My counter-offer to the Republicans on the fiscal cliff.

[Freeper]

dawg (4,726 posts)

My counter-offer to the Republicans on the fiscal cliff.


 
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

Modest spending cuts to defense and other government programs, but only those that most on both sides can agree to.

Permanent extension of all tax-cuts for those making $250,000 and below.

Tax-cuts for those making above $250,000 will be tied to the debt ceiling. They will be extended for the same duration the debt ceiling is extended. They expire permanently on the first day the debt ceiling is breached.

And what about the deficit? We simply grow ourselves out of it. As the economy continues to recover, tax revenues will increase, while expenditures for unemployment and food stamps will decrease. There are still some long-term structural problems, but they will NEVER BE FIXED while the Republicans control the House. So kick the can down the road until such time as one party (hopefully us) has sufficient power to fully execute its agenda.

In the meantime, no cuts to Medicare or Social Security while we still have the power to stop them.

And if you think this is irresponsible, it is much more responsible than initiating austerity and the dismantling of our frail social safety net during the worst period of global economic weakness in a generation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021936068

Wow they really are stupid aren't they?
If you attach tax rates of the rich to the debt ceiling the rich will be taxed at 100% in no time.
As for all this growth that the DUmmy thinks will happen where is that going to come from if we tax the rich to death?

dawg (4,726 posts)
6. Self-kick.

Let's hold *them* hostage for a change.

We are already being held hostage, either 0bama gets to punish the rich or all our taxes go up.

[I_B_Perky]

dawg (4,726 posts)

My counter-offer to the Republicans on the fiscal cliff.


 
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

Modest spending cuts to defense and other government programs, but only those that most on both sides can agree to.

Permanent extension of all tax-cuts for those making $250,000 and below.

Tax-cuts for those making above $250,000 will be tied to the debt ceiling. They will be extended for the same duration the debt ceiling is extended. They expire permanently on the first day the debt ceiling is breached.

And what about the deficit? We simply grow ourselves out of it. As the economy continues to recover, tax revenues will increase, while expenditures for unemployment and food stamps will decrease. There are still some long-term structural problems, but they will NEVER BE FIXED while the Republicans control the House. So kick the can down the road until such time as one party (hopefully us) has sufficient power to fully execute its agenda.

In the meantime, no cuts to Medicare or Social Security while we still have the power to stop them.

And if you think this is irresponsible, it is much more responsible than initiating austerity and the dismantling of our frail social safety net during the worst period of global economic weakness in a generation.

I'll counter your proposal dummie. We raise the taxes on the rich as long as welfare benefits become taxable at the same rate as dividends, cap gains and other unearned income. All welfare benefits too. Medicaid, HUD, TANF, etc.

See dummie... my reasoning here is that once the parasites got some skin in the game, they will start to pay attention to what the government spends and start demanding real cuts in spending, or at least holding spending without automatic raises and maybe just demanding that some of the waste be cut out. This will balance the budget.

Deal?

[DumbAss Tanker]

"Permanent" tax cuts... - obviously someone simply does not understand how legislation actually works.  One Congress can pass a law carved in stone for all eternity, the next one (Or even the same one later in the session) can amend, repeal, or rewrite it as they see fit, if they have the votes to do it.

[Vagabond]

My counter-counter offer to dawg....

Have you ever heard of something called base jumping?  Feeling froggy?

[USA4ME]

dawg

My counter-offer to the Republicans on the fiscal cliff.

No cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

Automatically rejected.

With a population that's living longer, raising the age of which citizens start to receive these items need to be extended, too.  I propose:  For those 50 and older on December 31, 2012, it's still age 65.  For those 30 to 49, benefits will start at age 67.  For those 29 and younger, benefits will start at age 70.

Reseach has shown that just this small of an adjustment will keep these programs solvent for many decades to come, so you libs better start embracing them.

From time to time, it might be necessary to adjust the dollar amount over which SS and FICA are no longer decucted.  I believe currently it's $106,000.

Also, the point of saying "Medicare and Medicaid" is redundant, you stupid primitives.  Medicaid is Medicare with the State paying the deductable instead of the individual.

.

[thundley4]

Also, the point of saying "Medicare and Medicaid" is redundant, you stupid primitives.  Medicaid is Medicare with the State paying the deductable instead of the individual.

.

I thought Medicaid was for the takers, whereas Medicare was for those who at one time contributed to society and paid into it.

[Vagabond]

Automatically rejected.

With a population that's living longer, raising the age of which citizens start to receive these items need to be extended, too.  I propose:  For those 50 and older on December 31, 2012, it's still age 65.  For those 30 to 49, benefits will start at age 67.  For those 29 and younger, benefits will start at age 70.

Reseach has shown that just this small of an adjustment will keep these programs solvent for many decades to come, so you libs better start embracing them.

From time to time, it might be necessary to adjust the dollar amount over which SS and FICA are no longer decucted.  I believe currently it's $106,000.

Also, the point of saying "Medicare and Medicaid" is redundant, you stupid primitives.  Medicaid is Medicare with the State paying the deductable instead of the individual.

.

We have to stop the spending.  Goldwater wanted to end unconstitutional spending slowly.  He had time and a population that wasn't addicted.  Too much of the country is hooked on government cash with all the dependency and need that a heroin addict knows.  Now?  Now, we're all going to hurt.  We either get our act together now, or the whole system will colapse under the governments debt load. 

Congress needs to get back to the hard work of setting budgets and priorities while acknowledging that it does not posess unlimited power and unlimited means.   

[Zeus]

Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts
Peter Ferrara, Contributor
OP/ED | 12/06/2012 @ 9:58AM

President Obama seems to have a strategy to terminate all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for “the rich,” as he has been saying since 2008.  He is offering the Republicans exactly zero concessions in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations.  No spending cuts, no entitlement reform, no compromise on the rates.  It is entirely my way or the highway, and if the Republicans refuse to do everything exactly as he demands, he will let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely, for the middle class and working people as well as the upper incomes, and blame the Republicans for refusing to go along with him, and for the economic results.

It is a cynical game worthy of an undeveloped, third world country, not the United States of America.  But this is just one more reason, with many more to come, for the American people to regret the mistake they made on Election Day.

Because so many major media institutions, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, have been so duplicitous and dishonest in discussing the Bush tax cuts, most Americans don’t know much about them, even though they have been living with them for 10 years or more now.  Indeed, most of what they think they know is not true.  But the American people will understand them better, when they see what life is like without them.

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses.  The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.  The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%.  The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child.  Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes.  Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net.  By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged.  By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today.  Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase.  Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003.  Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years.  CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.

Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s.  But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years.  President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.

The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts.  They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%.  Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.

Because of that increased investment, labor productivity soared by 2.5% annually from 2003 to 2007, higher than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.  As a result, real after tax income per capita increased by more than 11%.

Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years.  The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth.  From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled.   After the Bush tax cuts started in 2001, quickly ending the 2001 recession, the economy continued to grow for another 73 months.  From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17%, meaning an additional $2.1 trillion for the American people.

This was mostly the opposite of what President Obama has produced, with his neo-Marxist Obamanomics, particularly unemployment more than twice as high, declining middle class incomes, soaring poverty, weak job growth, stagnant stock market values, collapsing business investment, and negligible growth in GDP.

Of course, the Bush tax cut boom was ended by the 2008 financial crisis.  But as discussed in many previous columns, that was caused by the excessive overregulation of President Clinton’s home ownership promotion policies, creating the subprime mortgage market and the housing bubble, and by President Bush’s cheap dollar monetary policies.  Obama’s foolish argument that the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008-2009 recession is so dishonest that abusive propaganda alone should disqualify him from office.

Obama’s gleeful termination of the Bush tax cuts will produce just the opposite results of those tax cuts.  The combination of all the tax rate increases, along with Obama’s abusive overregulation, and the Fed’s continued mischief, will throw the economy back into recession next year.  Unemployment will soar back into double digits, breaking the post depression record of 10.8%.  The deficit will soar to over $2 trillion, setting new all time world records.  The national debt as a percent of GDP will gallop past Greece.

Middle class incomes will plummet further.  Poverty will soar to new all time records.

We can’t afford the Bush tax cuts, as Obama says?  We can’t afford to terminate them.  Over the past 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased.  Obama’s nearly 60% increase in that rate will have the same effect.  After the Bush cut in taxes on dividends, dividends paid soared, and so did taxes paid on those dividends.  Obama’s near tripling of that tax will have the opposite effect as well.  Indeed, if the economy declines back into renewed recession, total federal revenues will decline rather than increase.

Obama’s ploy of blaming all of this on the Republicans will not work this time.  The public knows the Bush tax cuts were adopted into law by the Republicans, with complete Republican control of Congress and the White House at the time.  It will be too obvious that it took President Obama and his new neo-Marxist Democrat Party to let them expire.

Enjoy the new Obama recession.  You and your neighbors voted for it.

[Dori]

Aren't we borrowing (or printing) 40% of what we spend?   

[thundley4]

Aren't we borrowing (or printing) 40% of what we spend?   

Close to that.  That won't change even if all the tax cuts disappear, congress will spend any additional monies. 

[Freeper]

Close to that.  That won't change even if all the tax cuts disappear, congress will spend any additional monies. 

You give the government a dime they will spend a quarter every damn time, and they wonder why we have such a huge mess.

[USA4ME]

I thought Medicaid was for the takers, whereas Medicare was for those who at one time contributed to society and paid into it.

Medicaid is for those who have spent down income and resources to a minimal amount (impoverished).  Someone could have worked all their life and paid into the system, but they just didn't make enough to sustain them through their entire life and eventually their money ran out.  I knew a man who died when he was around 70, but his wife (who was around 62 or 63 when he died) lived past 100 years old.  Sure he had saved money for her to live on, but with all her medical expenses in her old age it eventually ran out, she was declared impoverished, and became eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid is a state administered program that may provide medical benefits if eligibility is required and is "means tested."  At the core, it's for citizens who are eligible for Medicare but can't afford the deductable for the benefit period for Part A and/or the deductable and coinsurance of 20% for Part B because they just don't have the money.  What happens is the state pays those deductables for the patient and then Medicare covers what it covers for everyone else who's in the program.

Too much to go into.  Probably some sites online that explains it in more detail.

.

[USA4ME]

We have to stop the spending.  Goldwater wanted to end unconstitutional spending slowly.  He had time and a population that wasn't addicted.  Too much of the country is hooked on government cash with all the dependency and need that a heroin addict knows.  Now?  Now, we're all going to hurt.  We either get our act together now, or the whole system will colapse under the governments debt load.  

Congress needs to get back to the hard work of setting budgets and priorities while acknowledging that it does not posess unlimited power and unlimited means.

I agree, but we're sunk.  Entitlements like SS and Medicare aren't going away and will eventually break the bank.  IOW, best we can hope for at this point is to push it into the future.  But as of the last election, we've now officially entered the United States of Moocherland.

I would like to believe this country would get its house in order, but reality tells me we aren't and won't.  That's why my thinking has changed and my outlook on how to use (or rather misuse) what the libs want to force down our throats has taken a turn.  I'm as conservative as I've ever been, but if the libs are intent on driving the country into the ground, by gum I'm going down with my toys and and bunch more that the libs had planned for their constituants to have instead.  I paid for them.

.

[thundley4]

Medicaid is for those who have spent down income and resources to a minimal amount (impoverished).  Someone could have worked all their life and paid into the system, but they just didn't make enough to sustain them through their entire life and eventually their money ran out.  I knew a man who died when he was around 70, but his wife (who was around 62 or 63 when he died) lived past 100 years old.  Sure he had saved money for her to live on, but with all her medical expenses in her old age it eventually ran out, she was declared impoverished, and became eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid is a state administered program that may provide medical benefits if eligibility is required and is "means tested."  At the core, it's for citizens who are eligible for Medicare but can't afford the deductable for the benefit period for Part A and/or the deductable and coinsurance of 20% for Part B because they just don't have the money.  What happens is the state pays those deductables for the patient and then Medicare covers what it covers for everyone else who's in the program.

Too much to go into.  Probably some sites online that explains it in more detail.

.

That explains it enough for now.  It's just the way that they talk about Medicaid made me think it was for those below a certain income that aren't old enough for Medicare.

[USA4ME]

That explains it enough for now.  It's just the way that they talk about Medicaid made me think it was for those below a certain income that aren't old enough for Medicare.

Keep in mind you can be eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and not be 65 yet.  Examples would be if you are deemed disabled according to Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board, or if you suffer from renal (kidney) failure that requires dialysis treatment and/or transplantation.  But those are the exceptions.

.

[Dori]

This is what I don't get about medicare and social security.... 7.65% of our income is deducted and matched by our employer at a combined rate of 15.3% of our income.  This gets put into the SS and Meciare accounts.  If the government pays out more than the 15.3% of what has been collected....say by 1.5%... then why aren't our SS and Medicare taxes adjusted upward for that deficit of 1.5% the next year to keep it solvent?

[thundley4]

This is what I don't get about medicare and social security.... 7.65% of our income is deducted and matched by our employer at a combined rate of 15.3% of our income.  This gets put into the SS and Meciare accounts.  If the government pays out more than the 15.3% of what has been collected....say by 1.5%... then why aren't our SS and Medicare taxes adjusted upward for that deficit of 1.5% the next year to keep it solvent?

Eventually 100% of your paycheck would be going to FICA.

[Dori]

Eventually 100% of your paycheck would be going to FICA.

Well they say the accounts are still solvent (I realize the accounts only have IOU's in them because they spent the money for other stuff) but wouldn't the people then take notice and get behind legislation for private retirements if they were being taxed too much?

[thundley4]

Well they say the accounts are still solvent (I realize the accounts only have IOU's in them because they spent the money for other stuff) but wouldn't the people then take notice and get behind legislation for private retirements if they were being taxed too much?

Which is why Democrats are loathe to make any meaningful reforms to SS or Medicare.

[Dori]

Which is why Democrats are loathe to make any meaningful reforms to SS or Medicare.

I know they are not that stupid to not realize it's going to burst just like the housing bubble.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How about this: we give you everything you want today and in 2 years when we go broke you get nothing... ever again.

[diesel driver]

Which is why Democrats are loathe to make any meaningful reforms to SS or Medicare.

It's all about power and control.  Nothing else.

Everyone in DC aspires to be a little Hitler or Stalin in some fashion.

Here's MY counter-offer.

Extend ALL the current tax rates at their currrent level, no exceptions.  (What the f*** is "fair" about discriminating someone for having/earning more money?)  Cut ALL programs, departments, etc. (except SS, Medicare, and Defense) 10% across the board, and eliminate ALL new federal spending enacted since 2009.

Barry either signs it, or vetos it, his choice.  But make it known far, wide, and often it was Barry Milhous Obama who raised YOUR taxes.

[BlueStateSaint]

Aren't we borrowing (or printing) 40% of what we spend?   

It's closer to 46%, according to an article out last week.