Bite the Bullet

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

Hey Super Committee, this is too politically hot for my reelection campaign.  I've been busy lying to my Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) base that we can solve the deficit by raising taxes on the super rich by 2% and by tinkering with the corporate tax code.  I know that only a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, neanderthal would actually believe that, but those are my people.  Do this for me.  I am incapable of making a difficult decision.

P.S. I have every intent of demagoguing your ass with this.  Enjoy the undercarriage of the bus as I run you over.  K thx, B.O.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-tells-super-committee-to-bite-the-bullet/

What a leader!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Did he also ask the Dems to "bite the bullet" on entitlement reform?

[LickNeckey]

“The whole idea of the sequester was to make sure that both sides felt obligated to move off rigid positions and do what was required to help the country. Since that time, they’ve had a lot of conversations but it feels as if people continue to try to stick with their rigid positions rather than solve the problem,”

he is telling both sides to work together and find compromise.  This would come in the form of entitlement reform and closing tax loopholes/raising taxes on the wealthiest.  Moves that would reduce spending while increasing revenues.

Oh and FSD wtf does this even mean "Do this for me.  I am incapable of making a difficult decision."

what decision can the President make to answer this question?  why haven't republicans made this simple difficult decision to fix deficit spending?   
god forbid we attempt to get both sides together to find a long term solution

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

what decision can the President make to answer this question?  why haven't republicans made this simple difficult decision to fix deficit spending?  
god forbid we attempt to get both sides together to find a long term solution

 

I think the President could take a stand, rather than hiding behind a committee, and announce significant entitlement reforms, which anybody who can actually do math understands is the greatest threat to our fiscal situation. Instead, he spends his time banging the class warfare drum of "the rich need to pay their fair share and, oh, by the way, its their fault for this crummy economy."

As for your question "why haven' republicans made the simple difficult decision to fix deficit spending," you've got to be kidding me. Did you see the House budget? The Ryan plan? It is the Democratic Senate, and the previosuly-Dem controlled House, which failed to pass a budget AT ALL. President Obama's most recent proposed budget (rejected by the Senate 97-0) actually INCREASED spending. You are delusional. The Republicans are at least trying to address entitlement reform, while the Democrats continue to play their class warfare politics, releasing ads showing Paul Ryan wheeling grandma off a cliff, etc.

[LickNeckey]

then why didn't Bush fix it? did he not have republican majorities in both houses?   

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

then why didn't Bush fix it? did he not have republican majorities in both houses?   

You're dodging. Pointing backward doesn't fix the problem, though, of course Republicans have been guilty of profligate pork and spending, and did not make serious efforts to fix entitlements (because they were terrified of the "third rail") in the past.

What matters is what the two parties are presently doing. At least some Republicans are now willing to tackle these issues. The Democrats would rather play politics.

[LickNeckey]

both sides are playing politics is my point.

isn't a combination of limited tax increases and decreases in entitlements the best course?

Reps say no tax increases Dems say hold off on the entitlements

both sides need to compromise.  hence the super committee

is it not playing politics to demand that these changes only come through cuts.  don't we have a super committee because of this game?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

both sides are playing politics is my point.

isn't a combination of limited tax increases and decreases in entitlements the best course?

Reps say no tax increases Dems say hold off on the entitlements

both sides need to compromise.  hence the super committee

That is not true - Republicans have offered tax increases in both the Super Sommittee and in the previous debt reduction negotiations with President Obama - but you'll be forgiven for not knowing this because it was not widely reported. Read this, and this.

Trust me, the Republicans are the adults at the table, at least on this issue.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

both sides are playing politics is my point.

isn't a combination of limited tax increases and decreases in entitlements the best course?

Reps say no tax increases Dems say hold off on the entitlements

both sides need to compromise.  hence the super committee

That is not true - Republicans have offered tax increases in both the Super Sommittee and in the previous debt reduction negotiations with President Obama - but you'll be forgiven for not knowing this because it was not widely reported. You can google it, but I'll give you some links when I have time. Trust me, the Republicans are the adults at the table, at least on this issue.

This, super committee is a red herring for B.O. to hide behind.  Obama already created Bowles-Simpson to do the exact same thing.  Was too chicken crap to implement and demagogued it.  Ryan proposed a deficit plan, Obama demagogued.  Obama wouldn't take any real cuts in the debt ceiling crisis, lied about offering some up, lied more, then compromised this Super Committee to hide behind with no intent to follow the recommendations


The only one proposing anything that resembles a serious plan are the repubs.  The dems take then take the repub plan and run to the the bully pulpit (Obama) to lie to everyone about what it is, say the repubs are only interested in protecting the 1%, and that everyone needs to pay their "fair share" and then offer up some platitudes.

Licky - What is the Dems budget plan?  Raise the highest bracket 2% and change oil depreciation?  That doesn't solve this years deficit.  Remember when the dems had super majority in senate and large majority in the house, extended bush tax cuts and raised the estate tax exemption?

If you're so interested in a level headed discussion, you need to acknowledge the your party is fully of crap (level headedly speaking)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This, super committee is a red herring for B.O. to hide behind.  Obama already created Bowles-Simpson to do the exact same thing.  Was too chicken crap to implement and demagogued it.  Ryan proposed a deficit plan, Obama demagogued.  Obama wouldn't take any real cuts in the debt ceiling crisis, lied about offering some up, lied more, then compromised this Super Committee to hide behind with no intent to follow the recommendations

Correct. This all could have been avoided if Obama had had the courage, and desire, to adopt the recommendations of his own commission.

Moreover, lets not forget that any "revenue increases," if they actually materialize from raising taxes and closing loopholes (that is not at all assured) will be largely symbolic. We can't tax ourselves out of this hole. Not even half way.

[husserl]

Republican officials have said the offer made by Toomey envisions an overhaul that would drop the top tax rate on personal income to 28 percent from the current 35 and shave or eliminate some itemized deductions that are commonly used. The top corporate rate would also fall.
The result would be an estimated $250 billion in additional revenue over a decade, they estimate.

[LickNeckey]

sounds like an interesting proposition that should be considered.

however 250 billion over 10 years does little to address the situation at hand.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

sounds like an interesting proposition that should be considered.

however 250 billion over 10 years does little to address the situation at hand.

I wonder if the dems will make it a part of their proposal    

[husserl]

sounds like an interesting proposition that should be considered.

The only interesting thing about it is that it's being spun as a compromise by "the adults in the room".

It uses savings from closing tax loopholes and narrowing other tax expenditures mainly to set tax rates permanently at levels well below those of President Bush’s tax cuts, and to make permanent both the highly preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income under the Bush tax cuts and the temporary hollowing out of the estate tax for estates of the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans that Congress enacted in late 2010.  Consequently, the proposal seems designed to make only a modest revenue contribution toward deficit reduction and then to take revenues off the table for the larger rounds of deficit reduction that must follow.  Moreover, even while yielding modest savings, the revenue component would make the package less balanced by conferring large new tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans while forcing low- and middle-income Americans to bear most of the plan’s budget cuts as well as its tax increases.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3612

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

sounds like an interesting proposition that should be considered.

The only interesting thing about it is that it's being spun as a compromise by "the adults in the room".

It uses savings from closing tax loopholes and narrowing other tax expenditures mainly to set tax rates permanently at levels well below those of President Bush’s tax cuts, and to make permanent both the highly preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income under the Bush tax cuts and the temporary hollowing out of the estate tax for estates of the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans that Congress enacted in late 2010.  Consequently, the proposal seems designed to make only a modest revenue contribution toward deficit reduction and then to take revenues off the table for the larger rounds of deficit reduction that must follow.  Moreover, even while yielding modest savings, the revenue component would make the package less balanced by conferring large new tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans while forcing low- and middle-income Americans to bear most of the plan’s budget cuts as well as its tax increases.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3612

Yes, this is what's known as "tax reform." Simplifying the tax code by reducing marginal rate while at the same time eliminating deductions and loopholes, and overall broadening the base. The CBO has "static scored" it as raising over $250 billion over 10 years. The real number, if these reforms help the economy rebound, will be higher.