Posted on 07/11/2011 4:35:32 PM PDT by MissesBush
Officials familiar with the negotiations say today’s meeting began with President Obama asking House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to lay out what was agreed upon in the deficit reduction talks led by Vice President Biden.
Cantor outlined around $2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade: $1–1.1 trillion in discretionary spending; $200 billion in mandatory discretionary spending (such as civilian military retirement and farm subsidies); $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid; and roughly $200-300 billion in saved interest on the debt.
After Cantor’s presentation, the President said the two sides might be able to reach consensus on roughly $1.7 trillion, though there were still some issues to resolve.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said the amount they agree to in deficit reduction needs to be equal to – if not more than – the amount they agree to raise the debt ceiling.
How much is that? There seemed to be consensus in the room that the amount by which they need to raise the debt ceiling is $2.4 trillion.
That would get the government to February or March 2013. Why that date? No one thinks a lame duck Congress should take this on from November-January 2012/2013 and that would allow the new Congress and maybe a new President to get his or her sea legs before addressing this again.
So tomorrow’s homework assignment, the president said, is for the congressional leaders to figure out how to get from $1.7 trillion to $2.4 trillion.
Republicans are still insisting on no new taxes. Democrats say they need some revenues – a “balanced approach” – to get Democratic votes. As House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said today, “Republicans must be prepared to make concessions of their own and not put the entire burden on seniors, the middle class and the most vulnerable among us."
Congressional leaders will need Democratic votes not only in the Senate but the House as well. “You’ve got the (Michele) Bachmann Caucus that has made it clear they won’t vote for anything,” one Democratic official said.
Boehner said at one point that “it’s clear to all of us how big this spending problem is. Congress keeps voting for programs we can’t pay for. But look, entitlement cuts aren’t easy for us to vote for either. Our guys aren’t cheerleading about cutting entitlements.”
“Your guys already voted for them,” the president said, referring to the budget offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.
“Excuse us for trying to lead,” Boehner said.
The president today continued to make the case for a big deal, arguing that if they’re going to draw heat for the deal, they should at least do more than make a down payment on the deficit – they should get the country on sounder financial footing and begin to seriously bend the deficit cost curve.
During another exchange, Republicans were going through proposed tax increases as bad for jobs.
"C’mon, man!” Vice President Biden exclaimed, “let’s get real!"
The Vice President argued that their opposition isn't economic, it's ideological, that no real economist thinks they're "job killers."
In terms of the big deal President Obama and Speaker Boehner discussed in the past – for around $4 trillion in deficit reduction --, Democrats say the Republicans walked away from major spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax reform, all because part of the trigger mechanism if the tax reform was not achieved by the end of 2012 was the risk that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans would have expired. Democrats insisted that one commitment for tax reform needed to be that the new code needed to be “at least as progressive” as the current tax code.
“Ronald Reagan would have accepted this plan,” one of the Democratic officials said.
The meeting broke after about an hour and a half.
“We’ll meet tomorrow at the White House at 3:45,” the president said.
“A.M. or P.M.?” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joked.
“It may come to that,” the president said.
-Jake Tapper
I think far from thinking the Democrats will act in good faith the Republicans are taking the " fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me" approach in these talks and not falling for any of the "give us a few littlle tax hikes and we'll cut all the spending you want"' b.s. the Dems fooled Reagan and the first Bush with. That's why they're holding firm on no tax hikes with the Dems. Let's not be so quick to cannibalize our own while they're trying to do the right thing as best they can under the constraints they have to work under i.e. a Dem controlled Senate, White House and news media.
I love the “shared sacrifice” mantra. With just under half the country not paying taxes it is akin to saying that the passengers on the Titanic who were not lucky enough to get on the life boats need to drown/freeze more.
A govt shutdown would not result from no debt limit increase. That only results when no budget is passed without continuing resign bs being passed to keep govt functioning. Govt can still fund itself including it’s debt servicing it’s debt without a debt limit in increase. It just means they’ll have to make cuts on the fly. What Obama can’t afford is to go into the election with the liberal base sitting on the sidelines because he gave the GOP too much or let them “name their price.” that will never happen and to believe it would is pure fantasy.
I’m a Senior Citizen and I pay taxes. I once was Middle Class but with my work hours being cut down by almost a third (I’m one of those dissed govt contractors who save the taxpayers millions a year), I’m now working poor. The only thing keeping me from being even poorer and thus eligible for every fricking entitlement program in the country, is my mortgage deduction(s).
I’m just starting Social Security this month so I’ll be able to pull out of some debts over time but with two heart attacks/cardiac arrest and a disabled wife who does not get disability (yet), it’s still a long haul.
What you have is a new phenomenon - the formerly Middle Class turned Lower Class professional.
We will vote.
Or at least one trillion per year. For that is the size of our yearly deficit growth.
Plug it and there won’t be any more need to raise the debt limit.
And then once the economy starts growing again, tax revenues will grow (XX% of higher earnings = more total revenue). Which will mean that we’ll have more money coming in, which can be used to pay off the debt already incurred... as long as we continue to vote for TEA party members dedicated to reducing the deficit and not blowing the new cash on more spending (aka: the socialism-lite of ‘compassionate conservativism’ + the communism of the Democraps).
Those people do not pay income taxes. Your voters, at least the vast majority of them (47% of all income earners) do not pay ANY income taxes. Sure they pay plenty of other taxes, but we are not discussing that.Those people do not pay income taxes. Your voters, at least the vast majority of them (47% of all income earners) do not pay ANY income taxes. Sure they pay plenty of other taxes, but we are not discussing that.
Why are you saying that the middle class doesn't pay taxes? They are the largest portion of taxpayers.
Obama doesn’t want to be held up and miss his tee-time at the local golf course.
(That’s not a joke, either.)
He picked Biden to lead the negotiations because he didn’t want to get involved.
Almost half the population of the United States pays no income tax - whether or not they are middle class depends on where the line is drawn. Everyone should pay something above and beyond the purchase of lottery tickets.
That sounds a lot like "each according to their needs".
Point is, they paid for the service. If you want to change it, it better be changed for all - otherwise you are giving the government the power to dictate who is more important that others, violating some of our most cherished principles (like: 'all men are created equal').
Most affluent seniors are getting much more in benefits than they ever paid into Social Security and Medicare. But congress doesn't have the courage to take on the senior lobbies and stop the endless flow of wealth to seniors from people under age 50. My parents were very affluent in the last ten years of their lives, although they wouldn't have qualified as "rich" by most definitions. They had their mortgage paid off and health care provided by a state workers' retirement plan. They had much more discretionary income than I had, but I was paying taxes to them to fund my dad's social security checks, which were twice the amount he really needed.
That smacks of jealousy and greed. (IE: I deserve it more than they do) Which is one of the core foundations of communism. Combined with your first assertion, having the government reduce their agreed apone pay-outs without refunding the pay-in... really smacks like the ideas of the Russian Revolution. (Those dirty kulaks! Take their money and give it to the proletariat.)
At some point, this has to stop or these programs will certainly go bankrupt. People cannot keep receiving much more than they pay into programs--that's a Ponzi scheme and eventually all Ponzi schemes fall apart.
Finally, some sense. Social Security *IS* going broke, so is Medicare/Medicaid. So here's some ideas that most seem to ignore.
1. No payouts to anyone that has never paid in... for both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. (That eliminates all illegal immigrants.)
2. Increase the retirement age. (ie: 2 more years until collection is 2 years of payouts not paid out.)
3. Make Social Security a fee for service investment program. (we can argue whether there should be a minimum floor in benefits or not, though)
4. Make Medicare/Medicaid more like an HMO with access to doctors outside of hospital visits, but have strict rules that must be followed - where payment will be withheld if procedures aren't followed. (ie: If some kid has the flu, the parents will have to take the kid to a pediatrician for care, if warranted. If they show up at the hospital emergency room, they get to pay the bill. The hospital can work out an installment plan.) Don't like it? Then get yer own dang insurance.
Though, personally, I don't think we ought to even have Medicare or Medicaid. But my post about cost-cutting these programs, so the program has to exist to cut costs on it. True, though, eliminating the program would be the biggest cost-cut of them all...
Piggy-backing on Medicare/Medicaid...
4a. Standardize medical insurance regulations nationwide. There is no reason why Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield or Humana should have to be 50 different incorporated entities, one for each state. That adds a *LOT* of overhead to insurance, which we as the customer have to pay.
4b. There should be standardized policies nationwide. Which would be up to individual insurance companies to come up with. No more a la carte insurance... where EVERYTHING is a la carte. Nationwide standards with nationwide companies means that we could then compare policies nationwide, like we can do with auto insurance. And the pressure of a 300-million people market will bring lowers costs.
4c. Massive tort reform for medical malpractice. A big part of the high cost of medical care is that doctors prescribe every test under the sun to cover their @ss for any potential lawsuit. In other words, doctors aren't treating you for your illness, they are treating you for your potential lawsuit. Reduce/end that problem and doctors can get back to being doctors.
All that will reduce medical costs, which will reduce the costs of Medicare/Medicaid.
5. Contract out to the private sector to run these programs. Government is highly inefficient at doing anything except destroying things and killing people. Plus, once you hire a bureaucrat, you usually can't get rid of 'em. So contract out to a financial company (or a consortium of companies, whatever) to run the revamped Social Security... and to the insurance industry to run Medicare/Medicaid.
As for all the unfireable bureaucrats whose jobs are made redundant? Offer early retirement to those within 1-2 years of eligibility. Move them to the DoD and give them work as cook's aids/janitors/garbagemen/whatever. Don't dock their pay, for that'd cause a lawsuit. Plus, as military tend to be of a conservative bent and foul-mouthed... all the lily-livered liberal bureaucrats would be in a work-culture they hate, bombarded with highly non-politically correct language and all not in a position to do anything about it. So most would quit.
---
That would solve the problem with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid... without resorting to a jealousy-fueled dip into the redistributive attitudes of 'they don't *DESERVE* it' so we ought to take it away from them!
And you know that out of the $1 trillion in discretionary spending... the bulk of it will come out of the military hide. Not to mention the $200 billion that’s going to come from the military retirement program.
All the rest won’t happen. Never has, never will. It’s always a case of ‘Tommy’.
Tommy
by: Rudyard Kipling
I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.
Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.
We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.
You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!
Agreed.
My view is that there ought to be a two-tiered flat tax rate, with no exemptions for anything (marriage, home, car, etc.).
One rate would be for those above the poverty line... and the other for below the poverty line. That’s it.
And considering that the average tax ‘take’ the government gets, regardless of tax rates, is 18-20%... then that ought to be the flat tax rate. Nothing else, no Social Security tax, no FICA, no capital gains tax, etc.
The same would apply to businesses. 20% flat rate, no exemptions.
Overall, the tax revenue the Fed gets would not change, but they would now be able to seriously reduce the amount of bureaucrats at the IRS.
Plus, businesses would flock to America to take advantage of the low business tax rate. That would result in *JOBS*. And people with jobs pay taxes.
I mentioned General McAuliffe in this non pea post. #40
Your response to me is so dumb and so full of distortions, ignorance and stupidity, that it may take me a while to write a complete reply to your post and address all the logical flaws in your post. But I will attempt to reply to it at some future date. Have a great evening.
Nobody told Humana they had to be in every market.
There are a multiplicity of regional differences and markets. New England has fishermen who have one life/health-risk profile, while eastern Tennessee and Kentucky and other coal-mining regions have another set of needs and realities entirely. Then there's uranium miners in New Mexico and offshore oil workers in the Gulf of Mexico.
"One size fits all" is, to coin a term, cultural imperialism -- and bad market research.
Then there's federalism. The Civil War didn't abolish States, and States are still the repositories of the People's original sovereignty, and the guarantors of our liberty to a degree often not appreciated.
While I appreciate the sentiment, you of course know that the entire budget is only about $3.6 trillion?
It would be nice to be able to get about $1 trillion next year, then another $.5 trillion the year after that, but without the Senate and Presidency I would take the $1.7 trillion. That would then kick the can down the road to about August 2012 and we could have this fight again just before the election (which is what the Demonrats don't want).
My biggest concern is that in most past "deals" (Reagan in the early 80s, Bush I in the early 90s, Bush II in the 00s), the tax increases went in immediately and the later spending cuts never happened. Maybe the Republicans should agree to immediate spending cuts and a promise to raise taxes sometime after 2014 (extend the Bush tax cuts another two years).
The only time deficit reduction has worked in my lifetime, the Republican Congress (led by Newt) forced President Clinton to accept a cut in capital gains taxes now and a cut in the planned spending - which actually resulted in a balanced budget when the spending was actually restrained by the future Congress. That is the formula that actually works (cut taxes on the investor class and restrain or cut spending). But it will take a Republican Senate and a non-radical President to get that done.
And you honestly think that would have a prayer of a chance when this deal is so precarious?
This plan to keep from spending more (as Obama's budget called for) and actually reduce is a start. Then keep up the pressure incrementally with the Ryan plan, etc. You won't get much more with a Dem Senate and WH. Then vote a GOP Senate and Pres in. That's when we have more of a chance to do the 2 year thing.
And there shouldn't be anything stopping the insurance companies from charging more to higher-risk groups for coverage. What's your point?
Are you arguing that higher-risk groups should get less health care?
Having a standard that works across all states allows for cross-shopping by customers. That is increased competition, which leads to reduced costs.
Also, the larger the market... the more the insurance companies can spread the risk. Which is how insurance works, using the premiums paid by the health to pay for the medical care of the sick. And a 300 million man market spreads that out over far more people than a market of... let's say, San Francisco (which has it's own separate medical insurance market) alone.
And that *ALSO* reduces the costs of insurance.
Indeed. Our political leaders have created this mess and now put on this kabuki theater. Makes me sick....
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.