What should Congress and the President compromise on?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by RetiredGySgt, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    The House is willing to discuss increasing revenue, but I have not seen the Senate or the President willing to talk about any real cuts.

    What should they discuss?
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    Am I right in assuming the Democrats have no intention on compromising? Reid has publicly said so, numerous liberal posters on this board have said so.

    I love the claim that elections have consequences, since the Consequence of this election is that a majority of people chose to leave the House firmly in Republican hands.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    I'll tell you what I think the republicans should not compromise on: not one dime of extra revenue unless and until it is covered with real spending cuts to the tune of at least 3 to 1. Not just in defense spending either, although that should be in the mix equally with everything else. I don't want to see spending cuts in 2020 coupled with tax hikes in 2013; fuck that, the two have to go together, year by year.

    As for the democrats, I don't think they're willing to compromise on any real spending cuts. I think they'll push hard for the tax hikes and extgra revenue, as much as they can get, but give up very little on the spending side. And dems and repubs alike will not want to accept cuts that affect their constituents; It's going to have to be across the board with everybody taking a somewhat equal hit. The impact of whatever deal they ultimately come up with cannot be overstated politically or economically; The viability of the GOP is at stake, and so is Obama's place in history. For the rest of us, we could end up in a recession if things go badly o rif the end result is not pro growth.
     
  4. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    First, obviously I speak for myself alone. Whatever the deal is, the deal is. You are conmingling two questions. The first one is what kind of negotiations will occur and what the final deal will be. This is a political question and I have not the foggiest idea how it will play out.

    The second question is what kind of deal MIGHT be struck if the nerds on each side crafted a plan. I do have some opinions on that.

    First, there is a little wriggle room on the progressive side on tax rates. A top rate of 39.6% starting at about $400,000 (in the last year it was used, 2000, this bracket started at $288,350 for everyone but married separate filers, and is indexed for inflation) is not engraved in stone. It is possible to modify this in two ways: by choosing a slightly lower maximum rate such as 38% (this makes a difference to the uberrich even if it doesn't to the mere half-million dollar a year job creator) and/or the threshold for higher rates could be increased. Suppose the 36% rate was lowered to 35% and started at $250,000 of taxable income and the top rate was 38% on income over $1 million. I could live with that.

    Second, there are important expiring measures in the tax law that matter a lot which could be compromised. For example:
    1. the "carried interest" rule which allows equity managers to treat earnings as capital gains
    2. the treatment of dividends at the rate of capital gains rather than ordinary income
    3. the capital gains rate increasing to 20%
    4. the estate tax exclusion reverting to a lower amount and higher rate
    5. the alternative minimum tax reverting to 2000 level exemptions.

    If I were crafting an offer, I would stick to my guns on carried interest, end capital gains rates on dividends but allow a ceiling rate on dividends of 25% or so (along with a reduction in corporate tax rates to the same 25%), offer to decrease the maximum estate tax rate to 45% and have a $20 million exclusion, and abolish the AMT.

    I also would want some middle class tax relief in the measure and a few tax reforms, like:
    1. Stop taxing Social Security and unemployment benefits.
    2. Abolish the separate taxes for funding the unemployment system and make it a part of the Social Security tax rate structure.
    3. Convert itemized deductions into a 25% tax credit.

    Now the general impact of these kind of changes and a host of others that seem to be a good idea to me would be to raise taxes slightly on the very wealthy and reduce taxes to the middle class. I don't like the Republican proposal to cap itemized deductions as that throws the $400k true job creator under the bus while not making much of a difference to the very affluent.

    OK enough. You get my drift. Let's just try to keep the discussion of political positions separate from what we would like to see happen.
     
  5. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,855
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    I don't care what the Presdient thinks. They need to cut spending. The Dems won't do it.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    And you offered NO cuts at all. It is not compromise when only one side gies up everything. Which is the whole point. Republicans are willing to discuss new revenue streams the dems are unwilling to discuss any real cuts. Get the idea yet?
     
  7. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,666
    Thanks Received:
    6,458
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,467
  8. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    Well I didn't get around to discussing cuts in spending because the current discussion in the news has been a tax deal because that is immediate. If you can curb your snarky, here is where I think the budget can be cut.

    1. We can reduce defense spending by at least $100 billion a year without damaging national security.
    2. A couple of adjustments to the inflection points in the Social Security benefit formula and adding a fourth tier for benefits in excess of $10,000 per month, combined with a reform of the SSA COLA computation would almost make Social Security permanently solvent. Abolishing the upper limit on the Social Security wage base would finish the job with enough left over to fix the FUTA fund debacle.
    3. A single payer universal health care ("Medicare for all") would save tens of billions each year in administrative cost. It could also allow for cost savings from folding civil service health insurance and veterans health benefits into the system. Stop subsidizing health insurance industry waste.
    4. Providing free contraception and abortion services would drastically cut medical costs over time. A major study in St Louis revealed that the contraceptive program alone reduced unwanted pregnancies by 80% and abortions by 65%.
    5. Ending all energy production subsidies would save about $27 billion per year.
    6. Fairly pricing water rights in the West and insisting on market rates for energy development and logging on public lands would also generate several billion per year.
    7. The Administration has identified about $40 billion per year that could be saved by eliminating things like duplicate programs, which we have not been able to do because most of them have a Congressman who needs them to get re-elected.
    8. End all agricultural subsidies.

    So, do these cuts meet your approval?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    So other then gutting defense no real cuts, got it.

    As to the claim Obama offered cuts reread it, they are all years after he leaves office, which means never.
     
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,131
    Thanks Received:
    6,130
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,060
    I suggest a scale. One where tax increases are based on acheived reductions with spending in the present.
     

Share This Page