I just dont get it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I totally agree w/your statement and have stated so before. I thought when they had the "great compromise" months ago, the Dems. agreed to $10 of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. Buckmans says $12 - either # shows that Pres. Obama doesn't believe tax increases alone will solve anything.

It is going to take many, many changes to our current budget, policies, etc. to get to where we have to be. Tax hikes are a small part. However, you don't not do something b/c it won't get you all the way to where you have to end up.

PS - I changed a typo when I quoted your question so as to not make people on the site call you out for a simple typo.

Paul, you agree tax hikes will play a much smaler part than spending cuts. That's a huge thing we agree on.

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes? Everyone who voted in this election knows that Obama wants to hike taxes on those making at least $250k. That was a cornerstone of Obama's message. If you have a bullet wound to the head and also smoke cigarettes, don't you deal with the head wound before you quit smoking?

So, where are the details on the spending cuts? Maybe I'm missing something, but when I hear Obama talking about cuts, it's usually to attack the conservative who is proposing cuts.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why, then, is Obama so fixated on the tax hikes?

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

According to Obama this was going to be one of the most transparent administrations. I haven't seen much but I have seen through them, perhaps that is what he meant. Lets keep playing politics while the country goes down the drain. I wonder when repairations will start.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

According to Obama this was going to be one of the most transparent administrations. I haven't seen much but I have seen through them, perhaps that is what he meant. Lets keep playing politics while the country goes down the drain. I wonder when repairations will start.

exaclty, were playing politics instead of solving problemS. In the old days they'd all be pulled out of office and tarred and feathered.

[scottw]

this guy sums it up pretty well....


All about Taxes
By Michael Tanner
November 28, 2012

How many times have we heard that the only thing standing in the way of a grand bargain to reduce our growing national debt is Republican intransigence on taxes? If Republicans would only agree to dump Grover Norquist, Democrats will agree to cut spending and reform entitlements. Then, we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya as we usher in a new era of compromise and fiscal responsibility.

Except that now that Republicans have agreed to raise taxes, er, revenue, as part of an agreement to avoid the looming fiscal cliff, liberals appear to have decided that there really isn’t a need to cut spending after all.

“Suddenly the clear and present danger to the American economy isn’t that we’ll fail to reduce the deficit enough; it is, instead, that we’ll reduce the deficit too much,” warns Paul Krugman. All this worry about debt and deficits is “an entirely contrived crisis,” writes Robert Kuttner in the Huffington Post. After all, as the New York Times explains, “deficits are actually a good thing when the economy is deeply depressed, so deficit reduction should wait until the economy is stronger.” “So,” sums up Robert Reich, “can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They’re distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about — jobs and growth.”

Congressional Democrats already appear to have successfully taken Social Security reform off the table. This, despite the fact that Social Security faces $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Democrats may be willing to trim Medicare, but both Harry Reid and #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin are opposed to structural changes, such as raising the eligibility age. Of course, anything resembling Paul Ryan’s premium-support plan is beyond even discussing. Democrats are more inclined to rely on the type of reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act. Yet the administration’s own actuaries project that, even if all of the ACA’s reforms work exactly as hoped, Medicare will remain $42 trillion in the red. And that’s the best-case scenario.

Yet the media still seem obsessed with Republicans and taxes: Will they stick to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge or not? Will tax rates go up or will loopholes be closed? How much new revenue will Republicans agree to?

But there is a profound lack of curiosity when it comes to the other half of this supposed bargain. Remember that hypothetical deal of $1 in tax increases to $10 in spending cuts? Republicans are still being asked about it and criticized for rejecting it. But balancing the budget under that formula would require $9 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. When was the last time the president or a Democratic congressman was asked whether or not they would agree to such a deal?

For that matter, it’s worth noting that more than half of Democratic congressmen and eleven senators have signed a pledge to oppose any changes to Social Security or Medicare. If pledges are the root of all evil, couldn’t we pause for just a moment in our attempts to run Grover Norquist out of town to work up the tiniest bit of outrage about this one?

In fact, many Democrats actually want to spend more, at least in the short term. The president’s most recent budget calls for $2.6 in increased spending between now and 2022. That’s $1 trillion more than the $1.6 trillion that the president has called for in new taxes. Therefore, the tax hikes would not be used to reduce the deficit, but to finance new spending. And, according to news reports, the president has already floated the idea of still more stimulus spending as part of the fiscal-cliff talks.

That’s not a “balanced approach.” That’s simply old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics.

The time may someday come to parse the exact meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. But for now, Republicans are simply negotiating with themselves and with the news media. Democrats haven’t even come to the table.


probably don't want to show their empty hand...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

B/C right now both sides are politicing and haven't gotten down to the negotiations (unless something is happening we don't know about???). He prob. wants to make sure that when the Rs come to the table that they are willing to put hikes/deduc. changes on the table. He has already agreed to either $10 or $12 of cuts to every $1 of tax hikes. The Ds must have some idea what they are willing to agree to and prob. don't want to show their hand yet. Just as some of the Rs have started recently coming out saying they agree to tax hikes (or getting rid of deductions). We don't know what those are either at this point (is the mortgage deduct. going to be taken away??).

When Paul Ryan makes a proposalto cut Medicare (which we all know is necessary), and Obama demonized Ryan by saying that "he wants to end Medicare as we know it", I'd say that Ryan is trying to solve the problem, and Obama is politicking.

I hope the mortgage deduction isn't taken away, as that's something that a lot of middle class folks benefit from. If that goes away, it sure won't help home prices.

Has Obama personally agreed to $12 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good points. Personally, I hope th emortgage deduction isn't taken away, as that's something that a lot of middle class folks benefit from. If that goes away, it sure won't help home prices.

Has Obama personally agreed to $12 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

the one and only thing being discussed right now is for the house to pass the senate bill eliminating the Bush cuts for those over 200/250k. That it, period. That is what O is pushing for.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

the one and only thing being discussed right now is for the house to pass the senate bill eliminating the Bush cuts for those over 200/250k. That it, period. That is what O is pushing for.

Correct, and worse, Obama i strying to convince people (at least during the campaign he was) that the tax hikes are all we need to get our fiscal house in order. It's a great way to attack Republicans, but it's demonstrably false.

The most significant, specific proposal I've seen for cuts, is what Ryan proposed for Medicare. The liberal response was the commercial showing Ryan pushng an old lady off a cliff. The Democrats don't seem inclined to have an honest conversation about this...

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Correct, and worse, Obama i strying to convince people (at least during the campaign he was) that the tax hikes are all we need to get our fiscal house in order. It's a great way to attack Republicans, but it's demonstrably false.

The most significant, specific proposal I've seen for cuts, is what Ryan proposed for Medicare. The liberal response was the commercial showing Ryan pushng an old lady off a cliff. The Democrats don't seem inclined to have an honest conversation about this...

I agree and if they are successful in getting the senate bill passed, they will pat themselves on the back and say disaster averted. The disaster was a posion pill inserted into the legislation the last time they deferred solving the problem. all of the initial issues remain. You cant make this up. Its like a 3 stooges routine. I GUARANTEE 99% of Americans wont have a clue

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I agree and if they are successful in getting the senate bill passed, they will pat themselves on the back and say disaster averted. The disaster was a posion pill inserted into the legislation the last time they deferred solving the problem. all of the initial issues remain. You cant make this up. Its like a 3 stooges routine. I GUARANTEE 99% of Americans wont have a clue

dems control the Whitehouse and Senate and Reid appears ready to change Senate rules to eliminate challenges there..dems have no intention of reducing current levels of spending, in fact, they are eyeing even more spending, want to raise the debt ceiling, increase regulation and expand of the bureaucratic state, 64% of the current spending is entitlements and interest on the debt and that is steadily growing....Republicans are easily marginalized as Grinches who want to take away everyone's goodies and anyone other than those being pandered to are easily characterized as greedy and having too much and need to cough it up, it's an enviable position to be in politically, I don't know how you mess it up until the collapse occurs and the government checks and services really stop coming...