E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart join Morning Joe to discuss why U.S. trade laws need to be revised and why the country's tax code has to focus on production as well as consumption.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) predicted that the supercommittee charged with reaching a deal on deficit reduction would not reach an agreement by its mid-November deadline.
Schumer, a top Senate Democrat, said Monday during an interview on MNSBC that he viewed a deal as unlikely, and he blamed Republicans for the current impasse.
"I don't think the gang of -- the supercommittee is going to succeed, because our Republican colleagues have said no net revenues," he told Joe and Mika on Morning Joe.
Republicans have pushed back against Schumer's claims, saying that the GOP has never said they want "no net revenues", but sticking by their mantra of calling for no tax hikes.
Supercommittee Co-Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) reiterated that point to the Wall Street Journal in this morning's paper:
"Republicans want more revenues," he told the WSJ, "We want more revenues by growing the economy; we're not happy with revenues at 14% of GDP, but we don't want to do it by raising rates."
Boehner echoed this call on ABC's This Week, saying that reform of the tax code could raise revenues without raising rates. "We'd have a broader base on the tax rules," Boehner said on 'This Week', "And out of that, there would be real economic growth and more revenues for the federal government."
There is talk that reforming the tax code could be included in a deal by the supercommittee, if there actually is a deal. But the scope of that reform is still in question.
The tax code reform would likely not be done by the supercommittee itself, but probably as a mandate for future work by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees to be completed by a deadline decided on by the supercommittee.
Leave a Comment:
*yawn*
This is the direct result of what happens when tea baggers put an bullsh!t oath to some parasitic lobbyist before COUNTRY!
30 years of trickle down has come home to roost! ;o)
Indeed.
But it does beg the question of who the REAL parasites are in this picture.
Since 2003 tax rates have been at historic lows and yet there is no job growth other than a small blip.
So if Republicans are so sure that tax increases will destroy jobs then why not try what the Dems are asking for and prove once and for all which side is correct. If the Republicans are proven to be correct they will hold the majority for a decade or more.
What are the Republicans afraid of?
Voodoo economics was and is a nuclear weapon used by the wealthy to win the Class War.
It worked fantastically.
Graph the change in the effective tax rate for the 1% against the health of the middle class and what do you see? Graph the change in the effective tax rate for the 1% against the size of the national debt and what do you see? (I'm offering up this graphing exercise to the good folk at First Read and MSNBC. I would love to see the results. Maybe they can outsource it to Ezra Klein, he isn't afraid of math.)
The Liberals are so disappointed the GOP will not raise taxes. That after the Democrats won't cut spending, and instead want to spend even more (see Obama's Stimulus II for details). $15 trillion dollars of debt. Doesn't look like the Democrats are clear about what happened in last years election. They probably need another dose of reality next year.
The Dems have already agreed to 1.5 trillion dollars in spending cuts in the last 10 months.
And the debt just keeps going up.
$1.5 trillion is window dressing, to be done "later". You think a future Congress is accountable to any cuts agreed to today? Today's spending needs to be cut. The people in Washington are accountable for today's deficits and they need to cut that spending, and they can't even come up a budget for this next years spending, so how do you expect them to manage any future spending?
Dennis,
Clinton dropped the capital gains tax big time, we had sane budgets, new costs/regulations such as national health care were defeated and a bunch of jobs were created.
Bush inherited a recession and after a few years dropped the marginal rates - we added over 8 million jobs .... should have been more but with his devaluation of the dollar, deficit spending etc. - it was what it was - only 8 million jobs.
What is there to prove - it has been proven time and again.
Why don't you guys ever figure it out?
"deficits don't matter", not when the Republicans are in charge anyway.
Bob and JoAnna,
You must live in an alternate reality if you think Bush inherited anything but a surplus and caused the this recession and the drop in revenues by his own policies. Nothing more. But good luck selling your argument to the American people. One thing you are correct about, liberals and moderates did not show up to vote in 2010 and you ran away with seats that should not be in irresponsible Republican hands. This will turn in 2012. OWS rocks! Obama 2012.
I never talk about what someone "inherited". If that person isn't man/woman enough to deal with what the current situation is, they shouldn't be there.
So why does the Administration keep pushing for an extension of the payroll tax cut in it's jobs bill?
ABanana,
Surplus?
The national debt increased every year under Clinton.
FY 1993 - $4.411488 Trillion
FY 1994 - $4.692749
FY 1995 - $4.973982
FY 1996 - $5.224810
FY 1997 - $5.413146
FY 1998 - $5.526193
FY 1999 - $5.656270
FY 2000 - $5.674178
FY 2001 - $5.807463
[Source US Treasury Dept.]
So where is that surplus?
The recession was caused by a collapse of the financial markets, a credit issue.
You don't understand the difference between a credit issue among our home mortgage lenders/financial markets and the individual marginal tax rate? (Obviously)
BTW - Bush's revenue in 2007 was 18.5% of GDP .... Obama's is 14%.
Bush's fault for that too?
Bobby
Do you understand the difference between a deficit and a debit?
Under Clinton he had a surplus (deficit) even while the national debit went up
Factcheck.org is your friend
Well I'll be damned....they are finally admitting that we have a REVENUE problem. They must have missed that important fact over this past year!
The first problem is Teapublicansupporters, if they watch news at all, are misinformed by FOX Noise and Hate Radio about tax increases. These right-wing supporters are not told that the president included additional tax CUTS for the middle class in the stimulus, as well as payroll tax cuts, both of which actually help the economy. These right-wing supporters are told the Dems want to increase their taxes, which of course is a big LIE, since the Dems were blackmailed into extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to keep the cuts for the 98%.
The revenue that the president and Dems have been struggling to get are ending subsidies (tax expenditures) to Big Oil and other highly-profitable industries that do not need tax breaks, and loopholes--in other words "cheating" on taxes, most of all loopholes on capital gains that only applies to the richest 1%. And of course the president and the Demshave tried to pay for economic stimulus and job creation with a drop-in-the-bucket surtax on multi-millionaires so that this wouldn't be added to the deficit.
WHY are Teapublicans and their supporters against ending tax expenditures, loophole "cheating," and a surtax that will NOT affect them? There is only one reason and it is the pact made among Teapublicans to keep the economy in the toilet so they will have a chance in hell of winning the White House and keeping seats in congress in 2012. The Teapublican supporters (low-information voters) are simpletons who fall for the right-wing propaganda every time.
Speaking of simpletons, watch Fareed Zakria's presentation of education in the US--I believe we rank 26th in the world. A major factor is poverty. Our children cannot perform because they live in friggin' poverty. We as a nation have already fallen from Super Power status to just a world power status. If we don't invest in turning things around, we will fall even more. Throw the treasonous Teapublicans out.
bob-1805084-- Your so-called data is flawed, just like the chicken crap the Cato Institute pushes about taxes "paying for themselves." There are so many variables such as the housing bubble (individual wealth, home equity used as an ATM machine) that artificially skews the statistics. The FACT is jobs barely kept pace with population growth during Bush. The FACT is wages have been stagnant for the last 30 years. The FACT is policies such as unfair tax codes during Republican administration has made the rich richer (look at the GINI coefficient). Enough.
bob-1805084.........."BTW - Bush's revenue in 2007 was 18.5% of GDP .... Obama's is 14%." Are we counting the number of jobs lost while bush was in office through the trade deals passed ? MAtter of fact..not one of our politicans is looking that the huge job losses from the loss of manufacturing thanks to these trade deals..they never talk of those...they are only complaining of loss of tax income..which is a direct result of a huge loss of manufacturing jobs. What bothers me is that none of them are concerned about that loss...they do not care.
screeeeminglibby,
You mean debt, or is there an official national "debit"?
Why don't you how us how that works.
Regardless, the national debt CANNOT increase if there is a deficit/surplus. Simple math. The numbers above prove there was no "surplus."
Bottom line is that Clinton took in a great deal of "surplus" social security due to increased job/wealth growth. Social security is a future obligation not income ...... nice lib trick for the clueless though.
Dont_
Obama is spending 25% of GDP with revenue of 14% of GDP.
Revenue has never exceeded 20% of GDP under any president at any tax rate in any economy!
Revenue is great, we need it .... revenue equal to Bush's would be wonderful. It is primarily a function of a healthy economy. We need the revenue of 14 million unemployed paying taxes, oil lease revenue, revenue from companies growing, etc.
Regardless, problem is still spending ... there isn't enough revenue to cover Obama's asinine spending.
Wow TP,
It all sounded like your normal liberal mindless drool until you mentioned GINI.
Had no idea you had a clue what GINI is.
Problem is that that the GINI index was flat under Bush, has risen under Obama (another index has the rise at 5.7%), but the biggest bad boy of all .... where it rose the most in the last 30 years to 6.7% .... was UNDER CLINTON!
So are you ignorant about that part like everything else .... or are you just a liar?
ivan,
The trade deals were negotiated and agreed to under Bush, but Obama sat on them for his union buds until just recently when they offered to Congress and signed by Obama.
I mention the job loss factor in reply to dont— - dems are the ones not thinking about that factor.....how do you create jobs by raising taxes?
Bob -- I'm for repatriating like Bush did to increase our revenue. That added about 300 billion to our coffers under Bush. We can tag that revenue to infrastructure spending and we all win. ; )
@beachbum12,
Nothing will get accomplished by this committee is the truth. So, are there mandates that have to kick in if they don't?
I do like you comment about getting a random selection of citizens to work on this measure. I just bet they, Dem and GOP alike, could accomplish what the professional politicians can't.
By increasing revenue through things like reinstating a "transaction tax" on Wall Street, by increasing the tax BASE the way Reagan did by eliminating tax credits (most of all loophole "cheating"), etc., etc., then that REVENUE can be used for construction of schools, roads and bridges to create jobs. The teenie tiny surtax on multi-millionaires could have at least preserved jobs for teachers and first responders. And we need infrastructure and government services anyway.
bob-1805084 -- That's how you create jobs -- By increasing revenue so we can INVEST in our nation. Now you explain how "starve the beast" cuts in spending will create jobs. News flash Bob, the so-called rich "job creators" do not create jobs, and will not create jobs no matter how much you cut their taxes or deregulate -- as we've seen for the last decade plus.
Many small business owners are not in the richest 1% or even richest 2%, and they are not going to hire new workers until the uncertainty caused by Teapublican threat-downs stop, and until demand is increased. Demand cannot increase until people have JOBS. That's what comes first! Please see above.
Can anyone tell me how cutting spending will create jobs?? If we cut spending, say in defense, $100 billion, so what happens to the $100 billion??? Doesn't go it anywhere?? What happens to it??? We cut $50 billions in Education, again what happens to the $50 billions. Where does it go???Do we transfer the now $150 billions to the IRS or the FED and say do with it the way you what. Do we say here is $150 billion and build roads and repair bridges, hire more teachers or firefighters??? Or do we just put the $150 billion is a bank somewhere???
And then what happens to the people who's jobs are cut when we make these cuts in spending??? The money will no longer be there, so someone or something will be out of money. Enture someone will be out of a job, right!!!
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Republicans want more revenue. They just don't want more taxes. And they don't want to eliminate Big Oil subsidies. And they don't want to eliminate agricultural subsidies. And they know that nobody is going to eliminate the mortgage deduction in the middle of a housing crisis. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. But MORE THAN ANYTHING THEY KNOW ANOTHER IMPASSE WILL TANK THE MARKETS AND DRIVE DOWN JOB GROWTH. And they like that, because it is too early on the political clock for job growth. Their position is NOT TECHNICALLY treasonous. But it rhymes with treason: as in absolutely no reason (except to make things WORSE in '12).
Next the GOP will tell everyone to "Eat their peas". Oh, wait, . . . . .
It's tough BD. It's tough that people in Washington actually need to be held accountable, start to say no to the out of control spending and actually do their jobs. Of the course the people that are used to the entitlements they previously enjoyed from all that deficit spending will not be happy. See Greece, Oakland, and the Unions for details.
Another failure by republicans in Congress, they have accomplished nothing, and this will likely cause Obama's numbers to tick up a little more, they continue to make it harder for the eventual republican nominee to win in 2012.
"It's tough that people in Washington actually need to be held accountable", if that were true most of the last administration would be in jail.
You are incorrect about the ag subsidies.
Sorry bud but we believe in keeping more of "our" money and spend it the way "we" want rather than hand it over to some mindless politician that will take the added revenue and play Santa Claus to get more votes.
Schmuck Chewmer is finally right about something.
The debt commission just ain't up to the task. It shoudn't be a big surprise considering there's six democrats on it. Thankfully, the republicans didn't trust the dems and insisted on triggers and built in spending cuts.
If not for the Republicans we would be looking at another DOWNGRADE in our credit rating.
It's time for serious people in Washington. It's time for the democrat party to get out of the way.
Are we talking Debt Commission or "Supercommittee"? They're 2 different things.
Anway, when the deal was struck back in the summer that created the "Supercommittee", John Boehner beat his chest and proudly exclaimed that the GOP got "98% of what we wanted". Just so we're clear for future references, was the "Supercommittee" part of that 98% or was it the 2% that they didn't want?
"If not for the Republicans we would be looking at another DOWNGRADE in our credit rating."
Since the Republicans were responsible for the last downgrade it would be a shame to see them go 2 for 2, which is exactly what it would appear will happen when they once again threaten the world with not paying our debts, Grovers little zombies are a class act indeed.
Are we talking Debt Commission or "Supercommittee"? They're 2 different things....
my mistake.....tough to keep track of all these rouses that Obama dreams up and then ignores
ROB it was the GOP Tea party that wanted the government to go under. They said that they did not care if our government when bankrupt and our rating was downgraded. And you know why?? because it would make Obama look bad, he was to blame, he wouldn't agree to a "CUT AND CAP" plan with NO TAX increase on the rich and wealthy.
Abolish our current "pay to play" elitist Congress and replace it with a governing body that takes people from all walks of life both wealthy and poor, make Congressional lobbying a crime punishable by death, any political election campaigns receive a predetermined amount of money from the federal government, no other funds, personal or donated allowed, doze wall street and the chamber of commerce flat and never allow their return, teach our children how evil institutions like them can destroy nations and peoples lives, eliminate our entire for profit health-care industry and related insurance industry, everyone has exactly the same access to health-care from birth to death, everyone pays into that one system. Our political system/government is beyond repair and regardless of your political belief the fact is we can not vote our way to a just, representative, responsive, honest government ever again, so it's time to move on to the next chapter in our nations history.
Yes. and once elected they hold that position, reducing the constant reelection process. Wages that any normal middle class person would be happy with, not more.
How do we get there? I am on board. You are right, we can't vote our way out of this.
brilliant, the libs will be able to cut our defenses in half, and increase taxes.
then they can finally replace the stars and stripes with the hammer and sickle.
a liberal dream come true.
Read my lips. No new taxes.
Well, bring on the mandated spending reductions and lets see what happens. Kind if like an Economic Snow Day.
There was a mandate when the republicans won the house. That was no tax increases. They are doing just that. They will keep thier jobs, as long as they hold thier ground.
I agree with LT. Bring on the automatic cuts. But that will never happen, because all of the Republicans and half of the Democrats are complete whores for the military industrial complex. Just as Eishenhower warned us!
But that will never happen – You are correct because John McCain has already said that since we (Congress) put these triggers in place we can remove them.
why didnt bam bam just increase the debt ceiling when he and the libs controlled all of congress?
Frankly, Schumer doesn't know whether the supercommittee will fail or succeed. Time pressure--exactly like that experienced during the debt ceiling 'crisis'--has a way of improving everyone's decision making ability.
We'll see, but the worst outcome would be to try to prop up defense spending while allowing the other cuts to be enacted.
Bob--Clinton created a surplus for Bush's first year in office, a surplus that Bush immediately squandered in tax breaks for the wealthy.
This may be another bimbo looking for fame and fortune just as the goofy attorneys who are running their mouths and getting their name in the paper. Who knows if any of this stuff is true, people can be paid to say anything. Maybe the real problem is that the white guys haven't been getting enough press lately. Maybe we we are all getting sick of Perry and Romney who have the answers to nothing. Newt, at this point in life, you are only carrying the bags for the big boys!
Well I guess only Clinton and Kennedy can have sex with women other than there wives and get by with it! Oh, I'm sorry they were Democrats! I do not believe in the validity of these three faceless charges and one now with a face and an attorney. Ms. Bialeck even says she will not file a charge or complaint against Mr. Cain! I smell the south end of a north bound donkey here. Some one on the left wants Mr. Cain out pretty bad to drop to this level.
John your statement has no validity because you say "you guess." Its like me guessing you smell like a donkey. I know you don't. Its like assuming, you know it to well.
Translation: you squeezed little American folks are going to have a crappy Thanksgiving. And it doesn't look too good for Christmas either. you're warned
If this sub Super Committee fails as many think it will, we will suffer through high unemployement and gridlock, mostly because the Repubs will not compromise. In Nov 2012 we are going to go one way or the other and I really think this election in Ohio may be an indicator of which way the wind is going to blow. The working class is tired of NO representation from the group who is working only for the 1%. I think the Repubs need to consider getting some credit for job starts before the next election. To reword what Perry said in his giggly voice recently, live on what you have done to the country and die (politically). We will see if the Repubs are going out hanging onto their policies that have made the mess in the first place and has extended the country's pain so far.