GOP issues new fiscal cliff offer to Obama
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans put forth a $2.2 trillion "fiscal cliff" counteroffer to President Barack Obama on Monday, calling for raising the eligibility age for Medicare, lowering cost-of-living hikes for Social Security benefits and bringing in $800 billion in higher tax revenue - but not raising rates for the wealthy. The White House declared the Republicans still weren't ready to "get serious."
With the clock ticking toward the year-end deadline, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans said they were proposing a "reasonable solution" for negotiations that Boehner says have been going nowhere. Monday's proposal came in response to Obama's plan last week to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion over the coming decade but largely exempt Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts.
Though the GOP plan proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the same 10 years, it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts - including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama - in place for now. Dismissing the idea of raising any tax rates, the Republicans said the new revenue would come from closing loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.
Boehner called that a "credible plan" and said he hoped the administration would "respond in a timely and responsible way." The offer came after the administration urged Republicans to detail their proposal to cut popular benefit programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
The White House complained the latest offer was still short on details about what loopholes would be closed or deductions eliminated, and it insisted that any compromise include higher tax rates for upper-income earners.
"Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
Boehner saw the situation as just the reverse.
"After the election I offered to speed this up by putting revenue on the table and unfortunately the White House responded with their la-la land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate and it was basically the president's budget from last February," he said Monday.
The GOP proposal itself revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically risky ideas such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.
Monday's Republican plan contains few specific and anticipates that myriad details will have to be filled in next year in legislation overhauling the tax code and curbing the growth of benefit programs.
Tine is growing shorter before the deadline to avert the fiscal cliff, which is a combination of expiring Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that are the result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.
Many economists say such a one-two punch could send the fragile economy back into recession.
GOP aides said their plan is based on one presented by Erskine Bowles in testimony to a special deficit "supercommittee" last year - in effect a milder version of a 2010 Bowles proposal that caused both GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress to recoil.
Unlike Bowles' official 2010 plan, drafted with former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, the version released Monday drops the earlier endorsement of Obama's proposal to increase tax rates on family income exceeding $250,000 back to Clinton-era levels, with the top rate jumping from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Bowles, in a statement, said he was flattered but the GOP plan does not represent his proposal.
Still, he added, "Every offer put forward brings us closer to a deal, but to reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions."
By GOP math, their plan would produce $2.2 trillion in budget savings over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes, $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare, $300 billion from other proposals such as forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.
Boehner signaled in discussions with Obama in 2011 that he was willing to accept up to $800 billion in higher tax revenues, but his aides maintained that much of that money would have come from so-called dynamic scoring - a conservative approach in which economic growth would have accounted for much of the revenue. Now, Boehner is willing to accept the estimates of official scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, whose models reject dynamic scoring.
Under the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.
Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.
The GOP plan is certain to whip up opposition from Democrats opposed to any action now on Social Security, whose defenders say should not be part of any fiscal cliff deal. And Democrats also are deeply skeptical of raising the Medicare age.
Both ideas were part of negotiations between Boehner and Obama in the summer of last year.
In a letter to the president, Boehner and six other House Republicans insisted that the November election that returned Obama to the White House and the GOP to majority control in the House requires both parties to come together "on a fair middle ground."
"With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks," Republicans wrote.
One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree to is a framework that would make a "down payment" on the deficit and extend all or most of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.
Signing the letter was Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the unsuccessful GOP vice presidential candidate. Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Conference chair, also signed the letter.
Earlier Monday, Obama answered questions on Twitter for an hour as the White House sought to keep up the pressure on the issue.
In response to a question about his insistence on higher tax rates for the wealthiest earners, Obama said that "high end tax cuts do (the) least for economic growth & cost almost $1T." By contrast, he said, "extending middle class cuts boosts consumer demand & growth."
Obama said he was open to "smart cuts" in spending, "but not in areas like R&D" and education, which "help growth & jobs." He also said he opposes spending cuts that would hurt the disabled or other vulnerable groups.
___
Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed.
With the clock ticking toward the year-end deadline, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans said they were proposing a "reasonable solution" for negotiations that Boehner says have been going nowhere. Monday's proposal came in response to Obama's plan last week to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion over the coming decade but largely exempt Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts.
Though the GOP plan proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the same 10 years, it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts - including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama - in place for now. Dismissing the idea of raising any tax rates, the Republicans said the new revenue would come from closing loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.
Boehner called that a "credible plan" and said he hoped the administration would "respond in a timely and responsible way." The offer came after the administration urged Republicans to detail their proposal to cut popular benefit programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
The White House complained the latest offer was still short on details about what loopholes would be closed or deductions eliminated, and it insisted that any compromise include higher tax rates for upper-income earners.
"Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
Boehner saw the situation as just the reverse.
"After the election I offered to speed this up by putting revenue on the table and unfortunately the White House responded with their la-la land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate and it was basically the president's budget from last February," he said Monday.
The GOP proposal itself revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically risky ideas such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.
Monday's Republican plan contains few specific and anticipates that myriad details will have to be filled in next year in legislation overhauling the tax code and curbing the growth of benefit programs.
Tine is growing shorter before the deadline to avert the fiscal cliff, which is a combination of expiring Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that are the result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.
Many economists say such a one-two punch could send the fragile economy back into recession.
GOP aides said their plan is based on one presented by Erskine Bowles in testimony to a special deficit "supercommittee" last year - in effect a milder version of a 2010 Bowles proposal that caused both GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress to recoil.
Unlike Bowles' official 2010 plan, drafted with former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, the version released Monday drops the earlier endorsement of Obama's proposal to increase tax rates on family income exceeding $250,000 back to Clinton-era levels, with the top rate jumping from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Bowles, in a statement, said he was flattered but the GOP plan does not represent his proposal.
Still, he added, "Every offer put forward brings us closer to a deal, but to reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions."
By GOP math, their plan would produce $2.2 trillion in budget savings over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes, $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare, $300 billion from other proposals such as forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.
Boehner signaled in discussions with Obama in 2011 that he was willing to accept up to $800 billion in higher tax revenues, but his aides maintained that much of that money would have come from so-called dynamic scoring - a conservative approach in which economic growth would have accounted for much of the revenue. Now, Boehner is willing to accept the estimates of official scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, whose models reject dynamic scoring.
Under the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.
Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit.
In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.
Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.
The GOP plan is certain to whip up opposition from Democrats opposed to any action now on Social Security, whose defenders say should not be part of any fiscal cliff deal. And Democrats also are deeply skeptical of raising the Medicare age.
Both ideas were part of negotiations between Boehner and Obama in the summer of last year.
In a letter to the president, Boehner and six other House Republicans insisted that the November election that returned Obama to the White House and the GOP to majority control in the House requires both parties to come together "on a fair middle ground."
"With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks," Republicans wrote.
One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree to is a framework that would make a "down payment" on the deficit and extend all or most of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.
Signing the letter was Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the unsuccessful GOP vice presidential candidate. Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Conference chair, also signed the letter.
Earlier Monday, Obama answered questions on Twitter for an hour as the White House sought to keep up the pressure on the issue.
In response to a question about his insistence on higher tax rates for the wealthiest earners, Obama said that "high end tax cuts do (the) least for economic growth & cost almost $1T." By contrast, he said, "extending middle class cuts boosts consumer demand & growth."
Obama said he was open to "smart cuts" in spending, "but not in areas like R&D" and education, which "help growth & jobs." He also said he opposes spending cuts that would hurt the disabled or other vulnerable groups.
___
Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed.
You've got to ask yourself, "why did boehner, cantor & mcconnell" not want this published before the presidential election". I can think of one reason...there candidates for prez & vice were both advocating tax cuts when it shows clearly THEIR plan doesn't work !!
Â
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12273
Â
Both parties need to stop the finger pointing and sit down at the table together until they can hash out a reasonable plan to move forward. They need to do the job they were elected to do; not point out the shortcomings of the opponent.
Obama rejects offer . . .   dit. dit. dit    In other news, it appears that Iran has captured yet another drone.  If we keep letting them have drones they will interrogate them just as we did with the German enigma machine in WW II.  The number of countries that either have or are in the process of acquiring drones now numbers 70.  It should't be too long until one lands at PDX. dit. dit. dit
 @NorthernBlackBear Can you blame Iran, it was flying over their country after all!  What would we do if Iran was sending drones over the US?  Hell, we would be at war by now! Â
@B Smizzle @NorthernBlackBear It's called "American Exceptionalism", you know, like a certain bush family member said about evacuees of the katrina storm...
Â
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."
Â
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07barbara.html
While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise and so does the supporting data in the White House records.
Â
 Obama may want to consult with his own economists instead of leaving it up to Geithner's office, or puppeting what he is told to say.
Â
Investors Business Daily IBD http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm     Here you will find a very easily read set of graphs from the White House, or material directly from the 2012 Economic report.
Â
"the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers â including ones certified by Obama's own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House."
Â
Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that "the math," as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.
Â
Data manipulated or missing critical factors often fed to and used by media to persuade, are taken as fact, like the unemployment numbers for instance. Inaccurate, in complete, and false to a high degree, as often is GDP, business or consumer spending reports and even Wall Street which is manipulated daily up and down by market makers.
I like the report you cite from "investors.com"...Ha ! And since "investors" reaped the LARGEST tax breaks of the gdbya era and make their income from "capitol gains" & "dividends" couldn't make this a bias report....and the fox assures me "he will take good care of the chickens" !
Â
Now for some un-bias reporting from "CRS", you know , that report that republiCONs had demanded (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NOT be published before the presidential elections....
Â
I just don't get how some want to vote against THEIR own best interest !
Â
Â
"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution."
Â
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
Â
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12273
 @erudite Lots of fun stuff you can do with charts. From the article:Â
Â
"After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan â including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% â government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.
Â
"Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period..."
Â
Comparing the number of dollars that came in is misleading. In 2007 there were more tax payers than in 2003 due to population growth. More importantly, the housing bubble inflated the economy (as bubbles do) and lead to temporarily higher tax revenues in terms of dollars (or as the article puts it, "expanded the tax base"). But revenue did not increase not in terms of percentage of GDP:Â http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205.Â
Â
The notion that Bush gets credit for halving the deficit after he inherited surpluses is laughable.
Both sides are using this situation for it's own political purposes. The current GOP offer is right out of the Simpson-Bowles commission report which was commissioned by President Obama.Â
Â
Listening the the Senate Dems (i.e. Patty Murray), it looks like the Dems are comfortable with driving the car off the "cliff". Â
Â
And, listening to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, she doesn't have a problem with giving the President authority to raise the debt ceiling. That would be contrary to the Constitution. But, I am not sure Rep. Pelosi has any idea of what is in the Constitution.
Â
The Simpson-Bowles report has something in it for everyone. Changes to Social Security, cuts in spending, increases in taxes, reforming Medicare.  They didn't miss anything, so this is probably closer to what is needed than any partisan deal; regardless, of whether Repub or Dem.
@Saltire "The current GOP offer is right out of the Simpson-Bowles commission"
Â
It absolutly IS NOT ! Have you read their plan ?? If you did you will notice there are NO specifics on what "tax loopholes" would be ended...The simpson - bowles commission gave specifics on several different scenarios !! Including raising the upper tax limit on SS pay role taxes to 270K which would have made SS solvent , period !
Â
So do you advocate for raising pay roll to secure SS
 @sargerator Mea culpa! I have read the Simpson-Bowles plan, several times. What I failed to do was see how the GOP plan lined up against it. It looks like the GOP did use the outline of the Simpson-Bowles plan, but plugged their own numbers into it. The GOP plan does not match Simpson-Bowles.  My sincere apology.
Â
Also, now we are two years later and the numbers have gotten worse. So, even Simpson-Bowles would have to rework their numbers. Their plan was a more realistic 8 year plan. The plans being put forth now, by both parties, are 10 year plans.
Â
And, yes I do think the upper limit on SS should be raised. Plus, reinstate the additional 2% that Obama reduced from the employee payroll tax.
This is a joke. The Republicons offer includes raising the eligibility for Medicare and lowering COLA for Social Security. These two programs are ESSENTIAL for millions of seniors and older people - a group will all be a part of sooner or later. Social Security does not contribute to the debt or deficit. St Ronal Regan knew this and stated as much during a debate in 1984 - look it up.
Â
The Republicons seem unwilling to negotiate anything. They seem to forget that politics IS compromise.
Â
Write your representatives and tell them to make a deal that suits 98% of the people.
Â
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Â
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
 @jbloe Neither one of them is willing to make cuts to the military budget that would actually make a dent in the deficit.
 @jbloe You do understand that just raising taxes on the rich will not fix our current financial situation? The numbers will require cuts in spending and an increase in taxes on all of us.  If every man, woman, and child on the planet were to try and pay off the US debt, every person on earth would have to send $2400 to the US Treasury.Â
IMHO....... if there is an agreement, it will come at the very last second. And if there is an agreement it most definitely will be just another rinky dink kick the can down the road agreement that is valid  till probably just AFTER the midterm elections.
Â
This collection of self serviing politicians will do nothing meaningful until they are forced to like a signficant drop in our credit rating and/or China stops buying our debt.
 @kramr Or China will collect on its Debt.
To who great power that has been given comes great responsibility, when that power is abused, the responsibility should be taken back, by force if necessary.
@lee986321 Lead the charge Lee, we'll be right behind you.
 @JTesla  @lee986321 Tell me are you familiar with a well founded and famous saying by Thomas Jefferson? And I do not ask this Mockingly, and I ask when you reply do not reply as in mockery but do consider it a serious question my lad.
The Question has to do with the "Tree of Liberty" I presume you know such a statement? You Know the one that States "The Tree of LIBERTY must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.
Â
and secondly, I ask of you another question with regards to JFK.. DO you know speech that he gave to the American people Warning them of what is coming? The one with regards to a secret society? Who meets behind secret doors?
And no this is not based on myth but the speech is based on fact.Or Do you think that JFK was suffering from some psychological disorder?
http://youtu.be/xhZk8ronces
 @lee986321  @JTesla "We the American People are needing a staunch slap along side the head.But how can you make the deaf to hear and the blind to see.."
I don't know, tell us.....how can we get someone who collects food stamps and other government benefits to see that they should get a job and pay their own way instead of leaching off others!
Â
"One had better be prepared."
This coming from someone who lives off government benefits.....crack me up!
Â
Also some of us don't eat or drink what the government gives us, we don't accept it and pay our own way.....but just some of us! Â ;)
 @JTeslaSpeaking of "Rabit Hole" has any one seen ALICE in this wonderland of Pomp and Circumstance in The white house?
This is how I really feel about the whole thing we, the American people ate and drank what the government gave us to eat and drink. they handed the Magic elixir and said "Drink me" we blindly drank..The government then made tasty little cakes, "Eat me" they said and we did eat them.
Â
We the American People are needing a staunch slap along side the head.But how can you make the deaf to hear and the blind to see..
Â
One thing I will say, the day that you see pole flying the flag upside down, One had better be prepared.
Â
Â
 @erudite See my post below regarding the link, I wonder what he would think of the nation today as well. However, I also wonder how he would have liked having his speech changed from an address to the press regarding jeopardizing national security and speaking of an enemy that "relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence" i.e. communism, to some garbage regarding secret societies.
 @lee986321 ok, I'm going down the rabbit hole, because that JFK "secret society speech" is BOGUS. It is hacked together through some fancy editing to cut out his intent. Note the change in tone around the 1:35 mark, it is different portion of the speech with the edit designed to deceive. There is another edit around the 2:40 mark where he says that the party he was talking about from 1:35 to 2:40 was conductin the "Cold War". He wasn't talking about secret societies, he was talking about communism.
Â
Read the FULL text here and follow along:Â http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/The-President-and-the-Press-Address-before-the-American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx
Â
Or watch a video that explains why it is bunk: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1217456062
Â
@lee986321   JFK had great speech writers and always gave a great delivery after he rewrote many of them on a yellow pad.  He was not a perfect President nor unflawed in his personal life. He did however make the nation believe in his and our patriotism....... A far cry from todays respect for country or leadership in any party.Â
Â
I wonder what he would think if he saw how "changed" our country is as it sits today.Â
Â
Thanks for the link.
 @lee986321 I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. I do believe that the people are as apathetic as those in government, so nobody is going to lose their jobs. In fact, I think the people's apathy came first. I will point out that I actually clicked "like" on some of your posts regarding the fiscal cliff. See I'm not out to get you.
 @lee986321  @JTesla It's funny to talk about the tree of liberty while sucking down government benefits like a chain smoker sucks down cigs!
Â
Also remember what JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"  Take that one to heart every time you use your Oregon Trail card while complaining it is not enough!
Â
Laughable to say the least!
If a person on disability cannot excerpt caution and wisdom while spending money and are given a "Protective Payee" then Should not there be a "Protective Payee" for those people who can not handle there fiances as well? Our Government needs such a vice placed up on it.
Why is Washington so insistant to screw off the entire country over less than 1% of the total population? Oh, because they, themselves, are in that 1%..... This is a major conflict of interest that needs abolished! There should be a straight percentage on all incomes accross the board, regardless of how much or just how that income is "earned"..... Retirement and disability pensions should be exempt as that money was already taxed when it was initially earned. But instead, Washington chooses to make the weakest carry the burden of Washiungton's gross inability to manage simple accounting. (bunch over-paid bureaucratic bullies) Make them all eat "Top Ramen" for a month and see how they are afterwards..... No added hotdogs, either!
@MickRoh ........"screw over less then 1%"........ That's just the beginning. It'll reach further very shortly !
This comment has been deleted
 @shadowwalker I'd wager that across America there are tens of thousands of government bureaucracies  that we could SHUT DOWN without any harm to the citizens they regulate. Obama has brought us over 5700 new "regulations" in the last [90] days!  What will those cost us?
 @last boyscout  @shadowwalker Perfect example....food stamp abuse.  My GF, who works doing food stamp benefits told me the following facts...
Â
1. In the city of Albany, Circle K is the #1 store where food stamps are used....no lie!
Â
2. People will buy the cheapest water or soda they can find on their Oregon Trail Card, they take it out of the store, dump it out and then collect the deposit to use the money for beer or drugs. Â I didn't believe it really thinking "how would she know that" until last week. Â Got out of the car at the dollar tree and there were two grocery carts with 5 cases of left over water wrapping and cardboard along with all the caps and a huge pile of water by them....guess what they were doing? Â Then a guy in line at the dollar tree was buying 16, 6 packs of water for $1 each including deposit on his Oregon trail card. Â This guy was getting 30 cents on the dollar, not bad scratch especially when the tax payer covers it! Â
Â
However even if she can prove this type of abuse the feds won't do anything.  She has suggested that maybe Oregon Trail cards should not cover bottle deposit, seem logical and would solve this problem but her suggestion goes nowhere, they won't even listen....sicking, just sicking!  Food stamps should be like WIC and for main staples only and only in grocery stores not for big gulps and big bites at 7-11!
 @last boyscout  @shadowwalker The nation has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Its that simple. But the class warfare and huge government hacks cant stomach that fact. It doesn't grow their agenda.
 @Jack_Bauer  @shadowwalker Nor does it pacify their voting bloc. Which the majority of vote only is selfish self interest of their own pocket book.Â
The "Bush Era" tax cuts needs to expire for the wealthy. They have not benefited anyone BUT the wealthy in ways that have hurt everyone else.Â
Â
So if Boner wants them to stay, i say let them ALL expire. Let's just burn the house down to save the fish.
Â
Once the tax breaks are gone we can work on getting relief for people who actually need it.
Â
Â
 @Repoman Boner? Seriously? I thought you would be one that would be mature enough to not stoop as low as people like sargerator and wahoo in resorting to name calling. Obviously I thought wrong. Grow up and act like an adult.
 @scoreboardÂ
Â
I could not help myself. The man's name, for goodness sake!
Â
And it's the innerwebz, from just about all my experience, acting like an adult is not something that is done.
Â
People don't have a duty to uphold any standard that rises so far above the pale as to be missed by the average.
Â
Te he, I said "duty"!
Â
 @scoreboardÂ
Â
I know but the way it is spelled one would not be too amiss to pronouce it the way i spelled it.
 @Repoman Well it's actually pronounced "Bay-nor".
 @Repoman Who's to decide what is wealthy? If you were to let Obama's voters decide what 'wealthy' is, likely it would be far below 250K. More like 50K would seem wealthy to a large percentage of those in the inner cities that voted for Obama.Â
 @last boyscoutÂ
Â
When it comes to who decides what I think is wealthy, I decide.
Â
Someone (not me) proposed that $250 a year is wealthy. I agree that's enough income I think itâs wealthy. Â Seems logical enough. If enough people decide something artificial (like wealth) is a truism, it by definition is true.
Â
So there.
Â
:)
Â
 @Repoman  @last boyscout complete absence of logic.
If I can get a majority of people to believe that gravity is not a law, will we then be able to fly?
The fact is that we can confiscate every dime of every person that makes over $250k and it wouldnt make a dent in the budget issue. The demand by the Socialist in chief is only meant to foment class envy and to further entrench their position with the entitlement class.
Flat tax right across the board. No more regressive taxation.
Â
 @fweep  @Repoman  @last boyscout I agree and I also say if your primary source of income is capitol gains (the super wealthy) you pay the same rate as everyone else not less than half of what we pay!
 @last boyscoutÂ
I see what you did there. You took an artificial category of an arbitrary value and turned it into a sentiment that has meaning.
Â
But you're right. if enough people believe that our economy will tank, it will. If enough people believe they are "screwed" (or even if one person does) they (or that person) likely will be.
Â
Because the economy for better or worse is a construct we invented. It holds value purely based on expectation and very little of that has intrinsic worth. Nearly all of it hinges on what people are willing (or even capable) of believing in and as such if sufficient numbers of people believe it will perform poorly, it will.
Â
Much like many things. Professional players how believe they will not do well, won't do well.
Â
Â
Â
 @fweep  @Repoman  @last boyscout They got you hook, line, and sinker.  Never thought I'd see the day that people would complain about not paying enough taxes.  Â
Â
The government has got it's grip on us. Â Making sure we all look at each other instead of the upper class of our society. Â $250,000 a year is LIFE CHANGING to most of us. Â Giving the image that our poor only saps resources and is a burden on those of us who work.
Â
The real burden is our own government. Â If you think a large percentage of people desire to not work and be broke all the time living a life of mediocrity, Â your far mistaken.
Â
Sure as heck nobody is getting a free ride and enjoying it. Â Quit listening to partisan garbage. Â The real enemy is our government and those with weath beyond anything that is necessary latching to any kind of power possible.. Â Not each other.
Â
Bottom line..... Â Most of us are broke. Â Not those trying to dictate how we live.
 @last boyscout  @Repoman Seems true to me.
 @Repoman  @last boyscout I think all tax cuts need to expire. And EVERYONE needs to pay. I don't give 2 squirts about what anyone makes. EVERYONE needs to help pay for our country. If you don't make enough walk along the road and pick up trash. NO MORE FREE RIDES !!!
 @Repoman I think there are 'enough' people that think we are screwed with Obama for 4 more years. Is that then 'true':-)?
 @last boyscout  @Repoman To whose advantage is it that we have this goofy $250,000 dividing line?
Â
People making that income and hedge fund managers don't have much in common economically until they get lumped together in the same tax bracket. Doing so let's the hedge fund guy hide behind the married doctors and wring his hands over raising their taxes (through the PAC he contributes to).
Â
If we were serious about this discussion we'd talk about adding new brackets for the $1 million, $10 million, and $100 million+ crowds.
It's a good start to something. Gotta raise those tax rates for the wealthy though. Raise the capitol gains tax rate if anything.
Rest assured...... With Bronco Bamma at the helm, the will be NO meaningful reduction in spending. With a POTUS that has ALREADY added more to the deficit in four years than any two term President, anything B HO says about deficit reduction is nothing more than lip service.
 @kramr I dont believe he has any intent of compromising on a fix. He very likely relishes the fiscal cliff plunge. "never let a good tragedy go to waste" as it were.
@Jack_Bauer @kramr I assume by "he" you mena Obummer, not Boehner.Obummer is just waiting for the right time to declare martial law and take over the country as a dictator - so a fiscal cliff event would be very much to his liking! Or even a fical cliff averted, that would cause riots and anarchy from the "Occupy" bunch - that would work even better, as far as he is concerned!
 @kramr Were you as outraged when Bush added 5.5 trillion to the national debt?  Of course it would have been more if not for deceptive bookkeeping for war spending.....
@B Smizzle """"Were you as outraged when Bush added 5.5 trillion to the national debt?"""""
Â
yes, I was very much outraged at W's spending...... IMHO, the R's spending was the single biggest factor in the R's getting their asses handed to them in the 06 midterms.
Â
""""""Â Of course it would have been more if not for deceptive bookkeeping for war spending.....""""""
and its that same type of deceptive bookeeping that gave Clinton his so called surplus. it goes both ways. I wish the feds had to adhere to the same accounting principles they expect corporations to live by.
@kramr Ha Ha! I predict your avatar will be censored very soon.
 @Dirtman  @kramr Why?, Aren't we told that we must be respectful and accept others diversity. No matter how disgusting and abnormal it my be:-). I like the avatar.
 @last boyscout  @Dirtman  @kramr I like the avatar too, but an elephant needs to be accosting it from the east with it's you know what sticking into the gulf....after both party's are screwing us over....from the front and from the back!
@last boyscout @kramr I like the avatar too...and I think it is quite true to what is happening.