They have put forward a list of $2.2 trillion in entitlement cuts, and will not restore tax rates to Clinton era.
***BREAKING*** House Republicans decide to do their job
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/05/2012|
(How the hell did THAT happen?)
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/03/2012|
This is great news. Obama won. Now we just need to change the civics textbooks to explain that legislative iniative now comes from the minority party. It works!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/03/2012|
Do their job? Hardly. Their job is to help the country not to kick it.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/03/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/03/2012|
Wait, what? Cutting "entitlements" is not a good thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/03/2012|
"This is great news. Obama won. Now we just need to change the civics textbooks to explain that legislative iniative now comes from the minority party. It works!"
I think you are not getting what just happened. They are opposing Obama's plan for restoration of tax cuts to their pre-bush level and focusing only on entitlement cuts. That is not a victory for anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/03/2012|
OP must be a freeper.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/03/2012|
This is not good. From the article linked below:
Still, the GOP proposal on Monday appears to move no further toward compromise on Obama’s central demand that tax rates be allowed to increase on the wealthiest Americans. While Republicans have agreed in principle that richer Americans can shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, they insist this must be achieved through ending loopholes and deductions, rather than raising rates.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/03/2012|
They are going to be stubborn down to the wire. Maybe even December 30/31st.
THEN they will cave. Don't worry.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/03/2012|
OP and half the Freepers in this thread are on crack.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/03/2012|
I'll believe they're serious when they cut their own ultra-generous retirement and lifelong health entitlements.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/03/2012|
Obama campaigned on raising tax rates on upper incomes, he mentioned it constantly, and he WON.
This is what the American people want, they have spoken. At this point how can the Republicans deny that.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/03/2012|
They can't, but they will anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/03/2012|
It raises the age for Medicare
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/03/2012|
I don't think it does raise the age for Medicare eligibility. Where did you read that, R14?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/03/2012|
I think R14 is talking about the Republican plan, R15.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/03/2012|
[quote]Obama campaigned on raising tax rates on upper incomes, he mentioned it constantly, and he WON.
And he's not getting what he wants.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/03/2012|
Yes, thank you, R16, I knew he was talking about the Republican "plan" put forward today. I don't recall that it had raising the age for Medicare eligibility in it.
I wouldn't put it past them but one of the things wrong with their "plan" is that they once again failed to specify exactly which programs they'd be cutting. They are trying to force the President to do it but he's not playing.
If they'd put forward raising the age for Medicare, I can't imagine that MSNBC would have kept quiet about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/03/2012|
It's not true. The Republicans are still acting like cuntrags.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/03/2012|
It would have been more direct if they delivered today's "proposal" by tossing out the corpse of an elderly woman with a note scrawled on it that said "Fuck the poor!"
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/03/2012|
The Republicans remain in the deluded position that they have some kind of strong bargaining chip. They don't. They will be DOUBLY fucked if we go over the fiscal cliff, so they will HAVE to compromise at some point. The problem is, it's been so long since they actually DID compromise on anything that they've apparently forgotten how to do it, and categorically stating a demand without any reciprocity ain't it.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/03/2012|
I wonder how many of the baggers are smart enough to understand that when they fucked Boehner on the last deal, they fucked themselves on this one. Yesterday, they were playing the "Godfather II" scene on some MSNBC show. The one where Michael Corleone tells the Senator that he'll give him nothing.
The President, once again, proves himself the Master of the Game.
Damn, he's good. And kudos to Pelosi, Reid and VP Biden because you know they are all working this bitch of a deal.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/03/2012|
[quote]They will be DOUBLY fucked if we go over the fiscal cliff
There is no fiscal cliff.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/03/2012|
How is it that their not voting to go back to the Clinton rates a win for Obama?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/03/2012|
Let's see how many Republican apologist cunts turn up on this thread to screech about all the good the right is doing and how we all are bartering away their children's futures.
I can smell them coming.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/03/2012|
I don't care what happens as long as Obama gives them nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/03/2012|
That's the thing, I believe Obama worked the Repugs into a catch 22...damned if they do, damned if they don't.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/03/2012|
They didn't do their job, of course.
They just regurgitated Romney's plan, without any real specifics (just some handwaving and a few numbers to make it "look good"). Scratch the surface, and it's the same old bullshit.
Obama should counter-offer with a MORE progressive plan than his last one. And he should promise to keep moving it left as long as the GOP refuse to act like adults and do their jobs and put forward a serious proposal.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/03/2012|
[quote]I knew he was talking about the Republican "plan" put forward today. I don't recall that it had raising the age for Medicare eligibility in it.
The Bowles plan, which Boehner specifically calls out, proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/03/2012|
[quote]Now we just need to change the civics textbooks to explain that legislative iniative now comes from the minority party. It works!
The Republicans control the House of Representatives, or had that escaped your notice, just as it has apparently escaped your notice that Obama already has a proposal on the table?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/03/2012|
More details on the Bowles plan.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/03/2012|
Things that SHOULD happen (but won't):
- The debt ceiling should be eliminated
- Bush tax cuts on top 2% of wage earners should be allowed to lapse
- Bush tax cuts for bottom 98% of wage earners renewed for two years
- Unemployment benefits renewed for a full year
- Obama's American Jobs Act bill, and his Veteran's Jobs bill should both be passed
- The Buffett rule should be passed (minimum tax for millionaires)
- The Financial Services Transaction Tax (aka "The Robin Hood Tax") should be passed and set to take effect Jan 1st 2014
- The Glass-Steagall Act should be re-instated, with Jan 1st 2014 the deadline for complying (banks have a year to split their banking from their speculation/investing arms)
- The eligibility age for Medicare should be REDUCED TO 60
- The cap on payroll taxes should be lifted to $150k/year effective Jan 1st, 2013, and raised by $50k/year each year until it hits $500k/year. The year following that, it should be eliminated entirely.
- The estate tax should be restored to what it was at the beginning of Clinton's first term.
- The capital gains tax rate should be raised to 20% effective Jan 1st 2013, then to 25% effective Jan 1st 2015.
- The military budget should be cut by at least 5% each year for the next five years. There is plenty of waste, fraud, and unnecessary systems (and foreign bases) that can be done away with, without affecting military readiness.
- The filibuster reform proposed by Harry Reid should be passed.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/03/2012|
Just a note-- the Simpson-Bowles plan is not what the Republicans are proposing right now. That is a two-year-old idea, and was nominally bipartisan.
I'm pretty sure that when the current Republican plan's details are known that we'll find it more stacked against the poor.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/03/2012|
[quote]Just a note-- the Simpson-Bowles plan is not what the Republicans are proposing right now. That is a two-year-old idea, and was nominally bipartisan.
Yes and no. No, they're not explicitly saying that the Bowles plan (not the Simpson-Bowles plan) is what they are offering but they are saying that it can be used as a basis for negotiations. Quoting:
For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. he recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending as well as $800 billion in new revenue.
This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamentsl entitlement reform. Indeed the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.
If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/03/2012|
I like r32's suggestions....a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/03/2012|
Bowles called for $800 billion in new revenue, without resorting to using “dynamic scoring,” but not specifically from raising tax rates. He proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age, and changing government tax and spending formulas to use so-called chained CPI, reducing benefits in programs like Social Security and raising tax revenues over time by hastening workers ascent into higher tax brackets as they climb the income ladder. He proposed $300 billion in further cuts to discretionary spending, $600 billion in cuts to health care programs, and $300 billion in other mandatory spending programs, but did not spell out entirely how the cuts should be designed.
The GOP’s offer provides no further specificity about those cuts either. It is silent on how to raise $800 billion in revenue, other than to call for closing loopholes and lowering marginal rates. It says nothing about when the higher taxes would kick in.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/03/2012|
[quote]will not restore tax rates to Clinton era.
Good thing, as that would have required a time machine.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/03/2012|
We have already screwed the index for social security; it completely omits rising prices of food or energy.
We are going to experience a wave of retiring seniors who will have to survive on social security because their pensions and 401ks have been looted over the last thirteen years.
This is plutocracy in action.
There's a reason Victor Hugo is thrown at us again.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/03/2012|
[quote]Good thing, as that would have required a time machine.
You're an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/03/2012|
If the repugs want to cut spending they should cut off all subsidies to private companies. Stop tax write offs for corporations
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/03/2012|
I love r32
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/03/2012|
Medicare at 60 would be really nice.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/03/2012|
Wit and Wisdom for R32. I like his wisdom.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/03/2012|
R24, we haven't gotten to the voting part yet.
When we do get there, the Republicans will fold because they're basically fucked. The rates are going up on the highest incomes. Nothing else will get through the Senate. Nothing else will get the President's signature. They don't have the votes to override a veto. They may be feverishly plotting to vote "Present" rather than "Yea" or "Nay" and various other dodges but we're going to get there.
If we go over the cliff, which is fine with me, it's just a stalling tactic. They will come back and vote for a tax break for everyone except the top two percent in January or February. No biggie. It's also not a problem if the President throws Republicans a bone by raising the income threshold.
President Obama is going to get most of what he wanted and all of what he needed. He's going to get a better deal than the one the Republicans shit-canned last time around. And that is how this whole thing is a win for the President. A really big win.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/03/2012|
Don't they have anything on McConnell, Graham, Boner, Cantor etc? No hidden mistress, underage boyfriends? Underpaid servants? Cruelly treated animals? Anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/04/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/04/2012|
Your point ?
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/04/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/04/2012|
What is your problem R51? Stupidity? Ignorance? Greed? Not enough prisons? Not enough work houses?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/04/2012|
Nonsense, R32, on eliminating the payroll tax. Had all the people who are getting Social Security had private investment accounts in 2008, there would be a lot more people in welfare lines because their retirement accounts would have been wiped out. Social Security is essential.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/04/2012|
Rerpublicans and corporations always threaten us with loss of jobs, if we don't do theings their way. They already fuck the working people over in every way possible. Maybe one day, workers will decide to unionize so that we have some power too. Strike and revolution two perfect words for the times that we live in.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/04/2012|
Power to the people!
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/04/2012|
Can we get some better trolls? Trolls like R51 are just too easy and too common. Is it really too much to ask for some subtlety?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/04/2012|
You'll have to pay more for subtlety, r57.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/04/2012|
The Heritage Foundation remains unimpressed:
[quote]the Republican counteroffer, to the extent it can be interpreted from the hazy details now available, is a dud. It is utterly unacceptable. It is bad policy, bad economics, and, if we may say so, highly questionable as a negotiating tactic.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/04/2012|
Wait, what? Rightwing Heritage Foundation?!!
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/04/2012|
R60, the Heritage Foundation is attacking it from the right; they think Boehner is giving up too much.
R61, that's bullshit. It's a favorite talking point among the right but it's false.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/04/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/04/2012|
To be more specific, R61, what you're talking about is a "budget resolution," something that has no force of law, is not signed by the President, and is not required for the government to operate. The Senate has, in fact, passed budgets (see, for example, the Budget Control Act of August, 2011, which was passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law by the President).
Additionally, the reason the Senate hasn't passed that non-binding budget resolution is that the Republican minority have repeatedly blocked it, making unprecedented use of the filibuster, or have used Senate rules to play silly political games. Rather than go along, Reid simply called them on it and moved on.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/04/2012|
R64, I'm not lying. Sorry.
[quote]Drop medicare eligibilty to 60? Oh, yeah, bankrupt medicare quicker. That's the ticket!!
Um, actually, it would likely have the opposite effect, as those who are 60 are healthier than those currently in the system, which means that their premiums would likely more than offset the additional cost of their care.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/04/2012|
R67, if you have citations that support that assertion, I'd love to see them. Most of what I've read indicate that it would actually improve matters. See the article at the link, for example.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/04/2012|
r67 prescription prices are the work of big pharma. let's pass some regulations on price gouging and reform the patent laws that reward greedy corporations that have no business making life-saving drugs.
to add to r32 's list: Medicare E for anyone who wants it regardless of age
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/04/2012|
Thank you to R65 for the informed, reasoned post. Hugs to you for thinking highly enough of us to add a little fact to the mix.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/04/2012|
R63 is a stupid fuck. We can put our money were we want it. We don't want it in defense, we want healthcare...you big damn dummy. Other countries do it, we can too.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/05/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/05/2012|