How'd we go from 85% cuts to $3T plan w/$1.5T in revenue?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Sep 20, 2011.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    I'm kind of lost as to how the deficit discussion between President Obama and the GOP in Congress makes any sense anymore... How did we go from President Obama pledging to pretty much meet the 85-15 guideline the GOP had been touting to a plan that saves $3T essentially 50-50 between revenues and entitlements?

    I know the President has said an earful about Democrats not backing him up, but how does this make any sense? Between revenues that would only start as Obama leaves (even if he wins a second term... cough... SGR... cough... these are revenues the government will never actually see) and the lack of any real protection from future governments using increased revenues to just engage in more profligate spending, this seems like the worst proposal yet from the new cross-party collaboration, which seems entirely made up of taking the worst Republican ideas and stapling them to the worst Democratic ideas.

    I have no problem with raising revenues, but the data (e.g. bikini graph) just raises entirely too much possibility that a future government will screw this up, and any reduction in deficit/debt will be artificial at best.

    If there's a thread this should be merged into, please feel free.
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    First, the President never "Pledged" to meet any "guidelines." The Republicans were demanding nothing but spending cuts, even though they had agreed to revenue increases at higher rates. As the discussions increased, they continued to renig on their agreements to cooperate, and demanded more and more cuts, with less and less spending. Remember the candidates all raising their hands to never increase taxes from the current historical lows?

    Speaking of which. You point to future governments screwing things up and using the additional taxes to justify future spending. Excuse me, but the Bush tax cuts were SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE! We are supposed to have higher revenue right now but for the current crop of Republicans who never met a tax cut they disliked (oh, unless the tax cut only benefits the poor and middle classes. My bad).

    The president finally, and I mean, FINALLY, put his foot down and proposed dealing with our problems in a financially sound, conservative and realistic manner. (As an aside, the fact that people at the Wall St. Journal don't understand that, or choose not to accept that, makes me seriously question its legitimacy as a financial paper.)

    This is not a great proposal, but it's better than anything being proposed by the branch of government that is actually supposed to be responsible for budgets. (Anything is better than nothing). Speaking of failures, where is the jobs bill Boehner? It's been almost a year, and the GOP hasn't passed anything jobs related. Heck, for that matter, what have they passed? The last congress passed hundreds of bills that the GOP successfully philibustered. What's been passed but blocked since the 2010 midterm?

    Ideally, we would add several tax brackets on higher income people. Eliminate the "death tax" and treat all income, including capital gains, gifts and inheiritances, as ordinary income. Eliminate corporate deductions and loopholes. Oh, and impose tariffs and penalties for companies that offshore US jobs.
     

Share This Page