ABQCOWBOY Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Gang of Six Back Together - Trying to Score Debt Reduction Deal by Trish Turner | July 19, 2011 With growing concern that debt negotiations ahead of a debt ceiling increase are not likely to result in a large enough deficit decrease to stave off calamitous consequences in the markets, a bipartisan group of more than 50 senators gathered Tuesday morning for more than an hour to see if they could embrace a $3.7 trillion deficit reduction plan ahead of the Treasury-assigned August 2 default deadline To read more of this article, click this link: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/19/gang-six-back-together-trying-score-debt-reduction-deal ---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 12:37 PM ---------- Obama praises 'Gang of Six' plan By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 7/19/11 2:02 PM EDT President Barack Obama said Tuesday that the proposal put forward earlier in the day by “Gang of Six,” a group of Republican and Democratic senators, is “a very significant step” that represents “the potential for bipartisan consensus” on resolving the impasse over cutting the deficit and raising the debt ceiling. To read more of this article, click on this link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues But news of the Gang of Six plan and its proposed $3.75 trillion in deficit cuts sent 30-year bond prices sharply higher and stocks to the day’s highs http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/18/obama-threatens-to-veto-republican-budget-plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenuesBut news of the Gang of Six plan and its proposed $3.75 trillion in deficit cuts sent 30-year bond prices sharply higher and stocks to the day’s highs http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/18/obama-threatens-to-veto-republican-budget-plan Now the question is if this plan will be able to overcome both the Tea Party-laden House and a filibuster in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Now the question is if this plan will be able to overcome both the Tea Party-laden House and a filibuster in the Senate. Maybe they could table the pointless vote they are planning for tonight and try and get this passed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Maybe they could table the pointless vote they are planning for tonight and try and get this passed Why is the "cut, cap and balance" vote pointless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I just watched a simple but seemingly well-done outline of their efforts and was pretty pleased at this admittedly early point in learning what they've presented. It came off as touching the scared cows on both sides, but still reasonably enough to be saleable while claiming a 4 trillion $ deficit shift. Like I say, the plan still needs to be parsed and challenged to make sure it isn't smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Jumbo moses eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Glad to hear of this. Hopefully, we can get this done in a mature, intelligent, productive manner. Tired of the spoiled brats of both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 good, now pass it. Now that we know this is humanly possible, make 6 variations of this and get the version that can get the votes. Same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Jumbo moses eh? It relates to something said here: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349439-Operation-Fast-and-Furious-Project-Gunrunner&p=8388729#post8388729 ---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 04:59 PM ---------- BTW, per these negotiatians for instance, believe it or not there's still a fair amount I like about Obama, given his greenhorn factor. But then ther's some stuff I like about Newt Gingrich. I'm usually an outlier in a number of studies. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It relates to something said here: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349439-Operation-Fast-and-Furious-Project-Gunrunner&p=8388729#post8388729[ : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Why is the "cut, cap and balance" vote pointless? Because its entire purpose is not to pass, but to give those on the far-right political cover in 2012. Its not going anywhere. Everyone knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Because its entire purpose is not to pass, but to give those on the far-right political cover in 2012. Its not going anywhere. Everyone knows that. What he said bascially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Because its entire purpose is not to pass, but to give those on the far-right political cover in 2012. Its not going anywhere. Everyone knows that. But it isnt going anywhere because the dems do not want to sign off on what basically amounts to a balanced budget amendment. Why are the dems so opposed to it? What about it do you not agree with? And is it not funny that "everyone knows" that it isnt going anywhere because the dems are opposed to living within our means. Republicans are just as bad at spending but to bash the "far right" for trying to get the right thing for the country done is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But it isnt going anywhere because the dems do not want to sign off on what basically amounts to a balanced budget amendment. Why are the dems so opposed to it? What about it do you not agree with? And is it not funny that "everyone knows" that it isnt going anywhere because the dems are opposed to living within our means. Republicans are just as bad at spending but to bash the "far right" for trying to get the right thing for the country done is crazy. Where is the revenue element in the bill? What happens in the event of a war or natural emergency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Where is the revenue element in the bill?What happens in the event of a war or natural emergency? Revenue element as in an increase in taxes? As far as the war or emergency question, I am not sure. In the grand scheme of things (balancing our budget and getting our financial house in order) I think that would be easy to work out. Is that the hold up for you or the dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Revenue element as in an increase in taxes? As far as the war or emergency question, I am not sure. In the grand scheme of things (balancing our budget and getting our financial house in order) I think that would be easy to work out. Is that the hold up for you or the dems? No it is a reality that everyone is talking about But experts left, right and center warn that however appealing the idea may sound, it's highly impractical in reality. And it would make economic crises such as the one in 2008 much worse by tying the government's hands when intervention is needed most. Five Nobel Prize-winning economists joined forces Tuesday to send a letter to congressional leaders warning against adopting a balanced-budget amendment. "A balanced-budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions. In economic downturns, tax revenues fall and some outlays, such as unemployment benefits, rise. These so-called built-in stabilizers increase the deficit but limit declines of after-tax income and purchasing power," economists Kenneth Arrow, Peter Diamond, William Sharpe, Eric Maskin and Robert Solow wrote. "To keep the budget balanced every year would aggravate recessions." Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/19/2321516/experts-question-wisdom-of-balanced.html#ixzz1SbxSjYCJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Pretty amazing that even with roughly 70% of american's saying they agree with raising taxes on top 2% 58 - 32% agreeing with Obama compared to Republicans Obama still is too timid to really push hard on letting Bush era tax cuts expire. The powers that be really don't want to let go of those tax cuts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Obama still is too timid to really push hard on letting Bush era tax cuts expire. If either side was serious about cutting debt and not just reducing future deficits they would let all the tax cuts expire in 2013 and cut 4 trillion spending as well over 10 years. Ultimately this gang of 6 plan won't really reduce the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Pretty amazing that even with roughly 70% of american's saying they agree with raising taxes on top 2%58 - 32% agreeing with Obama compared to Republicans Obama still is too timid to really push hard on letting Bush era tax cuts expire. The powers that be really don't want to let go of those tax cuts.... It seems that everyone is all for raising taxes on the rich. 47% of households currently pay NO federal income taxes (all of which make less than $100k/year) and some of those even GET money back. When it comes up it is always stated that the rich need to pay "their fair share". If they already pay most of the taxes to pay for services used by the ones that pay nothing, what is their "fair share"? I really need someone to explain that fair share deal and provide a definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It seems that everyone is all for raising taxes on the rich. 47% of households currently pay NO federal income taxes (all of which make less than $100k/year) and some of those even GET money back. When it comes up it is always stated that the rich need to pay "their fair share". If they already pay most of the taxes to pay for services used by the ones that pay nothing, what is their "fair share"? I really need someone to explain that fair share deal and provide a definition. They pay most of the taxes because they control the majority of the wealth and they profit off of those people on the bottom in other ways. It's not asking a lot to go back to Clinton era rates. The notion of giving breaks to the wealthy in an attempt to create jobs has proven untrue, apparently when you give rich people tax breaks, they just keep it and get richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It seems that everyone is all for raising taxes on the rich. 47% of households currently pay NO federal income taxes (all of which make less than $100k/year) and some of those even GET money back. When it comes up it is always stated that the rich need to pay "their fair share". If they already pay most of the taxes to pay for services used by the ones that pay nothing, what is their "fair share"? I really need someone to explain that fair share deal and provide a definition. Oh God, here we go again.... Come up with something that can overcome this chart, then we'll talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But it isnt going anywhere because the dems do not want to sign off on what basically amounts to a balanced budget amendment. Why are the dems so opposed to it? What about it do you not agree with? And is it not funny that "everyone knows" that it isnt going anywhere because the dems are opposed to living within our means. Republicans are just as bad at spending but to bash the "far right" for trying to get the right thing for the country done is crazy. It's going nowhere because it is a piece of **** bill that attempts to force an unpopular cuts only budget approach and practically force the extremely unpopular Ryan plan into effect. In addition, many economists believe it would be a death blow to our fragile economy and is completely unrealistic. The American public wants a mixed approach. Increases in revenue and spending cuts. No one wants cut, cap and balance except the fringe, who also believe the Deptartment of Education, EPA. Fed Reserve, etc should all be abolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Oh God, here we go again....Come up with something that can overcome this chart, then we'll talk. Scroll down to page 19. Top 10% of earners at almost 64%. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But it isnt going anywhere because the dems do not want to sign off on what basically amounts to a balanced budget amendment. Why are the dems so opposed to it? What about it do you not agree with? And is it not funny that "everyone knows" that it isnt going anywhere because the dems are opposed to living within our means. Republicans are just as bad at spending but to bash the "far right" for trying to get the right thing for the country done is crazy. No, it's not crazy. What's crazy is the proposed amendment. Equally crazy is the idea that it's "the right thing for the country." I'll duplicate some things and add some things vs. previous posts but here are some reasons why. 1. It's political cover and nothing more. Argue if you like but that's what it is. It has zero chance to pass, thank God, and everyone who voted for it knows that. Political symbolism, a paper shield to hide behind later. That's it. 2. This "balanced budget" amendment, as I've read what has been reported, is pretty ridiculous. It can be suspended by Congress in a variety of situations, not just for war, making it a pretty goofy Amendment. You could achieve a similar effect by adopting a strict "Zero-Deficit Budgets Only" policy for the GOP-led House. Stick to it no matter what, just as if it were an Amendment but without the inconvenience of those pesky Dems ruining your good thing, and effectively you have bound the Senate and White House to exactly the same policy. The value of an Amendment would arguably be that future administrations and Congresses would be bound by it too. And that would be relevant, if not for the fact that your Amendment can already be suspended by future Congresses. Yeah, so... hmm. 3. We heard from the GOP -- endlessly, hilariously -- during the health care debate: "This is all going too fast and we need to slow it down." That BILL was discussed publicly and acutely for months, getting edited and revised like mad throughout the process, with people yelling and screaming and the GOP heckling the President and drumming up fears of socialist takeovers, blah blah blah. Now, many of the same guys (and some new goofballs) are trying to rush Congress's joint proposal of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT through as a binding part of any debt ceiling deal. And they're trying to do the entire thing in what, less than two weeks? Bwak! This is not a serious effort -- not even to the people in the House who are pretending to take it seriously. 4.There's really no consensus that a balanced budget is the best way to proceed for the nation's long-term health. "Living within our means" is not mutually exclusive of "running a modest and controllable deficit." I'd actually be interested in a "modest and controllable deficit" amendment, at least in concept. Lots of wiggle room in that general description, but at least it recognizes that the proper position of the knob isn't magically defined as zero -- even during times of prosperity and peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.