- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Alright, here's your compromise.
1. Republicans agree to raise the debt limit in a nearly clean bill, with its only additional bit of legislation stating that if the following resolutions don't pass the bill is invalid.
2. Democrats must agree to pass a resolution requiring that the 2012 and 2013 budget must be balanced in regards to expenditures compared to revenue, IE that spending will match predicted revenue. Included in this resolution is that no tax increases will be allowed to be considered until FY 2013.
3. Democrats and Republicans agree to form a bipartisan committee to draft a bill to reform the tax code and close loopholes in such a way to increase efficiency in the system while maintaining the current effective tax rates
4. Republicans agree to a 1% per tax bracket (starting with the 2nd bracket) increase that does not go into effect until FY 2014 AND is rendered invalid if spending in 2012 or 2013 exceeds both the budget and taken in revenue.
For Democrats:
This gets the Debt Ceiling raised with a relatively clean bill. You also have a tax increase signed in and ready to occur but also doesn't happen immedietely giving Obama a bit of cover regarding taxes in the near term. The tax increase would take those making 175K or more a year up 4% and those making over 380k up 5%.
For Republicans:
You get a balanced budget for the next two years with significant spending cuts and political ammo to potentially push for entitlement reform. You get one and a half years free of having to worry about any tax increases. And the tax increase that will come in 2014 will only come if the budget actually remained balanced for 2 years meaning only if the government actually acts seriously regarding spending.
Would this be an acceptable compromise for you?
Alright, here's your compromise.
1. Republicans agree to raise the debt limit in a nearly clean bill, with its only additional bit of legislation stating that if the following resolutions don't pass the bill is invalid.
2. Democrats must agree to pass a resolution requiring that the 2012 and 2013 budget must be balanced in regards to expenditures compared to revenue, IE that spending will match predicted revenue. Included in this resolution is that no tax increases will be allowed to be considered until FY 2013.
3. Democrats and Republicans agree to form a bipartisan committee to draft a bill to reform the tax code and close loopholes in such a way to increase efficiency in the system while maintaining the current effective tax rates
4. Republicans agree to a 1% per tax bracket (starting with the 2nd bracket) increase that does not go into effect until FY 2014 AND is rendered invalid if spending in 2012 or 2013 exceeds both the budget and taken in revenue.
For Democrats:
This gets the Debt Ceiling raised with a relatively clean bill.
You also have a tax increase signed in and ready to occur but also doesn't happen immedietely giving Obama a bit of cover regarding taxes in the near term. The tax increase would take those making 175K or more a year up 4% and those making over 380k up 5%.
For Republicans:
You get a balanced budget for the next two years with significant spending cuts and political ammo to potentially push for entitlement reform. You get one and a half years free of having to worry about any tax increases. And the tax increase that will come in 2014 will only come if the budget actually remained balanced for 2 years meaning only if the government actually acts seriously regarding spending.
Would this be an acceptable compromise for you?
While there are legitimate arguments on both sides for whether the debt ceiling is constitutional, I don't think there is any doubt that THIS would be unconstitutional. If the debt ceiling was raised and later invalidated after more borrowing had taken place, it WOULD indisputably be calling into question the credit of the United States.
Absolutely not. This isn't really a compromise, it's just delaying a draconian 43% reduction in spending from August until next winter. Since some of the less pragmatic Republicans are already trying to use the debt ceiling as a way to force a balanced budget next month, this would be almost exactly what they wanted.
Would the first step be predicated on the formation of the committee, or tax reform actually becoming law? Ron Wyden and Judd Gregg already HAVE a good bipartisan proposal for tax reform.
Are we talking 1% increase relative to the current rate, or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 plus a 1% increase? If it's the former and it doesn't go into effect until 2014, then you've effectively extended the Bush tax cuts another year and made most of them permanent. Not much of a compromise.
And the irony of it is that it would STILL be unacceptable to congressional Republicans because they won't vote for a tax increase under any circumstance.
i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years. entitlement reform is a given. what form that reform will take is a completely different animal. i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes and means test for some medicare benefits.
i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years. entitlement reform is a given. what form that reform will take is a completely different animal. i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes and means test for some medicare benefits.
No deal.
Unless we have some method of making sure we see spending cuts, legitimate significant spending cuts, no agreement at all to tax increases. We have 0 reasons to believe the Democrats will actually make the cuts necessary. It was just half a year ago that Obama agreed to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for 2 more years and not raise taxes on anyone....and now here he is again, already attempting to do it again. There's ZERO reason for Republicans to agree to tax raises right now with the "Hope" that in the future Democrats will make good on spending cuts when even during this very debate the Democrats are showing they have no problem agreeing to something and then 6 months later attempting to undo that agreement by pushing for it in a different way.
Republicans would agree for the tax increases to happen and make that happening law...but we need to see spending actually happen first. Everytime it goes the other way around...taxes and then supposed spending...it never pans out.
No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All this proposal does is eliminates an entitlement and creates yet another welfare program while punishing others. You want "the wealthy" to take an income tax rate hike, cut them out of receiving Social Security and make them pay for those who do receive Social Security. You generosity is simply overwhelming.
Alright, here's your compromise.
1. Republicans agree to raise the debt limit in a nearly clean bill, with its only additional bit of legislation stating that if the following resolutions don't pass the bill is invalid.
2. Democrats must agree to pass a resolution requiring that the 2012 and 2013 budget must be balanced in regards to expenditures compared to revenue, IE that spending will match predicted revenue. Included in this resolution is that no tax increases will be allowed to be considered until FY 2013.
3. Democrats and Republicans agree to form a bipartisan committee to draft a bill to reform the tax code and close loopholes in such a way to increase efficiency in the system while maintaining the current effective tax rates
4. Republicans agree to a 1% per tax bracket (starting with the 2nd bracket) increase that does not go into effect until FY 2014 AND is rendered invalid if spending in 2012 or 2013 exceeds both the budget and taken in revenue.
For Democrats:
This gets the Debt Ceiling raised with a relatively clean bill. You also have a tax increase signed in and ready to occur but also doesn't happen immedietely giving Obama a bit of cover regarding taxes in the near term. The tax increase would take those making 175K or more a year up 4% and those making over 380k up 5%.
For Republicans:
You get a balanced budget for the next two years with significant spending cuts and political ammo to potentially push for entitlement reform. You get one and a half years free of having to worry about any tax increases. And the tax increase that will come in 2014 will only come if the budget actually remained balanced for 2 years meaning only if the government actually acts seriously regarding spending.
Would this be an acceptable compromise for you?
Delaying it till next winter allows for significant time and reasoned effort to actually thuroughly look at the budget...including the Military, Social Security, Medicare, and others...and take what steps are necessary. I don't believe a 43% reduction in spending is impossible, but I think attempting to do such in a months time of research is dangerous. I think it could very well be done with significant time to completely look at the options.
The first step would be contingent upon taking action to begin this process, either in actually forming the committee or agreeing to form it even. Wyden and Gregg could both be members and use their reform package as a blueprint if they'd like. I'll have to look into it.
The Bush Tax Cuts end in essentially 2013, not 2012, to my understanding.
I would say the 1% per bracket increase would occur on whatever the tax rates are at that given point. So if the Bush Tax Cuts manage to actually expire, then it goes off the old rates. Or congress could renew the Bush Tax Cuts for one more year and then they'd go up in 2014.
calm down...i'm not sure you read my post correctly.
how do you figure it would eliminate one entitlement and create another? how do you figure anyone would be cut out of receiving SS? please take the time to actually read my post.
i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years.
i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes
means test for some medicare benefits.
i agree with a balanced budget amendment. i agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.
but you know what will happen if we balance the budget solely with spending cuts? what do you think our "austerity budget" would look like? crime would increase, police departments would decrease staff. education would suffer, infrastructure would suffer, other taxes would be raised, at the state as well aas the federal level. new fees would be developed. i would much rather have an honest increase on the wealthy than a back door increase for everyone.
Wow... someone who -really- thinks that the Fed Government -not- spending ~$1500B will bring the end of the world as we know it.i agree with a balanced budget amendment. i agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget. but you know what will happen if we balance the budget solely with spending cuts? what do you think our "austerity budget" would look like? crime would increase, police departments would decrease staff. education would suffer, infrastructure would suffer, other taxes would be raised, at the state as well aas the federal level. new fees would be developed. i would much rather have an honest increase on the wealthy than a back door increase for everyone.
I most humbly apologize for not carefully reading your posting. I find just as much fault with the correctg reading as I did the incorrect reading. Please let me begin anew:
Increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at this time due to a lingering malaise in the economy.
Nope. You just want to soak "the wealthy" to pay for the not-so-wealthy. Class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.
Hmmm. I said you wanted to end Social Security for "the wealthy." It appears that I had the wrong "entitlement." Or, do you just want to punish the rich only by "making them pay more for their services? Again, class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.
Sorry, but we continue to disagree.
NO-it means the top 2% are paying EVEN MORE of the federal income tax burden
any increases should be to get most of those who don't pay any tax paying some and increasing the bottom bracket a few % points would affect the top payers as well
i see.....your reform would mean only the middle class and poor are affected. isn't that really class warfare? the tax rates on the rich have decreased by giant amounts over the last 50 years.........and you want hem to be even lower? lol!
Are you suggesting that every rate is increased like 2% across the board or something? Or are you playing Class Warfare, no different than the Democrats, when you are suggesting we should increase it only on the bottom of the bracket where it only significantly affects the lower classes. That is no different than what they're doing by saying we should increase it only at the top.
No. You want the spending cuts to happen immediately, and the tax hikes in two years. I don't trust the Republicans (or the Democrats) enough to adhere to that agreement. And in any case, 1% isn't enough...especially if the Bush Tax Cuts ARE made permanent. Certainly not enough to justify a 43% cut in spending starting next year.
But you don't. You just said to do the tax increases immedietely. The balanced budget wouldn't come into affect until 2012. And would still be contingent on the Democrats actually making good with their agreement after the taxes are already in place.
You say you agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.......but you also said you want tax increases NOW. those don't jive.
This is the penalty we take for allowing it to get this far both under Obama and Bush. Things should not have gotten to the point that they are now and if we don't suffer some problems in the short term we're going to suffer them far worse in the long term. I'm not one you're going to boogeyman into submission with threats of bad things happening or hard times...I expect that. You don't run up the bill and the problems this country has done fiscally and expect to fix it without pain. Its not realistic.
And I am against putting into a mentality that somehow the pain that we are ALL responsable for enabling should be felt only by the wealthy through force. I am against the notion that somehow putting that mentality into place isn't going to just cause it to continue to increase. And I am against the notion that I find illogical and simply wrong that magically if we start gouging the wealthy for even more than we do now that the Democrats (and republicans as well) will finally find fiscal responsability rather than going "Hey, we have more money, that means we don't have to cut as much or worry about reforming things right now".
Giving them more revenue, if we even buy the premesis that Taxes will significantly do that, is just going to kick the can down the road farther one what really needs to happen which is getting our spending under control.
If we're looking for a painless fix in this then we're not being realistic.
1) there should be no tax increases but if there is an increase those who aren't paying any federal income tax should be the first to face an increase
2) THe top few percent pay too much as it is
one third of 1 percent. big deal. and a total of 1% total is hardly "gouging the wealthy".....please. i know there won't be a painless fix, it could get very ugly. the poor and middle class will undoubtedly suffer the ugliness FAR MORE than the wealthy will. it's their programs that will cut.....after all. no tax increase combined with spending cuts means exactly that.....the wealthy are unaffected and the poor and middle class are heavily affected. that's hardly sharing the pain.
do you really want to know what this country would be like without a middle class?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?