E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy msnbc.com's Tom Curry: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office gave its assessment Monday of the Budget Control Act agreed to Sunday by President Obama and congressional leaders. The CBO estimates that if the deal is enacted, it would reduce cumulative deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the period from 2012 to 2021.
The CBO also said the agreement would allow Obama to increase the limit on government borrowing, in stages, by between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion.
So according to the CBO analysis, the deal does not quite meet House Speaker Boehner’s test of having deficit reductions that are greater than the debt limit increase. But in talking points distributed Sunday night Boehner emphasized that in short term the agreement “would cut & cap discretionary spending immediately, saving $917B (billion) over 10 years (certified by CBO) & raise the debt ceiling by less – $900B – to approximately February.”
And matching ten-year deficit reductions with this particular debt limit increase doesn’t address an important unknown: It’s not possible to predict exactly when Obama or his successor, if he’s not re-elected, would need to ask Congress to once again increase the debt limit.
Between 2007 and 2010, the debt limit was increased six times, from $8.9 trillion to $14.3 trillion.
Even before the full impact of the recession hit the federal budget, the debt limit had to be increased in September of 2007 and again in July of 2008.
Future debt limit increases will depend on several factors, including interest rates (which determine how much it will cost the government to service its debt), the cost of overseas military operations, and whether the economy grows faster than the anemic 0.4 percent rate at which it grew in the first quarter of the year.
Leave a Comment:
SSSSH!
Don't let the tea bagger hear this... lol
Again, so much for leadership from the Speaker!
President Obama 's rock solid line in the sand was a so-called "balanced " approach, with increased taxes. (After he bailed from his earlier position of a clean debt ceiling bill)
Fail.
SHHHH
Don't let the moonbats hear this..lol
Again, so much for leadership from the President!
Yeah Feisty - Boehner got snookered.
Wait, I think I recall that Obama said that he would veto any bill that did not have revenue increases. THis one does not, so....
And really old gal, I get that you just cannoot put your Obama pom poms down, but you have got to recognize a loss and just be quiet for a little while.
Thank god you really are this clueless and will do the exact opposite. These are going to be some super fun times for us. :)
Imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery booby!
Thanks Again!
*hugs*
Your favorite moonbat! ;o)
The more I think about it...
You've got to shake your head & wonder HOW Boehner can be considered a 'leader' when, the deal President Obama offered him was well over 4 trillion dollars...
And he settles for half!
The only leader in DC is sitting in the oval office! ;o)
SPANKY
Obama governed........the country first before anyone and he showed it. With the specifics in the cuts, GOP/TB were lampooned.
The good thing is we're going to move forward with the hope that intentional distractions like this are no more (really...lol) and we can now talk about JOBS.
Bob old boy, we know you got used to a lack of leadership (after all for 8 years we had absolutely none) in the White House, but to me good leadership contains enough sense for a compromise. I agree with the President, this bill is not perfect, but it is about as close as we can get until the teabaggers finally fade out and we can do the right thing - close the loopholes for the mega wealthy and tax them the way they should be taxes. By the way, I'm sure there are no mega wealthy bloggers on this board, just some poor uneducated and brainwashed folks who for some reason think those mega wealthy suits will remember them - think again, honey, they forget you like yesterday's used toilet paper and do so in a heartbeat.
Beat that teabagger drum, chearlead for the mega wealthy - but you are doing so in vain and it is a waste of your time unless you are one of them. I'm not and I won't, but go ahead, sell your soul to the mega wealthy devil, I won't be the one come Judgement day that says I ever even so much as one time voted for anything that will benefit the mega wealthy (in my Bible that is a sin - which one do you read from?).
Wasn't it Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner who brought this bill to the White House?
Just like last week, Speaker Boehner uses that "new math" in his bills. You know what he was telling Americans are called gimmicks.
These two ripped the President for his $4 trillion debt reduction plan. In the coming months America needs to keep pointing out the President offered a $4 trillion debt reduction plan that McConnell and Boehner rejected so that they could offer this bill instead.
To all of you on the right, it's not a loss, or a win, for either side. It's COMPROMISE. You know, that word you righties hate? Mostly because you don't know what it means...
Now Obama's ventriloquist dummy Jay Carney is saying "tax increases will be part of the next go around of deficit cutting".
Next go around?!? And here you Libs thought you were done with al this cutting! And for Obama, it's always "I'll get them next time!", just like he lectured the nation of the evils of the "Bush tax cuts", but when the GOP got a little tough with him, he signed on to the "Obama tax cuts", and Obama threw in a 33% reduction in SS taxes to boot, it's not like that program is going bankrupt or anything.
You Libs should know by now that when Obama says something, he means nothing. If you trust Barry, you're going to be one unhappy Liberal.
JAS1: and here I thought you were a Democrat. *sarc.*
Feisty-- SSSH is correct!
Say it ain't so, please don't let the MSM know!
Jeez. They will have a conniption fit after all the posturing last night and this morning about how the Tea Party rolled the President and got most of what they wanted.
JAS1
You sound like you are chocking on tea leaves. You can't even come terms with the facts CBO expressed. It also good to know from you how GOP fought relentlessly to keep unpaid bush tax cut in place.......flaunt your color.
Well the GOP, and the heavily Democrat controlled House and Senate that voted for it, along with Barack Obama who signed the deal.
Looks like Obama is flaunting his color, but that's not really true, because for the GOP, it's just so easy to roll Obama. It's turned into a sport for them.
JAS1, once again I call you out for the whore for lies you truly are! The Republicans in the Senate threatened to stop all gov't action on anything else with their filibuster unless the Bush tax cuts were extended first, permanently, but eventually relented to a temporary extension. You must really like misleading and outright lying on this site. Can believe you can sit in front of computer with that long nose you must have after pimping out all your lies.
It must have been quite the visit from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday to Obama in his very own house, his very own office. Mitch of course went behind Senate leader Harry Reid's back to have a chat with Obama about things. McConnell of course has stated his goal is to make Obama a one term President, so it probably came as no surprise when the straight talking Mitch told Obama in no uncertain terms what Barack would sign to get this deal done. If Barry didn't fear Mitch before, he does fear him now.
Mitch did a great job schooling Obama. Obama - what a rookie.
For sheer chutzpah (ask Michelle Bachmann how that's pronounced) you just can't beat Republican spin meisters. Every time I hear the new talking point, "failure of leadership", there is a mighty challenge to my gag reflex.
Exactly who provides the standard for successful leadership? George W. Bush? Well, he led us into two wars, but he didn't get us out. John Boehner? He can't lead his Tea Party faction to educate themselves. Mitch McConnell? For this guy leadership means bringing the nation to its knees.
Republican leaders? Bachmann? Perry? Romney? Gingrich? Palin? McCain? Come on Republicans, you really need to stop with this "failure of leadership" crap. You wouldn't know a leader if he bit you on your rump.
patHuntingtonNY: Hi Pat, hope your day is going well. Hot here. How's the weather in the great state of New York?
Nice chatting. Talk to you later. Have a great day!
Well, the news ain't all bad.
Yeah, cutting spending a lot in the midst of a weak recovery almost guarantees a return to recession and more unemployment. We've been seeing those results already, as states cut thousands upon thousands of public employees and reduce spending, and the GOP/TP assaults on the Federal government have dumped more than 70,000 public and private workers on the street just for the FAA alone. Oops, then comes news of a miniscule growth rate in the national economy.
But hey .... this debt ceiling deal means the GOP/TP has just "bought" the economy and employment from the White House.
Yeppers, from now on, it's their baby. Just time/date stamp the receipt and let's see just how happy the ideologues will be when they realize that once again their failed "principles" are the wrong course for the country.
CBO "scoring" about as objective as EPA "climate change projections"
______________________________________________________________________________________
NASA data released last week proves HYSTERICAL "Global Warming" models FALSE
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/07/28/global-warming-hysteria-nasa-measurements-appear-to-prove-alarmist-models-wrong/
Now this is certainly odd. According to the Libs, this is still the Bush economy. To the Libs, Obama has never owned the economy. So this feat is quite remarkable in that Obama in his four years in office will never have owned the economy.
Yet another historical feat from the Great Obama.
Here is where the "orange man" got snookered again, yes there are no revenue increases right now but both the house and the senate has to create a commission that must come up with rest of the balance approach by November of this year. If they don't meet the deadline, then a few of the Repubs "pets' like the private jet loop hole get closed and the Bush tax cuts lapse, and a number of others immediately are enacted.
How you like them apples? But sshh, don't tell the teapublicans. lol
I don't understand why the CBO is held in such high regard. They don't work with actual figures they work off of the pieces of paper that the legislators give to them. Most of the time it is what the legislators want to happen not facts. Another waste of taxpayer dollars.
Last I checked Doug Elmendorf was still the head of the CBO...and placed there by Pelosi and Reid. To say it's non-partisan is a joke.
Is this the same CBO that misestimated the cost of Obamacare by trillions?
Oh yeah, they're reliable *snicker*
This debt deal is useless without cut, cap and balance. It cuts $7 billion from spending this year (out of $3.7 TRILLION. The cut is about two-tenths of one percent of spending.
Vote this down House republicans!!! Make them come back with actual, substantial cuts in spending.
WOW... I can't believe how many of you are so clueless or fooled... not sure which.
Under the current plan we will spend more than we make by at LEAST more than $1.5 trillion EVERY YEAR for the foreseeable future.
Do ANY of you think this is a good plan? Three months of congress fighting over NOTHING... only the promise of future cuts based on over inflated estimates of low interest rates and GDP growth.
I hope you are all getting ready for hyperinflation..
Just to show how clueless you are:
First the "private Jet" loop hole you speak of is a joke. It refers to the ability of corporations or individuals who buy a private jet to write off the payment over 5 years. This is not a tax benefit... it is a penalty. Like any business expense, it should be allowed to be written off the first year if desired....
Second, even if and when the Bush Tax cuts expire, this will make almost ZERO DENT in the ever growing debt on a yearly basis combined with the daunting task of future and rapidly approaching unfunded liabilities.
Now clearly, we should end ALL corporate subsidies and loopholes than include corporations like GE from paying no taxes. That being said, we have NO CHOICE but to address our over inflated military spending AND address the coming entitlement bomb.
Ron Paul is the ONLY person running for office with a sound, reasonable, and fair plan that does this without sacrificing those currently on government assistance.
He is also the ONLY PERSON in DC telling the truth about all of this mess and the coming dangers of hyperinflation due to a loss in confidence of the dollar, which under this plan, looks more certain every day.
Ron Paul 2012
FACT ALERT!!!!
Madison from NY is trying to hijack this thread with his absolutely false assertion: "NASA data released last week proves HYSTERICAL "Global Warming" models FALSE."
Please note that what he is saying is that the "HYSTERICAL" models are false. Well yes!!!!! They're "HYSTERICAL" for Pete's sake.
Please go to Madison's link. The author of the article - a shill - constantly refers to "alarmists". At no time does he show that reputable scientists are incorrect in their assertion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is very real.
Why are right-wingers so damned dishonest?
Yes Madison, another right wing blog from the completely biased Heartland Institute. Did you read any neutral perspectives? Or do you just parrot the idiocy and spin of others.
Sorry David Walker, but I read the article and looked at the data, that is to say the "data" the IPCC based their assumptions and models on.
Man made global warming is dead. You all lost. It is that simple, because sadly the actual weather patterns are all doing the opposite of the "warmists" models.
But sure let's go with us "right-wingers" as being dishonest, not the IPCC, or it's head, Pacharri (?) a railroad engineer, or all the reports that were both flat wrong and now being scrapped off the Internet. Like the UN cite that had no less than 50,000 people in the Pacific being completely flooded by now. That little cite seems to be "missing."
But hey, it is kinda hot right now. Although Big Al Gore is chillin' in his new mansion in Santa Barbra, you know the one that sits 14 inches above the water.
David Walker said: Why are right-wingers so damned dishonest?
David, I'm a right winger and I'm pretty damn honest. Could you and others please tone down the blanket statements? I realize that some people can set you off, but we aren't all pigeon holed into a box. I've done my level best to stop with the generalizations.
Concerning Global Warming... I realize many credible sources state we are undergoing a heat wave of sorts... and on the other end of the scale, there are areas of our globe that are actually cooling down. I think where the distinction needs to be made... is when it's labeled man-made global warming. I don't believe man could hurt this planet on a grand scale. Maybe locally, the environments can be harmed, but not on a grand scale. From the studies I've read and the credible scientists I've listened to, the warming is more caused by the sun... even if it's not in the form of massive sun spots.
I agree that you're trying, but all of us have a way to go.
You misunderstand climate change entirely if you're judging it by whether a few places may be cooling down, while others are warming. (And if you get a moment, perhaps you could name the places that are actually cooling.) On the whole, the planet is warming. There's no mistaking that. Warming causes weather extremes because of the changes it makes to weather patterns. One theory of what might happen, for example, is that warming water in the Atlantic will (or maybe has already started to) cause the Gulf Stream to slow down because of the equalization of water temperatures, north to south, with the possible result of another ice age being triggered, even in an otherwise warming environment generally.
The warming is, of course, caused by the sun, but primarily because greenhouse gases trap the heat that comes in and don't let it escape back into space. There is a lot of speculation as to the mechanism -- for example -- jet contrails are another theory -- but there is no question that the pace of warming has picked up considerably since the start of the industrial revolution.
If it can't be altered on a grand scale, then what accounts for the Arctic and Antarctica, where warming is certainly occurring, and changes are certainly occurring on a "grand scale"? That alone should make your question your thinking about that.
To say there is no reason to distinguish between causes is no more than saying we should just ignore the problem. In order to fix it, you have to know the cause.
If you're a doctor and a patient comes to you bleeding, do you just put a bandage on it and send them on their way, or do you want to know how the injury occurred so that you can assess what else might have to be done? For example, what if the person has been shot, or stabbed with a rusty knife, or pricked with a disease-infected needle? Cause certainly does make a difference.
What accounted for the warming that occurred in Greenland when the Vikings named it?
But it is of no matter - remember when Obama/Hillary promised $200 billion to the IPCC/UN for global warming back in Oslo?
Yeah, me too. Those were good times - Obama was still riding high with money to burn. Too bad since then he burned through so much money. When was that November of '09? We have added what, like $3.5 Trillion to the debt since then?
But hey Al Gore's got his. Private jets, mansions. THat dude really rolls with the super rich, consumption life style. He's lucky. :)
Brianb:
Perhaps your definition of right-wingers differs from mine; that is one of the weaknesses of language. In my book, merely being to the right of center does not make one a right-winger. Indeed, I see the wings as the extremes. Again, in my book, the extremists - the right-wingers - seem unable to operate without resorting to dishonesty. Madison's post is a classic in that regard.
As far as the cooling/warming, I think Anna Molly has done a fine job of explaining that. Extreme weather patterns - both warm AND cold - are the result of the entrapment of greenhouse gases. As you will note, if you go to the link provided by Madison, you will see that the shill does not deny an increase in greenhouse gases. Increased atmospheric loading is a fact.
Each passing day brings more evidence that points to man as the prime culprit in the acceleration of greenhouse gas accumulation. Given the fact that climatology is still in its relative infancy, most folks are not inclined to state AGW is a fact, however it certainly seems quite likely.
Spanky: Your post is bereft of citations. Oh that's right, you don't have to show sources for your information. Seems to me the last time you came up with a silly story, I called you on it, you ran away, and your friends started a rant about anti-Semitism. I'll stick with my assessment of the right-wing.
Not running anywhere David. Silly story? Me? Never.
Global warming is over. Especially now. In fact they just had another climate conference a few weeks ago. So what happens when you have one but no one pays attention? Absolutely nothing as we found out.
As for ideology, global warming is what it is. You are of course free to assess away, cause the whole extreme thing sure does not apply to the left wing, Right David?
Of course not.
The Gulf Stream warms the northern waters because of temperature contrast. Warm water flows north and cold water south -- comprising the stream -- because of the contrast. That's why Greenland is "green." And it's getting warmer. But take away the contrast, and the Gulf Stream flow stops. When no warm water flows north, speculation is that the North will actually cool somewhat, at least temporarily.
But since we haven't seen this before in human history, then the ultimate results are difficult to predict. There was, for example, a mini Ice Age a few centuries ago, with an unknown origin, thought perhaps to be sunspots. Some things we just don't know. We are coming out of a period of weak sunspot activity right now that some might try to argue was responsible for warming, somehow, But the trend is still upward, so that doesn't seem to match the theory, either.
Don't bother taunting me with what President Obama promised but didn't do and what Al Gore has. That's not a very productive topic. I don't like hypocrites of any stripe who don't follow through on their espoused principles.
That probably includes me, by the way, at least by my own calculations.
By the way, Al Gore is certainly a liberal business-owner, as if you needed an example. I believe he signs Keith Olbermann's paycheck. I could give you Steven Spielburg and George Soros, and a few others besides, but what's the point?
I don't happen to consider Al Gore lucky because he's rich. Wealth is not how I measure success.
What is truly hysterical is just how dense liberals really are.
We all know that Bohner is a rino / con-man, and that this deal is milk-toast middle of the road crap.
What is surprising is that any liberal thinks Obama is any different.
Obama is a poser, completely lacking in reasonable behavior or honesty. He is the emptiest of suits.
Our nation will recover some day. That day will happen only if real conservatives run the nation. Currently these folks are in short supply on both sides of the aisle, and do not have a particular party affiliation.
That's the whole point AM - it was really cold [Ice Age} then it got hot, dinosaurs, then cold again [mini-ice age] then hot again [medieval warming period] and so on, all before Al Gore and his private jets.
Unless you are a global warmist - if it gets hot, it global warming. If it gets cold, it global warming. Man is bad, energy is terrible, you must drive a Hybrid or the earth will end.
Except just two weeks ago they said it was not getting warmer cause of all of China's pollution. So that's good right? Warming is bad, cooling is good?
Don't blame me - I blew through 627 gallons of gas - and the good stuff = 93 octane, this weekend. Getting a boat up over 65 mphs takes a lot of gasoline. But man it sure is fun, and chicks dig fast boats. And Natty, but that's another story.
Al is a business man. Let's see how he and Keith do. Don't forget Gore's dad was in business also.
But you can just forget about the whole not taunting thing. Surely You know better by now.
I can call you Shirley?
Besides you got to love the chuckle heads like Mr. Walker - they apparently keep score of wins and loses.
Me, I just enjoy the banter. Especially yours AM, but only on alternative Mondays and Thursdays.
And prithee, what does Ms. Spanky have to say about that? ;-)
She hates fast boats and Natty, which is why she chose to stay home. Boys weekend.
There's a reason we have been happily married for 20 years.
I see.
And the reason is that the less time you spend together the better?
Or what she doesn't know won't hurt her?
Or that she doesn't care?
Or that you don't?
Well, whatever. But thanks for the insight into Spanky family values.
By the way, is your wife lingerie or leather?
Spanky, You asked a question about why the Vikings named the island Greenland? Not because it was warn and green.
In the Icelandic Sagas, it is told that Erik the Red was banished there from Icelad. He was to one who gave its name, hoping that settlers would be attacted to move there.
It was one of the first marketing schemes that in the end didn't work. Those Vikings were good at a lot of things especially storytelling!!! :)
So all of those who choose sides to be a repub or demo-idiot look at what is really happening. You back your home team (repubs or demo) and vote right down a party line without considering each others points. That's pretty lame if you ask me. Cutting spending of YOUR tax dollars YOU loan to a bankrupt government is a good thing. Lost jobs equals lost revenue for the same corrupt government you are lending your money. This of course is a bad thing for a lot of people. Me lending more of my money to support a bunch of BS spending is a very bad thing!
That's almost $1 trillion in unspecified discretionary cuts. Unspecified.
The poor in this country already know what that means.
The remainder....$1.8 trillion is to be determined.
I missed the description of any revenue increases in Mr. Curry's summary.
The new "Super Commission" will make those determinations by November.
So Simpson-Bowles and The Gang of 6 Plan is scrapped.
Tax reform is not being discussed.
Defense is on the table but since so many bases are in GOP states and are the largest employers, let's see how much the folks representing those states are willing to cut. The Virginia and Texas reps are the ones I'd look at.
Are the extended Bush era tax cuts going to be allowed to expire?
Damned tea party!
'...And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1
Failure to adopt and promote the debt commission report left a gaping hole for the Tea Party activists to drive through...
Do you think we should just continue spending money we don't have? What is the solution then?
Bottom line - we should not spend more than we take in! If I managed my finances like the
Feds do, I would be bankrupt in no time.
This deficit "fix" is like fixing the problem of drunk driving by raising
the legal blood alcohol levels from 0.8% to 0.2%.
0.08% to 0.20%. My mistake.
Ira - I sure hope those tax cuts will expire - wish they could expire this very moment, and a big back payment could be charged on them
Steve from Denver
"Do you think we should just continue spending money we don't have"
Do you mean money like the bush tax cuts or tax subsidies for company's like GE, oil giants, the wealthy and so on? you know, those tax cuts are not/never paid for.
Steve from Denver
Do you think we should just continue spending money we don't have? What is the solution then?
Steve, there were 2 great solutions out there for months that both Dangerfield and I alluded to.
The Simpson-Bowles Plan (the Presidential appointed debt reduction committee) and the Gang of 6 Plan. Both bi-partisan. Both balanced...revenue increases in both....both cut $4 trillion in debt over 10 years.
Both ignored by Congress and the President.
Either Plan is better than this.
Dangerfield said: Failure to adopt and promote the debt commission report left a gaping hole for the Tea Party activists to drive through...
Considering the Tea Party isn't going away any time soon, and it seems they have the approval of many Americans... I wouldn't get your shorts in a bind over it Dangerfield. How does it feel to be on the same side as the Republican leadership? Strange bedfellows indeed.
The solution is to Raise Revenue, cut defense spending and spend baby spend to get our infrastructure re-built, and put the people back to work.
Ira Lapin, you seem to forget that the President was on all the national television networks promoting his $4 trillion debt reduction plan (aka, the Grand Bargain). It required shared pain.
The President talked about his plan on three separate occasions (including last night).
The President's plan is also better than this bill and we will be reminded that the GOP told the President no to his $4 trillion in debt reduction (grand bargain).
They settle for half all because of their obstinacy over tax increases...
Remind me again who's serious about genuine debt reduction?
Yeah - some victory!
If the Teapublicans block the deal I don't think any statements regarding them "not going away any time soon" will not be applicable.
Dan..
I didn't forget...not at all.
That plan, the Grand Bargain, was balanced and included revenue increases. Why did he abandon it?
Additionally, the President appointed a bi-partisan debt commission...now called Simpson-Bowles...over a year ago to provide specific recommendations on deficit reduction.
The came up with a balanced plan...revenue increases and debt reduction...that would have brought the deficit down $4 trillion over 10 years.
The President never embraced that plan, abandoned it and has now agreed to this cuts only plan...cuts he doesn't even know where they are to be made.
...and you said "and we will be reminded that the GOP told the President no to his $4 trillion in debt reduction (grand bargain)." They told him no...that's it. I give up. Need to totally abandon my position.
There's this urban myth about Ronald Regan.
When the Congress refused to pass an increase in the debt ceiling he called the Congressional leaders into his office and told them that unless the ceiling was raised immediately, he would veto every piece of legislation that was sent to him. The ceiling was raised the next day.
You may hate Regan for lots of reasons, but that's leadership.
Ira - Are the extended Bush era tax cuts going to be allowed to expire?
Ira, I keep hearing the Bush Tax Cuts mantra from the left. My guess is that they will expire. All of them. I don't know the exact numbers, I think you do, but aren't they something like $700 Billion for the that evil top 2% and 3.2 Trillion for most of middle class america.
So how is ending the Bush/Obama tax cuts not putting the burden "On the backs of the middle class"? (That is another tried and true lefty cliche, that I just love)
Unless of course the left is only for selectively ending the cuts. You know, picking winners and losers? Can't be, now can it? Shared Sacrifice and all..........
White Collar Auto..
Don't bet on an automatic expiration of the Bush era tax cuts. That's a huge tax increase and it's not going down with the GOP without a fight.
I have been saying this forever I think...if the Congress did nothing but raise the debt ceiling and allowed the Bush era tax cuts to expire, that would add about $400 to $450 billion a year to the Treasury. That's $4 to $4.5 trillion dollars added over 10 years. The original targeted amount.
Now...imagine if we adopted the Simpson-Bowles plan on top of that. That's $4 trillion more...on a balanced basis,
Stunningly simple. A no brianer, right?
Damn the Tea Party is right. This entire debate was started by them and was nothing if it wasn't about political gamesmanship. The Battle of the Titans on Boehner's side was simply begun to win his Tea Party more power, if possible, in Congress. Boehner said he has two little girls and wants to see them have social security. What a lie! Those little girls are Trust Fund babies, I'm betting, and won't need any social security or Medicare, like some of us do. Many of us. Under Clinton, our Social Security stayed safe and growing. Then Bush started raping it with Promissory Notes he knew he couldn't and wouldn't pay back, but would leave to the next President to have to deal with. Tea Party framed as Patriots? Patriots don't leave other Americans to rot so that the top tier of the wealthy don't have to pay taxes.
Yeah, Air, No brainer except that 75% of those tax hikes hit the middle class.
I'll agree that they won't go down without a fight and then everything changes in January of 2013. Anything done right now only has a shelf life of about 18 months at this point.
Ira,
If you listened to the President last night. He still hasn't abandoned the principals of the balanced approach.
During the past week, he ha two choices go along with the GOP on this ridiculous $2.1 trillion debt reduction plan (trying to avoid default and the ensuing panic) or hold his ground for the $4 trillion that he has pushed.
The GOP controls the House and has repeatedly said they would rather shutdown the country than vote for tax increases. While shutting down the country would have hurt the GOP, it would also have hurt every American for years to come.
I'm all for plans like Reagan's 1982 when tax loopholes were eliminated, resulting in higher taxes for the wealthy. Despite the cries from the Republicans, history shows unemployment began decreasing from 10.8% four months after Reagan signed this bill.
Unfortunately, too many on the extreme right and the extreme left refused to get behind the President's $4 trillion debt reduction. Without support from either the Democrats or the Republicans, the President was abandoned. Even worse, the markets and businesses didn't stand up and fight for the $4 trillion in cuts. Instead, they opted to sit on the sidelines thinking Congress would act responsibly and pass the $4 trillion debt reduction that the S&P had asked for.
I suspect the reality is that you and I are just a handful who truly believe we should have acted responsibly and passed the $4 trillion debt reduction (using cuts and revenue). Too many others apparently could care less.
Dan-3126637..
You wrote:
"I suspect the reality is that you and I are just a handful who truly believe we should have acted responsibly and passed the $4 trillion debt reduction (using cuts and revenue). Too many others apparently could care less."
I almost totally agree with your post. I think he had other options but he abandoned them...and Reid and Pelosi....after all, he is the ONLY person in America who can sign this bill into law.
BTW...the markets didn't sit on the sidelines last week.
Last week's market rout erased $700 billion worth of market capitalization, according to financial data company Wilshire, which owns the Wilshire 5000 Index. That index, which tracks every actively-traded stock in the United States, posted a loss of 4.2% for the week. The Dow fell 4.2% for the week, while the S&P declined 3.9%.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/29/markets/market_cap_loss/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=hp_bn3
White Collar Auto:
Didn’t mean to avoid your question….actually just read it.
If the Bush era tax cuts expire, it will almost have little or no effect on you. . They apply only to the highest of fliers. Fewer than 1% currently pay the 35% rate and fewer than 4% even pay 33%,. As for the old 39.6% rate: Adjusted for inflation, you'd pay that only on any income above $363,000 a year.
Most ordinary people these days are paying a marginal rate of 15% or 25%. If we let the tax cuts expire, that might rise for many to 28%. Based on data supplied by the AICPA, these ordinary folks would take a tax bump of anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000, it might be about $400 a year. At $80,000, that rises to about $1,600.
Married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with both higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001.) A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year? Maybe $5,500 extra.
If they have children, it would be more, as the per-child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.
It's worth noting that income tax rates can be deceptive. While middle earners may be paying a top marginal rate of 15% or 25%, their average tax rate is much lower. After counting deductions and exemptions, the typical middle-income family is actually paying less than 10% of gross income in federal income tax. Taking rates back to 2000 might raise that by a point or two.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/what-if-the-bush-tax-cuts-expired.aspx
Ira,
To me, the market decline was nothing compared to the message Wall Street could have sent to both parties. There are plenty of reports that businesses spent pennies in this debate, compared to what they have spent on lobbyists for the last 4 years.
Considering the crisis that could have resulted for businesses and what a $4 trillion deduction would mean for decades, it's shocking that lobbyists weren't beating down the doors pushing for the $4 trillion.
Even when the President talked to the country last Monday night talking about his grand bargain plan, the media allowed Speaker Boehner to go on afterwards and call the President's plan filled with gimmicks. No one can remember a rebuttal ever being allowed when it comes to budget talks. Even when Speaker Boehner's plan came up short of the $900 billion he promised was in his bill, the media never questioned Speaker Boehner's criticism of the $4 trillion debt reduction.
Speaker Boehner repeatedly said, the President wasn't serious about a $4 trillion debt reduction. However, Speaker Boehner refused to allow the President's plan to be voted on.
I wrote my members of Congress demanding they allow the President's $4 trillion debt reduction to come to a vote. What really angered me was a response I received from my newly elected GOP Senator. He went on and on praising Ryan's budget and criticizing the President. Never once did my Senator acknowledge the President's $4 trillion debt reduction. I wrote him back pointed out the analysis of Ryan's budget and asked him to look at the President's grand bargain. I still have not heard back from him. The two Democrats (from my district) I wrote at least said they would consider the President's grand bargain.
Perhaps, that's why I'm so angry at the GOP. My GOP Senator wouldn't even consider the $4 trillion debt reduction.
White Collar Auto:
Does that answer your question?
White Collar Auto:
Sorry about the extended detailed explanation.
Bill to follow.
Damned TP!
"Yeah, Air, No brainer except that 75% of those tax hikes hit the middle class."- do the math... if 75% hit the middle class then 25% will hit the upperclass (aka the top 2%) so proportionally the Bush Tax Cuts favored the rich.
75% of tax cuts affect 98% of the tax paying population and 25% affect 2% then there is an obvious miss balance. The argument for repealing those cuts is based on the fact that 2% of the country recieved 25% of the cuts while 98% of the country recieved 75%.
Yo, IRA, let's not forget about AMT, K?
Cause that jacks those rates a whole bunch.
Besides Obama will not take the rates away - we will still be in a recession when they expire in 2012. Same rationale for his signing them last time will apply.
Rock meet hard place.
Spanky..
Hey..you said to keep it simple and add a TP comment.
Now you want me to explain the effect on AMT?
I added the TP comment though.
People will think I'm being snarky.
You are right, my bad.
It always throws me when someone actually listens to my advice.
But yeah, I'll 'splain AMT. You calculate your taxes, you look at the horrible amount owed, then you apply the AMT calculation, watch it get way bigger, then curse and scream.
Then you get really pissed and remember that the AMT was created to capture wealth from the Robber Barons. But you are not a robber Baron, hell you ain't even "leer-jet" rich.
Then you chill out and remember all the good the government will do with even more of your money.
Yep, I'm thinking I'll vote straight socialist. Bernie Sanders loves him the AMT. If he were president he'd just take it all and might give you a tiny little bit back. Cause he's benevolent that way.
Spanky..
Thank you for your very succinct and factual response.
Damn Tea Party!
Hooray for Bernie Sanders.
So how many of our FR friends do you think 1.actually get nailed by AMT; or 2. Have any idea what it is?
Not many to both questions.
Explaining subsidies and the like took took 2 dog years.
Think I'll head home..
You take care.
Ira, I have always supported Simpson-Bowles. I asked this question of Mark and Domenico months ago. It was selected for in-the-boiler room. Go back and view their response.
This is Tea-Poser & GOP Fiscal discipline ?
Not a dime Paid off of the NATIONAL DEBT !
Just So The WEALTHIEST pay NO NEW TAXES and we the PEOPLE Pay Property Tax INCREASES ?
Are Americans THIS STUPID ???
According to http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/06useconomics_gale.aspx your numbers are incorrect, but let's assume they were correct. 700 billion for the upper 2% and 3.2 trillion for the next 98%? Surely you can do that math and see that this is not putting the burden "on the backs of the middle class". (and even if you exclude the poor who pay little or no federal taxes, the split is still probably 700 billion for the upper 2% 3.2 trillion for the next 50-55%).
According to the link above, 37% of the cuts went to the top 1% of earners, and 70% went to the top 20% of earners. Which means that your numbers should be more like 2.2 trillion for the upper 2% and 2.2 trillion for everyone else.
white collar auto does republican math...
Great Math !
Accept The MIDDLE cLASS is SHRINKING from OVER TAXATION Because The WEALTHY want Less Taxes !
Ira & Spanky: you mentioned the AMT: isn't that the little machine you use at the bar to pull out cash ? :)
"Besides Obama will not take the rates away - we will still be in a recession when they expire in 2012. Same rationale for his signing them last time will apply."-- what the republicans will hold unemploymentbenefits hostage again?
wow boehner did you know that 2.4 trillion isn't as much as the 4.5 trillion obama handed you....but i guess those yacht and jet owners are happy.....couldn't give the president a victory by using his plan that acutally gets us going in the right direction....party first f****everyone else oh by the way gop you owe me 650 points in the market for your little stunt over the last 6 trading days...i take cash because i'm sure you're not done ruining the economy at least until you get rid of obama......i know everyone with a 401k thanks you teapartyer's
No, I'm blaming Reid and the democrats for not passing this last december when they had control of the house, senate and presidency. As I stated before Reid is on record last december saying he wouldn't bring it to a vote, because some republicans needed to vote for it too. He had the votes to pass it in December and wouldn't because of pure politics. I think Reid owes me for the drop in the stock market.
Janet,
There were not 60 Democrats in the Senate last December. That meant the GOP could filibuster the bill, preventing it from passing.
Remember, Congressman Paul Ryan voted down the Bowles-Simpson plan saying that it didn't reduce the debt enough. Ryan than produced a budget that actually accelerated the debt beyond the current rate over the first 10 years. After analysis, Ryan's plan didn't produce a balanced budget until 4 years after the Bowles Simpson plan that he voted against.
In May (months after learning how bad the debt was), the GOP voted in favor of Ryan's plan (knowing it didn't do anything to slow down the debt during the first 10 years.
There is plenty of blame to go around. However, during the last month it seems to me that the President was the only one truly willing to work on the $4 trillion debt reduction that the credit agencies wanted. Both the Democrats and the Republicans abandoned the President.
Had either rallied around his $4 trillion in debt reduction, we wouldn't be laughing at McConnell's $2.1 trillion debt reduction today.
Nothing was cut and the deficit will continue to rise. Americans lost with this "budget". How can anyone with half a brain say we are cutiing the deficit by 2.1T when we will actually burden the American people with an additional 7T in spending during this same time frame?
The only way to stop this insanity is to cap the budget at 2011 levels and make manditory spending cuts of 1-2$% per year until we are ot of this hole.Â
Fiersty - you mention a leadership probelm from the Speaker. There is a leadership problem in Washington but everyone shares the blame - Obama, Boehner, and Reid. There is absolutely no leadership from anyone.  I can admit that - can you?
Please forgive me spelling errors. I forgot to proof read it before I sent it.
Steve - there is an easy to balance our budget, I agree, we can't spend more money than we take it, but we should be taking in more from the mega wealthy - they can afford it, we should fine every company that takes even one job out of this country and make it illegal for the US to import their products, heck, my husband can't even buy a good Cuban cigar but we are supposed to applaud all these banks and service centers that have people in India answering the service calls? I don't think so!
So true Union Baby.
Union Baby said: but we should be taking in more from the mega wealthy - they can afford it
I really have to ask this question... Is your comment any justification for a Robin Hood mentality? When does taking away from the rich stop? When they have the same amount as everyone else? If I were rich and had enough money to last my family and I the rest of our lives, I would stop working and earning because of your mentality. I wouldn't earn another dime just so the government couldn't tax me for my wealth. I'd have mine and you'd have whatever you have. Is this the way you want society to be? I might be able to afford all sorts of things, but taxes wouldn't something they could take away from me any longer.
You see, by always trying to take, take, take, people will find a way to avoid, avoid, avoid.
Union baby - I get the mantra of tax the wealthy more. I think it is wrong but I understand the idea. I also get Brian's point - when is it enough? Even if you tax the "wealthy" (I need a defined dollar amount) at a 90% tax rate it still will not fix our deficit spending. It simply won't. I don't want to punish the "wealthy" for their success.
I am not wealthy at all. I suggest everyone take a 1% tax hike and we also cap spending at 2011 levels and then reduce that spending 2% for the next 10 years.
Ira
Both ignored by Congress and the President.
Either Plan is better than this.
I agree. It is a fundamental lack of leadership from both parties. What we need is a serious solution to out of control spending and our leaders are failing miserably.
Union Baby,
A "CUBAN" cigar really?? You have something against an American cigar?? I mean you sit here and whine about the jobs leaving and banning imports from other countries, but yet you want a cuban cigar??
Your picture should be next to the definition of hypocrisy!
Let's stop playing the blaming game,one blame the Democrats, the other blame Sen.Reid,please think I will like We the people to think hard! First,I will say is the VOTERS to be blame for the position we are in right now,yes...now.From the inception, the Republicans at no time work with the President, they intentions is to have him fail, look (BAD), they want to make President Obama a (ONE TERM PRESIDENT).
Did they acted so with President George Bush? we the people must think use your common sense, the REPUBLICANS will prefer to see this wonderful country--USA go to dogs first before they work with this President. Why? you'll know WHY...I know for a fact, that a LEOPARD DON'T CHANGE ITS SPOTS.For eight years the Republicans had both upper and lower houses what did they do? Lies and more Lies, deceptions send your families to a WAR that was a LIE from the beginning, do you so blind? The DEMOCRATS always work for social and economical justice, if we say we are Americans what is so wrong in paying TAXES? don't pay and get laid off...or pay and keep your job?which one... please respond, get involve your eyes should be on the prize "vote Democrat" the INDEPENDENTS VOTERS AND SOME OF YOU DEM IS WHAT HAVE US HERE IN THIS SITUATION. The REPUBLICANS IS NOT FOR YOU WE THE PEOPLE, THEY ARE FOR .....They want to take away our SOCIAL SECURITY, OUR MEDICARE, and put us...WE THE PEOPLE BACK TO THE STONE AGE, I WANT YOU'LL TO TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
Have a blessed years ahead of you and your families Peace....errol
What about jobs, what about taxes..... did I miss something?
Is this a nighmare, a grand conspiracy or both?
for the last 2 weeks people on here been complaining the the sides wont compromise, now that they appear to have done so ya'll wanna argue bout who won what .....No wonder they politicians have such a hard time coming to agreements, its all about winning for your side not the country........
And you think the country won????????????
Conservative columnist David Frum provides interesting persepctive...
www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/
David Frum a conservative? What planet you come from?
Wasn't David Frum a speechwriter for 'W'?
Thought so...
Well, we know you reside in Uranus!
Frum is a RINO. He is a bad example of what it means to be a conservative. That lazy-eyed sukker will sell-out his mother for a spot on T.V.
Throw the pundit under the bus syndrome is alive and well and seems to be the same for both cheerleading squads...Frum IS a conservative even when he is critical of the right. Howard Fineman and Mark Halperin are both liberal journalists even when they are critical of the left.
Eric Erikson actually accused Bill Kristol of all people of being a supporter of the president!
Both sides expect strict adherence to their fragile sensibilities or they will disown you in a heartbeat...
Another example of the sameness of the two opposing teams playing here...
This was preordained to be a loser for the Prez and the dems in general. The repubs set the narrative way back when and once that was in place it was just a matter of keeping the drums beating.
Show of hands. Who thinks there is one democrat, including the President, that would have brought up anything about debt and/or deficit until the repubs forced that issue on them? This was always a loser for the democrats.
Riddle Me This...if we're talking about President John McCain's election in 2008 would we be having this discussion?
With the ascension of the Tea Party, then yes we would have.
But that really doesn't matter, does it? What matters is what did happen, not what didn't.
The dems lost the philosophical battle the day they passed health care.
When did McCain get elected... did I miss a vote?
I thought "the only adult in the room" was President...
you know the guy who just had his a-- handed to him by "some drunk orange guy"LMAO
Duly noted, kirby...in the end the conversation may not matter but it doesn't mean the conversation isn't worth having.
The Tea Party movement has actually been around for a while as a Libertarian movement but given the way the GOP has co-opted the movement as a knee-jerk reaction to President Obama's election I'd have to guess that no, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Noid -
The reaction was not to President Obamas election, it was for an over reaching health care bill that probably will be taken down by the Supremes when it gets there.
The dems spent over a year and gave up their majorities because people don't want that much government.
And libertarians such as myself aren't anti government. We are pro LOCAL government and anti more federal. The fed have proven time and again that they are poor stwards of the peoples money. That is why we don't want to give them more.
You're funny. You think local government is less corrupt? Take off the blindfold please.
Silly, silly
Of course local government can be corrupt. The difference is that we have a far greater degree of control on local government. We don't have much control over a federal government that controls schools or and EPA that places draconian (love that word) rules over everyone.
OK, so say you live in northern Florida and all of a sudden you find there is no water coming from the tap, turn on the news, and oh, look. Georgia decided to reroute the river that serviced you and send all the water to Atlanta. You complaint about it to the state of Georgia, and their response is, "tough luck, maybe you should live in Georgia, or start you own rivers" If there is no federal agency to resolve the problem who is going to help you then? Should each state have it's own army and go to war with other states over resources? air pollution? radiation? air wave use? flight paths?
To J >>never said that gagger so dont do what the teagags do and try to put words in my mouth to make one of your off the wall points, what i said was its become all about which sides win for their side not for the good of the country so that makes a comprimise agreement harder
I have been wondering how effective those Socialist College Profs are at turning the masses against success. I just found out.
I love how people are blaming Obama for out of control spending, when in fact, most of the out of control spending stems from stuff prior admininstrations put into being without funding them...Obama is directly responsible for a fraction of what he's being blamed for...but math and facts are foreign concepts to the teapalinban and a-Bachmans out there.
Obama is the POTUS and he asked for the job. It is an AS-IS job.
Just because you don't like Republicans; it doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.
Yes...an "AS-IS" job, but again, as with all "AS-IS" anythings (such as cars), the problems were there when he took the job...NOT that he was the one who created the problems as the Republicans have recently claimed!
Democrat, RINO, CBO, all elitist enemies of hard working citizens why else raise the ceiling on the Federal Credit Card and KEEP RIGHT ON SPENDING?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Bachmann 2012
Bachmann 2012. Right, she is a much better leader than the current stock of jokers. She has proven it already because she lead/leads ___________. Fill in the blank Madison.
Bachmann has more experience than Obama did when he ran for office.
"Bachmann has more experience than Obama did when he ran for office"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
But Obama isn't nuts.
I wasn't too keen on this deal until I found out Bachman is against it. Now strangely it seems a little better.
w bush said,
But Obama isn't nuts.
The jury still out on that one...
But one things for sure, the guy folds faster than a cheap lawn chair!!
"leading from behind" - now that's change you can believe in!!
In the last 850+days...
Congress has not passed any Budget bills to the POTUS for signature...
The House under Pelosi - refused to submit any budget, even when she had the MAJORITY of the seats...
The Senate under Reid - refused to submit any budget, even when he had a 'Super Majority'...
Obama - threatened to VETO any bill that did not kick the can down the road and raise taxes, until after the 2012 election...
The House under Boehner - has Passed TWO bills in the house and then submitted them to the Senate for reconciliation. Where Reid refused to even debate them...
Now tell me WHO are the people not doing their job???
Even this compromise has not been voted on - just TALK...
AC - Stop with the facts. They don't matter to partisan politics. All I read on this blog is how both parties have to compromise. Well they did and people still complain and blame the GOP.
Gee imagine that blaming the GOP! Yes they should take credit and great pride in driving this country to the brink in the middle of a recession. Nobody can say they don't have great timing.
We hear the term discretionary spending and usually it is connected to Social Security and Medicare, the problem I have with that is Social Security and Medicare in my view is not discretionary, just the opposite, every week I look at my pay stub and I see one line labeled Social Security and another line labeled Medicare that does not sound discretionary to me it sound rather specific. They take money out of my pay check (not to mention that the company I work for matches these taxes) for these specific programs and therefore the money should not be spent on anything other than these two programs.
Unfortunatly congress decided sometime in the 60's that the funds specifically collected for these two specific programs should be put into the general fund and budgeted for whatever pork barrel/earmark program that would help them get re-elected.
That is the simple fact, that is the simple truth, too bad the American people don't get what has really happened and vote out of office all the politicians who refuse to first acknowledge that they spent our money for unrelated items and second refuse to secure these two programs and cut the pork barrel/earmark system for good.
It was Clinton who moved/stole the social Security trust funds $2.6+Trillion+USD and counted it as 'general funds'. He did this so he could claim he 'Balanced the Budget'. ha! Ha!
The fund is solvent until 2017 and if the US Gov pays the interest owed it is solvent until 2025...
AC Robertson proves just how uninformed and politically slanted ones view can become. Perhaps you should do just a little research and you might have an abundance of knowledge at your disposal. Your hatred of Clinton shows through your uninformed opinion.
The Social Security funds were placed in the genreral funds in the mid 60's while Johnson was is office, and ever since then every President and congress has spent the Social Security funds for other purposes.
Once again the middle class takes it in the shorts, when to the rich start paying their share since they are the ones with the lobbiest, oh right not the way it works in America only the rich have rights and the surfs just serve the masters, Strange I thought we left England to get away from a two class system and now we are right back were we started, and by the way someone please go back and read what the Boston Tea Party was about. TEA a drink, the British government gave a tax cut to the East India Company and to make up for that lost increased the tax on the colonies. Compare to this. We give the rich (east India Company) and raise taxes on the middle class (colonies) So who deserves a Tea Party? The ones giving tax cuts to the East India Company (Republicans)
Don't sell the President short on this. He really got the better part of the deal while not looking greedy.
Congress will have to make the details of the deal work, so the heat is on them, especially the House since Boehner now owns this. There won't be any more debt ceiling issues or serious cuts going into effect until after the 2012 election. The President is the one who comes out looking like the hero, the only adult in the room, the only one with real leadership skills, and the only one who is putting the country first even if it angers his base. Obama is actually going to look very good in the history books for this act of leadership and compromise at this time of crisis in American history. Not only will Obama be a two term president, but he'll stand out as one of the best presidents we've had since Kennedy and Johnson.
But the smartest thing he got was by giving in what he did, he's giving the GOP and the Tea Party just enough rope to hang themselves before the 2012 election gets here, which they will surely do, especially locked into all the pledges they are signing.
Then why are his approval ratings in the LOW 40s???
His ratings are a short term reaction to an economy that isn't recovering fast enough. I hold most of the blame for the jobs situation on corporations slashing jobs and outsourcing whatever they can to pad their executive bonuses for short term gains. With jobs continually leaving the country and workforce cutbacks putting the extra work on who's left, that's been canceling out the real job creation that has been happening. Once jobs and the economy rebound, he'll be back in the high numbers again. Most analysts expect a more robust recovery in 2012. It's a very long time in politics until Nov 2012 and short term numbers rise and fall like the wind so you can't put much stock in current percentages.
And I believe his numbers are actually higher than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and other presidents at this time in their first terms who all went on to win re-election, so 40% at this time is certainly not a telling indicator of failure or success.
With the final campaign just around the corner, the Prez is going to take full advantage of the GOP/TP's refusal to consider the serious debt reduction in the 4 trillion "Grand Bargain" plan.
Whatever the GOP/TP think they gained politically this month, they lost that and more in the the next election round of 2012 by handing BHO(and his party) the public mantle of "Mr. Serious About Debt Reduction" and "Mr. The Country Comes First". Say what you will, the next round and the match will go to Obama and the Democrats as a result of their Pepsi moment.
By November 2012, the middle class will already know what happened in this "deal" and make the GOP/TP pay dearly for their pseudo-patriotic shouting while lining the pockets of already under-taxed and loophole-entitled supporters with 700 Billion in tax cuts and continuing tax advantages denied to the small businessman and everyday taxpayers.
You should have taken the Grand Bargain @ 4 Trillion and and upped the ante to 7 Trillion. The chance is now gone and you no longer "own" this issue in the political arena. Between that and the fact that the GOP/TP congressmen has done little or nothing to create jobs (lambasting BHO doesn't count as evidence of effort), the GO/TP have made their shallow and selfish goal of ousting Obama a pipe dream.
No one who matters in this debate has any interest in solving any of the problems faced by this country. If they did care they would have done simple things like fix the AMT once and for all by raising the trigger to a number resembling a 1960's $250k in today's $$$ and tying it to inflation or COLA. One simple bill would stop this being an issue every year that causes increased expenses (every year) at the IRS.
Other important items (that you will never see addressed because they are difficult):
They would close obviously unfair loop holes in the tax code that one protect the very rich.
They would actually review the legislation they are voting on prior to making statements they have to back away from later.
Pork would be returned to the butcher isle in you grocery store and any spending measures would be addressed in the budget or as individual bills. No omnibus spending bills could be proposed or passed.
They would grow a pair and explain to the voters in their states that you can't have everything you want and some things cost more than we can afford.
Paid lobbyists would be lined up on the capitol steps and shot. Corporations are kind of slow this might have to happen more than once.
No Federal allowance for travel or lodging would be allowed. If the State would like cover that, they could.
Congress and the POTUS would have to participate in the Federal Employee Health Care Plans like every other employee of the Federal gov.
Any Congressman or POTUS convicted of violating election law would get an automatic minimum sentence of 25 years w/o parole at Leavenworth and all assets of said politician would be confiscated and sold with proceeds going to the Social Security Trust fund.
Pain is a great motivator, remove all padded seating from both chambers and all offices and the White House. Turn off the A/C only provide enough heat to keep the pipes thawed. The less time they are in Washington the better. Miss 3 floor votes (remote voting is not allowed) and you have resigned your post and will be replaced.
Just a few things that would make a difference.
The CBO estimates that if the deal is enacted, it would reduce cumulative deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the period from 2012 to 2021. The CBO also said the agreement would allow Obama to increase the limit on government borrowing, in stages, by between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion.
I wasn't a math major but $2.1 to $2.4 Trillion in borrowing - $2.1 Trillion in reductions = $0 to $300 Billion in additional spending. So, we are happy that we are cutting some spending over ten years, while increasing the limit to the same level? Also, we continue to overspend each year by about $1.5 trillion so doesn't that mean that we are still woefully out of kilter? Lastly, our debt has just about hit GDP- so if everything we do can't offset our debt payments where do we get the money to pay our other bills??
When the Titanic hit the iceberg I don't think there was an arguement about what they hit, but they were sinking and they had better do something about the problem. Same thing with governments wasteful spending and its debt. They know they are sinking, but keep saying we can take on a few more trillions in wasteful spending before the lights go out.
It is time for the people of the republic of the USA to become knowledgeable of the real issues behind the financial woes in this great nation. The foundation of our economy is flawed. The US government lacks the authority to create interest free money. This right was given away to the privately owned Federal Reserve which creates money out of thin air then lends it to the government with interest. We the tax payers have been left with the task of repaying these loans. We are being "madoffed." If the US government had the right to make it own money that was backed, not necessarily by gold or silver whose price has and can be manipulated, but by the productivity of the nation as a whole we would not be dealing with this mess. The other problem is that the economy is based on consumption. Ever since the mortgage crisis many Americans started living financially responsibly (within their means). Just imagine that Americans living within their means, budgeting and refusing to live off credit has delayed recovery from the recession. Is the fix really to give them more money so to entice them to revert to their former ways? I say leave the people alone and fix the broken system.
P.S. Rich people are rich because they understand fiscal responsibility. If you give them more money via tax breaks they are going to do what they have always been doing: hoard their money. If they own businesses they will of course hire more employees in China not here in the U.S. How is that going to trickle down to us here in the US?
Obama and the Democrats truly spent a great deal of money since assuming office. It was unavoidable. Let me explain it in simple terms. If a relative of yours were involved in a serious automobile accident and had multiple serious injuries requiring urgent medical action. How would you feel if the paramedics, the ER doctors and surgeons delayed necessary care arguing about how much it would cost to attend to your relative? The right thing to do would be to attend to your relatives and deal with the financial costs later. This is what the Democrats did. Of course as in the medical field, in spite of the best emergent medical care, patients still die or don’t do as well as we would like. I think any reasonable person would get where I am coming from.
The Fed doesn't create money out of thin air. They don't just print money. Those are illegal for good reasons as they would rapidly devaluate the currency and cause run away inflation. Governments have done those things in the past with catastrophic results. The Fed is definitely not perfect but they do try to ensure that the currency retrains value and avoids inflation and deflation.
the Fed can put more money into circulation is to sell Treasury bill, notes, etc... That means that China, other nations, and wealthy investors are funding more of the U.S. debt and that isn't good in the long term, so there's no argument that we have to get the debt under control.
HUMMM. That sounds like The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
I feels like Bush's actions can never be corrected!!
So basically the cuts will come from the Middle class and Elderly, how about creating some JOBS! I mean we've heard from the bagger brigade all these months that if we raised taxes on the wealthy they won't create jobs, that's been happing since Jr. was in office, they pay the smallest taxes since the 1960's so now what they will say, "we cannot create any jobs because the cuts weren't big enough"! Don't worry folks you'll hear all the same B.S. during the election year parade and wait for it, in September we will be right back here because they will have to pass a budget plan, then November is when the second round of cuts will go into effect. This is the righties on steroids, we didn't have to get rid of the GOP, just put enough wingnuts in there to stir up a mess and Obama caved to em. It's like Bush Lite!!
Start a company and create your own job. Government doesn't create jobs.
Go USA-.... what government does is to create an atmosphere where business can thrive or shrivil on a vine.
The government agencies that have become uncontrolable due to a lack of forceful oversight by congress have implemented rules and regulations that hamper not only businesses in the United States of America but to individual citizen/taxpayers.
So to your position that government does not create jobs you are correct but government can and does stifle progress. No government agency should have the absolute right to implement any rules or regulations without the consent of congress. Government agencies can make proposals but the congress must debate and vote on each proposal. only congress can authorize the final proposals to be implemented by these government agencies.
Furthermore, we have to get ride of the unelected and unconstitutional CZARS that have become too powerful and too costly.
No one is happy but as long as the Tea Party continues to drive the bus! We will find ourselves near the edge again! The Republicans are hanging their future on a group that prefer to kamikaze rather than compromise!
California Girl,
We are going over the edge anyhow. There are no real cuts. Almost All the cuts are really programs that were budgeted that they are scrapping, so there is no actual reduction. We are still GUARANTEED a default at this point, and with this plan, just a matter of how and when.
California Girl what the hell you talking about the state you live in is on the verge of going bankrupt and you want to attack a group of people for standing up and voicing their opinions. Neither you or I may agree with all or even part of what they stand for but whether you like it or not they have the right under the constitution the same as you do to express their opinions. They did play a big part in the 2010 election and now we have to deal with the issues at hand.
Too bad the dumocrats did not do their job in the first two years of the obama term. They bribed their way through two years and now we are all paying for it. That is the kind of compromise you believe in, if you can not get your fellow congress people to vote for a bill then compromise with them until you bribe them with some pork barrel/earmark project in their district or state to help them get re-elected, oh and the rest of the country will pay the bill not only for the bribe or as you put it 'the big compromise' in order to pass bills that would otherwise not get passed.