US Taxes Must Rise Drastically

Well, I dun think the average Grandma or Grandpa understood what was happening, and it ain't as if anyone in DC told the truth. Still, I agree.

I dun want to see even one single graybeard protesting cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Not ONE. And if you have at least $25,000 in come from other sources or at least $500,000 in assets, not including the family home, then IMO you should not receive Social Security at all.

I would not be suggesting such things, except I think this is a watershed moment for the US. If we do not accept these sort of deep, painful cuts we face a future that will change the US into Peru in one generation -- and I cannot accept that.

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.





.
 
Last edited:
Well, I dun think the average Grandma or Grandpa understood what was happening, and it ain't as if anyone in DC told the truth. Still, I agree.

I dun want to see even one single graybeard protesting cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Not ONE. And if you have at least $25,000 in come from other sources or at least $500,000 in assets, not including the family home, then IMO you should not receive Social Security at all.

I would not be suggesting such things, except I think this is a watershed moment for the US. If we do not accept these sort of deep, painful cuts we face a future that will change the US into Peru in one generation -- and I cannot accept that.

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

Look into the FairTax. Increased efficiency and a tax system that cannot be gamed. The economy grows based on lower administrative costs and that eliminates the deficit and puts the government in position to pay the debt assuming they don't explode spending (like they always have).

The problem isn't low taxes, it's ever increasing spending.
 
asterism wrote:

If you're creeped out you have every right to ignore me, so stop with the passive-aggressive attitude. I have no interest in your personal finances, just making a point that you expect everyone else to be "patriotic" with their money now that you have retired early.

You're not going to pay 38% of any money you receive and you aren't going to go back to work. You'd have more credibility if you were willing to do that. Some of us would like to retire at 57 also.

No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.
 
WASHINGTON -- Just in time to dash holiday cheer, recently unveiled debt-reduction plans underscore how huge are the fiscal challenges facing the U.S. They also make clear how tough the tradeoffs must be to tame federal budget deficits and the national debt.

Major overhauls of the entire U.S. tax code are at the heart of all these plans. They'd eliminate popular deductions and radically change taxation across the board.

The most influential panel is the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Earlier this month, the panel's co-chairmen -- Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson -- released their preliminary report on how to bring down deficits and debt. It sent shock waves rumbling nationwide.

"We can't grow ourselves out of this problem. We can't tax our way out of it," Bowles told PBS' Charlie Rose Tuesday. "People who want to do just taxes, you'd have to raise the maximum marginal rates to 80 percent. You'd have to raise the corporate rate to 70 percent. You'd have to raise the capital gains rate to 50 percent if you're just going to do taxes.

"We can't cut our way out of it. People say, 'Oh, well, let's just cut the budget.' If you just rely on deficit reduction through cutting, and you want to exclude Social Security, Medicare and defense and of course interest, then you'd have to cut everything else by about 60 to 65 percent. You can't do that, either," Bowles said.

"What we've got to do is some combination. Alan and I have come out with a plan that's balanced that takes $4 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. I think that's the kind of thing we have to do. And if we don't, the markets are going to force us to."

Driving all the plans is this cruel reality: The federal deficit is projected at $1.3 trillion this year, almost as much as last year -- a scale not seen since the end of World War II. Left untamed, experts insist, this monstrous debt threatens the nation's future prosperity and security. Simply paying interest on the nearly $14 trillion national debt will cost more than $1 trillion in 2020 -- 17 percent of all federal spending -- unless big changes are made.
Debt-cutting plans share this: Taxes will go up for everyone | cleveland.com

There are some hard choices ahead, folks. Best find your Big Girl Panties and Big Boy Underoos and face facts.

Those of you who are married to the idea that the deficit must be reduced but that your slice of the federal spending pie should not be touched, I find you to be unpatriotic and selfish. IMO, almost all of us should bear this burden, and no one's cow is sacred.

Your thoughts?

You do know that Obama's deficit reduction panel disagrees, don't you? Under that proposal there will be some tax increases, nut they are relatively minor, and mostly result from simplifying the tax code.
 

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.

It is undoubtedly true we need deep cuts, syrenn. All of us need to be having this conversation with our elected officials, and it should be unacceptable for any beneficiary of any government spending to say "don't cut here".

BUT.....

At the same time, taxes must rise. This is the only hope we have of avoiding a financial crisis that our borrowing capacity -- which we have more or less shot -- cannot solve.

And there is another problem. We will have many more poor here. Young people who cannot find work. Older people who cannot find work. Etc. We have to make some decisions about how the poor in our nation will be treated.....shifting people off unemployment reduces government spending, yes, but if there are no jobs and they have exhausted their own assets, then what? Bread lines?

 
WASHINGTON -- Just in time to dash holiday cheer, recently unveiled debt-reduction plans underscore how huge are the fiscal challenges facing the U.S. They also make clear how tough the tradeoffs must be to tame federal budget deficits and the national debt.

Major overhauls of the entire U.S. tax code are at the heart of all these plans. They'd eliminate popular deductions and radically change taxation across the board.

The most influential panel is the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Earlier this month, the panel's co-chairmen -- Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson -- released their preliminary report on how to bring down deficits and debt. It sent shock waves rumbling nationwide.

"We can't grow ourselves out of this problem. We can't tax our way out of it," Bowles told PBS' Charlie Rose Tuesday. "People who want to do just taxes, you'd have to raise the maximum marginal rates to 80 percent. You'd have to raise the corporate rate to 70 percent. You'd have to raise the capital gains rate to 50 percent if you're just going to do taxes.

"We can't cut our way out of it. People say, 'Oh, well, let's just cut the budget.' If you just rely on deficit reduction through cutting, and you want to exclude Social Security, Medicare and defense and of course interest, then you'd have to cut everything else by about 60 to 65 percent. You can't do that, either," Bowles said.

"What we've got to do is some combination. Alan and I have come out with a plan that's balanced that takes $4 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. I think that's the kind of thing we have to do. And if we don't, the markets are going to force us to."

Driving all the plans is this cruel reality: The federal deficit is projected at $1.3 trillion this year, almost as much as last year -- a scale not seen since the end of World War II. Left untamed, experts insist, this monstrous debt threatens the nation's future prosperity and security. Simply paying interest on the nearly $14 trillion national debt will cost more than $1 trillion in 2020 -- 17 percent of all federal spending -- unless big changes are made.
Debt-cutting plans share this: Taxes will go up for everyone | cleveland.com

There are some hard choices ahead, folks. Best find your Big Girl Panties and Big Boy Underoos and face facts.

Those of you who are married to the idea that the deficit must be reduced but that your slice of the federal spending pie should not be touched, I find you to be unpatriotic and selfish. IMO, almost all of us should bear this burden, and no one's cow is sacred.

Your thoughts?

You do know that Obama's deficit reduction panel disagrees, don't you? Under that proposal there will be some tax increases, nut they are relatively minor, and mostly result from simplifying the tax code.

No, I did not know that Quantum Windbag. According to the Plain Dealer, they have proposed cuts and tax increases as well -- though not as severe as the bipartisan panel's.

Got a link, buddy?
 
I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.

It is undoubtedly true we need deep cuts, syrenn. All of us need to be having this conversation with our elected officials, and it should be unacceptable for any beneficiary of any government spending to say "don't cut here".

BUT.....

At the same time, taxes must rise. This is the only hope we have of avoiding a financial crisis that our borrowing capacity -- which we have more or less shot -- cannot solve.

And there is another problem. We will have many more poor here. Young people who cannot find work. Older people who cannot find work. Etc. We have to make some decisions about how the poor in our nation will be treated.....shifting people off unemployment reduces government spending, yes, but if there are no jobs and they have exhausted their own assets, then what? Bread lines?



I get the part about taxes. As if have said everyone needs to bleed the same. If the government wants 33% of me then i want 33% taken from EVERYONE...AFTER they take 33% from themselves first.
 
Debt-cutting plans share this: Taxes will go up for everyone | cleveland.com

There are some hard choices ahead, folks. Best find your Big Girl Panties and Big Boy Underoos and face facts.

Those of you who are married to the idea that the deficit must be reduced but that your slice of the federal spending pie should not be touched, I find you to be unpatriotic and selfish. IMO, almost all of us should bear this burden, and no one's cow is sacred.

Your thoughts?

You do know that Obama's deficit reduction panel disagrees, don't you? Under that proposal there will be some tax increases, nut they are relatively minor, and mostly result from simplifying the tax code.

No, I did not know that Quantum Windbag. According to the Plain Dealer, they have proposed cuts and tax increases as well -- though not as severe as the bipartisan panel's.

Got a link, buddy?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEZrL23CRki7APlRoKIhvXch18nkQ&cad=rjt

There are things in there that have pissed off everyone. Both sides are exaggerating the parts they don't like, and emphasizing the few things they do. I was actually surprised at the recommendations, and even though I dislike some of the recommendations I would support the plan in its entirety because it might actually work.
 
Asterism is actually making a profoundly important point.

Raising taxes now to cover existing debt, cover the costs of entitlements like medicare and SS, pay interest on existing debt etc is going to put the burden of paying for all of this largely on the backs of those who didn't create this mess.

While those who did create this mess are retiring and expect not to have to pay much of a share in those new taxes.

The Baby boom has essentially stolen about 1/2 of the next generations disposable wealth and squandered it recklessly. Now they want the next generation to pay for it.

There is nothing right about what the baby boom generation has done and they definitely deserve to shoulder the bulk of the load, even tho SS was paid for in advance the baby boom generation did nothing while congress stole the trust fund.

This can't end well. Everybody is gonna get shafted, but some will get shafted deeper and harder. And that is probably gonna be those who least deserve it.

Well, I dun think the average Grandma or Grandpa understood what was happening, and it ain't as if anyone in DC told the truth. Still, I agree.

I dun want to see even one single graybeard protesting cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Not ONE. And if you have at least $25,000 in come from other sources or at least $500,000 in assets, not including the family home, then IMO you should not receive Social Security at all.

I would not be suggesting such things, except I think this is a watershed moment for the US. If we do not accept these sort of deep, painful cuts we face a future that will change the US into Peru in one generation -- and I cannot accept that.

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

Because on your watch you allowed you government to raid the trust fund and drain it dry. What you paid in is gone and must be covered by new SS taxes. And your generation already ran up a $13 trillion debt and cashed in on the next 20 years worth of real estate appreciation. Your generation bankrupted the nation and now you want somebody else to pay for what you were promised.
 
Well, I dun think the average Grandma or Grandpa understood what was happening, and it ain't as if anyone in DC told the truth. Still, I agree.

I dun want to see even one single graybeard protesting cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Not ONE. And if you have at least $25,000 in come from other sources or at least $500,000 in assets, not including the family home, then IMO you should not receive Social Security at all.

I would not be suggesting such things, except I think this is a watershed moment for the US. If we do not accept these sort of deep, painful cuts we face a future that will change the US into Peru in one generation -- and I cannot accept that.

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

Because on your watch you allowed you government to raid the trust fund and drain it dry. What you paid in is gone and must be covered by new SS taxes. And your generation already ran up a $13 trillion debt and cashed in on the next 20 years worth of real estate appreciation. Your generation bankrupted the nation and now you want somebody else to pay for what you were promised.

Not on my watch they didn't. Or do you mean our watch as its been in the last 20 years that all of this raiding has happened? I am one the ones who's back they are trying to break paying for the old and the poor with their hands out.
 
Last edited:
asterism wrote:

If you're creeped out you have every right to ignore me, so stop with the passive-aggressive attitude. I have no interest in your personal finances, just making a point that you expect everyone else to be "patriotic" with their money now that you have retired early.

You're not going to pay 38% of any money you receive and you aren't going to go back to work. You'd have more credibility if you were willing to do that. Some of us would like to retire at 57 also.

No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.

I never said "flat." Stop mis characterizing my words. 38% is crazy? That's what the current rates are going to increase to without an extension. The alternative plans in the article just get it done in a less transparent way. They cut rates but also cut deductions further, deductions on investments in our small business. I and my accounting staff have analyzed the proposals for planning purposes. The net result is a higher tax on the same income.

Also, a 10% increase in taxes across the board won't do much to help assuming it doesn't actually hurt the economy. FY 2009 federal receipts were $2.1T with $3.5T outlays, resulting in a deficit of $1.5T. Assuming the tax increases don't hurt, an additional 10% ($210B) still leaves us with a $1.3T deficit.
 

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

Because on your watch you allowed you government to raid the trust fund and drain it dry. What you paid in is gone and must be covered by new SS taxes. And your generation already ran up a $13 trillion debt and cashed in on the next 20 years worth of real estate appreciation. Your generation bankrupted the nation and now you want somebody else to pay for what you were promised.

Not on my watch they didn't. Or do you mean our watch as its been in the last 20 years that all of this raiding has happened? I am one the ones who's back they are trying to break paying for the old and the poor with their hands out.

sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.
 
Last edited:
asterism wrote:

If you're creeped out you have every right to ignore me, so stop with the passive-aggressive attitude. I have no interest in your personal finances, just making a point that you expect everyone else to be "patriotic" with their money now that you have retired early.

You're not going to pay 38% of any money you receive and you aren't going to go back to work. You'd have more credibility if you were willing to do that. Some of us would like to retire at 57 also.

No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.

I never said "flat." Stop mis characterizing my words. 38% is crazy? That's what the current rates are going to increase to without an extension. The alternative plans in the article just get it done in a less transparent way. They cut rates but also cut deductions further, deductions on investments in our small business. I and my accounting staff have analyzed the proposals for planning purposes. The net result is a higher tax on the same income.

Also, a 10% increase in taxes across the board won't do much to help assuming it doesn't actually hurt the economy. FY 2009 federal receipts were $2.1T with $3.5T outlays, resulting in a deficit of $1.5T. Assuming the tax increases don't hurt, an additional 10% ($210B) still leaves us with a $1.3T deficit.

I dun know for sure what the numbers are, asterism. And no one knows for sure what they should be....except that they should go up.

The current effective rate will never reach 38%....it is mathematically impossible.

Setting all that aside, I'm more interested to know whether you think we have reached the crisis the authors of the bipartisan report perceive, and if so, what you think should be done about it?
 
asterism wrote:

If you're creeped out you have every right to ignore me, so stop with the passive-aggressive attitude. I have no interest in your personal finances, just making a point that you expect everyone else to be "patriotic" with their money now that you have retired early.

You're not going to pay 38% of any money you receive and you aren't going to go back to work. You'd have more credibility if you were willing to do that. Some of us would like to retire at 57 also.

No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.

I never said "flat." Stop mis characterizing my words. 38% is crazy? That's what the current rates are going to increase to without an extension. The alternative plans in the article just get it done in a less transparent way. They cut rates but also cut deductions further, deductions on investments in our small business. I and my accounting staff have analyzed the proposals for planning purposes. The net result is a higher tax on the same income.

Also, a 10% increase in taxes across the board won't do much to help assuming it doesn't actually hurt the economy. FY 2009 federal receipts were $2.1T with $3.5T outlays, resulting in a deficit of $1.5T. Assuming the tax increases don't hurt, an additional 10% ($210B) still leaves us with a $1.3T deficit.

there are plans in the works now to cut the spending. But that won't be enough unless you want draconian cuts in spending.

Personally I wish we could vote on this. I would probably go for draconian spending cuts with no tax increase. But the pols will never allow it.

Whatever spending cuts are legislated may be rolled back in 2 years when the republicans resume their typical deficit smorgasbord.
 
Because on your watch you allowed you government to raid the trust fund and drain it dry. What you paid in is gone and must be covered by new SS taxes. And your generation already ran up a $13 trillion debt and cashed in on the next 20 years worth of real estate appreciation. Your generation bankrupted the nation and now you want somebody else to pay for what you were promised.

Not on my watch they didn't. Or do you mean our watch as its been in the last 20 years that all of this raiding has happened? I am one the ones who's back they are trying to break paying for the old and the poor with their hands out.

sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?
 
You do know that Obama's deficit reduction panel disagrees, don't you? Under that proposal there will be some tax increases, nut they are relatively minor, and mostly result from simplifying the tax code.

No, I did not know that Quantum Windbag. According to the Plain Dealer, they have proposed cuts and tax increases as well -- though not as severe as the bipartisan panel's.

Got a link, buddy?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEZrL23CRki7APlRoKIhvXch18nkQ&cad=rjt

There are things in there that have pissed off everyone. Both sides are exaggerating the parts they don't like, and emphasizing the few things they do. I was actually surprised at the recommendations, and even though I dislike some of the recommendations I would support the plan in its entirety because it might actually work.

I dunno...I admit I just glanced at it but it looks like pie in the sky stuff to me. Lots of sloaganeering, little meat and potatoes. Was the anything in particular you liked better about it than the bipartisan report's approach?
 
Not on my watch they didn't. Or do you mean our watch as its been in the last 20 years that all of this raiding has happened? I am one the ones who's back they are trying to break paying for the old and the poor with their hands out.

sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

That is not fair, I am not Madeline.

What I am saying is if we who are old enough to vote allow the polls in DC to steal our money and run the nation into the ground we are at fault, it is our responsibility to hold them to their oaths.

If somebody fools you once, shame on them. If somebody fools you day in and day out for 10-20-30 years shame on you.

If we don't do something about the shipwreck they are making out of our economy, our taxes and our retirement accounts then we can't blame anybody else.

If we have to march on DC by the tens of millions then by God we should have done that 25 years ago!

But we didn't. And we don't, and we pretend that it isn't our fault. But it is.
 
Not on my watch they didn't. Or do you mean our watch as its been in the last 20 years that all of this raiding has happened? I am one the ones who's back they are trying to break paying for the old and the poor with their hands out.

sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

This is dilemma everyone will face...."why should I suffer?" That's one reason spending cuts are not as politically feasible as they might seem at first blush.
 
No, I did not know that Quantum Windbag. According to the Plain Dealer, they have proposed cuts and tax increases as well -- though not as severe as the bipartisan panel's.

Got a link, buddy?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEZrL23CRki7APlRoKIhvXch18nkQ&cad=rjt

There are things in there that have pissed off everyone. Both sides are exaggerating the parts they don't like, and emphasizing the few things they do. I was actually surprised at the recommendations, and even though I dislike some of the recommendations I would support the plan in its entirety because it might actually work.

I dunno...I admit I just glanced at it but it looks like pie in the sky stuff to me. Lots of sloaganeering, little meat and potatoes. Was the anything in particular you liked better about it than the bipartisan report's approach?

That is the bipartisan report Maddie.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top