would look like."

He did not discuss what alternatives he had in mind, although the Senate's top two leaders have been at work on one that would let the president raise the debt limit without prior approval by Congress.

Treasury officials say that without an increase in borrowing authority by Aug. 2, the government will not be able to pay all its bills, and default could result with severe consequences for the economy.

The "Gang of Six" briefed other senators on the group's plan after a seemingly quixotic quest that took months, drew disdain at times from the leaders of both parties and appeared near failure more than once.

It calls for deficit cuts of slightly less than $4 trillion over a decade and includes steps to slow the growth of Social Security payments, cut at least $500 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs and wring billions in savings from programs across the face of government.

It envisions tax changes that would reduce existing breaks for a number of popular items while reducing the top income bracket from the current 35 percent to 29 percent or less.

The tax overhaul "must be estimated to provide $1 trillion in additional revenue to meet plan targets," according to a summary that circulated in the Capitol.

The group of six includes three Democrats, Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the leadership.

The three Republicans, all conservatives, are Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who has a particularly close relationship with Boehner dating to their days together in the House.

In recommending higher government revenues, Republicans in the group challenged party orthodoxy that has held sway for two decades, ever since President George H.W. Bush memorably broke his "no new taxes" pledge to make a deficit reduction deal with congressional Democrats.

In the years since, refusal to raise taxes has become a virtually inviolable article of faith among Republicans, and used by them and their allies in countless political campaigns against Democrats.

Recently, Republicans who voted to repeal a tax subsidy for ethanol production drew opposition from Grover Norquist, a prominent anti-tax activists who has wielded significant influence inside the party.

Even so, in the hours after the Gang of Six briefed other lawmakers on their plan, at least one member of the Republican Senate leadership, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, signed on as a supporter. So, too, did Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

"We have an opportunity to act like statesmen and avoid a debacle on Aug. 2, and it seems to me that all of our efforts should be focused on that," added Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. He and others said the plan was well-received at a weekly closed-door meeting of GOP senators.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked about possible objections from tea party activists, said the measure "checks every box" for advocates of smaller government, including cuts in government spending and an overhaul of the tax code to eliminate special breaks.

Obama stopped well short of endorsing the plan, saying administration officials were analyzing it and not all details were known.

But he said it included "a revenue component" along with savings in Medicare and Social Security, making it the sort of balanced approach he has long advocated.

He also noted that the Senate's two top leaders have been cooperating on a measure that would allow him to raise the debt limit without a prior vote of Congress while also setting up a special committee to recommend cuts from federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

"That continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. In the event that we don't get an agreement, at minimum, we've got to raise the debt ceiling," he said.

Unlike Obama, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. was harshly critical, calling McConnell's approach "smoke and mirrors."

"If Republicans do not show the political will to stop the spending, and use the debt limit to make our case, the party is gone," he was quoted as saying on National Review Online.

The Gang of Six envisioned a two-stage process in which $500 billion in savings would be enacted swiftly, with the more complicated changes in programs like Medicare and Medicaid to follow.

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Jim Abrams, Erica Werner, Stephen Ohlemacher, Darlene Superville and Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=135934&Disp=0

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 11:19 PM
But its bipartisan!!!1 And it makes Obama look like a skinflint.

That must be a typo. It's supposed to be "skin flute." And Obama's always looked like that.

suzzer99
07-19-2011, 11:31 PM
Well since I use this forum as my finger on the pulse of conservative middle America, and there's no thread for "Cut, Cap and Balance", can I assume that means even the seething Obama-haters on this board now CCB is Kabuki theater bullshit?

Or am I giving you guys too much credit?

suzzer99
07-19-2011, 11:33 PM
Bottom line: Does it raise the debt ceiling? Democrats get their tax increases?

As the ol saying goes "devils are in the details". Just like Obamacare that gets worse and worse the more we learn.

The big red flag for me is that "O'Marxist" likes it:shake:

Yeah get pissed about this and destroy those moderate republicans come election time. Show them a blood bath of Tea Party destruction to rival anything seen before in this country.

Chiefshrink
07-19-2011, 11:56 PM
Well since I use this forum as my finger on the pulse of conservative middle America, and there's no thread for "Cut, Cap and Balance", can I assume that means even the seething Obama-haters on this board now CCB is Kabuki theater bullshit?

Or am I giving you guys too much credit?

CCP is the preferable deal among conservatives but we have RINO leadership insisting on throwing O'Marxist a lifeline everytime he gets in trouble(a la McConnell) because they are cowards afraid of the Marxist Media therefore "bi-partisan" is always a must with RINOs when dealing.

As Sen. Demint once said, "I never have seen a "bi-partisan bill" that "didn't" grow govt.

Especially now is not the time to be bi-partisan but O'Marxist knows the RINO Repub leadership is weak and this "gang of 6" is BS!!:banghead:

KILLER_CLOWN
07-19-2011, 11:57 PM
CCP is the preferable deal among conservatives but we have RINO leadership insisting on throwing O'Marxist a lifeline everytime he gets in trouble(a la McConnell) because they are cowards afraid of the Marxist Media therefore "bi-partisan" is always a must with RINOs when dealing.

As Sen. Demint once said, "I never have seen a "bi-partisan bill" that "didn't" grow govt.

Especially now is not the time to be bi-partisan but O'Marxist knows the RINO Repub leadership is weak and this "gang of 6" is BS!!:banghead:

Get it right, it's the Gang of 6-6-6.

Chiefshrink
07-20-2011, 12:01 AM
Yeah get pissed about this and destroy those moderate republicans come election time. Show them a blood bath of Tea Party destruction to rival anything seen before in this country.

Damn straight! It's these RINO Repub elites or moderates as you call them that I have stated many times that are more of a problem for the Repub party right now than the actual Marxist Dem party. RINOs hate "conservatism" just about as much as the Marxist Dem party.:thumb:

It will be God and 'conservatism' that will save this country and nothing else.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
07-20-2011, 12:02 AM
Get it right, it's the Gang of 6-6-6.

Pretty much!:thumb::LOL:

RINGLEADER
07-20-2011, 04:40 AM
I think this has a very good chance of going somewhere, because it gives Democrats, realistically speaking, a tax increase. Not much of a tax increase, only a few hundred billion over 10 years going by their numbers, but at least its a bone for them. On the other side of it, Republicans can, technically, claim it is a huge tax cut, and get political cover for voting for it.

Wow.

Another politically motivated document that whistles right past the problem.

I love how Obama acts all hawkish on the debt by proposing to cut a fraction of what he added. What a joke all these idiots in Washington have become.

Get ready for the day when a lack of expansion fails to overcome the fiscal trainwreck that is the USA. Maybe next time Americans will wise up and when a "progressive" promises to change America they'll realize what it means.

RINGLEADER
07-20-2011, 04:46 AM
Also, for Obama to spread the blame around he has to get the Obamacarr "cuts" enacted with GOP help -- which they're of course only too happy to oblige him over in the Senate.

Woo-hoo! The debt will only be $7trillion more instead of $11 trillion more! That's showing some real guts Mister President!

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 05:25 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QTsxcjTBU_c/TiaVWD6bTUI/AAAAAAABGPc/ddKa24eIIX4/s400/Separate%2BBut%2BUnequal.jpg

mlyonsd
07-20-2011, 08:35 AM
Wow.

Another politically motivated document that whistles right past the problem.

Like I said, it doesn't even cover the interest payments over the 10 years.

And I totally agree with the rest of your post.

alnorth
07-20-2011, 12:53 PM
Wow.

Another politically motivated document that whistles right past the problem.

I love how Obama acts all hawkish on the debt by proposing to cut a fraction of what he added. What a joke all these idiots in Washington have become.

Get ready for the day when a lack of expansion fails to overcome the fiscal trainwreck that is the USA. Maybe next time Americans will wise up and when a "progressive" promises to change America they'll realize what it means.

I suspect you aren't going to like the endgame. We are where we are now because the American people, who are by and large drooling retards, believe they can have low taxes and huge benefits. Politicians from both parties have edged away from upsetting the voters with reality so they can get re-elected.

We're now at the point where it needs to be fixed. Many tea partiers believe, for some crazy-assed reason, that after we have a frank adult conversation and force the voters to either choose massive entitlement cuts, massive tax increases, or a huge portion of both, the voters will vote in a conservative paradise of tiny government, very few benefits, and tiny taxes.

I believe they are dead wrong. When the voters are finally slapped in the face, told the harsh truth and forced to make a decision, they will make the bare minimum concessions to entitlement programs that they have to (increasing age to qualify, changing how we measure cost of living increases) and they will vote in huge tax increases.

dirk digler
07-20-2011, 01:42 PM
I suspect you aren't going to like the endgame. We are where we are now because the American people, who are by and large drooling retards, believe they can have low taxes and huge benefits. Politicians from both parties have edged away from upsetting the voters with reality so they can get re-elected.

We're now at the point where it needs to be fixed. Many tea partiers believe, for some crazy-assed reason, that after we have a frank adult conversation and force the voters to either choose massive entitlement cuts, massive tax increases, or a huge portion of both, the voters will vote in a conservative paradise of tiny government, very few benefits, and tiny taxes.

I believe they are dead wrong. When the voters are finally slapped in the face, told the harsh truth and forced to make a decision, they will make the bare minimum concessions to entitlement programs that they have to (increasing age to qualify, changing how we measure cost of living increases) and they will vote in huge tax increases.

Pretty much spot on. Of course 70%+ of tea party supporters don't want any cuts to SS and Medicare. Mostly because they are old white people.

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 02:04 PM
Pretty much spot on. Of course 70%+ of tea party supporters don't want any cuts to SS and Medicare. Mostly because they are old white people.



So you support cutting those for people who are already on it?


Its an interesting issue. The most politically acceptable to everyone would be to not change benefits for those who are on those programs and scale changes in based on age from some chosen starting point.

Say all 50 or under would see a change in program benefits when they are eligible, retirement age would be moved to 70 plus for those under 40, 70 for those 40 to 50....and the FICA would increase for all wage earners and take the cap off on FICA for all. At least you make the programs solvent for the people who are footing the bill and you dont impact those who are no longer working.


I think your comment and 70% etc is bullshit but I cant prove it. Do you think retired democrats are in favor of cutting benefits to those on medicare and SS?

alnorth
07-20-2011, 03:38 PM
Pretty much spot on. Of course 70%+ of tea party supporters don't want any cuts to SS and Medicare. Mostly because they are old white people.

Unfortunately, if you nail down your average Hannity listener, I suspect that they will spout some nonsense about how we are on the far right fringe of the Laffer curve (even though we are paying some of the lowest personal income taxes in modern american history), as if we were in the 1970's again. If you just cut taxes even further, unemployment will fall and we'll be magically rolling in plenty of money to fix everything.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/Northjayhawk/LafferCurve.png

Oh yeah, and we just need to "cut waste". Show a pie chart showing that debt service, defense, SS, and Medicare are basically everything, they will probably just continue to insist that trillions in waste are in there somewhere, so just go find it.

dirk digler
07-20-2011, 04:15 PM
So you support cutting those for people who are already on it?


Its an interesting issue. The most politically acceptable to everyone would be to not change benefits for those who are on those programs and scale changes in based on age from some chosen starting point.

Say all 50 or under would see a change in program benefits when they are eligible, retirement age would be moved to 70 plus for those under 40, 70 for those 40 to 50....and the FICA would increase for all wage earners and take the cap off on FICA for all. At least you make the programs solvent for the people who are footing the bill and you dont impact those who are no longer working.


I think your comment and 70% etc is bullshit but I cant prove it. Do you think retired democrats are in favor of cutting benefits to those on medicare and SS?

It is not BS. It is from a late April poll.

In a McClatchy-Marist poll (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US110410/McClatchy/McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Complete%20April%2018th,%202011%20USA%20Poll%20Tables.pdf) released this week, 70% of registered voters who identify with the Tea Party opposed making cuts to either Medicare or Medicaid -- the government-run health programs for the elderly and the poor -- to help reduce the nation's deficit. Meanwhile, only 28% of tea partiers said they'd be willing to cut spending on those two programs.

Tea partiers were not alone in opposing Medicare and Medicaid cuts. An overwhelming 80% of all respondents said they opposed such cuts, with a majority of every demographic measured in the survey lining up against them.

Calcountry
07-20-2011, 06:26 PM
That must be a typo. It's supposed to be "skin flute." And Obama's always looked like that.When writing to the factor, do not be a skinflint, not good.

Buy a navy seal t shirt. Show your generosity. Look it up dude.

Google it. go ahead, it isn't hard.

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 06:28 PM
It is not BS. It is from a late April poll.

Notice the lack of reference to any base. Id bet you the answer is the same among any group you pick that fits the demographic and not tied to political party.

Calcountry
07-20-2011, 06:37 PM
FVCK THE GANG OF SIX.

Calcountry
07-20-2011, 06:40 PM
LMAO