Boehner rejects Obama cuts-revenue proposal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2013 3:35 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t1_3
    1. Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face. The revenue in question:

    articleIt’s the $9 billion in new tax revenue by setting limits on “tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires” that Boehner is rejecting.
    ...
    One new tax hike the administration is seeking is a $3 million limit on the size of Individual Retirement Accounts. That would allow retirees to finance an annuity of $205,000 a year. It would raise $9 billion over 10 years. The administration’s budget also seeks to close a loophole allowing people to collect unemployment insurance and disability insurance simultaneously.


    How much money is chained CPI going to save?

    2. "House Speaker John Boehner immediately dismissed President Barack Obama’s package of significant new entitlement cuts tied to new tax revenues, calling them “no way to lead and move the country forward.""

    Of course Boehner is right. This is no way to lead.

    Comproimise-GOP-Style.gif


    The only enduring themes for Republicans:
    1. Whatever Obama does is wrong
    2. Go further right, because he'll tag along.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 05, 2013 3:38 PM GMT
    Hoping that, come election time again, the voters remember the antics of the GOP/TEA party congress persons and vote them O U T of office.


    icon_exclaim.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 05, 2013 8:09 PM GMT
    Republican tactics

    1. Whatever Obama does is wrong
    2. Go further right, because he'll tag along


    Number one rinse than repeat
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2013 9:33 PM GMT
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/05/another-moment-of-real-clarity-in-the-fiscal-debate/The curious thing about this is that Republicans previously said they wanted these things as proof that Obama is “serious” about cutting spending. In late December, a Boehner aide told Bloomberg News that the Speaker wanted Chained CPI more than other entitlement cuts, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, as the two were negotiation over a possible cuts-for-revenues swap to avert the fiscal cliff.

    And in late November, Mitch McConnell explicitly told the Wall Street Journal that if Obama offered entitlement changes such as Chained CPI and Medicare means testing, Republicans would consider new revenue. He actually said this: “those are the kinds of things that would get Republicans interested in new revenue.”

    Apparently none of this remains operative. And so we have a moment of clarity in this debate once again: There is literally nothing that Obama can offer Republicans — not even things they themselves have asked for — that would induce them to agree to a compromise on new revenues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 7:50 PM GMT
    OMG, just on cue: here are the Republicans backing off in that cartoon.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-obama-budget-too-little-too-late-89686.html?hp=l1Republicans argue that Obama’s decision to include “chained CPI” — a formula that slows the growth rate of Social Security benefits — doesn’t go far enough to overhaul entitlements and cut spending. They’re especially adamant because they raised taxes without cutting spending in the fiscal cliff deal. As far as they’re concerned, any budget compromise needs to include significant changes to entitlements, and far less than $9 billion in tax hikes supposedly in the president’s plan.


    How much does chained CPI save SS? Including interest saved, $340 billion dollars. Both the 340 and the 9 are over 10 years.
    http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/04/news/economy/chained-cpi-deficits/

    340:9 is apparently too much for the Republicans to stomach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    We desperately need a simplified tax code. No deductions, no exceptions.

    It would remove all the lobbying industry, the corruption, the perverse incentives, the economic distortion.

    Toward a Pareto Efficient Economy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 9:26 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidWe desperately need a simplified tax code. No deductions, no exceptions.

    It would remove all the lobbying industry, the corruption, the perverse incentives, the economic distortion.

    Toward a Pareto Efficient Economy!


    On this I agree. But a simplified tax code reduces opportunities for lobbying - which both parties thrive on. That being said, the Democrats often benefit in particular given their tendencies towards bigger government
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 10:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidObama already got his tax hike on "the rich" on January 1.

    No more tax hikes, time for spending cuts.


    Lol, here's your tax hike:

    OPOne new tax hike the administration is seeking is a $3 million limit on the size of Individual Retirement Accounts. That would allow retirees to finance an annuity of $205,000 a year. It would raise $9 billion over 10 years. The administration’s budget also seeks to close a loophole allowing people to collect unemployment insurance and disability insurance simultaneously.

    ”This will crack down on the practice of double dipping and claiming both unemployment benefits, which require people to show they’re looking for work, and disability benefits, which require them to show they are unable to work, saving money from duplicative payments,” the official said.


    I don't know about you, but I personally don't know anybody who has more than a $3 million IRA. I don't walk in those elite circles like Romney.

    Again, this shows that there is no ratio of cuts vs. new revenue that the Republicans will accept, even when it's definitively lopsided towards the former.

    And, who knew that SB would like to protect people who double dip both EB and DB? Such a socialist.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 10:39 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    riddler78 said
    TigerTim saidWe desperately need a simplified tax code. No deductions, no exceptions.

    It would remove all the lobbying industry, the corruption, the perverse incentives, the economic distortion.

    Toward a Pareto Efficient Economy!


    On this I agree. But a simplified tax code reduces opportunities for lobbying - which both parties thrive on. That being said, the Democrats often benefit in particular given their tendencies towards bigger government

    Lies, lies, and more lies. Do you even know what truth is anymore? icon_rolleyes.gif

    "Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?"
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg


    Talk about a lie. You do realize that in Bush's last year that's when the stimulus started and spending increased substantially? How can you claim that increases from this rather high water mark are marginal suggesting that Obama was one of the "smallest government spenders"? Do *you* know what the truth is anymore?

    Here's the full rebuttal:
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-obama-spending-binge

    To put it more clearly in pictures, here:
    obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2013 10:49 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 said
    riddler78 said
    TigerTim saidWe desperately need a simplified tax code. No deductions, no exceptions.

    It would remove all the lobbying industry, the corruption, the perverse incentives, the economic distortion.

    Toward a Pareto Efficient Economy!


    On this I agree. But a simplified tax code reduces opportunities for lobbying - which both parties thrive on. That being said, the Democrats often benefit in particular given their tendencies towards bigger government

    Lies, lies, and more lies. Do you even know what truth is anymore? icon_rolleyes.gif

    "Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?"
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg


    Talk about a lie. You do realize that in Bush's last year that's when the stimulus started and spending increased substantially? How can you claim that increases from this rather high water mark are marginal suggesting that Obama was one of the "smallest government spenders"? Do *you* know what the truth is anymore?

    Here's the full rebuttal:
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-obama-spending-binge

    To put it more clearly in pictures, here:
    obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg

    I think I'll go with Forbes. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sorry you're too lazy to reason given the updated data - (in pictures no less!), but I'll let others judge for themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 07, 2013 12:27 PM GMT
    You know what?
    You people make me laugh
    Where do you think the money that was spent on the Illegal Bush war The Tax Cuts for the wealthy that was 'sposed to help the economy .... Yeah RIGHT
    Where do you think that money went?
    It's still on the tab boys
    and it's collecting interest upon interest upon interest


    So when you're like calling for More and more cuts to be made?
    Just remember you cutting Peter to pay .... to cover for a freakin war criminal's ass




    1.1.jpg