• 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!

GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

Another day, another idea...

From The New York Times:

Democratic luminaries with ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations, including two former Treasury secretaries and two former White House chiefs of staff, on Tuesday will enter the tax debate with an overhaul plan that would raise an additional $1.8 trillion in the first decade.

That is $200 billion more than President Obama has proposed and $1 trillion more than Republicans in Congress support. It would mostly result from a simplification of the tax code that produces higher taxes from the wealthy, but would also involve higher taxes on cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and Internet gambling that would hit people of all incomes.

Debt Reckoning: The Fiscal Deadline in Washington - NYTimes.com

The actual plan can be found at: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CAPTaxPlanReportFINAL.pdf

Although this plan claims $4.1 trillion in deficit reduction, a closer examination reveals that part of this figure includes $1.5 trillion in savings already enacted (see p.21). Therefore, the actual new deficit reduction would come to $2.6 trillion.
 
while i realize that we are watching the goalposts being set, our two political parties are acting like caricatures of themselves.
 
You know what would make that even better? if they slapped some tax increases onto the rich. Then we could actually have a real conservative budget instead of a pretend conservative budget which still spends lavishly and wastefully on the rich. hey, if we all have to buckle our belts and pay down our debt then the rich can tone down their spending too.

Not taking money != "Spending" money.

You may disagree that we shouldn't tax people more, but at least use correct verbage here. An individual's money is their own. The government has the power to TAX, not the power to "grant you your money". They have the legal ability to TAKE your money, which inherently means that initially it's YOUR money. Having the government take less of it is not the government "Spending" money.
 
And this is why things aren't going to work. Neither side actually wants to negotiate and find a middle ground.

Republicans come to the table with:

1) Increases to revenue by effectively raising taxes
2) Increased burden placed on the rich by way of entitlement reform
3) Spending CUTS to go with revenue INCREASES for a BALANCED approach of dealing with our debt

And naturally, that gets cut down and derided because we're not actually looking for a balacned approach with the debt. It's just a game of which side can better demonize the other and get their point across. At this point, it's "raise the income tax rate on 'the rich' or we fail" for the Democrats.
 
If you just look at available income, of all forms including interest gains, capital gains, etc:

AGI's between $1 and $200,000 = 6.007 trillion
AGI's over $200,000 = 2.273 trillion.

Lumping all forms of taxation, taxes paid:

AGI's between $1 and $200,000 = 498 billion
AGI's over $200,000 = 500 billion


How much more do you think you can squeeze out of the "top"?

Note: All data from IRS.gov historical tables 2010
 
You know what would make that even better? if they slapped some tax increases onto the rich. Then we could actually have a real conservative budget instead of a pretend conservative budget which still spends lavishly and wastefully on the rich. hey, if we all have to buckle our belts and pay down our debt then the rich can tone down their spending too.

The top 5% are already paying for the majority of the countries spending. What would satisfy you? The rich paying 75% of taxes? 90%?

The federal govt spends 12k per person. How much should one person pay in taxes to cover that?
 
So...we Obama's proposal, in which he doubles the revenue increases he's previously called for and gives some vague lip service to unspecified spending cuts. Then we have the Republican's proposal that is, basically, what Obama wanted when he failed at negotiations the last time...and which is, to hear some of the reactions on this forum, DOA.

Frankly, I'm becoming more and more in favor of just driving over the cliff.
 
So...we Obama's proposal, in which he doubles the revenue increases he's previously called for and gives some vague lip service to unspecified spending cuts. Then we have the Republican's proposal that is, basically, what Obama wanted when he failed at negotiations the last time...and which is, to hear some of the reactions on this forum, DOA.

Frankly, I'm becoming more and more in favor of just driving over the cliff.

The advantage of the Republican proposal is its already passed the house, plus reccomendations from the bipartisan committee that was set up by Obama. All we really need is for the Senate to take the House budget, amend it something more their liking and then have conference to work out the details, like they were supposed to do last year. The President doesnt even need to be involved since he has no appropriations powers. He would likely sign something passed by congress.
 
The advantage of the Republican proposal is its already passed the house, plus reccomendations from the bipartisan committee that was set up by Obama. All we really need is for the Senate to take the House budget, amend it something more their liking and then have conference to work out the details, like they were supposed to do last year. The President doesnt even need to be involved since he has no appropriations powers. He would likely sign something passed by congress.

While I agree that the proper course would be as you suggest, I don't think we'll see any action or negotiation from the Senate. They've shown that they are only interested in parroting whatever Obama comes up with. Heck, I don't even think Obama talks to the Senate.
 
I believe that the raising of the debt ceiling is a part of the current "cliff" negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong but is such a thing possible:)
I could be wrong, but aren't the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff two different things? I know democrats want to lump the debt ceiling in with the fiscal cliff, but a deal could get done on the debt ceiling and not on the fiscal cliff (or the other way around)...

IMHO, the 2 major parties are alike only in the end results but not in their attitude. Otherwise, why would people be so passionate about the "right" or "left"? Of course, I could be wrong.
I would disagree. I think that both parties are only degrees different to the right and left of center, with the Libertarian party and the Green party as the parties that are diametrically opposed. Since most of Americans prefer the center, it is little surprise to me they receive majority support.

I still await your exampole of options. You keep saying there are many but I just asked for some examples and then you say there are many. Help me out, delineate those options I';m failing to see somehow.
Except for all the third party options people forgo because they fear the other side...





I could be wrong, but aren't the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff two different things? I know democrats want to lump the debt ceiling in with the fiscal cliff, but a deal could get done on the debt ceiling and not on the fiscal cliff (or the other way around)...

I would disagree. I think that both parties are only degrees different to the right and left of center, with the Libertarian party and the Green party as the parties that are diametrically opposed. Since most of Americans prefer the center, it is little surprise to me they receive majority support.

Except for all the third party options people forgo because they fear the other side...
 
I still await your exampole of options. You keep saying there are many but I just asked for some examples and then you say there are many. Help me out, delineate those options I';m failing to see somehow.

When you go to the voting booth, instead of selecting the "democrat" or the "republican," choose one of the other many options.

Some include:
Green Party
Constitution Party
Socialists of America
Libertarian Party

At least, those are the major alternatives.
 
I believe that the raising of the debt ceiling is a part of the current "cliff" negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong but is such a thing possible:)

I'm 99.9% sure they are two different things. While that being said, they are part of the current negotiations. If that makes sense at all. The fiscal cliff is a result of our inability to come up with spending cuts and extra tax revenue the last time we had to raise the national debt ceiling. It just so happens that we've kicked the can so far down the road that we about the same time need to increase the debt ceiling again. Democrats want the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling talks to be combined as they will be able to get more of what they want that way, where as republicans do not want them to be combined. Remember last time we had debt ceiling talks the fiscal cliff came out as a worse case scenario, including them imho is like asking for more money from a bank, and at the same time telling the bank you don't want to come up with a way to pay for the last loan you took out from them...
 
Sorry. We've been in miscommunication. I brought up the 3rd parties and I thought you dismissed them in favor of "other options". I think we've been agreeing all along.

Maybe we're both full of crap?:toilet:

When you go to the voting booth, instead of selecting the "democrat" or the "republican," choose one of the other many options.

Some include:
Green Party
Constitution Party
Socialists of America
Libertarian Party

At least, those are the major alternatives.
 
When you go to the voting booth, instead of selecting the "democrat" or the "republican," choose one of the other many options.

Some include:
Green Party
Constitution Party
Socialists of America
Libertarian Party

At least, those are the major alternatives.

Funny you should say that... As in CT

Chris Murphy (democrat) ran both as democrat and "Working Families Party" (his name appeared twice)

Linda Mcmahon ran as both a republican and an Independent. So one must be very careful if you think you are picking a different party as some times that is not the case...
 
They may be 2 different things but they seem to be integrated into the current "cliff" battle. Even your post seems to recognize the linkage with your bank analogy. They certainly impact each other.

So, are they just messing with us for drama while money (quietly) changes hands in secret or is this a genuine crisis?



I'm 99.9% sure they are two different things. While that being said, they are part of the current negotiations. If that makes sense at all. The fiscal cliff is a result of our in
ability to come up with spending cuts and extra tax revenue the last time we had to raise the national debt ceiling. It just so happens that we've kicked the can so far down the road that we about the same time need to increase the debt ceiling again. Democrats want the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling talks to be combined as they will be able to get more of what they want that way, where as republicans do not want them to be combined. Remember last time we had debt ceiling talks the fiscal cliff came out as a worse case scenario, including them imho is like asking for more money from a bank, and at the same time telling the bank you don't want to come up with a way to pay for the last loan you took out from them...
 
Sorry. We've been in miscommunication. I brought up the 3rd parties and I thought you dismissed them in favor of "other options". I think we've been agreeing all along.

Maybe we're both full of crap?:toilet:

It's possible that I missed that.

RLWSNOOK said:
Funny you should say that... As in CT

Chris Murphy (democrat) ran both as democrat and "Working Families Party" (his name appeared twice)

Linda Mcmahon ran as both a republican and an Independent. So one must be very careful if you think you are picking a different party as some times that is not the case...

Well, hopefully one would research the people they vote for if people are considering more than just the two parties.
 
Ah.

Firstly: I almost wish they would. Just as Republicans were the first party to come clean and be honest with the American people about the need to grab the third rail, someone needs to come clean and let the American people know that we already have the most progressive income tax structure in the industrialized world. The oh-so-sacrosanct middle class isn't paying for the benefits it wants, and we need to be honest that all things come with a price tag.


The only problem with your theory, is that the reality for the majority of Americans is much different.

Secondly: Sort of Bitter-Sweetly, this charge of yours is (as near as I can tell) incorrect. Perhaps you can demonstrate to me where you are getting this from.

Did you miss the election campaign where one side promised to increase tax cuts for the wealthy and the other side promised to build a strong middle class as the way to make the nation prosper?
 
While I agree that the proper course would be as you suggest, I don't think we'll see any action or negotiation from the Senate. They've shown that they are only interested in parroting whatever Obama comes up with. Heck, I don't even think Obama talks to the Senate.

Well that seems like a good strategy for the congress to employ. Shut Obama out, call meetings with Senate leaders and come up with something.
 
The only problem with your theory, is that the reality for the majority of Americans is much different.



Did you miss the election campaign where one side promised to increase tax cuts for the wealthy and the other side promised to build a strong middle class as the way to make the nation prosper?

I dont remember any side promising to increase tax cuts for the wealthy. Both sides promised to build a strong middle class.
 
They may be 2 different things but they seem to be integrated into the current "cliff" battle. Even your post seems to recognize the linkage with your bank analogy. They certainly impact each other.

So, are they just messing with us for drama while money (quietly) changes hands in secret or is this a genuine crisis?

They are integrated in that they both need to be decided at or around the same time, nothing more nothing less. We can pass a solution to one, none or both.

Now are they just messing with us?

No I don't think so, I honestly think both sides see this as a major issue and want to solve things their way.

Is this a major crisis?

It depends on what you mean by a major crisis. And know that there are many outcomes that could come out of this.
1. We go over the fiscal cliff but pass a debt ceiling increase: this will likely result in a recession of negative 1.5-3.0% GDP growth. (Is this a crisis well remember what Regan said, "a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours"... so it depends on if you lose your job or not because of this).
2. We don't go over the fiscal cliff but pass a debt ceiling increase: while this is likely the best short term fix and won't result in any recession and could even lead to economic growth, one must question if our markets will accept our ability to pay back our debt when we told them we would go over the cliff to justify more debt and removed that and then asked for more debt. This could lead us to a slow path of increased interest rates, meaning more debt (higher deficits as we would have bigger interest payments) and more issues.
3. We go over the fiscal cliff but don't pass a debt ceiling increase: this will likely see the worst results, as we will get spending cuts tax increases and default on our payments of our national debt.. Which will lead to higher interest rates very quickly and the only way to fix this problem will be to print money, which will cause inflation.
4. We don't go over the fiscal cliff and don't pass a debt ceiling increase: (very unlikely) however we will see a default of our payments, interest rates will quickly rise, and only way to fix this problem will to print money which will cause inflation.

So I think it depends on what happens, there are 4 likely scenarios... If you think any of them are "major crisis's" are up to you to decide, however no matter what way you look at it, we are in a difficult situation. But the way I see things are, no matter what solution we pick, even if it is the most likely #2 it is kind of like a college student who hands in his papers late and asks the professor to accept them. It may work a few times, but at some time, they will not get credit for their work, and will fail... The credit for their work is what the markets see us doing to keep a sustainable national debt. Once markets no longer accept our work, our promises our solutions, we will see interest rates skyrocket which will cause interest payments to go up by likely around 500 billion a year, meaning deficits 500 billion a year more...
 
I dont remember any side promising to increase tax cuts for the wealthy. Both sides promised to build a strong middle class.

Let me refresh your memory: "Mitt Romney has proposed huge tax cuts that principally benefit the wealthy, while refusing to say how he would pay for them by closing unspecified loopholes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/17iht-letter17.html?_r=0

One side has fought to preserve the middle class tax cuts and one side has fought to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrat controlled Senate has passed a bill extending the middle class tax cuts. The GOP controlled House refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. If they maintain this attitude towards the middle class they will have the House taken from them as well in 2014.
 
One side has fought to preserve the middle class tax cuts and one side has fought to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrat controlled Senate has passed a bill extending the middle class tax cuts. The GOP controlled House refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. If they maintain this attitude towards the middle class they will have the House taken from them as well in 2014.

Not true, one side has fought for both the middle class tax cuts and small business tax cuts along with not getting ourselves into assuming $250,000 a year is "wealthy" as in some places in the country and some individuals $250,000 is what they need to just scrape by due to med school loans, or cost of living.

What is true, is democrats have played this like a game of chess, it is not about the tax cuts for the middle class, it is about the power to get what they want done. They are willing to risk the livelihoods of the American public to do so as well.

Now you say the republicans are maintaining the same course, yes they are, but the Democrats aren't maintaining their course, they continue to up the amount they want to raise in taxes, constantly changing and moving further away from the middle and blaming the republicans all while doing so they they won't compromise... Let me ask you a question if you have something to sell me, and I offer you 5 dollars, and you offer me 10. Then you change your mind and you offer me it for 12, and then 14... Do you think I'm going to be more or less likely to accept your 14 dollar offer, did you compromise, did you try to meet me in the middle or did you double down? That's the liberal\democrat strategy here..> And it's brilliant, it's the republicans fault if we fail, all while we demand more and more of what we want and less and less of what they want... At some point though the American public will wise up...
 
Not true, one side has fought for both the middle class tax cuts and small business tax cuts along with not getting ourselves into assuming $250,000 a year is "wealthy" as in some places in the country and some individuals $250,000 is what they need to just scrape by due to med school loans, or cost of living.

What is true, is democrats have played this like a game of chess, it is not about the tax cuts for the middle class, it is about the power to get what they want done. They are willing to risk the livelihoods of the American public to do so as well.

Now you say the republicans are maintaining the same course, yes they are, but the Democrats aren't maintaining their course, they continue to up the amount they want to raise in taxes, constantly changing and moving further away from the middle and blaming the republicans all while doing so they they won't compromise... Let me ask you a question if you have something to sell me, and I offer you 5 dollars, and you offer me 10. Then you change your mind and you offer me it for 12, and then 14... Do you think I'm going to be more or less likely to accept your 14 dollar offer, did you compromise, did you try to meet me in the middle or did you double down? That's the liberal\democrat strategy here..> And it's brilliant, it's the republicans fault if we fail, all while we demand more and more of what we want and less and less of what they want... At some point though the American public will wise up...

Nope, both times the middle class tax cuts came up, it was the GOP that held the middle class tax cuts hostage to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy. If the GOP continues to sacrifice the middle class to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, they will lose the House in addition to the White House they lost. The middle class is tired of being ****ed with. Just sayin'......
 
Let me refresh your memory: "Mitt Romney has proposed huge tax cuts that principally benefit the wealthy, while refusing to say how he would pay for them by closing unspecified loopholes."
What Is Romney's Tax Plan? - NYTimes.com

One side has fought to preserve the middle class tax cuts and one side has fought to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrat controlled Senate has passed a bill extending the middle class tax cuts. The GOP controlled House refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. If they maintain this attitude towards the middle class they will have the House taken from them as well in 2014.
I don't recall any Republican fighting to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy but not for the middle class. Their position has been very clear all along in that they wanted ALL of the rates to remain as they are currently.

It's kind of funny when you think back to when these rates were enacted in the first place. The left immediately packaged them in the narrative of "tax cuts for the rich", ignoring the fact that lower and middle class Americans also got a tax break. Now that those rates are set to expire unless a deal can be struck the left's narrative has shifted and all they seem to want to talk about is how letting these rates expire will be catastrophic to the middle class, costing the average family 2-3 grand a year. Well, the same bill that was passed under G.W.B. is the same bill that set the current rates for the middle class in the first place. Sure, the wealthy got a nice piece of the pie, too, but if you add it all up, BY FAR the bulk of the actual money not collected due to the lower rates stayed in the pockets of the middle class. If this were purely about generating more revenue then letting all of the tax rates expire would be the way to go. Hell, there's far more bang for the buck by preserving the upper class tax rates and letting the middle class rates expire than the other way around.

But it isn't only about generating more revenue. It's about generating more revenue that will not hurt you at the ballot box. If I were the Republicans, I'd let all of the rates expire. At least then both parties would suffer an equal wrath.
 
Back
Top Bottom