I'd want to see calculations on a flat percentage tax. Like, 5%, 10%, 15% across the board. Show me what that does with revenues. Get rid of income levels that remove your tax obligation.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
what's truly shocking is the product of the democrat lame duck:
Obama signs tax deal into law - CNN
why did the party with fifty nine senators and a plurality of 76 in lower house do that?
same reason kent conrad is paralyzed, perhaps?
it's been two years since the us senate fulfilled its fundamental responsibility to produce a budget---in times like these
if something isn't done imminently to restructure our budget, our big 3 federal programs will not be there for our next generation, not the way they should be, leastaways
it's YOUR move, mr reid
it has been since boehner sent you HR ONE in JANUARY
hurry up, harry!
The government has never shown us it has an inability to take more and more of our money.
It has however shown a SEVERE lack in ability to actually control THEMSELVES, cut their spending, and act responsably in regards to their gullotonous use of our Tax Dollars.
Good on Boehner on this one. How about you actually cut the budget significantly and prove you will follow through with it, then we can talk about giving the government more of our money.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
NO, taking more of my money to pay for the government being irresponsible has come to an end.
that party is over..
you cut spending, 2 trillion sounds like a good start
I like him, Not only is he conservative minded, he's a real American sucess story, unlike "clown boy i did it on the basis of being black" that we have in white house now.
And he truly could pull some, if not most of the African American vote that has no intention of paying attention to anything except wheres the "vote for the black guy" box I need to check.
Maybe the better idea is for someone to put him on the ticket as VP
Senator Reid's rejection of Congressman Boehner's opening proposal is not surprising. There are vast differences in terms of the composition of a fiscal consolidation package (tax vs. spending contribution) and the underlying details related to that composition. Given earlier Republican positions on the extent of spending reductions that would be sought, it appears that the opening idea is for a $2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. From Senator Reid's remarks concerning the need to include defense cuts, it is plausible that the opening Republican proposal exempted the Pentagon. IMO, if one is seeking a broad reduction in expenditures, including those associated with the mandatory spending programs, one should not exempt Defense spending. Given the magnitude of the nation's long-term imbalances and politically difficult but necessary choices that lie ahead, a policy that creates "sacred cows" so to speak is a policy that can only undermine fiscal consolidation.
My guess remains that an agreement will be reached, and it will probably come with immediate fiscal consolidation being fairly small relative to promised future fiscal consolidation. I suspect that the debt ceiling will probably be increased by $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion (there is a growing probability of something less than $2 trillion, especially if taxes won't be included this time around; the Democrats almost certainly won't accept an all expenditures approach for $2 trillion in promised fiscal consolidation). Modest spending cuts, largely, if not wholly, in discretionary spending would be agreed and implemented for FY 2012. In terms of the larger structural issues, some kind of finessing will occur. Goals or targets would probably be adopted, but the policy specifics would be left to be defined later. There might even be agreement to "examine" tax code reform, without specificity as to whether or not revenue increases would be part of that reform (leaving the issue until after the 2012 election).
Such an arrangement would allow the Republicans to assert that spending reductions were made and commitments for more aggressive spending reductions/mandatory spending reforms are in place, and that the combination of spending reductions matches or exceeds the amount by which the debt ceiling was increased. It will also allow them to assert that no tax hikes were agreed. At the same time, the Democrats will be able to assert that tax hikes have not been removed from the table and that a broader examination of mandatory spending reforms could occur before final decisions are made.
Less likely, but not completely out-of-the-question, would be a deal that raises the debt ceiling by a modest amount (perhaps sufficient to buy 6-12 months of time) in exchange for modest FY 2012 spending reductions and a second increase for the remainder of the request contingent on working out the details of larger fiscal consolidation. That move would alleviate any immediate risk of default or draconian spending rationing, while buying time for the Congress to carefully work out a deal on the larger issues. With the 2012 election approaching, such a move would probably not be optimal from a political calendar standpoint. Hence, it might be a last resort.
In sum, adjustments to the mandatory spending programs will likely be postponed yet again. Against those perpetual time horizon present value imbalances, the reductions in discretionary spending would be little more than cosmetic. Even macroeconomically painless measures such as gradually increasing the Medicare/Social Security eligibility age and pegging it to changes in life expectancy likely won't be pursued. Therefore, even as an immediate debt crisis would be averted, there is a genuine risk that the overall agreement will lack credibility.
Of course, doesn't stop you guys from repeating the line over the last year or so.
Also, it's easy to just point at this rejection and say "Hah! Democrats don't want to cut spending, see!?"
But imagine the scenario where the Democrats propose $2 trillion in spending cuts. Every single penny of those cuts comes from grants to Christian organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the military. Republicans shoot it down.
Who are you going to blame? The Republicans for shooting it down or the Democrats for proposing such an asinine budget?
Last edited by Deuce; 05-20-11 at 06:19 PM.
One of you will end up here next!