Republicans need some creative ideas to flummox President Obama.
Why not put on extra tax on Obama political appointees turned lobbyist?
If Hollywood likes tax increases so much, why not an extra tax on Left Coast creative types?
If Republicans can't be creative, they'll lose fiscal cliff negotiations.
December 3. 2012 - As we careen toward the "fiscal cliff," the House GOP faces a problem. Obama won't offer his own detailed plan which will involve big tax increases, until they offer their own plan -- which, Obama says, must contain big tax increases or he won't offer his.
That's a mug's game. Some have suggested that the House GOP should just walk away and let the nation go over the fiscal cliff. But I have some better ideas.
Truth is, Obama's not really a key player here. All that he can do is sign or veto whatever legislation comes to him. And since under the Constitution money bills originate in the House, even the Democratic Senate will have to accept, reject or amend whatever the House sends. So if Speaker Boehner et al. are smart, they'll send something that will be awkward, but politically damaging to reject. My advice:
1. Adopt the Bowles-Simpson Plan. The plan was the product of a bipartisan commission, chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, appointed by President Obama to address America's ballooning deficits and national debt. Most experts agree that it's a pretty good plan. President Obama didn't like it because it shrinks government too much.
Tough. It's a plan, which is more than President Obama has offered, and from a bipartisan commission he appointed. Can Obama get away with vetoing that? Can Senate Democrats get away with rejecting it and bringing on the automatic cuts and tax increases of the sequester? Doubtful. Plus, though the press tends to cover for Obama and blame Republicans, media types love Bipartisan Commissions.
2. Tax the revolving door. I mentioned earlier that Washington is getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. (And others are noticing this). One reason why this happens is the revolving door -- people shuttle between government, where they make rules governing business, and lobbying, where they make money by taking advantage of those rules.
Well, if you want less of something, tax it. So I recommend a 50% "excess salary" surtax on the earnings of government officials on the Executive Schedule -- cabinet and subcabinet officials, mostly -- in excess of their government salaries for the first five years after they leave. So, leave a cabinet job paying about $200,000 for a job paying $1 million a year, and the government will take half the $800,000 difference.
That seems fair. When it comes to post-government employment, the "you didn't build that" argument is 100% true. As an ex-official, your value comes from what you learned (or did) while on the public payroll. Let the public take a cut! I look forward to the White House's efforts to argue otherwise. For extra fun, Republicans could raise the rate to 91%, the Eisenhower top tax rate that Democrats have been waxing nostalgic about, and maybe make it retroactive to January 1, 2012.
3. Make Hollywood Pay Its Fair Share. At the DNC, actress Eva Longoria offered to pay more taxes. Well, back during that Eisenhower era that the Dems are so nostalgic for, there was a 20% excise tax on movie theater revenues. It was established to help pay off the post-World War II debt. Now we're in debt again. Bring it back. For added fun, extend it to DVD sales, movie downloads and music on CDs and over the Internet. As a great man once said, at some point, you've made enough money. If we need more tax revenue, who better to pay it than Hollywood fatcats with their swimming pools and private jets?
Well, those are just my thoughts. If the House GOP wants to put Obama on the spot, I'm sure they can come up with similar, but better ideas. If they don't, well, then people across the country will wonder why not -- and maybe look to the primaries in 2014.
yeah definitely... Though, I don't think he understands how government salary works.
I may have gotten it wrong, but the way it was explained to me, is that congress cannot legally make "selective" pay raises and pay cuts. Basically, they have to write it into legislation that ALL government employees receive either increase or decrease in pay, but apparently how much CAN be written separately. So, while people are complaining that congressmen need to take pay cuts to help government make ends meat, that would also mean that they'd have to give the military a pay cut as well... and most of us are "barely getting by"
The movie tax thing.. .ehh, I dont know, I mean it's been awhile since Ive been to the movies, but I know it was kinda spendy (minus the fact that it was a matinee). I know that there are plenty of people who will either not go to the movies and get PPV, or the DVD/blu-ray of whatever movie they wish to see.
I watched a segment on Fox News Channel (I was in a doctor's waiting room, on base) and their "experts" were predicting that things will get done as well, and that there are those out there who believe that for whatever reason, the congressional people (senators and reps. alike) seem to have a belief that they need to "act tough" to not appear weak before the people who voted them into office... But my thought is that I didn't vote for a person to "act tough" and vote on party lines, never give an inch and be a staunch a [political party here] as they can be... I voted these people in to office because I can't vote on everything, and I want them to get things done that will benefit the country.
I may have gotten it wrong, but the way it was explained to me, is that congress cannot legally make "selective" pay raises and pay cuts. Basically, they have to write it into legislation that ALL government employees receive either increase or decrease in pay, but apparently how much CAN be written separately. So, while people are complaining that congressmen need to take pay cuts to help government make ends meat, that would also mean that they'd have to give the military a pay cut as well... and most of us are "barely getting by"
He wasn't talking about the actual government employees. He meant people who moved from government to the same private sector they regulated. Like say an SEC employee moving to Chase. Not so much for the government lifer grunting away at GS-7.
So the guy is in favour of tax hikes, as long as they're on people he thinks are the cultural enemy. He doesn't even pretend to consider how much revenue they might create, or how much or how little impact they migh have on the industry in question, just if they're targeted at people he rails against in his little fictional cultural war. What a feth head.
Meanwhile, I think we'll probably end up with something between a ratio somwhere between an 80/20 and 90/10 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases. The tax increases will be entirely in the form of seeing the Bush tax cuts end, while spending will be across the board, excepting the military.
This will basically mean the Republicans will have given up very little. The Bush tax cuts they put into place without needing to give up anything will have only been partly surrendered, and to give those up they will have extracted considerable spending cuts from the Democrats. Despite this many, many pundits will rail about the awful compromise Boehner fell for, and they will call for his head. They probably won't get it, because they'd be replacing him with Cantor, and even the genuinely crazy know putting that guy in a position of real responsibility is bad news.
It will have a longer term strategic end though, as the pledge to Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes will have been broken. There will much wailing and gnashing about this, but no meaningful impact at the electoral booth. This will mark the first step in the road back to a GOP run by adults, for adults.
2. Tax the revolving door. I mentioned earlier that Washington is getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. (And others are noticing this). One reason why this happens is the revolving door -- people shuttle between government, where they make rules governing business, and lobbying, where they make money by taking advantage of those rules.
Well, if you want less of something, tax it. So I recommend a 50% "excess salary" surtax on the earnings of government officials on the Executive Schedule -- cabinet and subcabinet officials, mostly -- in excess of their government salaries for the first five years after they leave. So, leave a cabinet job paying about $200,000 for a job paying $1 million a year, and the government will take half the $800,000 difference.
Yeah, that's just wishful thinking. Does the author really not understand that both parties benefit from this, and neither one is going to propose any serious changes to the system? Expecting the republicans to voluntarily offer a tax on their wealthy supporters is just laughably idealistic.
(Of course it's still a good idea, even if there's no chance of it ever happening.)
sebster wrote: So the guy is in favour of tax hikes, as long as they're on people he thinks are the cultural enemy. He doesn't even pretend to consider how much revenue they might create, or how much or how little impact they migh have on the industry in question, just if they're targeted at people he rails against in his little fictional cultural war. What a feth head.
Meanwhile, I think we'll probably end up with something between a ratio somwhere between an 80/20 and 90/10 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases. The tax increases will be entirely in the form of seeing the Bush tax cuts end, while spending will be across the board, excepting the military.
This will basically mean the Republicans will have given up very little. The Bush tax cuts they put into place without needing to give up anything will have only been partly surrendered, and to give those up they will have extracted considerable spending cuts from the Democrats. Despite this many, many pundits will rail about the awful compromise Boehner fell for, and they will call for his head. They probably won't get it, because they'd be replacing him with Cantor, and even the genuinely crazy know putting that guy in a position of real responsibility is bad news.
It will have a longer term strategic end though, as the pledge to Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes will have been broken. There will much wailing and gnashing about this, but no meaningful impact at the electoral booth. This will mark the first step in the road back to a GOP run by adults, for adults.
But I'm in something of an optimistic mood today.
Heh... good point.
But, I'm all for that Simpson-Bowles idea...
Again, I'd be VERY surprise if they don't get a deal done.
Thanks for that. So my prediction looks a little more likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, I'm all for that Simpson-Bowles idea...
Again, I'd be VERY surprise if they don't get a deal done.
Yeah, I believe so too. Last time was a very strange set of circumstances, with Cantor trying to use the Tea Party faction of the GOP to usurp Boehner's negotiating position (either as part of a coup or just because he's a nut, I don't think anyone knows), coupled with it being a particularly heated political environment, and Obama handling the negotiations really terribly (offering up front, in public all kinds of concessions but then not conceding any more, basically giving Boehner nothing to 'win' in negotiation).
Add in that Republicans basically have nothing to win this time around - they can't make Obama a one term president anymore, and there is no point looking bad and hurting their own popularity if the other guy doesn't care about re-election any more.
Let me ask you, Whembly. Honest question. You are a conservative republican, correct? Regardless of what you label yourself, your postings on here make that fairly clear.
Doesn't ever ever bother you that your party essentially has ceded control over the tax policy of 300 million Americans to an unelected lobbyist? I mean, you guys hate "unelected bureaucrats" when it comes to healthcare, so why does this guy deserve such worship, exactly?
I want to see what happens if they don't do anything. Chaos is the spice of life.. or something. They'll probably squeeze out something with seconds on the clock and call it a day, but I'm genuinely curious as to what would happen, and how the public's faith shifts.
Let me ask you, Whembly. Honest question. You are a conservative republican, correct? Regardless of what you label yourself, your postings on here make that fairly clear.
Doesn't ever ever bother you that your party essentially has ceded control over the tax policy of 300 million Americans to an unelected lobbyist? I mean, you guys hate "unelected bureaucrats" when it comes to healthcare, so why does this guy deserve such worship, exactly?
I'm socially liberal (for gay marriage, don't really have a problem with welfare, tolerate Bieber (just kidding))
I'm a Defense hawk... (have utmost respect to those who serve)
I'm for smaller goverment and not too big on Social Policies in nature ( but, I've come to terms to the thinking that Single Payor Healthcare, ala Canada)
I REALLY believe in states rights, and I get aggravated that the Feds think that they can do it all.
I like the idea of Flat Tax ( but, accepted that it will never, ever happen).
I don't believe in a "living Constitution".
For repealing 17th amendment.
I'm pro-life, but want pro-choice society. (simply because govt shouldn't "control" your body).
Etc...
What the hell does that peg me? A South Park Republican? Loco Democrat???
As to answer your question: I disagree with your ascertation that the GOP"ceded control over the tax policy of 300 million Americans to an unelected lobbyist". That's not what happened. However, the whole idea that you "sign a pledge" promising never ever to raise taxes is asinine and it does bother me that politican play this game like this.
Ouze wrote: But you seem to think it's OK, even laudable, to play such stupid games as micro-targetting tax increases for ex-employees of the executive branch?
The tax code is a mess... I should know, I have family in the accounting world (mum's works for Ernst&Young). We have very strong opinion on this in my family. It's so riddled with favoritism and shenanigans that you really, really need to know these things in order to take advantage of them... the wealthy can afford to do that.
Having said that, would I be "okay" with micro-targeting on ex-employees of the executive branch? Don't care... that's what happens all over in the current tax code.
The writer of that article is supposing that if you leave public office, and use that recent knowledge to your advantage (a roundabout "insider trading"), then any $$ earned beyond what you've earned in office should be taxed higher in x number of years.
That's ugly... but, so is the tax code.
I'm curious... what would happen if we just cap ALL deductions to some arbitrary number (like, $15,000) for ALL tax brackets. I wonder how much more taxes the wealthy would pay?
Automatically Appended Next Post: [quote=Ouze 492619 5042524 62008de968df211111bfd97ca416e433.jpg
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I don't believe in a "living Constitution".
For repealing 17th amendment.
uh
Please tell me this was a subtle troll, right?
??? what part? The repeal of 17th amendment or the "living constitution" thing?
If it's the 17th amendment...
The direct representation of our Senators as opposed to have State Legislatures electing Federal Senators?
Tell you what. In Washington DC, there are Embassy / Consulates for Foreign nations that has "representative" to engage with our Federal Bureaucracy. Our STATES do not have this.
The Senators answers to the people. What about the State government?
The way it should be, is the the House should answer to the people and the Senator should answer to the State's legislatures. That's just my opinion. If you think that's flat out wrong, I'd be happy to engage you on this topic.
I think he meant the living constiution thing. Even strict textualists know, or should, that the constiution was meant to be a living document. Flexibility is key to survival, ask the Jews.
AustonT wrote: I think he meant the living constiution thing. Even strict textualists know, or should, that the constiution was meant to be a living document. Flexibility is key to survival, ask the Jews.
Amend it. There's a mechanism in place to change it. It's not that hard. THAT'S how to have a living constitution.
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to articulate is the laws should be interpreted in a "strict constituionalist" viewpoint. Not, when given the opportunity, allow deviations because "we are now ready for it" or "times a changing".
2. Tax the revolving door. I mentioned earlier that Washington is getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. (And others are noticing this). One reason why this happens is the revolving door -- people shuttle between government, where they make rules governing business, and lobbying, where they make money by taking advantage of those rules.
Well, if you want less of something, tax it. So I recommend a 50% "excess salary" surtax on the earnings of government officials on the Executive Schedule -- cabinet and subcabinet officials, mostly -- in excess of their government salaries for the first five years after they leave. So, leave a cabinet job paying about $200,000 for a job paying $1 million a year, and the government will take half the $800,000 difference.
Yeah, that's just wishful thinking. Does the author really not understand that both parties benefit from this, and neither one is going to propose any serious changes to the system? Expecting the republicans to voluntarily offer a tax on their wealthy supporters is just laughably idealistic.
(Of course it's still a good idea, even if there's no chance of it ever happening.)
Sorry... missed your response.
Glenn is a conservative (sort of), but he rails against the GOP as well as the Demoncrats.
Conceptually, it's a good idea... but, do we really need this sort of shenanigan in the tax code? (not that it matters )
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, it was the army air corps, then their britches got too big after the old dubbya dubbya two.
There's an argument to be made they needed to get away from the Army, I would opine they needed a separate budget but needed to remain more closely related to the Army to meet its needs without overlapping the Army's organic air component...or you know making it so the Amry didn't need it. But that's a long time gone.
whembly wrote: As to answer your question: I disagree with your ascertation that the GOP"ceded control over the tax policy of 300 million Americans to an unelected lobbyist". That's not what happened. However, the whole idea that you "sign a pledge" promising never ever to raise taxes is asinine and it does bother me that politican play this game like this.
Basically, Norquist rose to power in the wake of Bush I defeat in 1992, in large part due to breaking his promise not to raise taxes. That led to the pledge, and for a bunch of reasons and no shortage of shrewd skill by Norquist the whole thing has snowballed and gotten out of control, to the point where a political party has effectively denied itself an entire half of fiscal policy.
It is so extreme as to be unsustainable though, and I think once it comes down, and doesn't result in electoral annihilation, Norquist will be given a spot in the irrelevance room next to Rove.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Conceptually, it's a good idea... but, do we really need this sort of shenanigan in the tax code? (not that it matters )
It's not really a place for the tax code. I mean, the problem isn't that these people are earning lots of money, the problem is how much influence they have (and how much the promise of a job after a candidate's term has ended might sway legislation). The better solution is to place restrictions on how soon after leaving office you might take up such a position, if allowed at all.
And personally, I don't think it's ever a good idea to use the tax code to target specific industries. It's why that 'hit the bankers with extra taxes thing' in the wake of the bail out was a bad idea. And here it's even worse.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, it was the army air corps, then their britches got too big after the old dubbya dubbya two.
There's an argument to be made they needed to get away from the Army, I would opine they needed a separate budget but needed to remain more closely related to the Army to meet its needs without overlapping the Army's organic air component...or you know making it so the Amry didn't need it. But that's a long time gone.
Yeah, I think we'd have been better served by a Marines/Navy relationship than a new separate branch of snobbish dickholes who get substandard living pay for staying in the same room I did in AIT, except they had two people instead of eight. Plus we still have the army aviation, marine aviation, and navy aviation because interfacing with said snobbish dickholes is too much trouble.
I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, it was the army air corps, then their britches got too big after the old dubbya dubbya two.
There's an argument to be made they needed to get away from the Army, I would opine they needed a separate budget but needed to remain more closely related to the Army to meet its needs without overlapping the Army's organic air component...or you know making it so the Amry didn't need it. But that's a long time gone.
Yeah, I think we'd have been better served by a Marines/Navy relationship than a new separate branch of snobbish dickholes who get substandard living pay for staying in the same room I did in AIT, except they had two people instead of eight. Plus we still have the army aviation, marine aviation, and navy aviation because interfacing with said snobbish dickholes is too much trouble.
I always enjoy it when you guys whine because you went into the wrong recruiters office.
AustonT wrote: I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?
Are you referring to the AF ground crews? Why was that? When would you interact with them?
AustonT wrote: I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?
Are you referring to the AF ground crews? Why was that? When would you interact with them?
When? Every day. One of the wonderful perks of flying off the same field and sleeping in the same racks. See those mother fethers in the shower, at the chow hall, walking around the base like they were on vacation carrying around bags from the px, coming out of the pool and the movies theatre when we drove to pick up parts. And nut just all AF knuckle draggers in general the same individuals. Like teenagers at the mall in the middle of a war. I can't say the specifics of why in particular our AF sister unit raised my ire, but suffice to say it was petty and surreal when it happened.
I'm hearing a surprising numbe rof people that donot fear the fiscal cliff, but actively want us to go over it.
I heard some pundit getting a cute and referring to these people as cliff divers. He interviewed a few of them, and suffice it to say most had no real idea of the potential consequences of going over the cliff.
They just felt in their guts that somethign had to change and that the status quo was no longer sustainable.
It isn't always a misunderstanding of the situation that drives people, it is more often probably overestimating their ability to adapt to unknown situations. Everyone assumes they will be Mad Max or Lord Humungus, not the guy strapped to the front of the car.
For people that are in poor economic conditions I imagine they don't see it being that much of a change, and they may not be wrong; being poor before and after isn't a huge swing.
Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans offered their own proposal Monday in the heated battle to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but it was quickly rebuffed by President Barack Obama's administration for not demanding more from the nation's wealthiest taxpayers.
The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.
House Speaker John Boehner called it a "credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House."
The move follows spitting back and forth in recent weeks, with each side claiming the other isn't sincere about striking a deal to avoid automatic tax increases and spending cuts in January, a scenario many economists say would hurt the U.S. economy.
Senior Obama administration officials slammed the Republican plan, calling it a step backward in negotiations and not worthy of its own counteroffer because it isn't serious enough.
White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer criticized it for not meeting "the test of balance." Another Obama spokesman, Jay Carney, earlier said the president "will not sign a bill that extends those tax rates for the top 2%," as the GOP proposal would do.
"Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit," Pfeiffer said.
Republicans offered the plan amid pressure for a House vote -- which Boehner has so far prevented -- on a measure already approved by the Senate to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year and to allow rates to return to Clinton-era levels for wealthier households. Lower tax rates set in 2001 and 2003 were extended for two years as part of budget talks in 2010.
In line with his stances during his first term and re-election campaign, Obama's deficit-reduction plan would increase tax revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years, a significant cut of a $4 trillion overall deficit reduction goal. In addition to adding a $50 billion stimulus package, his proposal closes loopholes, limits deductions, raises the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increases tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
et Republicans, led by Boehner, have objected to any increase in tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans. They have said an agreement must include major reforms of entitlement programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid government-run health-care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor.
Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.
The GOP letter said the offer is based on a framework proposed last year by Erskine Bowles, a Democrat and one-time White House chief of staff who co-chaired a bipartisan deficit reduction panel appointed by Obama in 2010.
"This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform," the letter said. "Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs."
n his response, Pfeiffer said the Republican proposal "includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve."
"Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires," he said.
And Bowles denied any direct connection to the GOP proposal, saying it reflected his view of a middle-ground approach a year ago but "circumstances have changed since then."
"It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today," Bowles said.
Recent posturing on both sides -- such as Boehner saying this weekend he was "flabbergasted" by Obama's plan -- reflects mistrust built up over two years of deficit wars that have left Congress with a reputation for dysfunction.
In 2011, Republicans demanded major budget cuts before they authorized a hike in the federal debt ceiling, a fight that contributed to a U.S. credit rating downgrade.
The end of that crisis was a temporary fix that set up the current crisis, which sets the stage for sharp and widespread tax increases and the start of budget cuts of $1 trillion over 10 years if there is no agreement.
Experts have said failing to reach a fiscal cliff deal and devise a framework for a broader deficit reduction package to be negotiated when the new Congress is seated in January will cause economic turmoil and threaten the U.S. credit rating. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that middle-class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes without action.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released last week, 56% of respondents said higher taxes were a fair tradeoff if it helps lower-income people, while 36% said taxes should be kept low to create jobs.
Another survey, by ABC News and the Washington Post, showed two thirds of respondents support Obama's call for holding down tax rates for everyone except the wealthiest Americans.
So what happens next? Senior Obama administration officials said Monday the GOP's plan was a nonstarter, primarily because they said it would actually lower tax rates for those in the top 2% income bracket and was too short on specifics.
But even with no more offers officially in the works, both sides will keep talking, the officials said. That may happen as soon as Monday night, when all members of Congress are invited to a holiday reception at which they can talk to, among others, the president himself.
I'm sure you actually believe that the presidents plan to raise 1.6T in taxes is ONLY going to come from those evil 1% super rich right? Especially when in return he's only proposed .4T in cuts.
/slow clap
The republicans offered .8T in taxes and 1.2T in cuts
What a shocking fething suprise that you call actually making more cuts than taxes "nothing" in a government spending more than it makes. I mean fethballs if you put the two together we can have 1.6T in tax hikes AND 1.2T in cuts and actually solve the debt crisis. I mean let's forget about how you'll have less money and less government services.
But the republican offer is hardly nothing. In fact by the WH's math thier plan would relieve the debt to the tune of .6T more than the presidents plan.
Indeed, it's not nothing, just not the desired thing.
My advice to the president would be to do nothing. He'll have the tax hikes he wants anyway; the GOP will be blamed for it - specifically, they'll be (accurately) painted as having allowed taxes to go up on all Americans because they couldn't prevent them on the very wealthiest.
At that point, Obama will be able to lobby for a tax cut package for <$250k, at which point they GOP will likely try and block it (cause Obama) at which point they'll come off even worse. And eventually have to capitulate, I imagine.
Truthfully I don't know why we're even calling these "negotiations" per se. The Republicans really don't have anything in their hands to bargain with.
The GOP has quite possibly the most epic negotiating position. The House. If they really want to troll Obama, and they do, they take his plan keep all the tax hikes, add some "fees" to things they don't like, and add in thier own desired tax cuts. More revenue just like you asked Mr. Barry. What the problem is?
What they are offering is nothing new. It's the same crap. I think the cuts are fine, but taxes still need to be raised on the top 10% and additionally on the 1% while cutting loopholes and deductions from the tax system. This "new" proposal only sticks it to the lower and middle class. The republicans need to stop worrying so much about the ultra rich or they are going to lose all support form the working and middle class.
AustonT wrote: The GOP has quite possibly the most epic negotiating position. The House. If they really want to troll Obama, and they do, they take his plan keep all the tax hikes, add some "fees" to things they don't like, and add in thier own desired tax cuts. More revenue just like you asked Mr. Barry. What the problem is?
Except they don't have the Senate or the Presidency, so all they have is a roadblock.
As Ouze said, the President has all the cards this time, no matter what House Repubs do; they lose. They either raise taxes on core consitutents; or get blamed for tanking the economy by not doing anything.
Just think the Repubs walked right into this one on their own. I don't believe the hype that the Pres is playing multi-dimensional chess while everyone else is playing tiddly-winks; but he clearly outmanuevered them on this one.
Jihadin wrote: Same ole same ole in congress....I say go for it. Lets jump the cliff. We be screaming at first but it'll die down
Well... that might be Obama's/Democrat plan all along...
'cuz, the screaming and hollaring would get so loud due to the expiration of the Bush's tax cut...that the new Congress would cut taxes retroactively on the middle-class. And the prez comes out on top.
Ahtman wrote: It isn't always a misunderstanding of the situation that drives people, it is more often probably overestimating their ability to adapt to unknown situations. Everyone assumes they will be Mad Max or Lord Humungus, not the guy strapped to the front of the car.
For people that are in poor economic conditions I imagine they don't see it being that much of a change, and they may not be wrong; being poor before and after isn't a huge swing.
Yeah, I think that is a large part of it. People just blindly figure that they'll have the smarts to get through the unknown.
The other part is that you have a hell of a lot of people raised on political rhetoric. They honestly believe that the end game is to beat the other political side, and that doing that is winning. The idea that the first goal should always be stable, consistent government doesn't seem to occur to them even a little.
It isn't nothing. It's just offering up a deal that obviously the Democrats aren't going to accept.
And in response the Democrats call it nothing, and insist on some movement before they'll even begin to negotiate.
Both sides laying out their early positions, framing the boundaries of the upcoming debate. Politics 101 from both sides, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: My advice to the president would be to do nothing. He'll have the tax hikes he wants anyway; the GOP will be blamed for it - specifically, they'll be (accurately) painted as having allowed taxes to go up on all Americans because they couldn't prevent them on the very wealthiest.
At that point, Obama will be able to lobby for a tax cut package for <$250k, at which point they GOP will likely try and block it (cause Obama) at which point they'll come off even worse. And eventually have to capitulate, I imagine.
Truthfully I don't know why we're even calling these "negotiations" per se. The Republicans really don't have anything in their hands to bargain with.
The tax cuts aren't the only thing on the table. There's also all the cuts to discretionary programs, the extension of unemployment benefits would automatically end, as would the delay currently in place on cuts to Medicare. The tax cuts are the biggest thing, fiscally speaking, but all that other stuff matters a lot to Democrats.
The bigger issue, though, is that suddenly pulling all that money out of the economy, in new taxes and increased spending, would be disastrous for an economy still struggling through a fairly weak recovery. No sensible person would actually let it happen, but then there's a portion of the Republican party, led by Eric Cantor, that frankly aren't that sensible. And while it isn't fair, it turns out that holding the economy hostage works pretty well when people think you really are crazy enough to pull the trigger.
You know that if they can keep this peace thing up it will be the first time in 500 years that a new century hasn't been inaugerated with a Europe shattering war?
Ratbarf wrote: You know that if they can keep this peace thing up it will be the first time in 500 years that a new century hasn't been inaugerated with a Europe shattering war?
How is this even tangentially related to American fiscal policy?
Well no, but if America goes down the tubes Russia might get greedy.
If our economy stinks we won't be able to get involved in an international conflict, public support or not, and Russia will be free to have a European landgrab.
China may also pull something.
Best case scenerio in this event is Russia and China butting heads.
America is the global consumer, along with Asia and Western Europe.
If America stops consuming as much as it does, the economy of supplier nations gets hit. Which in turn will reduce supply, which will backlash against smaller consumer nations.
The US will be fine, but it could take years before we are able to act on the world stage again. And that would mean disaster for smaller countries, both economically and politically.
Sure, the system that works for a nation with a smaller population then California will automatically work great for a nation with ten times the population.
Grey Templar wrote: Well no, but if America goes down the tubes Russia might get greedy.
And the Spain would stand up and point out they have a bigger GDP and no-one pretends they're even slightly capable of bucking international convention and going on a land grab, and then everyone would look at Russia, swept away in its painful nostalgia driven fantasy, and they'd all feel back for the poor former empire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Take a look at Hungary and Greece. If America crashed again it would only get worse.
There would be impassioned but almost entirely peaceful protests, and difficult challenges for legislators?
It's not really the same thing as the wars through Europe you were talking about earlier, is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Somehow I doubt the UK, France, and Germany can take on Russia.
Yeah, you're wrong there. France or Britain are a match by themselves. Germany isn't far behind. All three together, as dogma said, it isn't even a contest.
And that's only looking at total spending. Once you factor in the gross corruption inherent in the Russian military (where troops are regularly drawn away from training to be sold to local businesses as cheap labour for the profit of commanding officers), then you're looking at a military that is barely capable of dealing with issues within its own borders - the idea that they'd be able to launch an offensive action against NATO forces, even without the US, is kind of laughable.
There would be impassioned but almost entirely peaceful protests, and difficult challenges for legislators?
It's not really the same thing as the wars through Europe you were talking about earlier, is it?
I was referring more towards the recent rise of far-right/fascist political parties in those countries. Notably Jobbik and Golden Dawn. I mean, history repeats itself right? The last time Europe had a decade of economic stagnation/crisis they ended up with Mussolini and Hitler.
Grey Templar wrote:Sure, the system that works for a nation with a smaller population then California will automatically work great for a nation with ten times the population.
It would indeed. It's based on rates, which do not differentiate between small and large numbers. But good try with the meaningless rhetoric.
Besides, the real loser in that deal would be Canada. We'd be forced to inherit all that crazy.
There would be impassioned but almost entirely peaceful protests, and difficult challenges for legislators?
It's not really the same thing as the wars through Europe you were talking about earlier, is it?
I was referring more towards the recent rise of far-right/fascist political parties in those countries. Notably Jobbik and Golden Dawn. I mean, history repeats itself right? The last time Europe had a decade of economic stagnation/crisis they ended up with Mussolini and Hitler.
So we get to fight the Battle of Thermopylae VIII?? And Spartans?! Sign me up
Honestly mate, I cannot see hungary and Greece pulling a Hitler/Mussolini type government. And if they did, who is really gonna car?? Greece and Hungary dont exactly produce much that is highly valued outside of those countries.
whembly wrote: If ya'll want some fireworks... have the GOP just pass a bill to make Bush's tax cut permanent and dare the Prez/Senate not to pass it.
I don't see that as being a tough fight. The President has said any deal must raise taxes on the top 2%. This is unambiguous. The people will understand this argument and agree that GOP is trying to screw them. Obama will call it balancing the deficit on the backs of our poorest or some such.
whembly wrote: IOr, pass the Simpson-Bowles in it's unedited entirety and dare the Prez/Senate table it.
.
This is a better argument. The counterargument is that this was agreed to in a bilateral manner for the fiscal situation at the time it was agreed to, not the fiscal situation we have now - but this is a far more subtle argument to try to explain to the voters. I think the GOP's best possible win in this is will include that element.
whembly wrote: If ya'll want some fireworks... have the GOP just pass a bill to make Bush's tax cut permanent and dare the Prez/Senate not to pass it.
I don't see that as being a tough fight. The President has said any deal must raise taxes on the top 2%. This is unambiguous. The people will understand this argument and agree that GOP is trying to screw them. Obama will call it balancing the deficit on the backs of our poorest or some such.
whembly wrote: IOr, pass the Simpson-Bowles in it's unedited entirety and dare the Prez/Senate table it.
.
This is a better argument. The counterargument is that this was agreed to in a bilateral manner for the fiscal situation at the time it was agreed to, not the fiscal situation we have now - but this is a far more subtle argument to try to explain to the voters. I think the GOP's best possible win in this is will include that element.
Agreed on both points.
I don't think anyone knows exactly what the Prez/Dem/Rep full plans are... but, like Seb said earlier... this is politics 101 and I'm sure there's negotiations going on. They'll get it done.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, what's going on here??
Mitch McConnell offered to give Democrats a chance to go on the record to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff... by agreeing to allow a floor vote on Geither and Obama's plan... and Reid refused to put it up for vote:
If the President’s proposal was made in good faith, Democrats should be eager to vote for it. So I’m surprised the Majority Leader just declined the chance for them to support it with their votes. I guess we’re left to conclude that it couldn’t even pass by a bare majority of votes, and that they’d rather take the country off the cliff than actually work out a good-faith agreement that reflects tough choices on both sides. … I think folks should know who actually wants to raise taxes on family farmers and manufacturers, and who thinks we can solve our fiscal problems without doing anything serious to our real long term liabilities. Democrats are so focused on the politics of this debate they seem to forget there’s a cost. They’re feeling so good about the election, they’ve forgotten they’ve got a duty to govern. A lot of people are going to suffer a lot if we go off this cliff. That’s why we assumed Democrats wanted to avoid it. We thought it was the perfect opportunity to do something together. Apparently we were wrong.
But... technically, Mitch couldn't have done this because that bill has tax/revenue changes... and that needs to start at the House. Right? Unless they could use that "Budget Reconciliation" function?
Let's hope that this is just an act and they're privately negotiating behind the scene.
Washington (CNN) -- Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.
Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.
The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.
Republicans once opposed to any new revenue in their quest to shrink government now realize Obama's victory and public support for the president's campaign theme of higher taxes on the wealthy leave them with little negotiating leverage.
Less than four weeks from the fiscal cliff, GOP leaders face a choice: Agreeing to Obama's demand to hold down tax rates on most Americans while allowing higher rates on top earners, or being blamed for everyone's taxes going up in 2013.
Washington (CNN) - In a significant development in the fiscal cliff standoff, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a leading deficit hawk, said Wednesday he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to avoid the crisis.
"I know we have to raise revenue," the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."
Coburn, who served on the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission and participated in the Gang of Six deficit talks, was one of the first Republicans a couple of years to embrace raising revenue to reduce the deficit. At that time, he wanted to do it through reforming the tax code by eliminating loopholes and deductions that he argued favored the rich and powerful. But now he appears to be the first GOP senator to say publicly he would back increasing the tax rates on the wealthy, as long as that increase is coupled with spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
Ratbarf wrote: I was referring more towards the recent rise of far-right/fascist political parties in those countries. Notably Jobbik and Golden Dawn. I mean, history repeats itself right? The last time Europe had a decade of economic stagnation/crisis they ended up with Mussolini and Hitler.
And Franco, everyone forgets poor Franco. He's left standing at the side shouting 'I was a tyrant as well, you know!'
That said, the political situation was really very different. The democracies of all three nations at that time were very new, with little history or tradition behind them. Note that in countries with longer traditions of democracy (and not even that much longer in some cases) fascism barely got a look in. And don't forget that fascism was a very direct response to the rise of communism, both internationally and within the countries in question.
It wasn't just economic problems, is what I'm saying. Politically those countries had significant other issues causing instability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Looks like the line in the sand is shifting:
Washington (CNN) -- Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.
Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.
That's a smart move by the Republicans - they were never going to win from a position of protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. Now they can say they've conceded something, so now it's up to the Democrats to concede something...
Ratbarf wrote: You know that if they can keep this peace thing up it will be the first time in 500 years that a new century hasn't been inaugerated with a Europe shattering war?
How is this even tangentially related to American fiscal policy?
The massive government spending on WWII is a big part of what dragged us out of the Great Depression.
It wouldn't work now, the government is way too far in debt too early in the scenario to do it again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the system that works for a nation with a smaller population then California will automatically work great for a nation with ten times the population.
So with all this military spending listed. Why in the nine circles of hell do we still have combat troops deployed in Europe? The mobility bases I get, but why the feth are we wasting billions on stationing ground troops in Germany still?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The mobility bases I get, but why the feth are we wasting billions on stationing ground troops in Germany still?
As I understand the base in Germany is now a fairly important part of any deployment/supply effort into the Middle East. It's where critically wounded troops get taken for major operations.
That said, I have no idea if Germany is used in that role because it's actually useful in its own right, or just because they have a base there so they might as well make use of it.
We could save a bit of money by making people actually pay for these:
Apropos nothing, I don't really see any logical reason to use the FILBE over the ILBE. DOD spending is excessive from the F35, all the way down to the equipment soldiers carry on their backs.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The mobility bases I get, but why the feth are we wasting billions on stationing ground troops in Germany still?
As I understand the base in Germany is now a fairly important part of any deployment/supply effort into the Middle East. It's where critically wounded troops get taken for major operations.
That said, I have no idea if Germany is used in that role because it's actually useful in its own right, or just because they have a base there so they might as well make use of it.
The base you're talking about is Rammstein, and one of the mobility bases I was referencing, but there's something like 300,000 American Marines, airmen, soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe, they aren't all transit and medical staff.
I believe we should go over the cliff. Let the stalemate continue.
Then if the Republicans had the political sense to play the Democrats game they would immediately start using the line "It would have been much worse if we followed Obama's plan."
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
The last thing the GOP needs to do is agree to a tax hike with the understanding that some spending cuts will get done in the next ten years. That is the standard deal, it has been made before and the spending cuts pretty much never end up happening.
Besides all that, we are talking about 40 billion dollars of increased revenue, assuming that everyone keeps making the same money, and pays the increased amount in taxes. The deficit for 2011 was around 1.3 trillion. So it would take around 30 years just to pay that off.
This is feel good legislation to say "yay we followed through and taxed the rich as promised", without it having any positive effects on the deficit or economy.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The mobility bases I get, but why the feth are we wasting billions on stationing ground troops in Germany still?
As I understand the base in Germany is now a fairly important part of any deployment/supply effort into the Middle East. It's where critically wounded troops get taken for major operations.
That said, I have no idea if Germany is used in that role because it's actually useful in its own right, or just because they have a base there so they might as well make use of it.
The base you're talking about is Rammstein, and one of the mobility bases I was referencing, but there's something like 300,000 American Marines, airmen, soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe, they aren't all transit and medical staff.
Yeah, theres Ramstein AFB, along with the European Regional Medical Center that are the big ones. There's one base that does literally nothing other than transportation (it's also fairly close to Ramstein). Graf plays host to most all European nation's military training needs (we train with, and train about a dozen nations' militaries there, its kinda cool, but really outta the way)
I don't think we have 300,000 people in Europe. I think its closer to 100k, as IIRC, the army has round abouts 35k, and that number is shrinking with base closures and troop draw downs. Certain bases really only had a purpose during the cold war. Like Berlin (which was closed down a long time ago) and Fulda (which was a speedbump in the Fulda Gap, the "only" reasonable place that the Soviets could penetrate into NATO held lands)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The mobility bases I get, but why the feth are we wasting billions on stationing ground troops in Germany still?
As I understand the base in Germany is now a fairly important part of any deployment/supply effort into the Middle East. It's where critically wounded troops get taken for major operations.
That said, I have no idea if Germany is used in that role because it's actually useful in its own right, or just because they have a base there so they might as well make use of it.
The base you're talking about is Rammstein, and one of the mobility bases I was referencing, but there's something like 300,000 American Marines, airmen, soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe, they aren't all transit and medical staff.
Yeah, theres Ramstein AFB, along with the European Regional Medical Center that are the big ones. There's one base that does literally nothing other than transportation (it's also fairly close to Ramstein). Graf plays host to most all European nation's military training needs (we train with, and train about a dozen nations' militaries there, its kinda cool, but really outta the way)
I don't think we have 300,000 people in Europe. I think its closer to 100k, as IIRC, the army has round abouts 35k, and that number is shrinking with base closures and troop draw downs. Certain bases really only had a purpose during the cold war. Like Berlin (which was closed down a long time ago) and Fulda (which was a speedbump in the Fulda Gap, the "only" reasonable place that the Soviets could penetrate into NATO held lands)
I stand corrected on the numbers, but it's still a fair bet the majority of forces in Europe are a waste of time and money.
Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
I know why /we/ need a military. I'm asking why Europe needs our military
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
I know why /we/ need a military. I'm asking why Europe needs our military
Because they're spending all their money on medical care
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
I know why /we/ need a military. I'm asking why Europe needs our military
Because they're spending all their money on medical care
Nice retort.
Do we need a military present in Japan (Okinkowa)?
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
I know why /we/ need a military. I'm asking why Europe needs our military
Because they're spending all their money on medical care
Nice retort.
Do we need a military present in Japan (Okinkowa)?
Yes, Anime is a national asset. We must protect our supply of entertainment from the evil Commies.
AustonT wrote: Why do we need a military at all? Just funnel all the defense spending money into Medicare and Social Security and let the DoD die of starvation. Then the peaceful utopia of the future can be born.
I know why /we/ need a military. I'm asking why Europe needs our military
Why does anyone need a military? In this brave new world of multiculturalism do we even need borders?
"What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's. ... You have to have a president who is willing to spend some political capital on this. And I intend to spend some."
— President-elect Barack Obama, Jan. 15, 2009, to the Washington Post editorial board on his commitment to reform Medicare, which he called "unsustainable," and Social Security.
Four years later, President Obama has a golden chance to begin keeping that commitment. Reform of entitlement programs headed for insolvency is, as he said even before taking office, a must. The current dispute on how to avoid a "fiscal cliff" less than four weeks nigh should yield at least the parameters of that reform.
Unfortunately the White House, in its opening gambit to congressional Republicans, appears oblivious to the president's warnings about these programs. Last Wednesday, in an editorial titled "Democrats, your turn — Commit to spending cuts," we urged Team Obama to acknowledge that the growth in domestic spending and entitlements has to diminish. House Speaker John Boehner had violated one of the most sacrosanct Republican principles — opposition to tax hikes — by offering to include new revenue in a cliff-averse deal. We urged Democrats to show similar courage.
But the president's reaction, delivered by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is to cut total spending by a meager $400 million over 10 years while raising a net $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Obama also proposes tens of billions in spending on stimulus projects and continuance of long-term unemployment insurance and the supposedly temporary payroll tax cut.
While barely glancing at entitlement meltdowns, Obama insists that the new entitlement bearing his name, Obamacare, not be touched. He still demands that any deal not only raise revenue from high earners, as Boehner offered the day after the election, but must achieve that by raising their tax rates.
As we've said before, we wish Obama would take the money Boehner offered and run. Republicans make a strong argument that increasing revenue by limiting deductions, rather than sharply hiking rates, would have less of an impact on economic growth.
Yes, Obama campaigned on those tax rate increases. But he campaigned just as fervently on the need for a "balanced" mix of revenue hikes and spending cuts. With his obsession on tax rates rather than on debt and entitlements, the president does not look focused on finding a two-party solution for crises that two parties created.
Americans who voted for Obama reflect that call for balance more than his ultimatums have: Politico reported Monday that a poll for a moderate Democratic think tank, Third Way, found 85 percent of Obama voters favoring higher taxes on the wealthy: "Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts. Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts."
What Americans see, though, is a White House offering essentially the same tax-centric budget that Obama proposed last winter, while Republicans have moved away from the no-new-revenue budget the House passed.
Instead, Boehner and other Republican leaders on Monday offered Obama a package similar to the deal the two men agreed upon, then scuttled, in mid-2011. In addition to offering $800 billion in new revenue, the offer violates a second GOP commandment: that new revenue come only from economic growth. Yet within hours, the White House dismissed the proposal more for what it didn't include — yes, those higher tax rates — than for what it did.
Obama's $4 trillion deficit reduction plan relies on two gimmicks we've criticized: $1 trillion in spending cuts that already are scheduled, and $800 billion in reduced war spending even though the money is imaginary; it never was appropriated.
But even using that Obamamath, the Republican proposal is more ambitious: It creates some $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction. No, it's not, as the White House asserted, just more of the same.
One subtext here is that Democrats undervalue the political danger — from the left as well as the right — that Boehner & Co. took by accepting the White House challenge to write a plan including any specifics at all: Within hours Jonathan Cohn, an Obama-friendly writer at The New Republic, was crowing that, "the offer should make clear, once and for all, which party is eager to cut benefits for seniors." Soon after, conservative U.S. Sen. Jim Demint was lambasting the same offer as "Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike."
Granted, no good deed goes unpunished. But Americans do see Boehner displaying the moxie to offend his base. Obama's victory doesn't insulate him from offending his base by leading the nation toward entitlement reform.
Americans also see, courtesy of a Europe wallowing in recession and government debt, the consequences of runaway entitlements.
And Americans see, in the fiscal cliff standoff, a rough replay of the 2011 gridlock.
Mr. President, you've taken your victory lap. We expect you not to provoke more discord, but to lead a rescue mission — reform of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid included.
As a smart man once said, you have to have a president who is willing to spend some political capital on this.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The base you're talking about is Rammstein, and one of the mobility bases I was referencing, but there's something like 300,000 American Marines, airmen, soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe, they aren't all transit and medical staff.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the info.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Because they're spending all their money on medical care
They're spending a lot less than you are. It's just that their systems work.
