'Gang of Six' revives hope for big deal in stalled debt-ceiling talks

Catawba said:

If you have proof the Bush tax cuts were not temporary with an expiration date, present it. Simply repeating your opinion over and over again proves nothing.

Click to expand...

It is a tax increase. tax cuts expire that means there is a tax increase

fyi

Conrad: We need a short-term debt deal - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

this is a huge development, let me tell you why

conrad is the budget chair, he's the senate's paul ryan, he's the guy who hasn't been able to deliver a budget in going on three years

kent conrad of north dakota, who announced he's not gonna run again, a moderate, is the man more than any other who killed the public option

conrad at budget was the gatekeeper's right hand man in the crafting of obamacare, for example, the gatekeeper being max baucus at finance

conrad is the champion of what he calls rural care, he thinks medicare scheduling rips off country doctors and kills rural care, and it was on this plank that he opposed the po

conrad is also the FACE of the gang of 6

when the white house got kinda giddy over the gang two days ago, it was cuzza statements made by conrad about his group having found the answer

that development, by the way, was made possible by the return to the gang of doctor tom coburn from oklahoma, who says he went back to conrad's caucus cuzza the heavy enticement of huge health care cuts

the point is---conrad, gang of 6, is the white house's last best hope of getting a deal

the white house, all thru these epic debates, has had 3 priorities---raise the ceiling hi enough to get thru the presidential (which would require about 2.4T of credit), protect entitlements from cuts, raise revenues

the gop has had 2 demands---dollar for dollar (actually, that ratio has risen radically recently, ccb went from 2.4/2.4 to 5.8/2.4, mcconnell-reid went from recommended to mandated cuts, even conrad's gang of 6 has 3.75T which enticed doctor coburn) and no taxes

conrad's declaration this morning on msnbc's coffee joe indicates the white house has bowed to reality concerning its top priority

yesterday, the WHIP, dick durbin, the senior from obama's home state, said---gang of 6 would have to be written, scored, passed thru senate, then house, then conference...

no way in 12 days

bottom line---if this goes down as it appears it might, the white house will get about 6 months of credit

and WE CAN JUST CONTINUE THIS DEBATE IN SEPTEMBER

and october and november

and we can just re-reach this exact same crisis in december

give em more credit or the world will come to an end

6 more months of it

party on, peeps

Catawba said:

President Bush's temporary tax cuts were extended one year past when they were set to expire because of the threat by the GOP to discontinue unemployment to our people that lost their jobs due to the Bush Recession.

Click to expand...

Sorry it was Obama that said they had to be extended

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

In remarks before signing the bill, Obama called it "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country." He added: "They're the ones hardest hit by the recession we've endured. They're the ones who need relief right now."

Obama described the bill as "a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people."

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Thursday voiced support for a six-month hike to the debt ceiling.

Conrad, a member of the bipartisan Gang of Six that released a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction package earlier this week, said he's always preferred an initial short-term hike to the $14.3 trillion ceiling to buy more time for lawmakers to work on legislative language for a broader deal.

"You know, I've always believed that there will be first a shorter-term extension. I would prefer one that's perhaps six months in duration so that you start the process — you begin with a down payment, then you have time for the committees of Congress to come back with a floor package," Conrad said Thursday on MSNBC. "That's my own view of how this should work, and I think it's more in tune with the realities of the magnitude of the task."

Even supporters of the group's efforts have said there's not enough time to move the Gang's plan through Congress by an Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department for raising the ceiling. The plan would lower tax rates and eliminate $1 trillion in tax loopholes, something Conrad acknowledged would take time.

"The tax code is not going to be reformed in a matter of weeks — that's going to take months and months of work," Conrad continued.

Click to expand...

Sen. Conrad wants six-month debt-ceiling increase to buy time - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Catawba said:

Walk away from what?

Click to expand...

When the Republicans walk away from a bad deal with the one term Marxist president Obama, of course.

Catawba said:

The nations debt?

Click to expand...

See above.

Catawba said:

The GOP will not throw the country into a depression and upset the entire financial system of the world simply over an ideological cause.

Click to expand...

The GOP will not be at fault. The fault lies with the administration that has increased the size of government by 25% in the last couple of years. The one term president grew it. Let him shrink it.

Catawba said:

If they do, we are looking at a whole lot of years of Democratically controlled government in our future. :sun

Click to expand...

If they don't there won't be a United States any longer. So it won't actually matter.

Catawba said:

Your fix is what you can't back up! Thanks for admitting it! :sun

Click to expand...

Are you objecting to tax increases? Or are you claiming there aren't going to be any?

Thunder said:

are we talking about Obama's plan from last week, or the Gang of Six plan?

Click to expand...

Does it really matter? If the one term Marxist president Obama agrees to it there will likely be tax increases. They may be disguised but you can be very sure they will be there.

1Perry said:

Obama says he wants something "big" . . .

Click to expand...

Regime change would do it for me.

Catawba said:

Kind of behind in the times aren't you? We have moved way beyond Obama's proposed 2012 budget. He replaced that proposal with his framework for deficit reduction which is based on the Bowles-Simpson report. That framework was used by the Gang of 6 to develop the bipartisan Congressional proposal, which brings us back to the OP.

Click to expand...

You said there had been no proposals of a tax increase and asked for proof othewise. This entire debate began with BO's budget and the hikes, or revenue increases, it proposed, as I have posted.

In April, he reiterated his insistence on tax increases.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.

Click to expand...

Obama's Deficit Speech (Transcript) - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic

And then again in June, though in typically demogogic language:

So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done. Or, we’re so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist — that’s the reason we’re not going to come to a deal.

I don’t think that’s a sustainable position. And the truth of the matter is, if you talk to Republicans who are not currently in office, like Alan Simpson who co-chaired my bipartisan commission, he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position. Pete Domenici, Republican, co-chaired something with Alice Rivlin, the Democrat, says that’s — he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position. You can’t reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix.

And the revenue we’re talking about isn’t coming out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling. It’s coming out of folks who are doing extraordinarily well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born.

Click to expand...

http://politisite.com/2011/06/29/pr...erencecampaign-speech-june-29-2011-full-text/

The Gang's plan elminates the AMT and claims by doing so it saves $660 billion in middle class tax payments over the next 10 years. Problem is, the middle class never pays the AMT, because each year a "patch" is legisated exempting them from the tax.

It factors in another $750 billion over 10 years by counting tax credits now set to expire. Trouble there is many will almost certainly be renewed. Same with many of the Bush cuts. Allowing all of them to expire would lead to a middle class tax increase. That's why BO renewed them in December, then vowed never to make that mistake again. Considering he'll either be gone or reelected next time they come up, I believe him.

Tax increases are the very foundation of his position, of his progressive vision for America. He has been coy recently about exactly where he will apply them, but he has never given up on them.

Misterveritis said:

Are you objecting to tax increases? Or are you claiming there aren't going to be any?

Click to expand...

No, I am objecting to the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts by cutting government programs for our seniors.

"The plan includes $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, managed by spending caps and cuts to government programs."
Gang Of Six Unveils Debt-Reduction Plan [UPDATED]

And this with no significant cuts in the most wasteful spending, the military and multiple optional wars.

There is no way I can support this.

Catawba said:

No, I am objecting to the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts by cutting government programs for our seniors.

"The plan includes $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, managed by spending caps and cuts to government programs."
Gang Of Six Unveils Debt-Reduction Plan [UPDATED]

And this with no significant cuts in the most wasteful spending, the military and multiple optional wars.

There is no way I can support this.

Click to expand...

The Gang's plan has not been written in legislative language as of yet, has it? What programs for seniors will it cut?

LuckyDan said:

The Gang's plan has not been written in legislative language as of yet, has it? What programs for seniors will it cut?

Click to expand...

"The Gang's revised plan proposes deep cuts in Medicare and other health spending"

Will Marshall: Welcome Back, Gang of Six

LuckyDan said:

The Gang's plan has not been written in legislative language as of yet, has it? What programs for seniors will it cut?

Click to expand...

it reduces the unsustainable pace of growth in Medicare, thereby keeping that program from utter collapse for a few more years. supposedly.

thats a "deep cut" for those who wish not to recognize fiscal reality.

Red Crow said:

Click to expand...

But, but! They're the party of NO! They can't possibly have been proposing item after item after item from measures to deal with the budget to measures to deal with the debt cieling and on and on.

They're the party of NO! If they actually were proposing things and those thing weren't happening that wouldn't make sense because that'd mean the democrats were the ones saying no and we all know that the party of no is republicans. I mean, Democrats have told us that so it must be true.

Zyphlin said:

But, but! They're the party of NO! They can't possibly have been proposing item after item after item from measures to deal with the budget to measures to deal with the debt cieling and on and on.

They're the party of NO! If they actually were proposing things and those thing weren't happening that wouldn't make sense because that'd mean the democrats were the ones saying no and we all know that the party of no is republicans. I mean, Democrats have told us that so it must be true.

Click to expand...

Passing stuff designed so it can never become law, simply to claim you are passing stuff, does not change the fact that republicans refused to even be part of the process the last two years except to get in the way.

Redress said:

Passing stuff designed so it can never become law, simply to claim you are passing stuff, does not change the fact that republicans refused to even be part of the process the last two years except to get in the way.

Click to expand...

What it does challenge and refute is the non stop rhetoric that Republicans have no plan, are the party of "NO"... etc.etc.etc..... It also forces Democrats into a position of having to now do something.

Catawba said:

No, I am objecting to the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts by cutting government programs for our seniors.
. . .
There is no way I can support this.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, there is still time for the Republicans to just walk away. They passed a bill in the House. Now it is the democratically-controlled Senate's turn. And the one term Marxist president Obama has yet to offer any real plan. Republicans should tell him they will return to discuss his plan, once he actually has one.

And if nothing happens then the government will be forced to live on what it already compels us to pay.

evanescence said:

Basically, the US needs to add more debt because not doing so ends in collapse.

Click to expand...

Even more basically, the US government needs to stop spending money it does not have. It is pretty simple really.

haymarket said:

The Republican leadership will not allow this to advance especially in the House. they have already made a decision that their highest priority is making sure they win back the White House and Senate in 2012 and they view the best way to do that is to collapse the economy and blame Obama for it.

Click to expand...

I like it. The one term Marxist president Obama has massively grown the federal government. Now he gets to shrink it. And in the end we get our country back. Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. Perfect.

Misterveritis said:

Fortunately, there is still time for the Republicans to just walk away. They passed a bill in the House. Now it is the democratically-controlled Senate's turn. And the one term Marxist president Obama has yet to offer any real plan. Republicans should tell him they will return to discuss his plan, once he actually has one.

And if nothing happens then the government will be forced to live on what it already compels us to pay.

Click to expand...

Is it not the House's job to create actual plans? The president can set the agenda and even offer some specific suggestions, but doesn't the responsibly fall on the House to create the actual plan?

Tettsuo said:

Is it not the House's job to create actual plans? The president can set the agenda and even offer some specific suggestions, but doesn't the responsibly fall on the House to create the actual plan?

Click to expand...

No. The president can submit a budget to congress. Bills involving budgets originate in he House. They have passed budgets already.

1Perry said:

Obama isn't the only one who spent recklessly. Yes, his two and half years are an embarrassment but it didn't get this bad in only 2 1/2 years.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but just how long are we supposed to give Obama a pass based on what the prior administration, and congress spent? Oh, and one more thing on that, Bush spent roughly $1.4 Billion per day in deficit spending, 2 years of that with a Pelosi congress, Obama since taking office, is spending $4.3 Billion per day. Now you tell me, when does Obama and his supporters take responsibility for that?

Taylor said:

Reckless spending aside, I don't know that this will even cover the interest. This may reduce the deficit, but "debt reduction" it most certainly is not.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The revelations coming out are that this is more and more just games being played. Kicking the can AGAIN.

j-mac

Misterveritis said:

No. The president can submit a budget to congress. Bills involving budgets originate in he House. They have passed budgets already.

Click to expand...

Please give a link then to the FY2010 budget. And keep in mind that CR's are NOT a budget.

j-mac

j-mac said:

Please give a link then to the FY2010 budget. And keep in mind that CR's are NOT a budget.

j-mac

Click to expand...

No bill becomes a law until both houses of Congress pass it and reconcile it. The House has done its part. Now it is up to the democratically-controlled Senate. Then on to the one term Marxist president Obama's autopen.