E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNegotiations within the congressional supercommittee charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction appear to be at an impasse after both Democratic and Republican members of the panel rejected each other's proposals as not serious.
Democratic members of the 12-member panel huddled together in the Capitol Wednesday afternoon as prospects of a supercommittee failure seem to be growing. They were "on message" after the meeting, arguing that the latest Republican offer of $300 billion in new revenue was not enough.
But the supercommittee's Republicans have also rejected Democrats' plan combining tax increases and entitlement cuts, raising the specter of a stalemate heading into the group's Nov. 23 deadline.
The committee's Democratic co-chair, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, said Democrats have made clear to Republicans they want another offer.
"They clearly understand that the proposal that was given to some of our members is not fair and balanced, and they understand that they need to bring back a fair and balanced proposal," she said. "I believe that they understand the dynamics of where we are, that the American public expects a fair and balanced approach and that is what we're waiting for."
A GOP aide counters that “Democrats have effectively walked away from the negotiations. They remain intransigent.”
The aide said Democrats informed the GOP members last night they wanted to take a break from negotiations but offered no timeline as to when they would return to the negotiating table.
At the same time, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, had praised the GOP proposal as a potential "breakthrough," since it even broaches the subject of new revenue. (Durbin is not a member of the supercommittee.)
“I believe the fact that Republicans have mentioned the word 'revenue' is a breakthrough," told the Reuters Washington Summit. "Now, I have not endorsed their proposal, nor do I think it’s the endgame by any means. But the fact that they have put revenues on the table is an important step forward."
Still, despite indications that talks are at a standstill, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, laughed off the GOP assertions that Democrats have walked away from negotiations.
"All we're doing is waiting for them to come back with a realistic, fair, balanced proposal with adequate revenue. We've been very clear to them," he said.
Leave a Comment:
Are we supposed to feign surprise?
Help me... I fell off my chair & can't get up! lol
Nobody should be.
Personally, I'd like to see all of the Bush tax cuts expire. If you look at the rationale used to sell them to us and the actual results of them you have to come to the conclusion they were poorly thought out.
Gee, sounds a lot like the problems the are having right now in Greece and Italy.
No matter, someone will keep lending us all the money we require to keep afloat.
They will, won't they?
Hey, wait a second, we haven't had a Herman Cain thread in hours! We all need to email First Read and demand our Cain fix.
Cain will be the perfect candidate for today's GOP. Go, donate, do it now!
The talks will get somewhere if the republican members start worrying about the oath they made to the American people instead of the pledge they made to grover norquist.
Norquist trumps the USA (and the Constitution if it comes to that)
The "road block" has the shape of an elephant dumping a crap
nisl- if you can survive your Cain Jones until tonite, you will be ok. Hang in there, you can do it.
the 'debates' are just around the corner. (around the BEND??)
Your significan other will be asking you "nisl- is that your funny bone, or are you just happy to see me?"
Having kicked the can towards "down the road", it is now in midflight. This is what it looks like in slow-mo.
GOP Subcommittee members want to raise the Medicare age to 67.
Instead of that, how about we end these senseless expensive wars (costing $400 million PER DAY), close corporate loopholes and end the Bush tax cuts for the rich instead of taking it out on our elderly!
"Norquist trumps the USA (and the Constitution if it comes to that)"
What, exactly, is his hold on these pledge signers, anyway? What happens to one of 'em if they tell him to stick it? I'm serious- I never caught the whole story on that...
They have to turn in their lapel pins. Then they are forced to drink a hell of a lot of tea.
DBO
That zombie will loose his/her seat in congress.
There is no way this committee can succeed. One half wants a decrease in expenses without raising taxes. The other side wants to raise taxes without reducing spending in important government entities.
FOX provides stories in support of the conservative half of the committee. MSNBC, the opposite side. So, not only can the committee never get to a resolution, the bias in the press will also continue.
Where do we go from here??
Drive by - LOL! Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Seriously though, I have a hard time watching the Republican debates. My BS detector starts wailing so loudly it disturbs the bambinos.
So tax increases in the form of ending loophole tax evasion and corporate welfare subsidies (tax expenditures) or taxing the rich on all their income, or just a tiny surtax on multi-millionaires, PLUS spending cuts that include entitlements -- effectively a repeat of the president's Big Deal, is not serious? Come on, most folks know we can't just cut spending, especially if we want to recover from this recession. We must have revenues and the above approaches are the only way to do it.
Excuse us, but how in the heck do Teapublicans expect Dems to act when their proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? As usual, what is the GOP/TP giving up here?
Clearly. If Teapublicans continue to play politics and refuse to compromise and negotiate in good faith--Throw them out in 2012!
What is it about NO that Republicans do not understand??
Be cool if everyone, and I do mean everyone, went to Washington DC and made camp till the republicans cave and do what is right..........everything that is being fought for across America will be small potatoes if the republicans and the uber rich are not brought to heel..............................
what are they going to do....arrest 5 million people...and if so, where are they going to put them?...and if so how is the government going to pay for it?................especially when the next 5 million come to take their place.
The fact that republicans arrogantly believe that they can get away with what they have done and are doing is maddening..............the law must offer an avenue of relief for the 99% that the republican representatives are working against after taking an oath to protect and serve the 99%....
what good are all these laws and representatives if we have no say in the business at hand?..........it seems a bit like treason to continue to work against the people and against the economic viability of the US after having to take an oath to do the opposite........
what can our laws and rights offer we the 99% as leverage to get these traitors to do what they were elected and paid to do?
Man, can't believe that with all the lawyers America has that there is nothing any one of them can come up with.
All that education and it still comes down to sit ins and carrying signs and screaming............what the heck are the laws, constitution, bill of rights and our great education system good for?
Guess this time it will be brawn over brains..................and so we digress.
PEN-24
"DBO
That zombie will loose his/her seat in congress."
But how does that happen? What mechanism does Norquist enlist to effect that result?
"Instead of that, how about we end these senseless expensive wars (costing $400 million PER DAY)"
It would be wonderful if we could, if it were only that easy.
But the first thing anyone and everyone needs to know about wars is that while you can choose to START a war whenever and wherever you wish, once you're in, you usually can't END a war so easily, even if you wanted to. Even dropping your weapons where you stand, turning and running for the hills isn't so logistically easy, if you don't want a bloodbath.
It's the very first paragraph of Sun Tzu's Art of War, paraphrased: think carefully when considering starting war, because war is SERIOUS BUSINESS, and it's a commitment, once made, that you can't always easily drop.
Would that the warmongers had thought of this at the start.
OMG - Drive by, Mike Tyson did a commercial for Herman Cain, it is on Funny or Die. Too funny!
"Republicans love crazy more than they hate black!"
DBO,
Norquist and his group will run someone against them in a GOP primary. He did it in the past and it works. He also does this on a state level.
Also part of the pledge is to promise to hire and vote for comfirmation only those who believe in no new taxes and shrinking the size of government to fit in a bathtub.
DBO, I can imagine that they lose the support of the party. norquist makes a few calls, cuts a few checks, and presto, the pledge violator is not on the ballot in 2012.
I used to live in Indy. Used to go out to Washington St and watch Iron Mike being driven to court in his handcuffs. It was weird.
Anyway, I gotta check out Funny or Die. Wonder if I'll find Perry on there somewhere, too? Bawkmann??
Wayne and MN- thanks. So, the upshot (as if I couldn't have guesed) is- big bucks speak louder than American Citizens. I thought we were running under a representative form of government. Sounds, well, subversive as hell somehow.
SO, when I hear guys like Boehner and Cantor and McConnel say "what the Americ'n People want is...."- they are lying their asses off.
There HAS to be a way to over come this. We wouldn't put up with Russian or Chinese people coming over here, and taking away our representation like this. Why do we put up with it from these fools?
Here's another idea. How about Teapublicans buy War Bonds to pay for the wars they started.
And here we are trying to figure out how to provide health care to the many uninsured, and there is talk of raising the age for Medicare to 67? You know how judges make slum lords live in their own buildings? I say we force members of congress, many of whom are in their 50s and above, to try and find affordable health care on their own and see how that goes.
Americans are getting tired of the GOP/TP trying to balance budgets on the backs of the middle class and working poor. But to make the health care crisis even worse, or to attack the least among us -- the elderly, children living in poverty, the disabled -- that's immoral. Teapublicans have no clue what "values" means. And anyone who wants to live in their world of every man, woman, and child out for themselves is @#$%&! in the head.
Get to work closing the income gap -- Stop the failed policies that transfer wealth to the top. And do it now!
nisl - too effin funny!
The only thing missing what Hermie's pimp daddy hat! LMAO
Here's the link to it!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4ecfd3a85f/herman-cains-campaign-promises-with-mike-tyson
One of my Grama's favorite sayings about someone who is.... ummm... imbalanced was they; are crazier than a sh!t house rat!
Didn't see that coming....
months ago!!!
I used to be the CEO of Godfathers Pizza, a restaurant so gross it made my children hate pizza!
We'll use illegal immigrants as batteries... Like in the Matriceses.
I'm not a Tyson fan, but he nailed it.
"Truepatriot" - While I don't particularly care for the Tea Party, you might be interested to learn that they're against wars. Seriously.
Mark, I had heard that from some of them. I guess everyone has some good in them.
We are governed by demagogues and polemicists. Trouble is, ....we elected every one of them. We have no one to blame but ourselves for America's decline.
"We have met the enemy and he is us". ~ Pogo
Lovely day isnt it?
Me either but that was perfect! ;o))
Bush's revenue for 2007 was 18.5% of GDP - Obama's is 14%!
Same tax rate.
Bush's revenue in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 (years after the 2003 tax cuts took effect) were ALL higher than Clinton's best year of 2000 with a higher tax rate.
Can one of you lib geniuses explain how raising taxes creates jobs?
If you guys trashed Bush, Reagan et repub al for overpending so much - his spending was so outrageous, why not cut Obama's spending to one of those levels - you pick.
Libs that whine about loopholes in the tax code, why don't you talk to the dems - repubs are for it?
All you guys that want a "balanced approach" - how about approaching the idea of a budget? Repubs have a budget - even a plan for a "balanced" budget.
What is wrong with you guys, huh?
What a shock! Are the Teapublicans saying NO.NO,NO, again!
Fisty, If you can't get up off of the floor lose weight. We don't want to lose you.
Mark from Bridgeport -- True Libertarians like Ron Paul have always been isolationists. The Tea Party, which is a faction that has always been in the GOP tent (all Tea Party candidates ran as Republicans, vote the same as Republicans, and Tea Party supporters likewise vote Republican) and like the GOP tent, the Tea Party is largely social conservatives, but also consists of Hawks from NRA members to neocons disappointed in the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Tea Party supporters may want to end the wars, but that doesn't mean they support cuts in defense. The fiscal conservatives should, because Homeland Security is the fastest growing department. I have yet to hear anything about the Tea Party pressuring Republicans to end the wars and cut spending on Homeland Security.
Well Bob, you chose 2007 for the bush figures. Wasn't that just before the crash his administration caused costing millions of jobs and the revenue that used to come from them?
Bob-1805084
"Repubs have a budget - even a plan for a "balanced" budget".
SAY WHAT !!! Hey Bob, I'm curious, what flavor kool aid was that?
So Senator Kerry, what is your "fair and balanced" proposal for the committee? What realistic and significant cuts are you Libbies willing to agree to? What Draconian austerity measures are you willing to accept? And I don't want to hear any nonsense about "future" spending cuts, especially on issues that were already going to be cut or reduced. All cuts must be significant and in line with revenue increases. If you want $500 Billion in revenue there MUST be $500 Billion in verifiable cuts.
Oh, and one more thing. ALL, I repeat, ALL revenue from taxes AND cuts MUST be used ONLY to reduce the Debt immediately. No further spending can be allowed unless we see our National Debt drop by the $1.2 Trillion dollars, or more, in cuts.
LOL, if any of the buffoons here or in America actually believe ANY of this money will go to decreasing the Debt I have some ocean-front property in N. Dakota I'll sell you.
FRR, Il, stay down, there is more Democratic crap coming.
First of all, a SuperCommittee is a questionably-legal, Plutocratic body, at best.
Second of all, I don't believe, for a moment, that the Party of No or Democrats will do what is in the best interests of the American Public.
Shame...shame...shame....shame....
driveby: Ask Bob Bennett (R) of Utah what happens if a GOP/TP doesn't bury his tongue up Grover's butt.
bob: total intellectual dishonesty there bud. Those figures during the Bush admin had 2 wars and a giveaway to the pharma industry hidden in them. Obama's figures take Bush/Cheney's lies into account and thus are very much higher. It is like you bragging your paycheck is bigger than your enemies, only to admit that you are comparing your gross to his FICA withholding.
Let the automatic cuts begin... Who's the party of no? Thats right both parties...
Wayne, how exactly did his administration CAUSE the crash? I assume you mean there were no other causes, no changes in loan underwriting rules that were forced on the banks 14 years before the crash, no resistance to tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton as it was being proposed by John Cain and W.. I'm not absolving the banks or the Bush administration, but to say the Bush admin CAUSED the crash singlehandedly is ingenuous to say the least.
Yeah, let's end corporate loopholes, I agree. Let's end Bush's tax cuts, I agree. ALL of them! I'm in the 99%, (10% actually) and I'm willing to pay more. So should ALL of us, including the bottom 47% who pay 0 taxes. If you pay no taxes, you have no skin in the game, and are susceptible to demagoguery.
What would John Kerry know about a budget? He is rich beyond our wildest dreams.
Daryl.......you hit the nail on the head! Driveby and Bob do drink the Kool Aid! Lucky they are not in Guyana! Bob also forgets or has no clue that Bush II left the highest DEFICIT the United States has ever had!
I have to admit... I am curious to see what new level of depravity the GOP will sink to, in the debates tonight.
First they cheered at the mere mention of executions (which included innocent people).
Then they yelled "Let him die!" when discussing people who can not afford healthcare.
Finally they mocked and "Boo'ed" a soldier, fighting for our freedom, on national television.
Any guesses to the disgusting, vile behavior we will see tonight?
750 billion a year to support unwed mothers, children without fathers, Baby-Momma's Momma / Baby-Grannie is collecting 1500 dollars per month per kid in the welfare foster care program... taking care of her own daughter who can't keep her legs closed illegit kids... This is a fact.
What is that about? Can some lib nutcase tell me why my taxes should be higher so that it can be scammed away... Solyndra, 10 billion to the UAW while Obama wiped out bond holders at GM and Chrysler... taking the hard earned money from people who didn't live beyond their means, buy homes they couldn't pay for or take from the welfare system... Obama wiped them out and paid off the unions... Are you any of you saying this didn't happen? TEA party... Occupy wall street.. who effin cares really... ? At least these tea party folks work and actually pay taxes!
Jim B
Tell me, how do 47% of people get away with not paying payroll taxes?
How do 47% of people pay zero sales tax?
You said "pay no taxes"... that means none, zero, ziltch... not one single tax. So tell me, smart guy, how does half the population avoid payroll and sales tax?
Oh that's right... they DO PAY TAXES, just not income tax. So out of ALL the taxes that we ALL pay, 47% do not pay for one of them. So instead of being honest, and telling the truth... you decide to twist the facts, focus on ONLY income tax, and use that to support a "pay no taxes" claim. You twist the truth, knowing full well that they do pay other taxes, but you ignore that fact to push your lie.
Good boy, you have been following the Fox News rule book just like you were told. But you lose points because you did not use the word "socialism" in your rant.
Part of the Obama campaign is blame Republicans because his policies, the ones that is taking us to the wrong direction (67% of Americans agree ) do not pass in congress, his second stimulus did not pass because the first was a failure full of corruption, selective and partisan. Democrats do not have intention to give any chance to Republicans even the House and Senate offer many plans to create jobs , cut spending and bring sanity. If Obama wants this country to succeed must leave his political campaign mode of attack and work with Republicans for the good of the country, he forgot that he is the president for all Americans , not for one group.
Kyot
And you want to INCREASE that welfare population by outlawing abortion?
You flat-out complain about the "unwed mothers, children without fathers, Baby-Momma's Momma / Baby-Grannie" collecting welfare... but then you want to INCREASE this population so MORE of them require welfare?
You call liberals "nutcases"... but YOU and YOUR party fights to outlaw abortion, which will INCREASE the population of the people you hate? Are you high?
Why would YOU want to increase the number of people you have to pay for? Who is the "nutcase" here?
No, they did exactly what they were designed to do...significantly increase the wealth of the top 1% of the population at the expense of 99% of the population.
Nisl,
Was busy earlier, so didn't have a chance to respond. Couldn't agree more with your opinion regarding Bush tax cuts. If not for the Bush tax cuts, we would have generated over 4 trillion dollars in increased revenue. I'm assuming with the interest payments from that and the Bush tax rebate check we all received, the total would be about 5 trillion.
The U.S.'s current debt, had it not been for these cuts and rebate checks, would be roughly 10 trillion currently.
Oskar...are you stoned? Are you too young and uninformed to realize that we've tried "Supply-Side...Trickle-Down" economics for the last freaking 32 years! IT DOESN'T FREAKING WORK! What is wrong with you people? Unless....you are one of the 1% then it all makes sense!
Clearly the Democrats aren't serious. They need to support a 95% tax on politicians, 115% if they are lawyers. It isn't FAIR that these vultures are allowed to keep any of their ill gotten gains. Meanwhile, the taxes on true Americans should be lowered to a flat 9%. Spending should then be adjusted so as to not exceed revenues. There, job done. Can we go home now?
May have posted this before, but to all you republicans;
I hope you are not too stupid to know, not only you, but your children and your children's children will suffer from you being such idiots!
Both side are so full of SH_T their eyes are brown, they could not work together before and just because they form a committee is not going to change the fact that they are a bunch of MORONS that all should be ousted come the next election .....
Gosh it is just amazing at how biased really MSNBC is. Not a peep out of MSNBC about the Republicans actually trying to work together, did any of you posters hear the news that the Republicans have just agreed to 300 billion dollars of tax increases over the next 10 years. Before you parrot the democrats theme thats it is NOT enough, tell me how many cuts the democrats have offered to make over the next 10 years. Granted taxes could be raised more, BUT NOT without any cuts to the budget. One of the Republicans proposals is to do away with the interest deduction on second homes. While not much, it is actually something. BUT you people will not be happy until the most recent Obama tax cuts are repealed. LETS do it, but not just on the rich, on EVERYONE. While we are at it, lets do away with Earned Income Credit, Child care credits, College credits, and all loopholes.
the talks might get somewhere if the democrat neo-communists would take the lips off of George Soros' butt cheeks...
Soros pulls the strings that make BHO and the rest of the neo-communists dance like little puppets...quite the hillarious sight!
Outstanding post Debbie McCarten 1.18 Voted up
We got all these PAID POLITICIANS having all these meetings, super committees and ALL THEY DO IS BICKER AND ARGUE..............Nothing gets done, and it has been a battle to even get them to agree on anything.................... THEY NEED TO NOT GET PAID. All this money is being spent on this and we have gotten NO WHERE. The middle class is out protesting in the streets, and these idiotic politicians just continue to get paid while doing nothing. I am so fed up with these people.
@alpha
I do "know" one thing...you need to get to hatching out some more liberal lemmings and get their azzes to work to pay for all the free crap that your liberal jack legs have promised me...I will be retireing soon and I will be taking your "free ride" for every nickle I can scam out of it...and you and your children better be up to footing the bill or I will be raising a shyte storm about my "rights" and "entitlements" not be handed to me freely...isn't it cool?
@fiesty
"The only thing missing what Hermie's pimp daddy hat!"...good one (composition?)
I am inclined to point out that your pimp BHO is pimping you out pretty cheaply along with the rest of us in the nation...it will probably take a little while for the pain to wear off so you can focus on the sound of the pimp slap...interesting
"Sen. Patty Murray, said Democrats have made clear to Republicans they want another offer. "
how about that ignorant broad "make an offer"...I can't seem to find a link to a single thing that her foolish pea brain has added to conversation...but what would you really expect from the "elite critical thinkers"
And again, Harry shoots another Blank!
Don't quit your day job Harry & thanks for playing we have some lovely right wing nut parting gifts for ya! ;o)
Instead of just protesting, OWS members should be taking Grover Norquist type pledge sheets around to public elected officials and candidates of both major partys, pledges not to accept campaign donations a particular public elected office is not charged with representing in an official capacity.......In brief, if they are not your legal constituents, you cannot take campaign donations from them !!!
What a surprise to find out that there is a stand off here. Not.
Harry, you don't know what you are talking about. Patty Murray is one of our state senators and has done extremely well both here and in Washington DC. Yes, she's a thinker...how about that? Something that so many including you apparently, don't seem to understand. See, thinkers try to reach consensus. Brutes don't. Consensus attempts to build compromise which serves US better. Politics, being played by both sides now, don't serve us well either unless it can feed into compromise, which with this congress is a lost art. As far as that goes, it seems it's a lost art of many Americans as well. Bullies don't sit well with me. You sound like one in your post.
When will we stop funding all the wars? The interest we pay to the privately owned federal reserve bank, for loans that fund military action, is where all our tax money goes. The CIA is our worlds worst enemey.
Iron Mike Nails It !!!!!
Hilarious.
Is this the same Super Comittee that Obama SWEARS can find the money to fund his "jobs" bill? Hahahahaha what a joke. Liberals refuse to stop spending. Conservatives refuse to allow the people who foot most of the bill already foot the rest of it.
Only a real moron comes into office, increases spending by 3x, then calls it a revenue problem.
That's like my wife maxxing the credit cards then telling me I need to get another job so she can keep buying Fabrige Eggs.
STOP HANDING OUT MONEY WE DON'T HAVE. Seems pretty simple to me. No more unemployment extensions. No more TANF. No more foodstamps. It may blow you libbies minds, but people survived without these things before.
There's spending, and there's spending. Infrastructure is necessary to economic well being. Ours is falling apart. Spending on infrastructure, unemployment benefits are good investments.
Obama did not start the wars. He is going to end them.
I don't much like bailing out big business, but I am smart enough to see that allowing them to fail would have bankrupted the country, destroying the retirement savings of millions. Even the 1% would have been impoverished, and that would be a problem. Having saved the economy short term, it is now necessary to fix the problems with the financial system that caused it. There is not one GOP politician except Huntsman who is willing to go there.
Fault Obama for a stimulus that gave too much to the rich and not enough to the folks who make the economy go. It wasn't big enough, and that blame goes to the GOP as well.
Most of you have it backwards. The time to cut govt spending is when times are good. The govt's job is to step in to do what we as individuals cannot. When times are bad, charitable donations go down, state budgets contract. This is when you need the feds to step up to the plate. The bills have to be paid, and this can be done by cuts when things improve.
The real problem here is GOP denial. No one is accepting responsibility for cutting taxes while starting two wars. If you have a problem with spending, why is it you were all fine with the record deficits during the Bush admin.
What you are unhappy about is having a Dem POTUS. Plain and simple.
Fire the 12 of them. Charge them 2X's their pay for the months that they wasted being on this commitee. Put 12 new ones on the committee.
Of which almost 80% went to Democrat districts.......
Yeah.....blame the GOP......LOL
You're just unhappy that in 2010, you were told pretty clearly that the American people were unwilling to fund Obama's massive spending spree and spread the wealth tactics......hasn't stopped you from continuing to try, and blaming every failure on someone else though. I'm sure that will serve you all so well in the 2012 elections as well.
Let us all pick one party over the other as being the most polarized (to the point of stupid). I pick the GOP. the GOP has turned into a party of no honor. Impeciles. OBVIOUSLY would not know honor if staring them straight in the face. Regardless, we sure as hell deserve better governance than this horse hockey. Completely unacceptable. OWS should make a difference eventually, and our votes. Somethings got to give and it should not be JUST the middle class.
Every person in the commitee is afraid to cut anything because someone will use it against them in the next election. They will tell everyone that the congress person doesn't care about them... and it will work.
JustConcerned and Kyot....all those billions could easily be saved by ending the 2 wars that Bush started one on false pretensies and the other on a whim. Only thing he forgot was an exit strategy .... oops I forgot that is exactly what his masters didn't want....an exit.
You want spending cuts.....stop the wars!!!
End the Bush tax cuts... What's so hard about understanding they were sold to us saying we had a surplus, and that the gov"t shouldn't hold on to our money.
So tell me, how much of that "surplus" do we still have? We couldn't afford them then, we certainly can't afford them now.
Now tell me how bad the economy was before the cuts? Then try and convince me how long it takes to "trickle" down? I've been waiting almost 30 years for that to work, how much longer do we need to wait?
Mark,
Following the Bush 'Across the Board Rate Reductions,' Treasury REVENUES (that is, Taxes Collected for the economically challenged) went up 44%.
Thanks to Obama's 'Historically Unprecedented' Deficit Spending, the country is now in the worst shape of my 53 year lifetime.
And you want to make things worse by raising EVERYBODY's taxes?
Mark-941197
Come on Mark, it can't be that hard for you to remember. It was just a little over 2 years ago. Our empty suit POTUS is still waiting for his "shovel ready jobs" to "trickle" down.
At least 30 years ago we got 31 straight quarters of growth and 25 years of unprecedented prosperity.
Those shovel ready jobs made a big difference here in Arizona, and still are. If we waited for Arizona to take the lead, nothing would ever get fixed. Even the Governor and other Republican officials have put maps on their web sites showing where that stimulus money is going - what projects are getting done.
The problem will be when the Federal funds run out it will be back to the SOS in AZ - you get the State you deserve.
Put the two plans before the voting public and let us vote on the plan we like - polls already show who would win, and it ain't the R plan.
Just; in 1981 we were hardly prosperous - try 70 years ago - and that growth was because the government pumped lots of money into the public. Try and start a mom and pop shop today - see how long you last :(
former gop,
"So should ALL of us, including the bottom 47% who pay 0 taxes. If you pay no taxes, you have no skin in the game, and are susceptible to demagoguery."
Your response to this comment was either not genuine or shows your lack of knowledge. The poster was talking about Federal income tax. Sales taxes are state and local taxes which do not go to the federal government and therefore have no bearing on federal revenue or debt reduction.
And by the way all, not to worry, the supercommittee is right on schedule and going exactly according to plan. Both parties came up with this dereliction of duty because an election is coming in less than a year. When the supercommittee fails to reach an agreement, as planned, the automatic cuts kick in. Then all these congresscritters can say,"It wasn't me, I didn't do it. It was that nasty old supercommittee." to try and save their butts in the election. It's not gonna work because these clowns created this supercommittee to do the work they are very handsomely paid to do because they are all cowards and afraid to make the hard decisions that have to be made because they fear they won't get reelected. Both parties are guilty of this which is all the more reason to vote out each and every incumbent and replace them with independent candidates who are not affiliated with either party and therefore not under the influence of either parties bosses.
I'd rather see all the Bush era wars expire.
Now how can I put this?? What part of SPEND TO MUCH don't you people understand???
And don't give the off budget wars crap. They were paid with Overseas Contingency Bills passed by DEMOCRATS in 2007 2009 2010. They were also passed with Democrat approval in 2003 2004 2005 2006. That means that the 2 Wars are counted in the deficits for ALL those years that they were passed.
OK lets look at the Deficit by year from 2001 to 2011.
2001---$133,285,000
2002---$420,772,000
2003---$554,995,000
2004---$595,821,000
2005---$553,656,000
2006---$574,264,000
2007---$500,679,000 Last FY under a Republican controlled Congress
2008---$1,017,071,000 First FY under a Democrat controlled Congress
2009---$1,885,104,000
2010---$1,651,794,000
2011---$1,228,717,000
Notice that the Deficits went DOWN in 2005,2006 2007,compared to 2004. I wonder what happened in 2003 to cause that??? Can you say BUSH TAX CUTS???
Notice the Deficit DOUBLED in 2008,more than TRIPLED in 2009,TRIPLED in 2010,and back to DOUBLED in 2011.
Now tell me again WHO SPENT MORE MONEY!!
id say the bottom 47 percent that make so little they dont have to pay any income tax are nothing but skin.that has to be the most over used irrelevant stat trotted out over and over by the rich to justify their greed and selfishness ever.since a record 49,000,000 of us now live in poverty;i find it very hard to feel any sympathy towards multimillionaires having to part with 3 percent more in income tax.clue...were not lazy,stupid,envious,jealous or want something for nothing.lord can the rich please come up with some new material.they keep harping on the same lies over and over again
"The aide said Democrats informed the GOP members last night they wanted to take a break from negotiations but offered no timeline as to when they would return to the negotiating table."
"Still, despite indications that talks are at a standstill, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, laughed off the GOP assertions that Democrats have walked away from negotiations."
Isn't it amazing how Democrats say they are leaving and aren't sure when they are returning, but that isn't walking away from negotiations.
Of course the other standard Democrat rule applies as well. We are going to the media and complain that the Republican plan isn't good enough despite the fact that we haven't had an actual budget or even an attempt at one in nearly three years. But, the American people should rely on us to be fair and balanced because we are the best judge of fair and balanced.
If that is accurate, then the Dems should release some info on their proposal. There is at least some information floating out there about what Republicans have offered. So come on Dems, man up, where's your proposal?
.
slodon
What were the REAL Deficits under Bush vs Obama?
Since people seem to get 'confused' about the Deficits run up under Bush and Obama, here are the actual figures from the Government's own official sources;
The figures for Bush are as follows;
Bush 2001 = $128.236 Billion SURPLUS
Bush 2002 = $157.758 Billion Deficit
Bush 2003 = $377.585 Billion Deficit
Bush 2004 = $412.727 Billion Deficit
Bush 2005 = $318.346 Billion Deficit
Bush 2006 = $248.181 Billion Deficit
Bush 2007 = $160.701 Billion Deficit
Bush 2008 = $458.553 Billion Deficit
Add them up, and you get a total 8 year net Deficit of $2.006 Trillion ($251 Billion per year).
For Obama, his figures show;
Obama 2009 = $1,412.688 Billion Deficit
Obama 2010 = $1,293.489 Billion Deficit
Obama 2011 Proj. = $1,280.000 Billion Deficit
Add them up, and you get $3.986 Trillion of net Deficits over only 3 years ($1,329 Billion per year).
I will give you the Obama White House link so you can verify;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.1
"The aide said Democrats informed the GOP members last night they wanted to take a break from negotiations but offered no timeline as to when they would return to the negotiating table."
So the Democrats don't like the Republican offer. Just what is the Democrat offer so we can compare?
It's interesting that the Democrats are publicly criticizing the Republican offers, but we never see anything about the Democratic offer. I thought it was supposed to be 'secret' until they had a deal.
I smell 'politics as usual'.
I really wish you would stop trying to use statistics, you are very bad at trying to sell the same old sh!t. This continues to confirm what I've suspected about you. You are or were a salesman who thought he'd go back to school to try to get some alphabet soup behind your name but didn't really stay to listen to the professor about research and fundamentals, especially the financial ones.
From Wikipedia - "The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1."
Now, let's look at something else, and this is rhetorical in nature but if should prove the point.
IF I reduce my "product mix", as in I reduce my top selling products 20% in price but only have a 10% increase in sales in that arena AND reduce my other products 5% but actually have a reduction in product sold, doesn't that stand to reason that my revenue would actually go down? {elastic curve right}
Meanwhile, my business went on an expansion (Iraq, Iran, ...) and actually opened 10 more stores (as in 20% more baseline costs).
Not to mention my overhead costs; as in my executive assistant wanted more compensation, more time off, which required hired an addtional person... and more people retired requiring immediate funding of their pension plan shortfall. Oh, and gotta love this one, even though I passed on a 30% hike to my staff, their health insurance went up 50% on me.
Then, I sold my business at a public offering and they hired you. Your banker wants you to hold on to your new stores because they're collateral.
A) you are faced with reduced revenue stream, so you increase product mix, right?
B) you try to reduce old costs by removing the large albatross from your neck but your bankers won't let you right?
C) how much "marketing" money would you spend to drive sales
D) How many years would it take to clean up my sh!t for you WITHOUT losing money (that is, stock value) for your shareholders?... wait, it worse than that.... your shareholders are calling you demanding their 45% return on investment, in cash, every quarter but they won't authorize you to borrow money, they won't authorize you to negotiate out of those 10 bad stores, in fact they want you to expand into more stores. And, they want you to do it with less sales staff too.
Junior's tax and military (foreign) policies (probably from Grover Norquist) has driven this nation to financial Armageddon. Oh, and I voted for him too, which I very much regret now. Should have learned the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
TruePatriot - ...and Ron Paul is the Grand-daddy of the Tea Party! At least the ones I know here in CT are all about setting the US foreign policy clock back to 1820 or so and totally withdrawing behind our borders. They also are generally for large cuts in all spending, and that would include our 12 Carrier Battle Groups (no need!), among other defense spending.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate: Homeland Security spending ramped up quickly but is leveling off while over 50% of the US yearly spending goes to... #1 Social Security, #3 Unemployment/Welfare, #4 Medicare and #5 Medicade/SCHIP.
JayCFO-3768452 "From Wikipedia - "The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1."
And G W Bush proposed a Budget for 2009 calling for a Deficit of $410 Billion (including off-budget items).
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress ignored it and waited until Obama was sworn in, and then they passed the $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill and a $400 Billion 'Porkulus' bill and only then did they pass a 2009 Budget, which was signed by Obama in March of 2009. The result was a $1.4 Trillion Deficit for Obama's first year.
Your feeble attempt to 'Blame Bush' ignores reality.
PS - Clinton's Budget for 2000 was also voided when Bush passed the first of his tax cuts - retroactive to January 1, 2001.
The official link to Bush's 2009 Budget is at the following link - See Table S-8;
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
Simple solution to this problem....
Each and every Congressman and Senator be sent out to their districts to put together a list of cuts to federally funded operations, functions, programs etc in their districts. You know like point the finger - that defense contractor can go, that roads improvement program out, no food stamps for that guy.
The likely result of that will be each returns with a blank piece of paper...."there is no room in my district to cut federal spending it should all be cut in someone else's".
The result of this will be that we will all know that they are all a bunch of scumbags only interested in one job and that is their own.
And the result of that will be that hopefully we will all see that the only answer to this problem is TERM LIMITS for all elected officials not just the Pres. and we will demand that this be implemented (in Australia too hopefully).
How does this fix the problem, briefly we will start having people running for office as a career building exercise wanting to do the best job possible for all the people they are elected to represent rather than people doing it as strictly a career politician (transistion to retirement) as they (career politicians) are easily corrupted, only looking to get reelected (keep their job) and will say or do anything to achieve that end, they don't need an exit strategy, business sense, common sense or knowledge they are getting by on BS....how the hell does someone like Michelle Bachman get elected to the House???? How does Rick Perry get elected as Gov. I wouldn't hire one of them to manage my dog kennel.
This is the problem we elect idiots on the back of a good BS line and we can't seem to get rid of them despite ourselves, at least with the Pres. the Right knows they are only going to have to put up with having "one of them" in the WH for the next 5 years.
Roy,
I get it. So what you're saying is, if junior hadn't done the cuts the 9/30/01 budget would have resulted in an even higher budget surplus.
Furthermore, Obama didn't inherit those reduced tax streams from the wealthier for the 09 budget either. Just the increased spending, right?
I think your reality is all about misrepresenting the true facts.
Interestingly enough, it wasn't until the Obama administration (and the democratic congress) pushed for compensation management of the "bailed" out firms, that the banking industry (and auto industry) issued more stock and repaid all of those loans. The only major company with a major loan to the government is AIG. Interestingly enough AIG underwrote nearly 40% of the nation's mortgage insurance; which meant if they go under, so did the banks.
As CFO of a major distributor, I negotiated a $20m line of credit at .75% over LIBOR, which for the first 18 months averaged around 1.25% total. When the sh!t hit the fan in the financial comunity that LIBOR rate moved the effective interest rate to 8%. It took that financial bill to calm the banking industry down so that the effective rate fell back to the 1-2% range. Banks had stopped loaning other banks overnight money for fear the banks would fail. So, I had personal experience with this issue. Furthermore, I personally know certain bank CEOs and what was said and done in the back rooms. Stabalization was key.
Your lack of understanding of governmental budgets, the financial community and the basic concepts of revenue (product mix) and costs of inputs proves to me all the more that you bought alphabet letters behind your name to enhance your so called marketing skills, which proves to me you are just another used car salesman trying to sell sh!t that just doesn't sell anymore.
Junior pushed through many of those bills and fought with congress for those bills for the benefit of the wealthy that merely stuffed their mattresses and did nothing to create jobs.
The key to creating jobs is to provide incentives to those with the money to want to make more. Hiking up the taxes (by the way the US has one of the lowest taxing structures in the world) means the wealthier have less money. Something even you can agree upon. They are greedy and want more, so they will find ways to make more, often times using staff to help them make them more.
I agreed with Reagan's tax cut structures and continue to believe in "supply side" economics, but only to the point that it remains within balance. Junior's cuts and military policies pushed the government "out of balance" and mortgaged America's future.
As I have said before
1) 80% corporate dividend deduction, to effectively eliminate corporate taxes (which by the way only represents about 6-8% of the federal budget), BUT increase the individual top cap rate to 25%, with a credit back of 5% IF they are paying the bottom 1/2 of their staff 3 times minimum wage AND are providing 75% of individual health insurance coverage.
2) Dividends for greater than 10% shareholders should also be taxed (shareholder level only but refundable if limit is reached) for social security and medicare to $500,000.
I have worked 30 years preparing tax returns for these people and they work, actually I work very hard, at making sure those taxes are either eliminated or minimized as low as possible.
The fact you don't understand the tax structure and these issues, again, proves to me you know nothing of what you are talking about with the federal budgets, taxing structures and the effective implications.
The problem with Social Security is that Grover and his band of employers want to bankrupt the government and eliminate any form of supplemental retirement.
I do agree with a 1-2% national sales tax to "capture" at least "some" of the underground economy; however, it IS a regressive tax on those that make very little because employers (who make very, very large profits) refuse to pay better. Until employers pay more our economy WILL continue to suffer. The federal "meddling" will be reduced with larger revenue streams also reducing federal "subsidies" to those very employers' employees.
JayCFO-3768452
Your nonsensical comments belie your claimed 'financial expertise', and as for my degrees being 'bought', my Bachelor's Degree (Marketing) and MBA (Finance) are from one of the largest universities in California - At last check, they don't 'sell' their diplomas.
Once again you prove your ignorance. The reason you consider them "nonsensical" is because you have only book learning NOT real life experience in the financial community, probably because you do come from sales or marketing where everything to you is about making the sale. Must be pretty tough out there these days trying to sell sh!t no wants anymore. That does show tenancity on your part.
As for "one of the largest...", all universities and colleges are in the business of selling an education to as many as they can, period. I didn't go back to graduate school until nearly 15 years after my undergraduate to one of the top 5 universities in the nation AND the only thing I hadn't done in the financial community was a) interest swaps and b) puts or calls (although I did do forward contracting in my farming days). Oh, and to be clear, the graduate school I went to required you to be in the top 15% in the nation for acceptance not just a heartbeat and a checkbook.
FORMER GOP You're obviously an idiot. I never said anything of the sort you claim I said. Bloviating moron that you are.
JayCFO - your description of Roy sounds exactly like my old Ethics instructor. He would ship product to clients that they didn't order and ask them not to return it until he got his bonus vacation to Hawaii...TFF.
"As CFO of a major distributor"...hahahaha...
" the graduate school I went to required you to be in the top 15% in the nation"...comical
I used to be a King, and a General , and I invented the Slap Chop , and climbed Mt. Everest , and was a hell of a private pilot...isn't it cool?
"I have worked 30 years preparing tax returns for these people"...hahaha
that rhymes with "I was part of the problem"...interesting
"Ethics instructor:...ouch
famous liberal "Ethics instructor's" :
George Soros , Bill Ayers , Richard Trumka , Andy Stern , Saul Alinsky , Bill Clinton...hahaha...fine group of fellas'
What is really being missed in all this talking is this...congress has become a huge joke..appointing a super committee to do what they were all elected to do was an even bigger joke. The fact is that neither party is doing its job. For them all..getting re-elected is the name of the game was elected..all else is meaningless..and it sure shows. Drawing all that lobbyist money means much more than manageing this country. Doing trade deals that are no way near fair for this country but a great profit getting option for big business is the game now...country means nothing any more....the voters wishes mean even less..but the profits of the wealthy and big business...ohhhhh boy..that is where it is at for all politicans.
I think the rethugs are pulling the old switch-a-roo with the dems here. They cannot disobey Master Grover. They signed a pledge.
This whole committee is a sham and we should just pull the trigger already. Then watch as the rethugs squirm and maneuver to get out of their responsibilities.
Pathetic, really.
Taxes/Revenue of the top 1% is the impasse. Republicans will defend this even to their graves.
Does anyone find it disheartening that Dick Durbin celebrated the fact that the Republicans on the Super Committee simply mentioned the word "revenue" - even if it was in a context that was insincere and disingenuously offered. That is a testimony on how sacred the anti-revenue philosophy has become to the Republicans. Grover Norquist may be "just a person".... but his ilk poison any serious debate on solving the debt dilemma.
And for those of you who adhere to the anti-tax mantra.... guess what is the largest contributor to the ballooning debt? Not TARP (Dubya), not the Stimulus (Obama).... but the Dubya tax cuts. By far. Took a surplus and instantly created a huge deficit. With very little influence on the overall economy (except to set up teh current disaster). There was little new domestic spending. Oh... a pair of unbudgeted wars.... and an unfunded prescription drug program...... but it's all Obama's fault, eh? Moe-rons....
They mentioned the word "revenue" and ducked beneath their desk, convinced the sky would fall on them, or the earth would cease to rotate. Perhaps now they can have an adult conversation.
Was anyone REALLY surprised that they'd reach an impasse? As soon as they said the Super Committee would be made up equally of half Democrats and half Republicans, I KNEW there would never be a consensus. AND, as long as the Republicans bow down to Grover Norquist in lieu of the pledge to the U.S. taxpayers when they were elected (since we basically pay their salaries, NOT Norquist), nothing will ever be done in a bipartisan manner! It amazes me that so many seniors and lower economic people still will vote for the Republicans......mindlessly!! I guess the Democrats need to get out and VOTE in 2012 or we may be in major trouble!!
Repugs have nothing to fear from Grover over this one. Everyone knew the Dems would say no because the TPers put their 'tax cut' into effect only to cut the taxes on the super rich (surprised anyone?). They only put this offer out so the Dems would call them on it and they could tell their brain dead supporters that they tried. Look at how many people on this vine are already blaming the Dems for not accepting a totally BS bill.
Nisl,
Was busy earlier, so didn't have a chance to respond. Couldn't agree more with your opinion regarding Bush tax cuts. If not for the Bush tax cuts, we would have generated over 4 trillion dollars in increased revenue. I'm assuming with the interest payments from that and the Bush tax rebate check we all received, the total would be about 5 trillion.
The U.S.'s current debt, had it not been for these cuts and rebate checks, would be roughly 10 trillion currently.
Replying to my reply :) 10 trillion deficit while astronomical, is sustainable. 15 trillion, gonna be 17 trillion by end of next year, I don't know. :(
Bryan E..........Mc Connell and Boehner picked the most conservative and anti tax members for the committee. It was a done thing that they would never come to a solution. The GOP stacked the committee to begin with.
I wonder what they think of the results yesterday in Ohio, Mississippi, Arizona, North Carolina and Kentucky! Tis the start of the voters taking over and the beginning of the turn of 2010 results in 2012!
The annual budget deficit can be reduced by increasing revenues and freezing if not reducing spending, but even when a balanced budget is reached . . . several years down the road . . . there will still be all that DEBT to chip away at. So increased revenues will be needed for some time into the future no matter how tightly we keep the lid on spending. The USA cannot afford to keep the Bush tax cuts, which appears to be the Republican bargaining chip . . . actually a barf chip.
Minnesotan, agreed! Committee never had a chance. Not only due to norquist, but due to Boner as well.
nisl,
I know what you mean about the "BS detector." I live in Nevada and every time I hear Harry Reid bragging about how he saved X number of jobs in a state with over 14% unemployment or how he created X number of jobs as the unemployment rate continues to climb, my personal BS Detector goes off the scale. Seems that BS goes hand in hand with Washington Politics no matter what political party a person aligns themselves with!
As for this so called super committee agreeing on anything; I ask how could they? In order for there to be true negotiations all person(s) involved must be willing to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. When you have both political parties unwilling to compromise as we have in this case, an impasse was inevitable! Now of course Obama and the liberal media will have us believe that it all the fault of the Republicans, while the conservative media and the Republicans themselves would have us believe it is all the fault of the Democrats. In fact both parties are at fault. Both have certain things they will not compromise on and since they present conflicting ideas a compromise can not be reached. It is up to us, the American Voters to decide which party is being the most unreasonable and get rid of them ASAP! It would appear the we must decide if we want higher taxes with no responsible spending nor accountability for how, when or on what our tax dollars are spent. Or, no tax increases, at least the possibility of accountability and decreased spending over a period of time.
Personally, I do not want to give our federal government on penny more of my money until they show a real and tangible desire to reduce waste and reduce the unnecessary spending/size of our federal government and without greatly decreasing funding to necessary things like (but not limited to,) defense spending and programs that most people my age who are American Citizens have paid into most all of our working lives namely Social Security and Medicare. To reduce funding to Social Security and Medicare is like taking money from our savings accounts and all because our elected officials in Washington can not keep their greedy hands off of it, and not pay back that which they have "borrowed" (which is their way of admitting they have stolen it!)
@Ernie
"Personally, I do not want to give our federal government on penny more of my money"
haha...think again...every libby neo-communist on this vine thinks that ALL of your money is their money and they are going to make sure that they and their "entitlement" crowd get it...isn't it cool?
This committee being at an impasse is as surprising as Kim Kardashian filing for divorce.
Minnesotan-1652558 I guess you didn't read about the whole election. They rejected Obama-care in Ohio, They elected a different Republican Gov back to back times for the first time in the history of Alabama, and a Republican was replaced by another Republican in Arizona. Also the Alabama state senate may now go to the Republicans for the first time in history. I think you need to see the whole picture, not the loss of a couple of state laws and the re-election of a popular gov in KY.
Somebody sais something to the effect of where are we headed? Well, unless everyone is willing to compromise-in other words we need to lower costs, mostly by cutting back on our military foreign expenditures, we need to eliminate the loopholes that are allowing many corporations to pay no taxes, etc., well unless we do these thing I can tell you where we're headed-- Can you say Greece, Italy?
@Al
and look at Virginia...they voted in republicans taking them to record levels in their house, "experts" are saying they may have control "for years"...
What a Surprise, in the end the 99% will be the ones hurt by anything that come out of the super committee.
Did we expect bipartisanship? The Congress put together this Supercommittee to do what the larger Congress has neither guts nor will to do, i.e. reign in spending, raise taxes, and make difficult decisions about America's future. So, now they don't agree.
Promise me this Supercommittee, raise my taxes, cut my spending, whatever you do, JUST DON'T DEFAULT.
Had the SuperCom members been selected by the opposing party, i.e. Dems pick the committee Repubs and Repubs pick the Dems, there might have been a chance at compromise. As it was actually constructed this committee was just a ruse to get the debt ceiling raised without having to do anything else, and it was not expected to actually accomplish anything.
I'm SHOCKED!! lol
and this should surprise us why????
If I hear another pol use "fair and balanced" I really will lose my mind. so SICK of it!!!
they might not have to if the gophers ever WERE balanced and/or fair.
NCgirl- sounds like you already have. I know fair or balanced is not in the cards for the defenders of the corporate raiders. 2012 cant get here soon enough OBAMA/BIDEN
I have a committee to oversee the committee to respond to another committee etc.! I see no problems... sarcasm.
If an impasse is the only way we're going to control the outrageous and unaffordalbe growth in defense spending so be it.
JBN - correct...
The Budget Control Act of 2011 requires the committee to recommend by November 23, 2011, at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction steps to be undertaken over a tenâyear period.
If the committee fails to agree on a package or the full Congress fails to pass it, a so-called "trigger mechanism" would enact $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts to serve as the second installment of deficit reduction measures. These cuts would be split between the national security and domestic arenas, but the biggest entitlement programs would be excluded from these automatic cuts.
If there is no committee agreement, then there will be cuts. They will hurt. They are needed.
It was already stated a couple of weeks ago that they are going to ignore the trigger mechanism...so much for trying set a reasonable goal to accomplish this. "We can just ignore the trigger." I'm pretty sure it was John Boehner that said it...WHY PUT ONE IN IF YOU ARE GOING TO IGNORE IT?!
The problem here is that the Reps in the House have already started drafting legislation to Exempt the Defence Dept and the Military from the automatic spending cuts should the Committee fail to agree. They have no intention of allowing any cuts to the Military Industrial Complex! So even the automatic cuts are in doubt of ever being applied!!
"They clearly understand that the proposal that was given to some of our members is not fair and balanced, and they understand that they need to bring back a fair and balanced proposal," she said. "I believe that they understand the dynamics of where we are, that the American public expects a fair and balanced approach and that is what we're waiting for."
You got one proposal and rejected it, NOW you want another. Where is your counter proposal? or are you just going to walk out and pout. Deeds not words, that what we need. Suck it up and get to work.
"But the supercommittee's Republicans have also rejected Democrats' plan combining tax increases and entitlement cuts, raising the specter of a stalemate heading into the group's Nov. 23 deadline. "
Maybe Tim will learn to read the entire story, since it is clear that his dad can't.
you are really brain dead
Did anyone expect any other outcome? So the mandated cuts go into effect and life goes on. Soon we will hear the government shutdown threats from the pathetic teabaggers.
Those mandated cuts will gut our military, while not addressing the real driver of the deficit and debt - entitlement spending!
Nearly half of the country is on some form of assistance from the government. That is a serious problem!
The real reason is the spending binge under the bush administration and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Zackinma: How do you think such cuts will "gut our military"? The DOD will have to prioritize is "needs" and "wants", but our military will remain in place. We can not continue to fund this department unless we are willing to increase the taxes necessary to support it. Otherwise, we end up with a military the funds its necessities while foregoing its wants.
BTW, I saw where the DOD is now making threats that it will make the grunts pay a greater portion of the their medical care by increasing premiums and co-pays for their care. That is atrocious! We should make sure there are other cuts made, not just to those that serve on the front lines.
HA! The military, the DOD, They know how to waste some serious cash! A cut in the budget would be good for them; instead of blindly spending their excessive amount of allocated money, just so they will get the same amount next year, they will have to make due with what they have and learn to run more efficiently.
I saw where they are making empty threats against their own people, it is insane how greedy they are becoming.
So now you know. The republicans will throw the military under the bus to save the wealthy from a modest tax increase.
Well said! The GOP will throw America under the bus if the Koch Bros keep the cash coming.
i dont think the cuts in defense will make a dent in our defense.....i mean how many bombs do we need to blow up the earth??...i think one is enough!!!!!
JamesA: The active military do not pay for their medical care, or at least they didn't when I got out. Perhaps their spouses have to pay something. I DO know that when you are retired and are on Tricare, you pay copays, etc, and a yearly fee to use Tricare. As a retired veteran myself, I declined to use Tricare and have continued to use my employer-provided medical plan, which I pay about $165/month.
If I didn't have to worry about catastrophic illnesses/accidents, I would take that $165/month and put it into a separate savings account just for my medical bills because I only see my doctor each quarter for a check up, a mammo, and a pap smear. I'm sure the money that I pay totally each year, along with what my company would save by not having to insure me, would be MORE than enough to cover my medical care. If people could purchase catastrophic insurance policies ONLY; then younger people would be more apt to purchase insurance.
ZacKinma,
A 10% cut won't come close to our gutting our military. We spend more than the next 19 countries combined. THAT is ridiculous. We could cut our defense spending in half and still be completely secure.
Your suggestion that almost half the country is on some form of government assistance is beyond absurd. To start with Social Security and Medicare are NOT government assistance. Those are benefits bought and paid for by every working person in the country.
Maybe you should try again when you have some actual data rather than ideology and made up statistics.
These morons are not there for us but for themselves. It is simple. Flat tax, cut the loop holes = increase revenue, cut the wasteful spend which there is an abundance of and leave SS and MC alone for those receiving it now. What is so difficult about that?
Move along, nothing to see here outside of standard democratic talking points - wha wha wha Koch Brothers, wha wha wha Bush tax cuts (actually Obama extended cuts), wha wha wha Teabaggers. Hilarious!
They have already started the government shutdown threats...nauseating.
Didi376564: I apologize, you are right. I saw the article yesterday about "personnel paying additional amounts toward medical benefits" and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I have a son in SF (active duty) and he informed me that he does pay a co-pay for his wife and kids. My bad.
I still stand by my position that the DOD can take the cut by prioritizing their spending over the next 10 years without taking from the active personnel. We have an excellent military that really depends on its soldiers that should really be looking out for them, not the military/industrial complex. We can put off some of the future weapons for a short period until we have recovered. We can continue to maintain our current force without cuts to personnel and continue to maintain and upgrade their supplies and weapons on a lot less than we are allocating now. That is my position and I hope that our troops are kept adequately supplied and maintained.
I hope that future medical for you will be provided. You have earned it through your service.
Sorry for the mix-up.
When will the people my age (55) and over stop thinking that SS and Medicare are not government assistance. The idea that you paid in enough to cover your newly expanded lifespan is ridiculous. SS/Medicare is a pyramid scheme that would make Madoff blush. We - the elderly and retired are on WELFARE!! Period. And we are there because the liars, cheats and theives who have the run the country for decades lied to us or at a minimum, were ill prepared for the technological leaps that have been made enabling all of us to live much longer lives.
I don't know what the answer is - but the AARP commercials and this "I earned this" attitude of my generation needs to stop.
My parents are living the good life in their mid 80's. At 55 and self employed I just cancelled my catastrophic health insurance ($10,000 deductible) because I can't afford to pay $6,000 a year for it.
MSNBC /Obama team headline:
"Supercommittee talks at impasse"
Reality:
"Republicans Compromise, Democrats Refuse"
How do you see a compromise from the Republican members? Their proposal is to cut off second home write offs while cutting the top tier peoples taxes from 35% to 28%. Anyway you look at it, they are asking for a tax cut and make some bogus argument that such will give us more revenue. If you take away one write off, there will be another that gives them the money back, thus a net DECREASE in revenues. We are revenue starved at this point.
We are in a recession where more social support is needed for our fellow Americans. The recession results in less tax revenue which will require that the rest of us step up to the plate and provide the necessary support. I agree that there are budgetary cuts necessary, but we have a crisis on our doorstep now that needs to be addressed and it will cost those of us paying to continue to do so. We can then address the budgetary needs when we start getting the country back on its feet.
Bob, I don't believe you're really that stupid. You're just being disingenuous. Did you even look at the republican proposal? Their "revenue" is messing with tax credits for ordinary Americans, and they want LOWER tax rates for the rich in return?! This is a joke.
ernie...bob is that stoopid!!!!!!!
And I suppose the Bush Tax Cuts from the last decade SHOULD be made permanent? Yeah right, and I'm Fiesty Redhead in California...not a redhead but I love being fiesty.
beachbum, the problem for you is that the alternatives the Tea Nuts are pushing to replace Obama are bat@!$%# crazy fools. And America knows it. The only guy that even has a chance of looking better than Obama is Huntsman, and there's no way he'll get nominated. Too bad.
Ernie
And just how many middle class people that you know have a second house?
What "tax credits for ordinary Americans" are the Republicans messing with???
The Republicans cannot break their pledge to Norquist to reject any new revenue. Why would membership on a Super Committee cause Republicans to think that government can handle things like education, scientific research, parks, roads or clean air and water better than the Koch brothers?
this is great news.
let them fail and mandated cuts take effect.
Do you really think the mandated cuts will not be changed - at least to make budget cuts in protecting clean air and water, promoting scientific research and student loans count as cuts to the military budget.
Clean air and water promote military strength by making our populous healthies. Scientific research allows us to build smarter bombs and better education provides the brain power to dream up those smarter bombs. Expenditure cuts in any of these areas certainly limits our military capacity, so those cuts count towards the military budget. Absolutely.
"Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, laughed off the GOP assertions that Democrats have walked away from negotiations.
All we're doing is waiting for them to come back with a realistic, fair, balanced proposal with adequate revenue. We've been very clear to them"
Hey John. As my Sr. Senator I'll listen to what you have to say when you stop parking your 20 million dollar yacht in RI to avoid paying the taxes in MA - the state you are supposed to be representing! You want to talk revenue - how about you pay your own fair share you tax dodging, botox using, gold digging, hypocritical, moon bat liberal carpet bagger.
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!
You had a good point going until you got nasty. Let's keep it clean shall we??
I agree Bob, that botox using reference was way over the top ....
With a 9% approval rating, you would think Congress would listen to the people, get their act together and get some work done. The partisan bickering is beyond belief.
just waiting out the socialist in the WH
Hey Alex, the 9% approval rating applies to Republicans as well. Plus, given the beating Teabaggers got yesterday on election day, your comment sounds, well, old and tired.
fire them all and start over
Alex, that I can agree with.
Jim, you are correct. BOTH parties are to blame (BTW, if you want to be taken seriously and make a contribution to the debate using derogatory names like "Teabaggers" minimize your perceived intelligent or ability to make a rational point. I suggest you contribute like an adult if you want to be treated like an adult).
I agree with Jim that both parties are at fault and agree with Alex that getting "rid of them all" should be our focus in 2012. If any politician has been in office for more than 12 years (2 Senate terms or 6 House terms) then VOTE THEIR BUTTS OUT!! BTW, I mean BOTH PARTIES!! I am sick and tired of "career politicians" who have never worked a single day in the "real world" and then feel like they are "untouchable".
I beg EVERY ONE OF US to vote out any incumbent in the primaries who has been in office12 years or more. GET RID OF ANY POLITICIAN FROM EITHER PARTY THAT HAS BEEN IN OFFICE 12 YEARS OR MORE!! At least we would get rid of the "dead wood" in Washington!!
In the national election we should then have a NEW Republican and a NEW Democrat running against each other. If a Democrat wins so be it. If a Republican wins so be it. But at least EITHER one of these will understand they need to answer to WE THE PEOPLE going forward and will know they have 12 years to make an impact then get the #$%@ OUT OF D.C.!!
Our founding fathers went home, took care of their farms and families, then came back to D.C. periodically to "take care of business". It was NEVER intended to be a lifetime job!! So let's get rid of ALL politicians who have been in office 12 years or more!! BOTH PARTIES!!
12 AND OUT!!! 12 AND OUT!!! 12 AND OUT!!! 12 AND OUT!!! 12 AND OUT!!! 12 AND OUT!!!
While I believe in term limits, these were never introduced by our founders. It is disingenuous and presumptuous to think you know what they intended since most of the founders served half their lives in government and never wrote anything about term limits.
You berate someone calling a tea party member a "teabagger". yet completely gloss over someone calling the POTUS a socialist. First the tea party called themselves "teabaggers", second only the far right calls Obama a socialist, and only as a way of name calling.
Since 2010 and all the new freshmen politicians came into office, would you feel that things got better or worse with compromise? Fresh blood didn't work.
What really needs to be done, IS TAKE ALL SPECIAL INTEREST OUT OF POLITICS!! These special interest hold sway indefinitely without elections. They hold power over the old politicians and the new.
My idiot Congressman from Illinois (Costello D) has apparentlys seen the writing on wall and will not be seeking reelection. Maybe finally we will get some decent representation for the folks in southern Illinois. I'm not worried about him though, he will live very nicely off of his government pension, his wife's salary from a job she is clearly unqualified for as the Chancellor of South West Illlinois college. Funny she took the job and its heafty salary, but for some odd reason, we had to continue to pay the retiring Chancelor's salary so he could teach her how to do the job. That only took 2 years. Democrats in southern illinois just can't get off the government paycheck. Oh i almost forgot, Costello's son was just appointed to replace a retiring state representative (D of course) so now his entire family gets a government paycheck.
Taish: First, let me correct you - I NEVER said the founding fathers believed in term limits. Maybe if you read my post rather than simply ignoring it because I am clearly Conservative. What I said was that the founding fathers did not expect nor plan for these positions to be career positions. They did their work in Washington then went home to take care of their personal families and personal businesses. I NEVER said they desired term limits. If they wanted term limits they would have put term limits in the Constitution. Notice I also did not state that there should be Constitution requirements of term limits. I debate that internally on a constant basis and go back and forth on that. However, that doesn't mean that we, as voters, should not put pressure on our elected politicians to continue to act on our behalf. They tend to disregard our positions as they stay in office longer so I believe it is important for us, as voters, to "clean house" periodically and keep things fresh.
Second point: I berate someone for calling a Tea Party member a "teabagger". Yes? And your point? That is a very disrespectful and derogatory term. Maybe you don't know what that means but is as bad as calling a black person the "N" word. And your defense? That I don't personally state in my reply that some call the President a Socialist. First of all what kind of ignorant defense is that? That someone else somewhere in another page called the President a Socialist but somehow I am supposed to take the time to look throughout the internet and find someone else who happened to call Obama a name but because THAT occurred I am not entitled to tell Jim that the term he used is totally inappropriate?
That is like your boss catching you calling him a name and your defense is that you heard another employee call someone ELSE a name so you can still call your boss a name? Does that make ANY sense that anyone with an IQ above a turnip would believe?
Then you state in 2010 we had freshman politicians. It is BECAUSE of the freshman politicians that we FINALLY have politicians that realize the "old way" is killing this country. Actually fresh blood DID work and is stopping this "status quo" that has been traditional by the "old wood" in Washington.
Then you say take the special interests out of politics. Ironically you confirmed my point of limiting terms!! Ask the question WHY is there special interests? Because politicians continually want to get reelected sometimes for decades and some for 40 years or more. HOW do they get reelected? Because special interests have "bought" these politicians. Massive investment in reelections to keep their "power" in Washington. Remove the "lifetime" politicians and special interests would slowly go away because they would have to continually find different politicians to "buy" for the next 6 years.
In summary, I suggest you actually READ my previous post rather than making irrational, unintelligent, and incorrect assumptions about what I said when in fact I never did say.
ProBusiness....as I noted in an earlier post TERM LIMITS is the only answer to getting politics out of government which is the root of the problem whether it be special interests, corruption, dead wood or in whatever manner it manifests itself. I agree the founding fathers would not have foreseen the "career politician" royalty which we have allowed to take the place over government of the people by the p......., but of course they didn't see the advent of the mobile phone either.
My years limit would 8 total in all elected positions.....local, state, federal but I would be happy with 12 providing it was no more than 8 at any 1 position and or any federal position.
I do not however agree with your contention that the current "freshman class" in congress has been effective or shown anything other than politics as usual. They are for the most part just more career politicians who have taken advantage of the mood around the, how should we say, the Tea Party Movement to say and do pretty much anything to get elected and stay elected (the definition of a career politician") and have done absolutely nothing to work cohesively towards the betterment of the constituents or the country....unless you count signing the Norquist Pledge as being in line with their constitutional duties. I Don't and for the most part I don't think the majority of the voting population will swallow it and it will wind up being pounded in for a touchdown time and time again in the coming election.
cut, cap, then cut some more.
govt salaries and perks are out of hand... i smell Greece.
This committee was a joke from the start. Why would we need the rest of the house if we only got these guys doing all the work??? These guys in the house need to disband this committee and do the job they were elected to do. Nobody is surprised by this...they act like we are all supposed to be all shocked ....give us a break for having some intelligence guys.
Oh and Grover needs to be taken out and strung up along with anyone who signed his pledge....its treason to go against the oath you took to protect and defend this country...we come first..not that little big-mouthed thug.
"String em up" you say? Now, who exactly is the thug here? :)
Should've said "String em ALL up".
Both parties can't take each other seriously. Oddly enough, I feel the same way. Maybe all of congress will do nothing until the holiday vacation, at least then they will have an excuse for getting nothing done.
Send these nutless repRESENTatives packing. There is no leadership in Washington. Let the auto cuts take hold. I am sick of these self-serving idiots and I am voting my representative and senator out next year. UNOCCUPY Washington
Congressional Republicans have for the first time retreated from their hard line against new taxes, offering to raise federal tax collections by nearly $300 billion over the next decade as part of a plan to tame the national debt.
But Democrats rejected the offer Tuesday — along with the notion that Republicans had made a significant concession that could end the long standing political impasse— leaving a special debt-reduction committee far from compromise with less than two weeks until its Thanksgiving deadline.
The Repukes made a BS offer they knew damned good and well was DOA.
They will burn this country to the ground to achieve their ends.
They don't give a damn about anything accept having power.
I don't call it a deal when the Grand Obstructionist Party says we will raise taxes here, while lowering the Taxes on the Billionares and Trillionares from 36% to 28%. I call it insanity. If you want to get things done on the Super Committie, fire the Republican'ts.
Oh yes, if this super Committie cuts or changes Social Security, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid in any way, we the people will vote them out of office. The Republican'ts and Democrats cannot hide behind the supercommittie we the People are fully capable of Voting whole Supercommitties and anyone else out of office, if they Cut or Change Social Security Disability etc in any way shape or fashion, This goes for Democrats as well as the Party of the No and the Corporate Teabaggers too!!!
Raising 300b from mainly the middle class and cutting the top by over 10% (which wasn't calculated), would in fact lower revenue. How dumb do you think people are?
Except?
taishmoser
Well you wanted to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts. Here it is!! 300b in revenue raised from the middle class is just what the Bush Tax Cuts gave the Middle Class EACH YEAR of its existence.
As the old saying goes "Be careful what you wish for".
BTW your post is a bit skewed in the wrong direction.
if we don't get entitlements under control then we are Greece.
"if we don't get entitlements under control then we are Greece."
alex is right. Pi*s on the poor. Who need's 'em? Just don't touch the millionaires and billionaires, 'k?
DBO... personal responsibility is hell
"DBO... personal responsibility is hell"
Is that what having you job sent to India so the company can take in even more profit is called?
"Personal Responsibility"?
Who knew?
Alex: So is ethical living.
Why do they keep calling Social Security and Medicare "entitlements?" They make it sound like something terrible.....although we've paid into both of these accounts our entire working lives involuntarily. We were not able to "opt out" of paying into these accounts, so we ARE entitled to them, and that's not as terrible as the Republicans make it sound. I would opt for raising the retirement age to 67 and adding 1% to the money already taken out of my paycheck for Social Security....although I know that many others would not be able to do that without serious complications. And, if we'd repeal ex-President Johnson's bill to allow the government to "use" our Social Security funds for their pork barrel projects and FORCE them to pay all the IOU's they've written to this account.....we'd be sitting pretty!!
It's not that they are called entitlements, it's that they have demonized it.
You are entitled to collect SS after paying into your whole life, it IS your entitlement.
This was purposely done to change the topic and make it seem that it is the people that have earned entitlements fault.
A company receiving mega tax breaks when they are having record profits is a thief and is not entitled to those tax breaks. They lobbied weak politicians into office and destroyed altruistic politicians in the process of those tax breaks. That is way people are getting so fed up, that is why you have people in the street protesting wall street.
Money is the problem in Washington, that is why the best place to protest Washington is the root of the money, Wall street.
Well said, Taishmoser.
Didi
You paid for them,therefore you are ENTITLED TO THEM!! Thus the term ENTITLEMENTS! See the connection??? I just love the people who can't separate Entitlements from Welfare.
Well DUH!!! Democrats want to punish the "rich" so only tax increases are desired so more money not earned can be redirected to those that don't earn it. Republicans understand basic Economics and increasing taxes on the very people that are creating jobs will reduce economic growth so want spending cuts.
Let's put it this way: A husband makes $50,000 a year. Wife decides to increase spending on "fun" stuff to where now, after adding up all expenses, they are spending $75,000 a year. That is unsustainable. What are the solutions? Either tell the wife to spend less or tell the husband to get a second job. The second job route MIGHT make the wife happier in the short term but after a short while the husband cannot continue and ultimately loses his first job so they go deeper in debt. In other words the only solution is a family (or a government) to spend within their means.
The U.S. government traditionally spends about 20% of GDP. With all this borrowing by Obama we are currently around 25%. THAT is unsustainable and is why our economy is tanking. We have a president that does not support private business and actually wants to penalize them. So they are "waiting". If you want to fix the economy you MUST fix the business climate. But Obama doesn't want to do that. Punish the rich is his goal no matter how much damage it causes to our economy.
You are calling an increase in tax rate (on adjusted gross income, BTW) from 35% to 39% as "punishment". That makes no sense when we have a real problem where revenues for government are down due to 9%, or 16% or whatever percentage, unemployment. The need for government does not disappear under such circumstances, but the need actually becomes more acute. Thus, there needs to be the better off in our country to step up and provide a greater support for that government.
Forget the income tax rate. Eliminate capital gains as a separate income category. It's all income. Tax it all at the same rate.
The biggest problem is that no matter what percentage you want to charge the rich for taxes....they will always find a way to get around it. They can afford to pay high-priced CPA's to find the loopholes that allow them to pay the least amount of taxes possible!! The rest of us have to figure our taxes out ourselves and don't have the money to open accounts offshore to "hide" out profits. We are the ones that get stuck paying the entire percentage, while businesses rarely pay the 35% (in fact, most of them pay more like 10%) tax rate!! That's why we need to restructure the tax code to disallow big businesses and millionaires to using loopholes to get out of paying what they owe!!
Terrible analogy, to be more accurate would be a husband earns 50k a year and gives his wife 12.5k a year to spend on the household. Over the last few decades she was spending 12.5k-15k a year instead of using what she had in cash. So over time her credit cards start running higher and higher.
Finally she realises that she has 50k in credit card debt at the same time that her husband decided that 12.5k was to much and she need to go on 10k a year. With credit card payments and all the other life essentials she finds herself short, but her husband won't budge and give her a higher income. She takes more credit debt. The problem gets steadily worse.
What the husband should do is, cut up the credit cards (no deficit spending), BUT give more to pay the bills off (Which would take a huge revenue increase).
Once the bills are settled, then start discussing what is nessessarry and what isn't.
Didi, I agree with you about the loopholes. We should do away with most of them. But, the biggest problem really is that no matter what percentage you charge the rich for taxes....the govenrment will always spend it. Not only will they spend that, they will spend more than that.
Lets just say we taxed the rich enough to cover the entire deficit all at once. That still doesnt cover the national debt or the intrest on that debt. And it does not cover the next year after that when the govenrment spends even more than the year before. For me it is simple, the government needs to stop spending more than it takes in
so all of you who want to raise the capital gains tax, you do realize when you start taking money out of your 401K will pay those increased taxes right? The only way you won't pay taxes on your money when you take it out, is if you have invested in a ROTH IRA. So you should probably be very careful what you wish for.
Um, except for the occasional servant, rich people don't create jobs. Businesses do. And since most people are up in arms about large corporations and not small businesses, rich people don't even provide the bulk of the money to hire with. The rank and file investors do, and most of them are not rich. Most importantly, jobs are not the result of someone having extra cash. Jobs are the result of a projected increase in demand for your product. You hire because you need to to keep up. Which has jack-all to do with how much we tax the rich.
Creating Jobs..... what jobs? Jobs in China and India don't count for much in my book and that is exactly what they are doing. Happy to have massive tax credits for jobs created in the US and a massive Tax Wack for anyone taking money overseas (or south of the border) to create jobs in low wage costs countries to make things to be imported back in to the US and sold. Bang Wack Good Bye That's All She Wrote.....you want to take your riches overseas (this includes Australian Corps as well) then take the boat and the family too and see how you go paying taxes in some of the other countries around the world where the loophole and dodge schemes are not so plentiful.
Don't try to pull that stupid Tea Party Slogan "job creators" on me.....I was around for Reganomics and we are still waiting for it to trickle down. That dog don't hunt!!!
Republican Compromise? Really? Sounds more like tax redistribution. Tax increase to fund a tax cut for the wealthy. This is within the realm of Grover Norquist's pledge. Any congressman that has signed the pledge and Grover himself needs to be brought up on criminal treason charges. None of these members can negotiate in good faith. They have committed to Grover and not their constituents.
spend until the end baby.
we need more unions and more social programs for the indolent. lol
"we need more unions and more social programs for the indolent. lol"
Is that what you call someone who's job was eliminated via a merger or acquisiton made for the purpose of getting the company profit even higher- "indolent"?
Who knew??
DBO every post of yours i have read, tells me that you think of yourself as a victom. you want everything but you have the belief that someone else should pay for it. you do know that there is a difference between personal income and corp tax dont you? most of you guys vilify someone for wanting more profits at the same time wanting more for yourselves. i tell you what, pick a product any product you want to , then research all the way back to the raw materials to produce that product, every step of the way all the way to the store shelves,and then add up the taxes attributed to the total cost of that single product,(local, state, and federal) then come back and tell me where the greed is..... oh and by the way,total revenues for the federal government for 2010 were up by close to 5% over 2009 yet the gov continues to sell you and others on taxing the rich more. grow up and find out what the gov is really up to..
Scotch
You and Hitler would have gotten along well together. It's those damn rich people. If we send them to the ovens we can have their money and all will be well. A curse on you.
That's really a laugh. Kerry said we are not walking away we told them what we want and if they don't give it to us we are not going to talk to them. You see it's all their fault. Kerry is about as worthless a democrat as there is. Even democrats agree on that.
pelosi, reed, kerry, waters... Obama.
some of the finest political thinker of our time.
Jefferson would proud. lol
I know Jim. The Republicans made an honest offer to tax the middle class even more than they are being taxed now by taking away standard deductions for mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc..., you know all those things the little people pay. Imagine the nerve of the Democrats pushing for more. I mean really, what will they ask for next? Capital gains being taxed at the same rate as the income the little people work for? Can you imagine? I mean really, the republicans even offered to lower the tax rate on the richest people in the country to 28%. How can we not take their offer seriously!
I support taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income. It's time.
We are headed into deflationary depression. Borrowing and spending only delays it, but it also makes it bigger. For many decades, every democratically elected government borrowed and spent to postpone and fix recessions at their watch. And debt has reached excessive levels. When we pay down debt, it makes a recession. It is a good thing. If we reduced total debt through smaller recessions for decades, we would not be facing a depression now. But thanks to FED's easy money policy for decades, we have to have another Great Depression because the problem is too big to fix:
www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/economy/deflationary-crash/
dave
How many middle class people have 2 houses??? As far as taxing medical expenses. Have you looked at the Health Care Law??? The tax deduction for medical expenses is RAISED from 7.5% to 10% by OBAMA!!That means that you must spend 2.5% MORE on medical BEFORE you can use the Deduction! I wonder how much in Taxes that will cost you in 2013 when it takes effect!
What happened to "No new taxes on the Middle Class"
Here are some more HIDDEN TAXES in the Health Care Bill.
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/health-care-reform-tax-hikes-on-the-way.html
Maybe Pelosi and the Democrats should have READ THE BILL!
Slodon, what does your post have to do with the Republicans on the supercomittee having proposed doing away with all of these itemized deductions now? What does it have to do with them simultaneously proposing that the top tax rate be dropped to 28%? You do know that the Republicans were calling this a way of increasing revenue? How many people in the top 1% own 6 houses?