McConnell Offers 3-Stage ’Last Choice’ Debt Option

[Remodeling Maidiac]

When the new republican party takes over

McConnell has shown with this that the GOP in Congress do not care about the debt. Hell, they helped get it to this point.

I said NEW

As in fresh blood?

 

[Jarhead]

No offense...

But I find it interesting.

You are more in tuned to the democrats than you are to the republicans as you obviously lean more to the left than the right.

Yet....

By your own admittance, You dont seem to know exactly what the democrats thought....but you are always 100% sure of the intentions of the republicans.

You dont see a pattern there that should concern you?

Where did I say that? That's you putting words in my mouth and selectively picking what I say about both parties.

if you say that then I take it as true and I retract my comment.

It just seemed to me that you were sure of the intentions of McConnell.....but I stand corrected.

 

[Modbert]

who did they help?

Democrats obviously.

 

[Modbert]

I said NEW

As in fresh blood?

Except the new Republicans have already become part of the establishment.

Or did you miss their vote on the Patriot Act? Or their really dumb idea from not even a week ago?

 

[Modbert]

if you say that then I take it as true and I retract my comment.

It just seemed to me that you were sure of the intentions of McConnell.....but I stand corrected.

Even Conservative bloggers agree that all McConnell is doing is kicking the political football down the field in order to avoid any sort of political pressure.

 

[Sactowndog]

The recession clearly started because of both parties. BUT this debt ceiling issue in my mind rests clearly on the dems. 2 years worth of insane reckless spending with no budgets and not a concern ever uttered about the rising debt or the ceiling until after november

Grandpa really? the two big drivers of increased spending are 1) Defense and 2) Medicare....

Now I am not saying that the Dems aren't contributing but let's remember

1) The Repbublicans went into Iraq driving up the defense budget

2) Bush added prescription drug benefits and drove up Medicare costs....

 

[Jarhead]

who did they help?

Democrats obviously.

Just testing your integrity in my eyes.

Yes.....the GOP and the Dems are both guilty of getting us to this point.

And now both parties are using this crisis for political posturing for the upcoming election.

They should be battling us....not us battling each other.

But alas, they have successfully made it a party issue...not a government issue.

 

[Jack Fate]

if you say that then I take it as true and I retract my comment.

It just seemed to me that you were sure of the intentions of McConnell.....but I stand corrected.

Even Conservative bloggers agree that all McConnell is doing is kicking the political football down the field in order to avoid any sort of political pressure.

I'm not on board with McConnell; however, we need to pressure all of them to cut spending and I just don't see Obama doing that voluntarily.

 

[Jarhead]

if you say that then I take it as true and I retract my comment.

It just seemed to me that you were sure of the intentions of McConnell.....but I stand corrected.

Even Conservative bloggers agree that all McConnell is doing is kicking the political football down the field in order to avoid any sort of political pressure.

Thus why it was ingenious.

Heck...Pelosi did it with the budget during the lame duck session...ingeniuos.

Doncha love it when our elected officials play games with our livlihoods?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I said NEW

As in fresh blood?

Except the new Republicans have already become part of the establishment.

Or did you miss their vote on the Patriot Act? Or their really dumb idea from not even a week ago?

Apparently you missed the Shellacking in november. Not the candidates, the voice of the voters. It will eventually be heard and when it is your left wing agenda will wither on the vine.

Obama created the very thing he feared most. An informed public

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts, which is more than the GOP is offering up and he alienated his own party by offering up entitlement cuts. Maybe it was a bluff but still the GOP won't budge to call his bluff.
I can see Obama as a one-termer but I also see the GOP losing their majority in the House too. People are not going to put up with this gamesmanship come November, 2012. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the business world experiences what they predict they will experience, the GOP could lose their biggest allies.
All of this just because of narrow-minded partisanship by both parties and party over country. Egads,, what a bunch of losers!

He did not offer $4 trillion in cuts, he threw out the number $4 trillion to make it look like he was serious.

You fell for it, as usual.

Odd, then, that the Republicans didn't make that point. Exactly what apportionments would be cut are, of course, up to the myriad agencies to slice and dice. But the $4T in spending cuts include:

Massive cuts in domestic discretionary spending, from the baseline set by agreement with congressional Republicans that slashes $38.5 billion from spending for the current fiscal year. The total in spending cuts over 12 years would come to $770 billion in areas like education, the environment, transportation and other infrastructure, and in wages and benefits for federal government workers.

An additional $360 billion over 12 years in cuts in mandatory domestic programs, so called because they provide benefit payments that are mandated under federal law, including farm subsidies, federal pension insurance, food stamps, home heating assistance and income-support programs for the poor and disabled. Remember all the hoopla over those from the liberal base?

A further $480 billion in cuts over 12 years in federal health care spending, on top of the $1 trillion in cost-cutting already imposed to pay for the health care overhaul passed last year by a Democratic Congress. Obama outlined a series of policy changes in health care that he said would cut an additional $1 trillion in the decade after 2023. Who was paying attention to that concession?

In the event that spending cuts fail to reduce the federal deficit to the desired proportion of the US gross domestic product by 2014, Obama would establish a debt failsafe mechanism that would trigger across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases, likely to include a national sales tax or European-style Value Added Tax.

Cuts of $400 billion in military spending over 12 years, less than 4% of the gargantuan sum that the Pentagon, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and other agencies will spend during that period on the armed forces, nuclear weapons and intelligence and security operations.

So there.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Grandpa really? the two big drivers of increased spending are 1) Defense and 2) Medicare....

Now I am not saying that the Dems aren't contributing but let's remember

1) The Repbublicans went into Iraq driving up the defense budget

2) Bush added prescription drug benefits and drove up Medicare costs....

I concede both your points but that doesnt counter my argument about the dems having nearly 3 years of complete control and doing nothing to stop the snowball from rolling down the hill. In fact they pushed it even faster with reckless spending and obamacare. Then sat and waited for the gop to show up so they could play poker with our lives

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts, which is more than the GOP is offering up and he alienated his own party by offering up entitlement cuts. Maybe it was a bluff but still the GOP won't budge to call his bluff.
I can see Obama as a one-termer but I also see the GOP losing their majority in the House too. People are not going to put up with this gamesmanship come November, 2012. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the business world experiences what they predict they will experience, the GOP could lose their biggest allies.
All of this just because of narrow-minded partisanship by both parties and party over country. Egads,, what a bunch of losers!

Not saying you're wrong, but I find it hard to imagine that the Repubs would lose their House majority in the same election Pres. Obama gets defeated.

I definitely see it as a possibility. The voters voted in 2010 to get new people into office so that something could actually get accomplished. Nothing is getting accomplished, and I could see the voters lashing out at everyone in the next election.

Once the recession hit and began affecting everyone's pocketbook, people wanted instant gratification. When it didn't come, and still hasn't for a variety of reasons, now those same people are screaming for change in leadership. Okay, I give that change about six months before it is reversed again.

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

From listening to what passes for public debate in our country, you'd never know that. You'd think that the federal government could revive the economy quickly if only Congress would let it be more aggressive with stimulus spending. Or that the Fed could fix it if only it weren't overly worried about touching off inflation. Or that the free market could fix it if only we made deep and permanent tax cuts. Watch enough cable TV, listen to enough talk radio, read enough blogs and columns, and you'd think that they -- the bad guys -- are forcing the country to suffer needlessly when a simple and painless solution to our problems is at hand.

But if you look at things rationally rather than politically, you'll see that Washington has far less power over the economy, and far less maneuvering room, than many people think. "It's endemic in our type of society that we always think there's a person who holds the magic wand," says Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a fiscal conservative who isn't running for reelection, so he can, well, be blunt. "But this society and this economy are far too complex to be susceptible to magic wands."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts, which is more than the GOP is offering up and he alienated his own party by offering up entitlement cuts. Maybe it was a bluff but still the GOP won't budge to call his bluff.
I can see Obama as a one-termer but I also see the GOP losing their majority in the House too. People are not going to put up with this gamesmanship come November, 2012. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the business world experiences what they predict they will experience, the GOP could lose their biggest allies.
All of this just because of narrow-minded partisanship by both parties and party over country. Egads,, what a bunch of losers!

He did not offer $4 trillion in cuts, he threw out the number $4 trillion to make it look like he was serious.

You fell for it, as usual.

Odd, then, that the Republicans didn't make that point. Exactly what apportionments would be cut are, of course, up to the myriad agencies to slice and dice. But the $4T in spending cuts include:

Massive cuts in domestic discretionary spending, from the baseline set by agreement with congressional Republicans that slashes $38.5 billion from spending for the current fiscal year. The total in spending cuts over 12 years would come to $770 billion in areas like education, the environment, transportation and other infrastructure, and in wages and benefits for federal government workers.

An additional $360 billion over 12 years in cuts in mandatory domestic programs, so called because they provide benefit payments that are mandated under federal law, including farm subsidies, federal pension insurance, food stamps, home heating assistance and income-support programs for the poor and disabled. Remember all the hoopla over those from the liberal base?

A further $480 billion in cuts over 12 years in federal health care spending, on top of the $1 trillion in cost-cutting already imposed to pay for the health care overhaul passed last year by a Democratic Congress. Obama outlined a series of policy changes in health care that he said would cut an additional $1 trillion in the decade after 2023. Who was paying attention to that concession?

In the event that spending cuts fail to reduce the federal deficit to the desired proportion of the US gross domestic product by 2014, Obama would establish a debt failsafe mechanism that would trigger across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases, likely to include a national sales tax or European-style Value Added Tax.

Cuts of $400 billion in military spending over 12 years, less than 4% of the gargantuan sum that the Pentagon, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and other agencies will spend during that period on the armed forces, nuclear weapons and intelligence and security operations.

So there.

That amounts to the exact amount that the tax increases in the healthcare bill come to. Making them completely wash out and pointless.

http://weeklypoliticalreview.blogspot.com/2011/01/surprise-new-cbo-report-repealing.html

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope. Though they are effectively doing their best to avoid voting anyway with this proposal.

All you're trying to do though is deflect because you do not have a good argument to refute what I said.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised and all hell breaks loose, all because of the tax/revenue issue, the Republicans will be seen as the bad guys. But if they don't stick to their guns about not raising or eliminating certain tax breaks, they'll be seen as caving to the Democrats. Either way, the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner. I think McConnell is using his wiggle room.

so, it appears you are fine with just rolling along, no cuts no structural changes ....zip.

Nooooooo, not for a moment. I just happen to believe that any standoff over raising the debt ceiling based on spending cuts only is ridiculous. The best deal on the table is $4 trillion in cuts, with MODEST changes (for now) in the tax code to eliminate some of the bigger and most abused loopholes.

 

[MaggieMae]

According to the bolded, above, the debt-ceiling increase would occur regardless of whether spending cuts were actually enacted.

Why does Obama and the Dems have such an aversion to cutting spending?

They don't. The offer is on the table to cut $4 trillion but with elimination of certain tax benefits (not even raising the rate on the richest). As long as the "T" word is there, the pubs will just say no. They'd rather go with the $2 trillion just in cuts. Silly, isn't it?

a) I'd like to see that in writing and by Harry and Obama... b) they already have raises built in, BUT thats not enough?

why not?

here ya go-


•Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

Those proposals are just that: Proposals. Any of it would of course be subject to full debate in Congress. I'm thinking now of the long process of drafting the five health care reform bills. Each time a new one arrived, everybody thought the newly proposed provsions were sealed in stone. And by the way, increases in Medicare taxes is nothing new.

The Raging Capitalist: A History of Medicare and Social Security Tax Increases

The initial tax was 0.35%, payable by both the employee and employer on the first $6,600 of the employee's wages. The $6,600 upper wage limit rose by about 50% in total over the first 8 years, and then dramatically increased thereafter, until reaching $135,000 in 1993. That represents about an 11.40% annual increase between 1966 and 1993, whereas inflation increased at an annual rate of 5.38% during that time. The upper wage limit was eliminated in 1994, meaning that the tax began to be charged on all wages at that time.

While the Medicare wage limit was being increased, the tax rate was increased continuously as well. It approximately tripled in the first 8 years from 0.35% to 1.0%, and eventually hit the current level of 1.45% in 1986. In dollar terms, the amount collected on the wage limit maximum from both the employee and employer increased from $23.10 in 1966 to $1,957.50 on the $135,000 limit that was in place in 1993. That represents a 17.2% annual increase, whereas, as noted above, inflation increased at 5.38% over that period. Hence, the maximum tax was increased at over 3 times the rate of inflation, and again, there has been no maximum tax since 1994.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Maggie what about the wash that I pointed out? The dems want more taxes when the current list of new taxes waiting in the wings havnt even kicked in yet. At some point we have to stop with the tax increases.

Obama has nearly 1 trillion in new taxes in the pipe comming soon and now he is asking for more....

 

[MaggieMae]

So he is playing politics like Obama did this morning when he said seniors may not get their checks?

I dont see the thread you made about that partisan play anywhere on the forum what gives? Maybe it is you that is playing partisan politics?

If that was the alleged "lie," Obama was referring to the priorities that must be paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised. One of those priorities, further down the list, could possibly be (but highly doubtful) that Social Security won't have the PROJECTED funds needed to pay the CURRENT Social Security benefits. It wasn't a "lie," it was a threat.

so a threats ok....? I thought that was bad? and, again, the checks will go out.

The Republicans have been threatening for months to "shut down the government." Of course the checks will be honored, but it's high time the American people understand what "shutting down the government" in its entirety really might mean. This same game was played in 1995, but did not end well for the Republicans.

From the Wiki entry:
A 2010 Congressional Research Service report summarized other details of the 1995-1996 government shutdowns, indicating the shutdown impacted all sectors of the economy. Those included: health and welfare services for military veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed each day; U.S. tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses; more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in spending, were affected adversely.

 

[Trajan]

If that was the alleged "lie," Obama was referring to the priorities that must be paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised. One of those priorities, further down the list, could possibly be (but highly doubtful) that Social Security won't have the PROJECTED funds needed to pay the CURRENT Social Security benefits. It wasn't a "lie," it was a threat.

so a threats ok....? I thought that was bad? and, again, the checks will go out.

The Republicans have been threatening for months to "shut down the government." Of course the checks will be honored, but it's high time the American people understand what "shutting down the government" in its entirety really might mean. This same game was played in 1995, but did not end well for the Republicans.

From the Wiki entry:
A 2010 Congressional Research Service report summarized other details of the 1995-1996 government shutdowns, indicating the shutdown impacted all sectors of the economy. Those included: health and welfare services for military veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed each day; U.S. tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses; more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in spending, were affected adversely.

how does that address what I said?

or actually why did you bother quoting me? I am WELL AWARE of the issues....have yo read this entire thread maggie..or?

 

[Trajan]

They don't. The offer is on the table to cut $4 trillion but with elimination of certain tax benefits (not even raising the rate on the richest). As long as the "T" word is there, the pubs will just say no. They'd rather go with the $2 trillion just in cuts. Silly, isn't it?

a) I'd like to see that in writing and by Harry and Obama... b) they already have raises built in, BUT thats not enough?

why not?

here ya go-


•Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

Those proposals are just that: Proposals. Any of it would of course be subject to full debate in Congress. I'm thinking now of the long process of drafting the five health care reform bills. Each time a new one arrived, everybody thought the newly proposed provsions were sealed in stone. And by the way, increases in Medicare taxes is nothing new.

The Raging Capitalist: A History of Medicare and Social Security Tax Increases

The initial tax was 0.35%, payable by both the employee and employer on the first $6,600 of the employee's wages. The $6,600 upper wage limit rose by about 50% in total over the first 8 years, and then dramatically increased thereafter, until reaching $135,000 in 1993. That represents about an 11.40% annual increase between 1966 and 1993, whereas inflation increased at an annual rate of 5.38% during that time. The upper wage limit was eliminated in 1994, meaning that the tax began to be charged on all wages at that time.

While the Medicare wage limit was being increased, the tax rate was increased continuously as well. It approximately tripled in the first 8 years from 0.35% to 1.0%, and eventually hit the current level of 1.45% in 1986. In dollar terms, the amount collected on the wage limit maximum from both the employee and employer increased from $23.10 in 1966 to $1,957.50 on the $135,000 limit that was in place in 1993. That represents a 17.2% annual increase, whereas, as noted above, inflation increased at 5.38% over that period. Hence, the maximum tax was increased at over 3 times the rate of inflation, and again, there has been no maximum tax since 1994.

last time I checked the health care reform bill...passed? these are in the law? are you saying that those 7 items I listed are all up for approval in some sort of up and down vote?