Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan

[Cigar]

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen839CB279-745B-5BAC-1C3D-E248D636FF2D.jpg&width=380

President Obama had to endure some deeply unpleasant experiences with Congress over the last couple of years, but the result of the incidents taught him valuable lessons. It's clear, especially after last year's debt-ceiling crisis, that the president now knows exactly how to negotiate with reckless, radicalized Republicans.


Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.
For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.

Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out...Republicans seemed stunned late yesterday while condemning Obama's offer, as if the president shouldn't have the audacity to present a plan he knows they won't like. But I'd remind GOP lawmakers that everything in Obama's proposal is consistent with his previous budget plans and the policies he presented to the public during the recent national campaign (which he won fairly easily).

Indeed, Obama is acting like a confident, re-elected president who expects congressional Republicans to start moving in his direction, not the other way around. GOP leaders aren't accustomed to this dynamic, but it's probably time they adapt to their new surroundings.



http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/30/15568521-obama-offers-gop-an-ambitious-progressive-debt-reduction-plan

[keymanjim]

Where will the tax increases be? Where will the cuts be?
Why do they fail to mention an unlimited debt ceiling?

I'll pass on obama's disasterous plan.

[nic34]

From your link:


As of this morning, there's one plan on the table, and it's Obama's. Boehner & Co. don't like it? Fine. Where's their competing plan?
Republicans desperately want the president to negotiate with himself -- keep presenting increasingly conservative ideas until GOP leaders say they're satisfied. Obama clearly isn't willing to play that game anymore.


Extend tax cuts for those up to 250k let the +250k cuts expire, take the $400B savings from the provider side of Medicare/aide and be done with it.

Oh, and throw in a dash of 'reform the DAMN FILIBUSTER' rule in the senate.

Simple.

[Cigar]

Negotiations Instructions 101:

Rule #1 – After receiving offer; Counter with an offer. :grin:


http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/PalmeK/2012/PalmeK20121130_low.jpg

[Chris]

No spending cuts, no good. In fact more spending. And no limits on borrowing.

[keymanjim]

Negotiations Instructions 101:

Rule #1 – After receiving offer; Counter with an offer. :grin:


http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/PalmeK/2012/PalmeK20121130_low.jpg
Nice cartoon. Has no basis in reality, but it does epitomize the entire obama administration.

[patrickt]

Nic is right. Higher taxes, increased spending, and shut down any opposition.

[Cigar]

Bring on the Cliff ... :grin:

[keymanjim]

Bring on the Cliff ... :grin:
Exactly. We can't fix the problem when those tasked with the job refuse to see it.

[Chris]

Bring on the Cliff ... :grin:

http://i.snag.gy/9hyt7.jpg

[Cigar]

http://i.snag.gy/9hyt7.jpg


You can't get Airborn unless you're willing to take a leap

[Chris]

You can't get Airborn unless you're willing to take a leap

You said "Bring on the Cliff ...", Thelma.

[patrickt]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cigar http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=193049#post193049)
Bring on the Cliff ... :grin:

Probably because the entitlement babies aren't going to cut spending one cent. Increased taxes, increased spending, and totally shut down any opposition.

Leaping isn't involved in getting airborne. It is involved in plummeting to your death. So, please, Cigar, leap away but leave me alone.

[Mainecoons]

That's "airborne" ignoramus.

:rofl:

[Chris]

Wile E Cigar...

http://i.snag.gy/HZyYo.jpg

[Cigar]

That's "airborne" ignoramus.

:rofl:


What's wrong?

Couldn't keep me on your ignore list. :rofl:

[Chris]

What's wrong?

Couldn't keep me on your ignore list. :rofl:

Problem is people quote you.

[nic34]

entitlement babies aren't going to cut spending one cent.

Anyone for cutting the money they've paid for years into SS and Medicare deserves to lose it.

More for the rest of us workers....

[Chris]

Anyone for cutting the money they've paid for years into SS and Medicare deserves to lose it.

More for the rest of us workers....

So as long as it's other peoples' money, right? Same with taxes, right?

[patrickt]

Anyone for cutting the money they've paid for years into SS and Medicare deserves to lose it.

More for the rest of us workers....

How sad but at least you try. Did they keep it a secret from you that, along with higher taxes, the liberals want to reduce benefits for people who've earned and saved and invested all their lives. There has to be more for the deadbeats.

[nic34]

the liberals want to reduce benefits for people who've earned and saved and invested all their lives.

Better tell Boehner he's now a "liberal".

[wazi99]

Whats amazing here is with only 10 days left to go Obama doubles his demands. I think its clear he doesn't want a deal and hopes we go over the cliff as it will help is plan for higher taxes on every.

That is the only explanation for doubling his requests for tax hikes and asking that the debt limit control be turned over from Congress to the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fiscal-cliff-talks-bogged-down-by-dispute-over-cost-of-retirement-programs/2012/11/29/99022ac0-3a2e-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html


Although the White House offer seemed to startle Republicans, it contains little that would be unfamiliar to anyone following the president’s recent public statements. The exception was his proposal on the federal debt limit. GOP aides said Obama is seeking to permanently enact procedures that were temporarily adopted in the summer of 2011 that allow the White House to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling unless two-thirds of lawmakers disapprove.

[Peter1469]

From your link:



Extend tax cuts for those up to 250k let the +250k cuts expire, take the $400B savings from the provider side of Medicare/aide and be done with it.

Oh, and throw in a dash of 'reform the DAMN FILIBUSTER' rule in the senate.

Simple.

That alone would bring in ~$140B per year (using static accounting models that disregard any positive or negative effects of tax policy on the economy). Current deficits are running ~$1.3T. How is that a cut?

[Peter1469]

Anyone for cutting the money they've paid for years into SS and Medicare deserves to lose it.

More for the rest of us workers....

GOP proposals for entitlement reform do not affect those 50 or older. Then the reforms are done slowly over time so people who payed into these systems for decades won't take much of a hit.

[nic34]

"Much" is relative.

[nic34]

Current deficits are running ~$1.3T. How is that a cut?

That is a start and on the table. Repubs are saying the admin hasn't offered anything. That's BS.

Now let's talk defense budget cuts....

[Peter1469]

That is a start and on the table. Repubs are saying the admin hasn't offered anything. That's BS.

Now let's talk defense budget cuts....

Yes. Defense needs to be cut. The US should only spend money on defending the US. Not the world. But defense spending is an account error compared with entitlement commitments.

[nic34]

SS and Medicare are "earned benefits" not "entitlements".

"Earned benefits," because we contribute payroll taxes to fund them. Also it is the "estate tax," NOT the "death tax."

Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that moolah is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

[Chris]

That is a start and on the table. Repubs are saying the admin hasn't offered anything. That's BS.

Now let's talk defense budget cuts....

Where has the admin offered that? White House’s Opening Offer Excludes New Defense Cuts (http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/11/white-houses-opening-offer-excludes-new-defense-cuts/). Or, from October, $1 trillion in defense cuts: What you need to know (http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/news/economy/obama-romney-foreign-policy/index.html): "Obama said his budget isn't "reducing our military spending -- it is maintaining it.""

[nic34]

Where did I say the WH was going to cut defense...?

[Chris]

Where did I say the WH was going to cut defense...?

Post 26.

[Agravan]

SS and Medicare are "earned benefits" not "entitlements".

"Earned benefits," because we contribute payroll taxes to fund them. Also it is the "estate tax," NOT the "death tax."

Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that moolah is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.
The estate tax is nothing more than a direct theft of a family's money. Taxes have already been paid on that money. Why would you think the government is entitled to double tax it?

[nic34]

Post 26.


Read again.....

[nic34]

The estate tax is nothing more than a direct theft of a family's money. Taxes have already been paid on that money. Why would you think the government is entitled to double tax it?

Same as my income is taxed multiple times. Why are billionaires off the hook?

[Chris]

Read again.....

Unless you're in the habit of posting disconnected non sequiturs, you claimed the WH proposed cutting defense, which it plainly has not.

[nic34]

Extend tax cuts for those up to 250k let the +250k cuts expire, take the $400B savings from the provider side of Medicare/aide and be done with it.



That is what I posted.

In #26 I said let's talk....

[Chris]

That is what I posted.

In #26 I said let's talk....

This is what you posted in #26: "That is a start and on the table. Repubs are saying the admin hasn't offered anything. That's BS. Now let's talk defense budget cuts...."

Again, unless you have a habit of posting disconnected non sequiturs, defense budget cuts is your claim to what the admin has offered. Up to you, nonsense or incorrect.

[nic34]

You can't read english.

[Chris]

You can't read english.

You're the one wrote the disconnected non sequitur.

[nic34]

I see.... disconnected non sequiturs are illegal and you are the disconnected non sequitur monitor.

Fine.

It is my opinion the WH should include defense cuts, even tho they are not asking for increases. What they HAVE offered is savings in Medicare and medicaid which I believe the repubs are asking for, even if it isn't enough for them. That IS on the table.

If you can't figure out what a poster is saying go ahead and say so. Otherwise just being obtuse makes one look silly.

[truthmatters]

10 % accrossed the board tax cuts to the military are in the fiscal "cliff" deal.

[Chris]

I see.... disconnected non sequiturs are illegal and you are the disconnected non sequitur monitor.

Fine.

It is my opinion the WH should include defense cuts, even tho they are not asking for increases. What they HAVE offered is savings in Medicare and medicaid which I believe the repubs are asking for, even if it isn't enough for them. That IS on the table.

If you can't figure out what a poster is saying go ahead and say so. Otherwise just being obtuse makes one look silly.


I see.... disconnected non sequiturs are illegal

Why are you making things up? No one said they are illegal.


If you can't figure out what a poster is saying go ahead and say so.

I did. Your disconnected non sequitur is the source of confusion.



It is my opinion the WH should include defense cuts

Like Peter, I agree.

[truthmatters]

why did you avoid the on point part of the post?

[Chris]

why did you avoid the on point part of the post?

Do you mean "It is my opinion the WH should include defense cuts"?

I agreed.

[Peter1469]

Same as my income is taxed multiple times. Why are billionaires off the hook?

The estate tax, where the estate is passed to family, is immoral. But then Obama and his ilk don't think that they made that money.

[nic34]

The estate tax, where the estate is passed to family, is immoral. But then Obama and his ilk don't think that they made that money.

You're looking at only three of every thousand of the wealthiest estates owing any estate tax at all.

Even though the top rate under the proposal would be 45 percent, that's 45 percent after taking a large exemption of $3.5 million per person and $7 million per estate ... And with some special valuation rules, you're looking at an effective average tax rate of less than 20 percent.

Dude, do you really need to keep protecting the gazillionaires?

[Agravan]

Same as my income is taxed multiple times. Why are billionaires off the hook?
Bullsh*t

[Agravan]

You're looking at only three of every thousand of the wealthiest estates owing any estate tax at all.

Even though the top rate under the proposal would be 45 percent, that's 45 percent after taking a large exemption of $3.5 million per person and $7 million per estate ... And with some special valuation rules, you're looking at an effective average tax rate of less than 20 percent.

Dude, do you really need to keep protecting the gazillionaires?
It's their money. Not yours.

[Peter1469]

You're looking at only three of every thousand of the wealthiest estates owing any estate tax at all.

Even though the top rate under the proposal would be 45 percent, that's 45 percent after taking a large exemption of $3.5 million per person and $7 million per estate ... And with some special valuation rules, you're looking at an effective average tax rate of less than 20 percent.

Dude, do you really need to keep protecting the gazillionaires?

That doesn't address my point. Try again.

[Chris]

It's their money. Not yours.

Exactly.

So how then could it be fair to steal it?

[nic34]

It's their money. Not yours.

Well if they are unwilling to pay their fair share as I and all working Americans have for the common good of the nation including the roads and bridges and the rest of the infrastructure that made it possible to amass that wealth, I suggest they move on out to Somolia where they can keep every bity penny of THEIR money.

[Peter1469]

Well if they are unwilling to pay their fair share as I and all working Americans have for the common good of the nation including the roads and bridges and the rest of the infrastructure that made it possible to amass that wealth, I suggest they move on out to Somolia where they can keep every bity penny of THEIR money.

Define fair share.

Go

[nic34]

Examples of not fair:

Making $1,000,000 in the stock market - 15%

Romney - 13.9%

The rest of working Americans - 25 - 30%

[Taxcutter]

Where are the spending cuts?

[Peter1469]

Examples of not fair:

Making $1,000,000 in the stock market - 15%

Romney - 13.9%

The rest of working Americans - 25 - 30%

Why?

If I earn money and put it into the stock market and make $1M in interest and dividends-- I already paid the individual rate on the initial investment. The 15% long term cap gain rate is meant to encourage investment.

Romney's rate is a reflection of the above. Plus, the investment income from his own company was already taxed at the corporate tax rate of 35%, don't forget that. What is 35 + 15?

Last one. No most Americans don't pay 25-30% in federal income taxes. That is what our mothers would call a lie.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456


Strange, you cite to Romney's effective tax rate to support you point. And you cite to marginal tax rates of normal Americans to support you point.

Did you do that on purpose? :shocked:

Most people fall for it, so I don't blame you. Boom.

[nic34]

Where are the spending cuts?


As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/forever-moving-the-goal-posts-on-spending-cuts/2012/11/29/e9485c74-3a4d-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html) points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."


I can understand the temptation to block 2011 from memory, but what transpired is clearly relevant to the current debate. Obama wanted a "balanced" approach last year -- some cuts, some new revenue -- but didn't get it. Instead, faced with the prospect of Republicans crashing the economy on purpose, the president accepted a deal with a whole lot of spending cuts.



http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573691-the-spending-obama-already-cut

[Cigar]

Is this with or without your cayman island account?

[Peter1469]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573691-the-spending-obama-already-cut

Most of those cuts were no more wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had already pulled out of Iraq, so that spending certainly should not be part of the math. We planned to leave Afghanistan by 2014, so that shouldn't be factored into spending savings after that.

This is what politicians do. They lie to you. And too many of you suck it up and believe it. And that is why we elected Obama.

[nic34]

OK, correction. (See, I'm reasonable.) :cool2:


The 400 highest-income households, all of whom made over $110 million in 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, for an average of $271 million —paid just 18.1 percent of their incomes in Federal income (excluding payroll) tax on average, according to the IRS. In 2007, it was just 16.6 percent. This is nearly half the 29.9 percent rate those households paid on average in 1995.

In contrast, the middle class have seen their taxes roughly constant, or slightly increasing, over this period. The middle quintile, for example, paid 14 percent of its income in taxes in 1960 and 16 percent in 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Buffett_Rule_Report_Final.pdf

I guess you would say that's fair. Sure. It's why the repubs lost. :smiley:

[Chris]

Well if they are unwilling to pay their fair share as I and all working Americans have for the common good of the nation including the roads and bridges and the rest of the infrastructure that made it possible to amass that wealth, I suggest they move on out to Somolia where they can keep every bity penny of THEIR money.

So explain to us how you calculate "fair share" and "common good".

[nic34]

A private nuclear plant probably uses a lot more of the commons (common good) ....water...than an individual. Maybe the shareholders should build their own dams and reservoirs rather than shifting the burden to households.

Re-activating the 4th Fleet, landing marines in Costa Rica and expanding military bases in So. America because Bolvia dared to take back its rainfall from Bechtel Corporation should probably be financed by Bechtel. Americans, as a whole, have no stake in who owns Boliva's rain.

Probably business utilizing huge trucks to transport their products causes more wear and tear on the highway system than a family auto. Truck traffic tore up a major road in a town I used to live in. The people who didn't tear it up paid to fix it. :wink:

[Chris]

So explain to us how you calculate "fair share" and "common good".

Bump

In the post I commented on you spoke to "for the common good" and now above you speak to "the commons", two totally different concepts. My question is how to you determine what is "for the common good"?

Same with "fair share"--what do you even mean by "fair"?

We could combine the two and ask, is "fair share" "for the common good"?

[Mainecoons]

Nic's post is so full of silliness don't know where to start. Lets start at the end. Nic, go look up how much fuel tax and road tax trucks pay. Then look up who was in charge of Congress when the truck weight limits were raised.

Bechtel stealing Bolivia's water? You get that one from the Twilight Zone?

Nic, you are a Cigar who knows how to spell. But you don't know how to check the BS you're getting from your lefty wacko sites against more credible sources. If you did, you wouldn't post such nonsense. I don't think you're dumb but I do think you're indoctrinated and lazy.

[Captain Obvious]

A private nuclear plant probably uses a lot more of the commons (common good) ....water...than an individual. Maybe the shareholders should build their own dams and reservoirs rather than shifting the burden to households.

Re-activating the 4th Fleet, landing marines in Costa Rica and expanding military bases in So. America because Bolvia dared to take back its rainfall from Bechtel Corporation should probably be financed by Bechtel. Americans, as a whole, have no stake in who owns Boliva's rain.

Probably business utilizing huge trucks to transport their products causes more wear and tear on the highway system than a family auto. Truck traffic tore up a major road in a town I used to live in. The people who didn't tear it up paid to fix it. :wink:

Wiki "heavy water".

Interesting read.