John Boehner: Democrats' Tax Bill Is 'Chicken Crap'

[Larry]

BTW,

While looking for some other data, a few days ago, I came across this Wiki page, about the proposed 2010 budget. Had a graphic on the page that really jumped out, at me, because it differed from some impressions I had about the government's finances. Thought some other people might enjoy looking at things the way this graph presents them, too.

I'll also point out that, relative to this page's topic, that those predictions assume that none of the Bush tax cuts are extended. Extending those tax cuts will make the revenue side of this graph, smaller.

[SnyderShrugged]

Larry, that makes a great case for cutting medicare/medicaid

[Burgold]

Larry, that makes a great case for cutting medicare/medicaid

or at least for cutting some of that nefarious other. Boy, does Dept. of Defense stick out as well... though I would have put it below the line because some DOD spending is mandatory.

[PeterMP]

Or raising reciepts, or cutting social security

[alexey]

The whole civilized world is basically ****ed because of an ever-increasing ****load of old people in need of expensive medical treatment.

[NavyDave]

People can not be this ignorant. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S money!!!

A TAX Cut means the money stays in your pocket a Tax Hike means the Government takes money from you.

There is nothing for them to pay back unless you are talking about the Rich like GE, who were bought err bailed out by the Obama Admin out via the Fed. (I'm guessing for them to get on board for Cap and Trade)

And how could the GOP block anything when the Dems had both houses since 2007 and large Majorities after Obama became POTUS

Its time to reign in spending as well as gasp entitlements for Federal and State Workers.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 10:38 AM ----------

All spending should be cut Military as well and seriously look into the fraud waste and abuse across the board.

[Larry]

or at least for cutting some of that nefarious other. Boy, does Dept. of Defense stick out as well... though I would have put it below the line because some DOD spending is mandatory.

I suspect that a differnt way of breaking things down, rather than "mandatory"/"discretionary", would be "budgeted" / "unbudgeted".

The distinction is that when the government spends money on an aircraft carrier, it takes the form of "Mr. Speaker, I propose that we allocate umpty billion dollars to build an aircraft carrier". The government passes a bill which says "we're going to spend X dollars on Y purpose."

In the case of other spending, though, the way it works is that the government passes a law, that says "any person who gets laid off from his job, shall receive X dollars".

In that case, there is no budgeted amount. If nobody gets laid off, then the government spends zero dollars. If everybody in the country gets laid off, then we're spending huge amounts of money.

In the case of the former, it takes a specific allocation, a specific spending bill, every year, to keep spending the money. If Congress fails to specifically pass a bill, spending more money, this year, then that money doesn't get spent this year.

In the latter, that money's gonna get spent, next year, unless Congress specifically changes the law to reduce it.

----------

And SS, I agree. The 800 lb gorilla in the budget room is spending on Medicare/Medicaid. And I don't think it's possible, politically, to cut it.

(I'll also point out: Look at that graph. If we completely eliminated Medicare and Medicaid, we'd still be in deficit..)

The best that can be realistically hoped for, is some way to slow the growth of Medicare/Medicaid. (And, due to demographics, even that is gonna be tough.)

That's why I think that this Congress actually made two proposals that, to me, deserve the trophy for The Most Fiscally Conservative Thing Congress Has Done In My Lifetime.

They proposed creating two independent groups, one assigned to reducing the growth of Medicare/Medicaid, and one assigned to reducing the deficit. Both groups would submit an annual package of proposals to Congress, and Congress would be required to hold a straight, yes-no vote on the proposed package, with no amendments permitted.

I don't see these problems being solved any other way.

(The Republican Party unanimously filibustered both proposals.)

[The 12th Commandment]

Its time to reign in spending as well as gasp entitlements for Federal and State Workers.

What if they ****ed with your military pension? Would be happy with that? When I went to work for the state/county it was with an agreement in place as to retirement. Are you suggesting they should now short me? Or are you just putting this forward from now on?

[nonniey]

Speaking of spending I noticed one of the reasons Sen Baucus is coming out in opposition to the Budget commission proposal is due to the cuts in Social Security benefits. Now these cuts entail raising the age of eligibility to 69. Here is the crux, the proposal is to raise the age in 2075. 2075! and the Senator is balking??? Bottomline if even that is an issue, our congress is not going to be able to do anything to get any type of spending under control. :doh:

[SnyderShrugged]

How about we just raise the taxes on the companies that benefited from the Fed slipping them bailout money on the sly?

heck just McDonald, Harley Davidson, BOA, Meryl Lynch and Citi should cover quite a bit of the gap alone.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 11:14 AM ----------

or at least for cutting some of that nefarious other. Boy, does Dept. of Defense stick out as well... though I would have put it below the line because some DOD spending is mandatory.

Take the entire budget back to 1998 levels and all starts to get better. There should be no area left untouched.

[aREDSKIN]

The spending side need serious attention and how come a line item veto is not on the table??

[Predicto]

I am sure the Dems will cave and give the tax cuts to the over $250,000. Sad.

Just out of curiosity, are you in that group?

I am, and Duckus is right. It's sad.

[DjTj]

The spending side need serious attention and how come a line item veto is not on the table??

The line-item veto was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

And Obama actually did propose a modified line-item veto earlier this year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403836.html

[Beans]

The spending side need serious attention and how come a line item veto is not on the table??

John Boehner is chicken crap. Both sides need serious attention. So, if we don't increase revenue, how the freaking hell is this country ever going to move back to the black? Especially with parasitic baby boomers robbing their grandchildren. It really isn't that complicated. The solutions are simple, yet always painful for someone, hence, gridlock.

Normally I am a no new taxes kind of guy, but this is getting ridiculous. Rich folk are acting like the government is trying to take their first born...Poor guys, only a month on the French Riviera instead of six weeks, or your daughter might have to drive a Honda CRV instead of a Landcruiser...

[aREDSKIN]

The line-item veto was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

And Obama actually did propose a modified line-item veto earlier this year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403836.html

Thanks. I can't believe I missed that one. :notworthy

[bird_1972]

...if we don't increase revenue, how the freaking hell is this country ever going to move back to the black?

I agree. We need both in order to get our house in order.

Rich folk are acting like the government is trying to take their first born...

We are a nation of entitled, lazy people. Especially the rich - whatever happened to austerity? Are we really so greedy that we insist on grabbing as much as we can even if it destroys the fabric of our nation?

[Wrong Direction]

This thread is just sad. Do people ever think for themselves? Do people ever study the effects of tax cuts and tax hikes? Do you ever wonder how rich people only pay 21% taxes instead of 36%? Do you even consider the effects of financial planning relative to taxes, and the huge incentive to dodge taxes built into our vast and complicated tax code. Here's a fact, even more people will divert their income to lower tax areas if they raise the income taxes. A simple tax hike on individual income will only serve to take more money out of individual's pockets, and put it into other lower tax areas. This is good if you make all of your income in stocks, but it's bad if you want more people hired and a larger consumer base. If Democrats were honest about raising revenues, they'd offer broad and more simple tax reform, creating tax parity and eliminating write-offs. But they don't...I wonder why?

Does anyone in this thread really think that only one party is playing political games here? Does anyone dispute that, if put to a straight vote even with the current congress, some extension on all of the tax cuts would have passed, and any tax hike would have failed?

I hate to tell you all, but this real debate (e.g., what's best for the country) isn't about what tax rates should be. It's about the economy. Deficits are worse because the economy sucks. Tax receipts are down, and will continue to be down until the economy improves. Outlays in welfare programs are way up, and will continue to be way up, until the economy improves. We obviously need spending reform as well. Increased tax rates will not fix the deficit. Only improving the economy will even begin to do that.

Raising tax rates on anyone who hires right now is just stupid. I don't care what they make. Unless/until the federal government can talk to every rich person and figure out whether they intend to use their money to hire, any tax hike on the "rich" is a tax cut on a lot of people who would otherwise use that money to hire.

The dual economic effects of health reform and the increased tax rates are the primary reasons for this sustained terrible recession. The net effect of each is to take a ton of money out of the hands of people who hire, and with respect to health reform, also out of the hands of a ton of consumers.

[NavyDave]

What if they ****ed with your military pension? Would be happy with that? When I went to work for the state/county it was with an agreement in place as to retirement. Are you suggesting they should now short me? Or are you just putting this forward from now on?

Well son my little pittance of a retirement is not something to brag about. I've been working since I retired from the military and probably will until I look into the mirror and tell myself either its time for that gold watch or "you're fired." And I don't plan on doing that until either Danny wins a superbowl as owner of the Redskins or Hell freezes over. (I still have Gortex thermal Gear)

To be realistic there are 4 states California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey because of their ridiculous high retirement packages (6 digit incomes after working i a lot of cases) for government Union workers are going to either have to bite the bullet and reduce the amount owed or they are going to expect the rest of the States to not be selfish because they are too big to fail and bail them out.

[Predicto]

lost of stuff supporting trickle down economics combined with claims that tax HIKES have cause the recession.

I'm not convinced.

[Larry]

I'm not convinced.

Especially since this recession began over a year before either of the things he's trying to blame, existed.

[Wrong Direction]

I'm not convinced.

Convincing counterpoints.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 02:40 PM ----------

Especially since this recession began over a year before either of the things he's trying to blame, existed.

And historically, how long have recessions lasted? How bad has unemployment become during most of these recessions?

The left can ignore that rich people are the ones hiring all they want. They can ignore financial considerations of businesses. They can pretend that rich people do nothing with their vast wealth but sit on it. They can act like it's good policy to give the government $100 for every $50 worth of resulting productivity.

I'm going to tell you something that Obama knows, but doesn't openly discuss. Both tax hikes and health reform will result in a rebasing of American long term economic expectations with respect to major tangibles...higher "average" unemployment and lower GDP growth in particular. This is something he's willing to accept as a cost for what he considers absolutely paramount (healthcare for all).

[The 12th Commandment]

Well son my little pittance of a retirement is not something to brag about. I've been working since I retired from the military and probably will until I look into the mirror and tell myself either its time for that gold watch or "you're fired." And I don't plan on doing that until either Danny wins a superbowl as owner of the Redskins or Hell freezes over. (I still have Gortex thermal Gear)

To be realistic there are 4 states California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey because of their ridiculous high retirement packages (6 digit incomes after working i a lot of cases) for government Union workers are going to either have to bite the bullet and reduce the amount owed or they are going to expect the rest of the States to not be selfish because they are too big to fail and bail them out.

Nor is mine, but I had planned to work a lot longer before that option was taken away from me, so it's even less than the pittance it would have been had I worked out my years. They start taking anything away from me and I suddenly become a ward of the state. Hell, I might figure out which crime would give me the most satisfaction and make sure my medical needs are taken care of in a controlled setting. At a much higher rate I'm sure. That said, I think the only union our pension fund has to deal with is the janitors (barely 5 figures) and over all it isn't in as a bad a shape as some of those in more densely populated areas. It's not doing good though. I'm more than a little worried specially with Madam Martinez taking her queues from Sara. Not likely to see much compassion as she's already said she's going to take away my medical MJ. Mmmmm, opiate addiction here I come (again). :doh:

[Hubbs]

The spending side need serious attention and how come a line item veto is not on the table??

There are several amendments, including Congressional term limits, that should be on the table.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Chicken Crap!

I just like saying that.

[NoCalMike]

The recession was a foregone conclusion once Reaganomics were implimented 30 years ago. The only question was, when would the bubble finally pop.

Reaganomics was basically the first major push towards redistribution of the wealth towards the top 1%. This is why the gap between the richest and poorest has not only rised but seemingly at a more rapid pace.

The side effect of taking more income and resources from the middle-class was what we call The credit bubble. Corporate America convinced average working folks that it was ok that their wages were lower, and that it was perfectly fine that CEO pay went from 30 times their average worker's salary to over 300 times that much in a matter of a decade or so, because hey, who needs income when we can all just go out and get 10 credit cards to charge everything to.

Of course as this cycle continued, and wages became more depressed and the wealth hoarding continued, credit card use went from merely the "extras" in life, to having to use them to merely pay the rent, car payment, food etc......Your life was basically charged onto that piece of plastic. And then came the inflated interest rates, and unregulated power of the banks and credit card companies to do whatever they wanted to maximize profits.

Sudden when people's min payments went from $30 to $300, the bubble slowly started to pop. Add in the housing bubble pop....and yeah you get the picture.

Ever since Reagan, every President since has partially embraced Reaganomics. Some more gung-ho like Bush/Bush II, some had to be beaten into submission, like Clinton. Although Clinton raised taxes a mere 3% on the top earners, he did a lot of other questionable things like NAFTA, Free Trade, and telecommunications act, all that would never be confused as "liberal policy"

Now, even Obama, who some on this board are soo convinced is a commie or a socialist, seems primed and ready to roll over and cut taxes on the wealthy, despite the further it will plunge the country into debt, and the evidence of the last 30 years that it does nothing to create jobs, and only encourages more wealth hoarding.

Obama is just as much a corporatist as Clinton was. At least that is how he is governing.