• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner abandons goal of $4 trillion debt-reduction package

finebead said:
No, you should seek more than one source.

No, I do not care to re-think my position. The overall effect of Reagan was to reduce the impact of taxes on the economy, although SOME people (primarily rich people) paid more taxes while at a lower tax rate, since deductions were also eliminated. I think the article you cited is unbalanced. Do you care to re-think your position?
Click to expand...

No, because the source you used doesn't discount the fact that Reagan did use Keynesian economics to stimulate economic growth. He may have masked an increase government spending (not to mention increased the size of goverment) by using the Defense Department (public-private defense contracts), but he did so by increasing taxes on the middle-class. Moreover, if anybody instituted class-warfare it was he.

But I digress. My intention w/posting the NYTimes opinion peace WAS NOT to rehash Reagonomics or tax policy. Mine was to illustrate the issue before us - whether or not to raise the debt ceiling - has alot of false impressions out there. So, can we bring the topic back around to the thread topic, please?

From a May 2011 article again from the NYTimes.com:

“Without significant spending cuts and changes to the way we spend the American people’s money, there will be no debt limit increase,” Mr. Boehner told members of New York’s business and finance community. “And cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” Mr. Boehner said those cuts should be in the trillions of dollars, not billions.

...

Mr. Boehner said the reductions should be “actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future. And with the exception of tax hikes — which will destroy jobs — everything is on the table.”
Click to expand...

Well, the Dems and the President are (still) very willing to agree to $4 TRILLION in spending cuts, far and above the $1 TRILLION dollars stated in the GOP Pledge to America. But once proposals to eliminate tax subsidies became part of the equation suddenly all bets were off w/the GOP. Everyone needs to understand this: tax subsidies (credits/deductions) ARE NOT tax hikes! No corporation nor individual's marginal tax rate will be increased. Such changes in the tax code aren't even part of the negotiations! As such, the GOP - including Tea Party members - are going to have to decide on "loyalty to party politics" or "loyalty to country".

Here's the bare bones of it, ladies and gentlemen...

Large commercial banks aren't expediting lending especially to small businesses. They've tightened their lending criteria insisting on backing loans with collateral. Small community banks that managed to keep their doors open were suppose to be a lending alternative. Unfortunately, they're being just as stringent as the larger banks. So, we have a credit problem of a different sort on our hands.

The other side of the economic problem is consumer spending. With fewer people working and incomes flat (not to mention the cost of goods and services increasing), people aren't shopping in large numbers nor buy large ticket items. This affects productivity, manufacturing and transportation. How to break the economic stalemate?

This linked article from The Economists provides a glimps into how the GOP leadership could have had their cake and ate it, too, that is until negotiations broke down and Cantor and Kyle walked out:

Next on my reading list is David Brooks' superb column on the Republican Party. About four months ago, John Boehner touted a report put out by Republicans that called for closing the budget gap by enacting 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. That may have seemed impossible at the time due to Democratic opposition, but the current negotiations have swung so far in the Republicans' favour that the deal on the table now involves a ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases that is about that and includes no change to marginal rates. In other words, Republicans are getting most of what they wanted. Over to Mr Brooks:

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Bottom line is this: The private sector is still either unwilling or unable to inject capital into the economy. If they don't do start providing collateralized loans in larger numbers soon, the government may not have much choice but to raise taxes and enact another stimulus to break this economic gridlock.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Well, the Dems and the President are (still) very willing to agree to $4 TRILLION in spending cuts, far and above the $1 TRILLION dollars stated in the GOP Pledge to America. But once proposals to eliminate tax subsidies became part of the equation suddenly all bets were off w/the GOP. Everyone needs to understand this: tax subsidies (credits/deductions) ARE NOT tax hikes! No corporation nor individual's marginal tax rate will be increased. Such changes in the tax code aren't even part of the negotiations! As such, the GOP - including Tea Party members - are going to have to decide on "loyalty to party politics" or "loyalty to country".

How to break the economic stalemate?
Click to expand...

On this, we pretty much agree. If Boehner and the repubs pass on a 4 trillion spending cut plan because of closing some tax loopholes for big oil and the rich, SHAME ON THEM! Ideology must not trump practicality. The special interests must be threatening to withhold campaign contributions from the repubs, who look like cowards to me. They can try to say white is black, or "we are doing it for jobs" but I think they are lying scumbags on this.
 
Objective Voice said:
Moreover, if anybody instituted class-warfare it was he.
Click to expand...

Being as how Ronald Reagan carried 49 of the 50 States in his re-election victory (which included over 60% union members in some polls) on what grounds do you base this claim?
 
finebead said:
On this, we pretty much agree. If Boehner and the repubs pass on a 4 trillion spending cut plan because of closing some tax loopholes for big oil and the rich, SHAME ON THEM! Ideology must not trump practicality. The special interests must be threatening to withhold campaign contributions from the repubs, who look like cowards to me. They can try to say white is black, or "we are doing it for jobs" but I think they are lying scumbags on this.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what these "tax loopholes" are?

There are no tax loopholes. People and corporations follow government guidelines when they pay their taxes and if they don't they are breaking the law and can then be arrested. If they are behaving in a perfectly legal manner then where and what are these "loopholes"?

That this 'loophole" business is still being trotted out in order to create further class warfare is repellent. There will always be gullible and uninformed members of the public who will believe this foolishness and the dishonest politicians who prey on these people know it..
 
Grant said:
Being as how Ronald Reagan carried 49 of the 50 States in his re-election victory (which included over 60% union members in some polls) on what grounds do you base this claim?
Click to expand...

From finebead's post #75:

The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23] And during Reagan's first term, homelessness became a visible problem in America's urban centers, leading many to blame Reaganomics.[24] In the closing weeks of his presidency, Reagan told the New York Times that the homeless "make it their own choice for staying out there." [25] Political opponents chided his policies as "Trickle-down economics", due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets.[26]
Click to expand...

Towhich I will add, "The voices of the rich and powerful majority typically drowns out the voice of the impovished minority."

Getting back to the thread topic, I found this quote by Speaker Boehner interesting when discussing the debt ceiling negotiations from the NYTimes article I linked to earlier:

“It would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that America still is not serious about dealing with our spending addiction,” Mr. Boehner said. “It would erode confidence in our economy and reduce the certainty for small businesses. And frankly I think it would kill even more American jobs.”
Click to expand...

Questions to ponder:

1. Would the tax loopholes being discussed affect large corporations or small businesses?

2. If the raising the debt ceiling is about our ability to pay on our debt as previously appropriated by law, how exactly would raising it have a negative affect on small businesses if the only entities that would be directly affected by the Treasury's inability to obtain needed credit would be the Federal Reserve banks or large corporate investment banks that deal with international trade?

3. If the the signal we want to sent to global markets is that we have our spending addition" under control, how does Speaker Boehner get to make such a claim when over $4 TRILLION in spending cuts have been offerred as part of negotiations? And if eliminating some high price tag tax deductions (loopholes) would illustrate that as a nation we are generating revenue even on a short-term basis, wouldn't that indicate we're attempting to get our financial house in order?

Think about what Boehner and congressional GOP members have said:

- LARGE spending cuts...Pres. Obama and the Dems have compromised on spending cuts of at least $4 TRILLION!!!

- No tax hikes...only certain tax deductions (i.e., loopholes, i.e., subsidies) would be eliminated, but these don't raise any corporation or individual's marginal tax rate. So, how would eliminating them be considered a "tax hike"?

- "Investors and entrepreneurs everywhere" would know we're serious about keeping America in the business of foreign trading and investing because the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury would be maintained (re, we wouldn't lose our favorable credit rating).

Think it through, folks...
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
From finebead's post #75:



Towhich I will add, "The voices of the rich and powerful majority typically drowns out the voice of the impovished minority."
Click to expand...

Let me know how you think this may correlate :

indfig04.gif
 
Grant said:
Do you have any idea what these "tax loopholes" are?

There are no tax loopholes. People and corporations follow government guidelines when they pay their taxes and if they don't they are breaking the law and can then be arrested. If they are behaving in a perfectly legal manner then where and what are these "loopholes"?

That this 'loophole" business is still being trotted out in order to create further class warfare is repellent. There will always be gullible and uninformed members of the public who will believe this foolishness and the dishonest politicians who prey on these people know it..
Click to expand...

I learned a long time ago Finebread is a bright fellow. I suspect he understands this all quite well. Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
 
danarhea said:
It can be summed up in a single word - Sabotage.
Click to expand...

LOL!

senator obama on the floor explaining his then (march, 06) vote AGAINST raising the ceiling:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Click to expand...

Obama 2006 vs. Obama January 2011 vs. Obama April 2011 on the Debt Ceiling - Political Punch

this january, robert gibbs rationalized the president's conspicuous reversal by observing that obama's assent back then was not required for passage, the ceiling was lifted without him

Gibbs said it was OK for then-Senator Obama to have cast that vote, since the outcome was guaranteed.

“Based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt,” Gibbs said. Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”
Click to expand...

making a point, huh?

about the need to get serious about fiscal disclipline?

about shifting burdens on to backs of grandkids?

and bucks stopping where?

leadership failure, anyone?
 
finebead said:
Simpson / Bolls had it right
Click to expand...

it's bowles

erskine bowles, clinton's chief of staff

he ran for senator in north carolina, jesse helms' seat, lost to elizabeth dole

tried again for john edwards' seat, lost to richard burr

fyi
 
Objective Voice said:
The GOP claims "they're listening to the American people." Well, the People are demanding that Congress work together to find common sense solutions to our nation's debt and deficit problems.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, which is real, the common sense of the american people, as expressed in the last congressional elections, is not quite the convention you're perceiving

no, the wisdom of mom and pop america is more rightly heard and acted upon today by leaders such as andrew cuomo in new york, jerry brown in california and rahm emanuel in chicago

cuomo's got his finger on the pulse in the EMPIRE STATE, he's bold and big, he's confident and sure, his polls are thru the roof

The way I see it Republicans would be walking away from the best deal they've had in a long time
Click to expand...

we're gonna get more, we're gonna get a lot more

Deuce said:
Obama's budget was voted down because a different deal had already been pushed by the time the vote came up, a stronger attempt at cutting the deficit.
Click to expand...

that's true

after 2 years (in times like these) without a budget, the party in power finally put something on paper and published it in february

it was the exact opposite prescription, it brazenly RAISED borrowing 20%

it depended on impossible outyear projections of hi gdp immediately and low interest rates forever

within days ryan came out with his radically different plan and, for whatever reason, the white house and senate almost immediately DUMPED the president's OWN budget

the only blueprint he's put out in going on 3 years

and yes, the RHETORIC he's been living off since the collapse (97 to 0) of his WRITTEN PLAN does indeed reverse course---violently---killing keynes across the board

and that's kinda the point---every two weeks that go by, the movement towards AUSTERITY becomes more obvious and irresistable

ask cuomo, moonbeam, the ram, the massachusetts state house, trenton NJ and springfield IL, bing and bobb in detroit...

ask dan malloy of connecticut, the dem gub who just two weeks ago reenacted his very own air traffic controllers moment, firing the afscme's who refused to follow along

ask governor dayton in minnesota---he campaigned on a tax-the-rich plank which he's now forced to back off, he tried for an alcohol tax, he's now relegated to cigarettes

the momentum is all one way

ask people like claire mccaskill in missouri, joe manchin in west virginia, jon tester in montana...

they CAN'T go home without offering SOMETHING in the way of FIX for our big 3 entitlements, which will simply disappear if something significant isn't done NOW

and it aint gonna help em much in their reelects to be tagged by folks like me as TAX RAISERS

it's just a matter of time
 
Grant said:
Do you have any idea what these "tax loopholes" are?

There are no tax loopholes. People and corporations follow government guidelines when they pay their taxes and if they don't they are breaking the law and can then be arrested. If they are behaving in a perfectly legal manner then where and what are these "loopholes"?

That this 'loophole" business is still being trotted out in order to create further class warfare is repellent. There will always be gullible and uninformed members of the public who will believe this foolishness and the dishonest politicians who prey on these people know it..
Click to expand...

Yes I do have an idea what these "tax loopholes" are, and the article calls them "tax loopholes", contrary to your asserstion that there are NO TAX LOOPHOLES, there are, and there have been since I've been alive, almost 60 years, and I am sure there were tax loopholes before that.

Democrats want to close tax loopholes that benefit oil companies, and eliminate a tax preference that gives corporate aircraft a friendlier depreciation schedule than commercial aircraft. Additionally, Van Hollen said, Democrats were proposing to phase out tax deductions and certain credits for people making more than $500,000 a year. These would be paired with a reduction in the tax burden on lower earners, by eliminating existing limitations on their deductions.
Click to expand...
GOP end debt negotiations to protect tax breaks for people making $500,000+ Republicans 1'st, Economy 2'nd? - Yahoo! Answers

Maybe you'd like to explain why we should borrow money, increase the debt of the nation, and devalue the dollar to give the money to the oil companies that are making billions in profit every quarter. I don't know of ONE oil company that is losing money. They don't need a tax break, period.
 
Last edited:
From Bloomberg.com:

Republicans reject Democrats’ call for more tax revenue and instead are pressing to cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Democrats insist even the Republicans’ proposal for a smaller deficit-cutting plan must include more taxes from higher-income Americans.
Click to expand...

Obama Challenges Republicans for Debt-Plan Details - Bloomberg

Both parties have limits that they are unlikely to cross, meaning even if their leaders were to agree to such terms, their rank and file would not support those terms. A smaller deal, which would be focused largely on discretionary spending and would avoid tax hikes was supposed to be a position to which the parties could retreat in time to raise the debt ceiling if the large deal could not be achieved (IMO, always a small probability of success). Speaker Boehner pushed in that direction.

However, now it appears that the Democrats are insisting that tax hikes be part of even a small package. If that is a firm position, then the scale of a possible deal will grow even smaller. Under such a scenario, were the deal to fall below a dollar-for-dollar match with the debt ceiling hike, Republican support could evaporate. Were tax hikes to be preserved in a smaller deal, Republican support would be limited, and it is plausible that the House might not pick up even 50 Republican votes under such a scenario. Hence, prospects for a failure to reach agreement could increase.

Right now, I still expect a smaller deal in the $1 to $2 trillion range to be agreed. The markets also expect an agreement.

One sign of a shift in market sentiment would be if both the equities futures/equities and Treasury prices both fell, meaning lower equities prices and higher yields. The development and then persistence of such co-movements would be a disturbing sign of a break in market sentiment.

This morning's trading had sharply lower equities futures prices, but also a strong rise in Treasury prices, with the 10-year yield down more than 10 basis points as of 8 a.m., in a kind of flight-to-safety move driven by continuing concerns about European debt challenges. Across all maturities, yields were lower.
 
The Democrats don't really want spending cuts. The purpose of proposing tax hikes is to kill this deal. Obama probably has given up on creating an environment where job creation can occur, so he's going to find another way to blame the Republicans for this. Even the Democrats know that entitlements have to be cut. They've had their way on entitlement for 70 years, it's time they stop using them to buy votes. The problem is, the Democrat Party wouldn't have a soul in office if it weren't for entitlements and unions. They built their entire party on the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses.
 
You have got to be kidding me, American!!!

The GOP leadership has been attempting to change the perameters of debt (ceiling) negotiations since they issued their Pledge to America during the 2010 midterms. When was the last time you read it?

First, the GOP calls for $1 trillion in spending cuts before raising the debt limit. Then they insist on offsetting whatever the debt ceiling limit is raised to with matching spending cuts. Then they insist on "deep" spending cuts, but insist on no tax increases. Whose trying to kill the deal again?

Here's a clue: EVERY TIME the Democrats have met the Republican's demands on raising the debt ceiling, the Republicans have changed the conditions of negotiations!! Go back and re-read your party's own Pledge then read both the NYTimes and the Economist articles I linked to in post #76, then come back here and dare make the claim that Democrats aren't trying to negotiate in good faith. If you still can't acknowledge that it is your own party who has "moved the goal post" on these debt ceiling negotiations at every turn, then...:censored....we've got nothing else to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
You have got to be kidding me, American!!!

The GOP leadership has been attempting to change the perameters of debt (ceiling) negotiations since they issued the Pledge to America during the 2010 midterms. When was the last time you read it?

First, the GOP calls for $1 trillion in spending cuts before raising the debt limit. Then they insist on offsetting whatever the debt ceiling limit is raised to with matching spending cuts. Then they insist on "deep" spending cuts, but insist on no tax increases. Whose trying to kill the deal again?

Here's a clue: EVERY TIME the Democrats have met the Republican's demands on raising the debt ceiling, the Republicans have changed the conditions of negotiations!! Go back and re-read your party's own Pledge then read both the NYTimes and the Economist articles I linked to in post #76, then come back here and dare make the claim that Democrats aren't trying to negotiate in good faith. If you still can't acknowledge that it is your own party who has "moved the goal post" on these debt ceiling negotiations at every turn, then...:censored....we've got nothing else to discuss.
Click to expand...

Thank God for the GOP.

Can you imagine the Democrats offering any of these cuts without it? LOL, not a chance.

Keep pushing, Boehner! Push these wussies right over the ledge. It's the only chance our children and grandchildren have.
 
In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession—growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent. Today, however, economic growth has slowed to less than 2 percent.
Click to expand...

Obama vs. Obama | The Weekly Standard
 
When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession—growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent. Today, however, economic growth has slowed to less than 2 percent.
 
The Prof said:
When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession—growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent. Today, however, economic growth has slowed to less than 2 percent.
Click to expand...

Simplistic view. in Q4 2009, the stimulus was hitting full force and the 6% growth was artificially created by the stimulus, or the economy may have still been shrinking without the stimulus.

Today we may only be growing at 2% GDP, but the stimulus has been shrinking and is nearly gone, so the growth is natural now. I think 2% native growth in a stable economy 2 years after the recession ended is a better situation to be in than 6% artificial growth based on govt. printed money.

The president is right; you are taking an overly simplistic view.
 
Last edited:
i take no view, i paste and link

the only views presented have been the president's

he didn't say anything about 6% growth being artifical and based on printed money

he didn't say anything about 2.7T of qe and 2%, either

december, 2010, on extending the bush tax cuts for the rich, approved by lame duck: "millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers”

link above
 
So this myth that Obama does not want entitlement reform was debunked in his press conference today.
 
Swizz said:
So this myth that Obama does not want entitlement reform was debunked in his press conference today.
Click to expand...

Make him cut it first, I'll believe it when I see it from him.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom