GOP Counteroffer

[kwc57]

i guess we call put this down as laughable then.

Define "fair share".

 

[kwc57]

so the majority of the cuts will be felt by the poor and seniors as there are substantial reductions in medicare, medicaid and social security, cuts to food stamps, there is no mention of specific in the tax loop holes that will be closed to generate this new revenue, but they do proposed cutting rates to even lower levels, they also propose to cut federal employee salaries (although i can guess that congress will be excluded from the cuts).

so how is this a good plan?

Define "fair share".

 

[rightwinger]

Hard to tell what they are offering

No specific revenue increases just generic close tax loopholes

What gets cut? nothing in the military, vague references to Medicare and SNAP.

Hopefully they will be more specific in closed sessions

Define "fair share".

Pre Bush tax rates

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

so the majority of the cuts will be felt by the poor and seniors as there are substantial reductions in medicare, medicaid and social security, cuts to food stamps, there is no mention of specific in the tax loop holes that will be closed to generate this new revenue, but they do proposed cutting rates to even lower levels, they also propose to cut federal employee salaries (although i can guess that congress will be excluded from the cuts).

so how is this a good plan?

Define "fair share".

move the rate on capital gains back to the same rates as ordinary income so all income is treated the same.

 

[Sallow]

Here it is.

House GOP makes a $2.2 trillion debt counteroffer to Obama on cliff - The Hill

House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the party’s just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.

The GOP offer is a response to Obama’s opening bid, which called for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and reducing the power of Congress to block an increase in the debt ceiling.

“What we are putting forward is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House,” Boehner told reporters in a brief appearance at the Capitol. He said he hoped the administration would respond in a timely manner.............

They put up warmed over ideas by Erskine Bowles..who is now out of politics?

This is "serious"?

Bowles, himself, ran away from the plan.


Go go go, Fiscal Cliff!

 

[kwc57]

Hard to tell what they are offering

No specific revenue increases just generic close tax loopholes

What gets cut? nothing in the military, vague references to Medicare and SNAP.

Hopefully they will be more specific in closed sessions

Define "fair share".

Pre Bush tax rates

On all taxpayers equally or just the ones you envy? If we're going to demonize the right for being vague, you'd better come loaded for bear. Specifically who and how are you going to access this fair share on? What makes it a fair share? The richest 1% in the US already pay the bulk of taxes, so how much more is fair?

 

[kwc57]

so the majority of the cuts will be felt by the poor and seniors as there are substantial reductions in medicare, medicaid and social security, cuts to food stamps, there is no mention of specific in the tax loop holes that will be closed to generate this new revenue, but they do proposed cutting rates to even lower levels, they also propose to cut federal employee salaries (although i can guess that congress will be excluded from the cuts).

so how is this a good plan?

Define "fair share".

move the rate on capital gains back to the same rates as ordinary income so all income is treated the same.

Numbers. Data. Define it in a plan that everyone can understand. Something Congress can vote on and Obama put his signature to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Negotiations

A: $800B revenue, spending cuts
A1: $1.6 T revenue, spending Increase
A2: Congress surrenders its control of the purse

He needs to wear the Bozo outfit so people know that he's joking

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so the majority of the cuts will be felt by the poor and seniors as there are substantial reductions in medicare, medicaid and social security, cuts to food stamps, there is no mention of specific in the tax loop holes that will be closed to generate this new revenue, but they do proposed cutting rates to even lower levels, they also propose to cut federal employee salaries (although i can guess that congress will be excluded from the cuts).

so how is this a good plan?

Define "fair share".

move the rate on capital gains back to the same rates as ordinary income so all income is treated the same.

Why?

 

[rightwinger]

Define "fair share".

Pre Bush tax rates

On all taxpayers equally or just the ones you envy? If we're going to demonize the right for being vague, you'd better come loaded for bear. Specifically who and how are you going to access this fair share on? What makes it a fair share? The richest 1% in the US already pay the bulk of taxes, so how much more is fair?

The richest 1% control 40% of our nations wealth. So yes, it is "fair" that they contribute the most to our taxes.

If they are willing to "trickle down" some of that wealth, their tax burden would not be as high

 

[kwc57]

Here it is.

House GOP makes a $2.2 trillion debt counteroffer to Obama on cliff - The Hill

House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the party’s just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.

The GOP offer is a response to Obama’s opening bid, which called for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and reducing the power of Congress to block an increase in the debt ceiling.

“What we are putting forward is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House,” Boehner told reporters in a brief appearance at the Capitol. He said he hoped the administration would respond in a timely manner.............

They put up warmed over ideas by Erskine Bowles..who is now out of politics?

This is "serious"?

Bowles, himself, ran away from the plan.


Go go go, Fiscal Cliff!

Remind us again what detailed serious cuts Obama has offered?

Personally, I'm fine with going over the fiscal cliff. If our elected officials are too chickenshit to sit down and hammer something out.....Obama included, then they need to live with what they did agree on sometime back. Let the automatic spending cuts fall into line and make the conservatives happy and let the BUSH tax cuts expire and the liberals happy. Problem solved on both sides.

 

[rightwinger]

Define "fair share".

move the rate on capital gains back to the same rates as ordinary income so all income is treated the same.

Why?

Why does someone who earns $30,000 digging a ditch pay taxes at a higher rate than someone who earned $30,000 by moving money from one place to another?

 

[kwc57]

Pre Bush tax rates

On all taxpayers equally or just the ones you envy? If we're going to demonize the right for being vague, you'd better come loaded for bear. Specifically who and how are you going to access this fair share on? What makes it a fair share? The richest 1% in the US already pay the bulk of taxes, so how much more is fair?

The richest 1% control 40% of our nations wealth. So yes, it is "fair" that they contribute the most to our taxes.

If they are willing to "trickle down" some of that wealth, their tax burden would not be as high

It's their wealth. Why do you feel entitled to it? I've posted this before and liberals never answer it. If my wife only puts out once a month and your wife puts out daily, shouldn't I get to have sex with your wife at least once a week? Shouldn't you be giving your "fair share"? I mean why should you get all the sex when there are other people horny out there? Or bedrooms. If you live in a house with 3 bedrooms and you only use 1 while your neighbor has 8 kids in a 2 bedroom house, shouldn't you give your "fair share" and give up at least 1 of your bedrooms to your neighbor? How about cars? You need to start transporting the neighbor's kids too.

Do the right thing. Give your fair share. Oh BTW, I get to decide what that fair share is and who gets it. You simply have more than you need and I know better than you how to allocate it to those who don't have enough.

 

[konradv]

This will not be accepted.

Was Obama's initial offer accepted? What part of a negotiation is getting misunderstood here? When you haggle at a car dealership, does their list price or your first offer normally get accepted?

 

[konradv]

On all taxpayers equally or just the ones you envy? If we're going to demonize the right for being vague, you'd better come loaded for bear. Specifically who and how are you going to access this fair share on? What makes it a fair share? The richest 1% in the US already pay the bulk of taxes, so how much more is fair?

The richest 1% control 40% of our nations wealth. So yes, it is "fair" that they contribute the most to our taxes.

If they are willing to "trickle down" some of that wealth, their tax burden would not be as high

It's their wealth. Why do you feel entitled to it? I've posted this before and liberals never answer it. If my wife only puts out once a month and your wife puts out daily, shouldn't I get to have sex with your wife at least once a week? Shouldn't you be giving your "fair share"? I mean why should you get all the sex when there are other people horny out there? Or bedrooms. If you live in a house with 3 bedrooms and you only use 1 while your neighbor has 8 kids in a 2 bedroom house, shouldn't you give your "fair share" and give up at least 1 of your bedrooms to your neighbor? How about cars? You need to start transporting the neighbor's kids too.

Do the right thing. Give your fair share. Oh BTW, I get to decide what that fair share is and who gets it. You simply have more than you need and I know better than you how to allocate it to those who don't have enough.

There you go again, equating people with stuff!

 

[kwc57]

move the rate on capital gains back to the same rates as ordinary income so all income is treated the same.

Why?

Why does someone who earns $30,000 digging a ditch pay taxes at a higher rate than someone who earned $30,000 by moving money from one place to another?

Because the guy with the higher wealth pays a much, much larger total amount in taxes than the ditch digger. You already know all of this, you just don't want to accept reality.

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up..........



Read more: CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[kwc57]

The richest 1% control 40% of our nations wealth. So yes, it is "fair" that they contribute the most to our taxes.

If they are willing to "trickle down" some of that wealth, their tax burden would not be as high

It's their wealth. Why do you feel entitled to it? I've posted this before and liberals never answer it. If my wife only puts out once a month and your wife puts out daily, shouldn't I get to have sex with your wife at least once a week? Shouldn't you be giving your "fair share"? I mean why should you get all the sex when there are other people horny out there? Or bedrooms. If you live in a house with 3 bedrooms and you only use 1 while your neighbor has 8 kids in a 2 bedroom house, shouldn't you give your "fair share" and give up at least 1 of your bedrooms to your neighbor? How about cars? You need to start transporting the neighbor's kids too.

Do the right thing. Give your fair share. Oh BTW, I get to decide what that fair share is and who gets it. You simply have more than you need and I know better than you how to allocate it to those who don't have enough.

There you go again, equating people with stuff!

A little slow on the uptake? I gave three examples and two were inanimate objects which is really beside the point. It would be extremely beneficial if you look up the word "analogy". It might help keep you from making idiot posts in the future.

 

[Sallow]

Here it is.

House GOP makes a $2.2 trillion debt counteroffer to Obama on cliff - The Hill

House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the party’s just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.

The GOP offer is a response to Obama’s opening bid, which called for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and reducing the power of Congress to block an increase in the debt ceiling.

“What we are putting forward is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House,” Boehner told reporters in a brief appearance at the Capitol. He said he hoped the administration would respond in a timely manner.............

They put up warmed over ideas by Erskine Bowles..who is now out of politics?

This is "serious"?

Bowles, himself, ran away from the plan.


Go go go, Fiscal Cliff!

Remind us again what detailed serious cuts Obama has offered?

Personally, I'm fine with going over the fiscal cliff. If our elected officials are too chickenshit to sit down and hammer something out.....Obama included, then they need to live with what they did agree on sometime back. Let the automatic spending cuts fall into line and make the conservatives happy and let the BUSH tax cuts expire and the liberals happy. Problem solved on both sides.

Why exactly, does he need to offer "cuts".

What you folks want to do..is mean spirited and completely stupid.

Obama showed that streamlining, removing redundancies and eliminating wasteful spending would save a boatload of money with Medicare. Of course you folks called that "stealing". It wasn't. Same thing with student loans. The government gave money to the bank to lend to students. That was a patently STUPID thing to do. And Romney wanted to RESTORE that practice.

Why is it that we aren't doing more to negotiate fairer drug prices with Big Pharma? Why are we spending so much money on big exotic weapon systems that do not work? Why do we continue to cut spending on infrastructure which in the long run adds to cost?

Thus far..all Republicans have offered is STUPID policy.

There's no reason to treat it as reasonable.

 

[kwc57]

They put up warmed over ideas by Erskine Bowles..who is now out of politics?

This is "serious"?

Bowles, himself, ran away from the plan.


Go go go, Fiscal Cliff!

Remind us again what detailed serious cuts Obama has offered?

Personally, I'm fine with going over the fiscal cliff. If our elected officials are too chickenshit to sit down and hammer something out.....Obama included, then they need to live with what they did agree on sometime back. Let the automatic spending cuts fall into line and make the conservatives happy and let the BUSH tax cuts expire and the liberals happy. Problem solved on both sides.

Why exactly, does he need to offer "cuts".

What you folks want to do..is mean spirited and completely stupid.

Obama showed that streamlining, removing redundancies and eliminating wasteful spending would save a boatload of money with Medicare. Of course you folks called that "stealing". It wasn't. Same thing with student loans. The government gave money to the bank to lend to students. That was a patently STUPID thing to do. And Romney wanted to RESTORE that practice.

Why is it that we aren't doing more to negotiate fairer drug prices with Big Pharma? Why are we spending so much money on big exotic weapon systems that do not work? Why do we continue to cut spending on infrastructure which in the long run adds to cost?

Thus far..all Republicans have offered is STUPID policy.

There's no reason to treat it as reasonable.

This proves you aren't intelligent enough to participate in political boards. Our issue is spending. We refuse to live within our means.

 

[Dot Com]

Boehner (R) and his team need to get serious (quit Randianizing) or 2014 is going to be a zinger as well