Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cantor opposed to Cliff deal
http://stream.wsj.com/story/the-fiscal-cliff/SS-2-87944/ ^ | WSJ/Twitter

Posted on 01/01/2013 12:58:14 PM PST by fooman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: icwhatudo

I called Cantor’s office during the 0baminationCare debate. Eventually, I realized that the young person I was talking to was actually listening, so I laid out a trial sentence about the corruption in DC. The response I got back specifically said, in a very depressed tone, “Tell me about it.”

Those poor kids—interns learning about the level of effete, Byzantine corruption, up close and personal. I’d be angry, were I in their shoes.

So, Cantor? No. I vote West. Give me JUSTICE.


51 posted on 01/01/2013 2:19:27 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Really....look at the Senate vote....hardly along party lines.


The deal is agreed. All we are seeing is posturing. So you really can’t read anything into individual votes.


52 posted on 01/01/2013 2:20:18 PM PST by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
My stalking horse theory has Cantor positioning himself as the anti-Boehner candidate for speaker in order to find out who's plotting a coup, out them and get them back on board the weepster’s train...or else.
53 posted on 01/01/2013 2:32:47 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

First thing they should do is take out the “expanded earned income tax credit, child tax credit and college tax credit — extended for five years”.

I didn’t know we had expanded earned income credits in 2009 — enough already.

Cut unemployment benefit extensions to 2 months. They can take it up again during the debt talks.


54 posted on 01/01/2013 2:39:10 PM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady
If this is all they need to do, what don’t they just walk out? It is all they have left anymore. Just curious.

Most of them like the gravy train.
55 posted on 01/01/2013 2:39:37 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The House has to vote on it. They can pass a different bill and force further negotiations. In fact, they should.


56 posted on 01/01/2013 2:45:50 PM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The dims had nothing... we owned the House, Senate and White House... they attacked Bush over Iraq and both destroyed the man’s reputation and his presidency. They were relentless and united. They controlled the debate and shaped the arguments and we must learn to do the same.

LLS


57 posted on 01/01/2013 2:52:14 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fooman

My favorite part of ZH post: “Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio asked House Republicans why the House would “heed the votes of sleep deprived octogenarians,” according to a source in the meeting.”


58 posted on 01/01/2013 2:53:27 PM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, emerged from the meeting saying he would "shocked" if House doesn't amend the bill this afternoon and send it back to Senate.

"We're building a consensus that we have to address spending," he said. "The president won his election; I also won my election.”

The GOP retained control of the House. It won. And if they are afraid to use that power and control, they deserve to be defeated in 2014.

59 posted on 01/01/2013 2:54:16 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Artcore

Welcome... you took the correct colored pill.

LLS


60 posted on 01/01/2013 2:56:13 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

If they don’t cave they will be like suicide bombers. They will be blowing themselves up along with the economy. We will have taxes raised on everybody, the public will blame the GOP, there will be sequestration, and we will lose the house in 2016.

There is no better deal to be had. Obama has an iron will. We are lucky we got
what we did. We have no leverage on this. Flinging themselves against Obama won’t break him, it will break the house GOP. For now anyway.

We do have leverage on the debt ceiling. We have to rejoin the battle on that front. Plus as the subject moves to spending instead of taxes, the public who have polled that spending should be cut, will have more incentive to at least listen to our side.


61 posted on 01/01/2013 2:57:28 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewiscrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
What is theoretically possible? Killing this bill and letting everyones taxes go up?

If they pass this bill, it will add $330 billion to the deficit in FY 2013 and add $4 trillion to the national debt over a ten year period.

I say if it means taxes go up on everyone, so be it. The voters want all the benefits of the welfare state and don't want to pay for it. Maybe we will get the public's attention focussed on our dire fiscal condition by letting them see how much it costs. We need to stop insulating the public from the pain of our huge deficits and debt and preventing the bill from being passed on to our children and grandchildren.

62 posted on 01/01/2013 3:02:58 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fooman

If the House ‘shoots it down’, I guarantee that 0bama will issue an EO to reverse the House’s decision. Mark it.


63 posted on 01/01/2013 3:04:38 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
If they don’t cave they will be like suicide bombers. They will be blowing themselves up along with the economy. We will have taxes raised on everybody, the public will blame the GOP, there will be sequestration, and we will lose the house in 2016.

This is a suicide bill for the Reps. They will destroy their base by passing a bill that does the following:

"The "fiscal cliff" deal that was designed to save money actually includes $330.3 billion in new spending over the next decade, according to the official estimate the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday afternoon.

CBO said the bill contains about $25.1 billion in new cuts, but those are swamped by the new spending on extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and other new refundable tax credits that President Obama fought for.

Of those cuts, only $2 billion are scheduled to take effect in 2013.

And CBO also warned that some of the cuts Congress is counting are from programs on which CBO never expected the money to be spent anyway — such as cuts to the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, which was part of Mr. Obama's health care law."

All told, the bill deepens the deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, when the new tax cuts and spending are combined.

The bill also delays by two months the automatic spending cuts slated to take effect Wednesday, with a promise to reduce spending in the future to cover for them.

There is no better deal to be had. Obama has an iron will. We are lucky we got what we did. We have no leverage on this. Flinging themselves against Obama won’t break him, it will break the house GOP. For now anyway.

Nonsense. This bill must be amended and not passed as is.

We do have leverage on the debt ceiling. We have to rejoin the battle on that front. Plus as the subject moves to spending instead of taxes, the public who have polled that spending should be cut, will have more incentive to at least listen to our side.

Your tortured logic leads a lot to be desired. What leverage do we have in the debt ceiling if Obama holds all the cards as you state. Do you think the public will not be on Obama's side if the GOP shuts down the government and stops the payment of SS, Medicare, food stamps, etc. Who do you think the MSM will blame? The public wants more spending. They reelected Obama who promised that entitlements will not be touched. He and the rest of the Dems criticized Ryan's Medicare reforms.

64 posted on 01/01/2013 3:15:29 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles

geez I hope you don’t play poker for money, if you do deal me in....


65 posted on 01/01/2013 3:15:31 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

You need to become familiar with the way DC works.
This bill, even though it contains 330 billion in Additional Spending
Is considered a cut, because the Senate originally wanted to add
1 trillion in new spending but cut it back to 330 billion in new spending.
Therefore it is a spending cut bill.
That the way DC thinks.
The funny part is that Lindsey Graham came out today and said he wants
spending cuts, but just voted for a bill that has 330 new spending in it.


66 posted on 01/01/2013 3:21:53 PM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Yes. Mine too.


67 posted on 01/01/2013 3:24:09 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Please join the DemocRat party and enjoy all the phony bi-partiness you can stand. They’ll compromise with you, honest.


68 posted on 01/01/2013 3:28:31 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Looking at the roll call for the Senate vote...Rubio voted “nay”.

We’ll see what Ryan does when the House votes.


69 posted on 01/01/2013 3:32:01 PM PST by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles

Please join the DemocRAT party, you’ll be a winner and get everything you want. They’ll compromise with you, honest.


70 posted on 01/01/2013 3:37:21 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

Sensed disgust in your post! I did talk with my Rep - unfortunately for him I do have his cell phone number, at least until he changes it again! Did get the usual you all don’t understand all the ramifications, I’m only one Congressman... speech. Didn’t vote for him last election and will never vote for him again for a whole lot of reasons and that doesn’t seem to bother him either.


71 posted on 01/01/2013 3:37:21 PM PST by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grams A

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100346542

How The Fed could come undone. The fact that those Kenysian weenies over at Pimco are talking about this scares me.


72 posted on 01/01/2013 3:39:30 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

The Senate is lifting its leg and telling you how nice and warm this bill is.


73 posted on 01/01/2013 3:40:50 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Breaking...

Boehner Gives GOP Lawmakers Two Choices

Permalink
Facebook
Twitter
Expand/Collapse

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) presented GOP lawmakers with two options for overcoming an impasse on legislation to deal with the fiscal cliff, a senior House GOP aide said.

By Corey Boles

WASHINGTON—House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) presented GOP lawmakers with two options for overcoming an impasse on legislation to deal with the fiscal cliff, a senior House GOP aide said.

The first option would be to add spending cuts to the Senate-passed bill, vote on that and send it back to the Senate, the aide said. GOP leaders will begin shortly to count whether there is enough support for this approach, the aide said.

If there are enough GOP votes to pass this approach, the House would amend the fiscal cliff bill and send it back to the Senate, the aide said.

The speaker and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) both cautioned lawmakers about the risks in such a strategy, the aide said. The leaders told the lawmakers there is no guarantee the Senate would take up an amended bill.

If not, the fallback position would be to bring the Senate-bill up as it exists, vote on it and seek to win approval for it, the aide said.

The speaker presented the options to lawmakers in a closed door meeting that is still ongoing, the aide said.

The Senate passed the bill with ease in an 89-8 vote early Tuesday morning, and the House was expected to follow suit. But at an earlier meeting of GOP lawmakers, there was concerted opposition to the existing legislation leaving Republican leaders to craft an alternate strategy.


74 posted on 01/01/2013 3:41:57 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: fooman

See my # 73. The Senate took the cowards way out. Time to return the volley of this bill back to the cowards. The cowards made the mistake of naming their price first. The House has the leverage, if they choose to use it.


75 posted on 01/01/2013 3:50:06 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

I agree.


76 posted on 01/01/2013 3:51:58 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: fooman
They need to attach spending cuts and cut out the tax increases. Once it passes the house, have a press conference stating they have sent a bill to the Senate that reduces spending, reduces the tax burden on Americans and sets us on a path to prosperity. Let Harry Reid and the Dems go down in flames.
77 posted on 01/01/2013 4:07:20 PM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: fooman

Cantor is one of the worst Rinos.


78 posted on 01/01/2013 4:48:08 PM PST by bgill (We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Cantor ‘stands with Boehner,’ spokesman says (GOP surrender to Obama is back on track...)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2974055/posts


79 posted on 01/01/2013 4:57:26 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady
If this is all they need to do, what don’t they just walk out?

They are afraid that Obama, and the willing media, will blame tax increases on Republicans.

The impasse is because Republicans are finally coming around to realize what the rest of us knew all along, that Obama wanted the rates to go up so that he could claim to be the one who lowered them.

By letting the rates expire and go up, they would no longer be the "Bush Tax Cuts." Then, Obama and the Democrats can lower the rates back to the exact same levels, but we'll now call them the "Obama Tax Cuts."

Amazing, huh, that Obama can make the Bush tax cuts into the Obama tax cuts without doing a thing?

The question is whether the House has the fortitude to take back the narrative. Since the Bush Tax Cuts are no longer, and knowing that Obama wants his legacy of being a tax cutter and not an out-of-control spender, they should use that desire against Obama in negotiations and force him to give in on spending.

Otherwise, the House better brace for an onslaught from both sides.

-PJ

80 posted on 01/01/2013 4:58:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/01/cantor-stands-with-boehner-spokesman-says/

Just sayin’


81 posted on 01/01/2013 5:01:54 PM PST by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Reid said the Senate will not take up an amended bill. Why would he cave? So
we go over and stay over? And we go back into recession? Swell. To me that is like a suicide bomber. You are saying to hell with all of it, to hell with America. If we don’t get what we want then lets blow it all to pieces and ourselves with it because we are screwed no matter what. At least everyone else will suffer too.

That’s whacked! We must live, so we can fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.


82 posted on 01/01/2013 6:02:58 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewiscrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Reid said the Senate will not take up an amended bill. Why would he cave? So
we go over and stay over? And we go back into recession? Swell. To me that is like a suicide bomber. You are saying to hell with all of it, to hell with America. If we don’t get what we want then lets blow it all to pieces and ourselves with it because we are screwed no matter what. At least everyone else will suffer too.

That’s whacked! We must live, so we can fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.


83 posted on 01/01/2013 6:03:25 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewiscrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
Reid said the Senate will not take up an amended bill. Why would he cave? So we go over and stay over? And we go back into recession? Swell. To me that is like a suicide bomber. You are saying to hell with all of it, to hell with America. If we don’t get what we want then lets blow it all to pieces and ourselves with it because we are screwed no matter what. At least everyone else will suffer too

So we go over the cliff and have another recession. At least with everyone returning to the days of the Clinton tax rates, we will get in more revenue thus reducing the deficit. The American people need something to focus on our out of control spending and the cost of the welfare state. Paying more in taxes will bring it home that we can't continue on our present course.

Mark Steyn wrote this:

You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go.

speech warnings that we were on a one-way ticket to Continental-sized dependency, chortled to me, "Americans love Big Government as much as Europeans. The only difference is that Americans refuse to admit it."

My Gallic charmer is on to something. According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That's adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and, yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print? In that sense, the federal debt might be better understood as an American Self-Delusion Index, measuring the ever-widening gap between the national mythology (a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens) and the reality (a 21st century cradle-to-grave nanny state in which, as the Democrats' Convention boasted, "government is the only thing we do together.").

Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent – a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent – the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.

So all the agonizing over our annual trillion-plus deficits overlooks the obvious solution: Given that we're spending like Norwegians, why don't we just pay Norwegian tax rates?

No danger of that. If (in Milton Himmelfarb's famous formulation) Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, Americans are taxed like Puerto Ricans but vote like Scandinavians. We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" – presumably 80 percent or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in The New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds like a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year's federal deficit. And after that you're back to square one. It's not that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share," it's that America isn't. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it's not willing to pay for.

That’s whacked! We must live, so we can fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.

The GOP likes to postpone the fight. It was the same rationale for caving in 2010 and 2011. Now we will supposedly fight on raising the debt limit. I doubt that will happen as our "leaders" will find another excuse why it is not the right time.

This country may literally have just two to three years to address our fiscal problems before it is too late. Now is the time to fight. This goes beyond partisan politics. It is a matter of national survival. A recession pales in comparison to what a true debt crisis may bring. We are bankrupt. We are running trillion dollar annual deficits. A return to historical interest rates could result in up to a trillion dollars a year in just debt servicing costs. SS has been in the red since 2010 and Medicare since 2008. With 10,000 people a day retiring for the next 20 years, things will get worse not better. The longer we wait to address these problems, the more draconian the solutions. Regardless, there is going to be plenty of pain to solve our problems.

Finally, in terms of the Senate plan, which contains plenty of pork and new spending in over 100 pages, we will need to pass it to find out what is in it. Obama and the Dems always use this tactic of waiting until the last minute and making it seem like the world will come to an end if we don't pass a certain piece of legislation. It was done with the healthcare bill as well as with the sequestration deal.

The Senate has already gone home leaving the House with a piece of crap that increases the deficit by $330 billion in 2013 and will add, by itself, another $4 trillion to the debt over ten years. Are Reps to sign off on such a deal and tell the people who voted for them to F-off. I will not vote for an Rep who signs off on this deal and work to get them defeated, The GOP is destroying its base, which is the real objective of Obama's tactics and his push to tax the rich.

84 posted on 01/01/2013 8:14:10 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

I think I am familiar enough—like my tag line?


85 posted on 01/01/2013 8:43:15 PM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

I do like it. When this country collapses I think your tag line will be
highly likely.


86 posted on 01/01/2013 8:47:35 PM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
You got your wish. The GOP caved completely. And Obama's reaction:

Obama says the deficit is ‘‘still too high’’ and warns that he will not negotiate with Congress over another increase in the nation’s debt ceiling.

"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they have already racked up," Obama said in remarks in the White House."

87 posted on 01/01/2013 9:24:26 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Going over the cliff will get more revenue to decrease the deficit? So now we go from being dead set against tax increases to being for them? That’s a 180 degree change. Are you agreeing with Obama now?

And then there are the deep cuts in the Pentagon budget that would put 180,000 people out of work. Or are you for that too?

The current deal sucks, but going over the cliff blows. When you are between a rock and a hard place, break the rock and kick the hard place in the soft place. The GOP did that and got some wiggle room. The tax cuts we got are permanent. That takes away no small amount of uncertainty for the household budget of millions of Americans.

Now we focus on spending and the public has already said that spending cuts are necessary too.

For my part Obama has got to explain the economic basis for his refusing to cut spending. Does he think cutting spending is good or bad for the economy? None of his populist, class warfare bull crap answers that question.
It can’t just be blather about, hurting the middle class. I want to know the economic principles that he holds that make him seem so comfortable with the massive national debt that is scaring the crap out of conservatives.


88 posted on 01/01/2013 10:27:18 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewiscrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles

We’re going over the cliff no matter what, and it will be that much worse when it inevitably happens.

It’s like that old Fram Oil commercial, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.”


89 posted on 01/01/2013 10:30:23 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
Going over the cliff will get more revenue to decrease the deficit? So now we go from being dead set against tax increases to being for them? That’s a 180 degree change. Are you agreeing with Obama now?

If Americans want the benefits of the welfare state, they must be willing to pay for them. Returning to the Clinton tax rates for everyone is far better fiscally for this country than the deal that was just struck yesterday. We will now add $330 billion more to the debt in FY 2013 and an additional $4 trillion over 10 years. We have just poured more gasoline on to the fire.

The Obama tax cuts for the 98% are part of his redistribution plan. At least for now, he is not for higher taxes on the 98% so I am not agreeing with Obama.

And then there are the deep cuts in the Pentagon budget that would put 180,000 people out of work. Or are you for that too?

We have sequestration coming up. Where will the paltry $110 billion a year be cut? I have no doubt that a deal will be struck to fund the military with $50 billion this year, but no doubt, it will be done with some fiscal gymnastics and raising some more taxes. Given the way Congress now works, there will be no real cuts for anyone. They will come up with some other scheme that has the "cuts" being made in 2015 and after, i.e., after the 2014 midterms.

We are running trillion dollar annual deficits. How long can this continue? If we reduce spending, federal jobs will be lost along with those feeding at the government teat, i.e., crony capitalists and Beltway bandits. Both parties don't want to cut spending nor does the public, which reelects them every time. The fact that you are concerned about the loss of 18,000 federal jobs shows how addicted even so-called conservatives are about keeping the gravy train going.

The current deal sucks, but going over the cliff blows. When you are between a rock and a hard place, break the rock and kick the hard place in the soft place. The GOP did that and got some wiggle room. The tax cuts we got are permanent. That takes away no small amount of uncertainty for the household budget of millions of Americans.

LOL. There are no such things as permanent tax cuts. The only thing that makes them permanent is that they will not sunset this time and require another vote to extend them. Future Congresses are not bound to keep them in place and not raise taxes, which will eventually come in order to raise the revenue to keep the welfare state treading water a little longer.

This is a bad deal and will divide and destroy the GOP, which was Obama's objective in the first place. The fallout will come especially since the GOP will not hold firm in the next looming battles over sequestration and the debt limit.

Now we focus on spending and the public has already said that spending cuts are necessary too.

In the abstract that might be the case, but the reality is far different. The public is not in favor of reducing benefits for SS or Medicare nor do they want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes. They prefer the current system where the average Medicare recipient receives three times more in benefits than they ever made in contributions.

Do the Reps have the stones to play hardball when it comes to the debt limit increase? Will they be willing to shut down the government and stop SS and Medicare payments? Or standfast while Obama claims that if the US doesn't honor its debt obligations, its credit rating will decline further and this will affect the global economy? Obama has already laid down the marker that he will not negotiate this time around on raising the debt ceiling.

For my part Obama has got to explain the economic basis for his refusing to cut spending. Does he think cutting spending is good or bad for the economy? None of his populist, class warfare bull crap answers that question.

Obama does not have to explain anything. He won. He also will say that he will not cut spending for the poor, women and children, the disabled, the old, etc. He will say that we have certain values in this society and our spending should support them. He will then say that the wealthy can pay even a bit more and that many of these programs can be means tested.

Obama is a Marxist. He doesn't believe in the trickle down concept. He is interested in social justice and fairness. The plan just passed by Congress including the Rep-controlled House increases spending and the debt and deficit. The Reps supported increased taxes on the rich, continued subsidies for Hollywood, etc. in what was packed into that 100 page monstrosity that McConnell worked out with Biden. More will emerge as people start seeing what is in the bill they just passed.

It can’t just be blather about, hurting the middle class. I want to know the economic principles that he holds that make him seem so comfortable with the massive national debt that is scaring the crap out of conservatives.

You must live in an alternate universe. Obama will continue blathering and the Reps will continue caving. Why should Obama explain anything after receiving $1 in cuts for $41 dollars in tax increases? And that doesn't include the increased tax burden of Obamacare, which will be fully implemented over the next two years.

The Reps should have chosen this opportunity to fight. They will lose the debt limit battle because Obama has more leverage there than during the tax fight. With almost one in every two Americans receiving a government check of some sort, any shutdown of the government and its ability to cut those checks will be met with huge public disapproval.

90 posted on 01/02/2013 6:25:36 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Raising marginal rates DECREASES federal revenue. If they wanted to increase revenue they would DECREASE marginal rates, not raise them!


91 posted on 01/02/2013 6:33:45 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In the case of income tax for the 98%, raising the marginal rates would increase revenue compared to keeping them the same. It is just math.

Of course, increasing the marginal rates will take more money out of the economy and hurt other areas such as businesses.

As far as the 2% are concerned, do you disagree with the CBO estimates as to how much additional revenue would be raised by going back to the Clinton rates?

92 posted on 01/02/2013 6:54:42 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: kabar
It is just math.

No, you do not understand the Laffer curve. What you are saying that decreasing rates reduces revenue, Historically that is not true.

If your contention is we are to the LEFT of the Laffer inflection point then make your case, try anyway.

93 posted on 01/02/2013 7:02:38 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You are talking about all federal revenue. I am saying that income tax revenue will increase if we returned to the Clinton era rates.

The increased income taxes on the wealthy will raise more income, but that could be offset by losses in jobs, investment, etc.

Again, do you dispute the CBO estimates of how much additional income tax revenue will be raised by returning to the Clinton rates for those making over 400K/450K?

94 posted on 01/02/2013 7:10:07 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Yes, we will check revenues next year at this time. Raising rate NEVER increases revenue. Especially on the top income earners who hire people to make sure they pay as little as possible. We will see...


95 posted on 01/02/2013 7:26:41 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: central_va

And add in the revenue from the elimination of the 2% payroll tax holiday, which averages out to about $1,600 per earner.


96 posted on 01/02/2013 7:31:18 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: kabar

payroll taxes are often confuses with income taxes. You are confusing the two. Payroll taxes are mandatory and there is no way to shelter one self from paying it, legally.


97 posted on 01/02/2013 7:36:42 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Well then we are doomed. We are going down. America is over. Obama is Marx, Lenin and Mao rolled into one. No one can overcome him. He will destroy America and then dance on her grave.

Or maybe we are getting just a little bit paranoid.

MAYBE.


98 posted on 01/02/2013 7:49:16 AM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewiscrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Payroll taxes are really just another form of income tax. You can shelter yourself from them if all you have is investment income and receive just capital gains and dividends. You only pay FICA on earned income.

Medicare (Part A) has been running in the red,i.e., paying out more in benefits than receiving in contributions, since 2008 and SS since 2010.

By law, the premiums paid for Medicare Parts B and D cover only 25% of the costs. The remaining 75% comes from the General Fund. In FY-2011 that amounted to $222 billion.

99 posted on 01/02/2013 7:57:32 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
You are the one who said that this is the hill not to die on. It is the same kind of rationalization Reps use to postpone the real fight. I predict that the Reps will cave on the debt ceiling and they certainly agree with Obama that the sequestration cuts should not happen as legislated. They will collaborate on another phony deal that postpones the cuts and increases the debt and deficit.

The consensus among political observers is that Obama leaves Washington victorious after winning $620 billion in tax hikes from Republicans in exchange for minimal spending cuts. And Obama will be demanding more tax revenue for any cuts in spending.

The Reps lost this fight in their 2010 lame duck Congress fight that allowed Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years and later on the sequestration deal that the WH originated to delay spending cuts and to force the Reps to do something to prevent cuts to the military. This will all play out in a few months, but one thing is sure--there will be no real spending cuts.

100 posted on 01/02/2013 8:09:37 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson