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?
What should they discuss?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
How about the FACT that We, The Peeps spend 30% more on guns than the next 10 countries combined.
The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World
The only thing dumber is putting it on a credit card.
A 20% cut would return the level of military spending as percentage of GDP to nearer what it was in the Eisenhower Administration. Remember Ike's farewell speech about the military-industrial complex? We currently spend more than the next 10 nations combined. So how much of a defense cut do you think would be acceptable?100 billion a year in dod cuts?Uhm,that's like a 20% cut, thats beyond huge and would literally cripple them.
We don't have a limit for the Medicare tax, so why not have no limit for OASDI? SSI already is means tested, and quite restictively. As a compromise we could just raise the OASDI limit to, say, $250,000. Would that be better?I don't see raising the payroll limit for FICA, let them means test those receiving ssi over a high threshold.
Not exactly, but direct payment subsidy programs and refundable credits are functionally equivalent. You can means test both.Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing.
We agree on something! And we are having a civil debate/ discussion/ negotiation without name calling or either of us melting. See, it can be done.Agri, yup, most especially the ethanol subsidy , because that is a subsidy.
I don't care what the Presdient thinks. They need to cut spending. The Dems won't do it.
I don't care what the Presdient thinks. They need to cut spending. The Dems won't do it.
Actually, the D offered the last time and the R refused to accept the cuts. They practically gave away the store last time and the R held the country hostage with their demands. This time, the mechanics are just a bit different and the Ds don't have to bend over backward to make the R happy. Its the R who needs points before the next election or they're gonna lose again.
As for now, the biggest cause of the deficit are the Bush tax cuts. Second is the economy not moving fast enough and third are the costs of two wars started by Bush.
Rs don't want to admit it but that's just fact. Bush was incredibly irresponsible to start two unpaid for wars while also magnanimously handing out tax cuts like they were M&M's
So, the president ended one war and put a stopper on the other. If taxes aren't raised on the top 2%, the economy cannot move. If taxes are raised on the bottom 98%, the economy cannot move.
Its obvious that its time for the top 2% to start paying their way, their share. Again, I know rw's don't like that but its also fact.
Actually, the D offered the last time and the R refused to accept the cuts. They practically gave away the store last time and the R held the country hostage with their demands. This time, the mechanics are just a bit different and the Ds don't have to bend over backward to make the R happy. Its the R who needs points before the next election or they're gonna lose again.
A 20% cut would return the level of military spending as percentage of GDP to nearer what it was in the Eisenhower Administration. Remember Ike's farewell speech about the military-industrial complex? We currently spend more than the next 10 nations combined. So how much of a defense cut do you think would be acceptable?100 billion a year in dod cuts?Uhm,that's like a 20% cut, thats beyond huge and would literally cripple them.
We don't have a limit for the Medicare tax, so why not have no limit for OASDI? SSI already is means tested, and quite restictively. As a compromise we could just raise the OASDI limit to, say, $250,000. Would that be better?I don't see raising the payroll limit for FICA, let them means test those receiving ssi over a high threshold.
Not exactly, but direct payment subsidy programs and refundable credits are functionally equivalent. You can means test both.Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing.
We agree on something! And we are having a civil debate/ discussion/ negotiation without name calling or either of us melting. See, it can be done.Agri, yup, most especially the ethanol subsidy , because that is a subsidy.