I just heard this on Hannity, who can fact check it?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by seedman55

Standing, or should i say squatting, hell if i know, I'm good but not that good, to hit one hoppin.....lol

this day in age, optics take the skill out of long range shooting

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Ending the last decade's tax cuts for all income groups, not just the affluent, would raise several times the amount of revenue that can be realized by restricting tax increases to higher income households.

But, of course, that's not exactly a political winner!

At the time of the Bush tax cuts my ex-husband and myself gave ourselves small paycheck. It netted out to $545 each a week. I remember when the tax cuts went through. All we saved was about $6 per week. Big whoopie do. That's a household saving of less than $50 per month. (I'm not sure what the tax difference is now because I take my paycheck out of my company now at a gross of $500 per week.) That's literally nothing, but if you add $50 per month over the entire middle class, that's a ton of money weekly the federal government could use. I thought the Bush tax cuts were stupid then, and I still do now.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by seedman55

Standing, or should i say squatting, hell if i know, I'm good but not that good, to hit one hoppin.....lol

I meant the flea, not you!

[fetishfreak]

Here's a novel idea. Let's increase revenue by allowing all the provisions set to expire this year to expire. This would include the tax rates for the wealthy and all others being raised. In addition it would cause the 99 weeks of unemployment payments to expire amongst some other things. According to the CBO this will bring the deficit down to 3.5% of GDP by 2015.

Of course this is not enough. If we continue to spend more than what we take in then we will not be able to sustain spending and debt will continue to grow.

Since we are going back to 2003 for tax rates lets go back to 2003 for spending rates as adjusted for inflation. All spending rates will be as they were in 2003 with the exception of the DOD which should return to prewar spending levels. This would force the withdrawal of troops from warzones where no threat to the United States exists.

Spending levels for all government programs should be capped at those levels until such time as a balanced budget amendment is passed and a budget is passed which should include a minimum of 10% of all federal income going to service the debt until such time as it is payed off. This 10% can be used to fight a war if the security of the US is threatened, (this does not include a president getting his panties in a bunch since daddy's war did not go as well as he thinks he can do.)

It would take a long time to pay off the debt at this rate but at least we would not add further to the debt.

I also think government employees who work in programs known to have fraud and waste should be rewarded for efficiency and performance with tax incentives. For example... If you perform medicare claims processing and are able to process the most claims for your district with the least errors then you are rewarded with a tiered tax credit which enables you to reduce your federal taxes. Since this is not a reward offered by the agency you work for it would not affect there budget and there will be less resistance to giving it. Of course it would have to be limited to prevent agencies from just giving one to everyone who works for them.

This is all based on the speculation that no government programs will be eliminated. If that were the case the above plan would have to change.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by CJ7

The bills were written that way because the Republicans had only the slimmest of Senate majorities — in fact, Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast a tie-breaking vote to pass the 2003 bill. To avoid a Democratic filibuster, the cuts were rolled into a so-called budget reconciliation measure, which cannot be filibustered. (It is the mechanism President Obama and the Democrats used to pass health care reform.)
But under Senate rules, reconciliation cannot be used for any bill that would add to the federal deficit after 10 years. The “sunset’' provision that called for the measures to expire in 2010 meant that the deficit was calculated as if the higher tax rates were back in place for succeeding years, a step Democrats criticized as camouflaging the bill’s true cost.


you loook up reconciliation measure, then look up compromise

then kiss my Texas ass !

There you go again clouding the issue with facts....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

At the time of the Bush tax cuts .....a household saving of less than $50 per month.

If I recall the cuts were "pitched" at about a $100 a month, but when spread over millions it was intended to make a difference by recycling those funds .. folks spending. The upcoming changes will result in a double whammy ... increased revenue taxes and reduced reductions ... at the same time.

Lower net pay checks are going to get people to push for more gross pay and that coupled with the rising health care costs for employers will start eating into the job market by eliminating potential growth in employment and reduction of work force ... either by terminations or reduction in hours. Some of that is already happening in anticipation of changes this next year.

When they start screwing around with "deductions" that also changes consumption! As you know businesses spend on things that can be deducted with the idea of absorbing some of the cost in reduced taxes.

The indecision hurts the economy as much as anything.

[Yssup Rider]

Well then those asswipes in the House better get something done, eh?

A bunch of them are already rejecting Grover Norquist's bullshit. We'll see how the little pantywaist reacts when the Republicans desert him in force.

Expect a deal to be made.

[fetishfreak]

I for one actually hope a deal does not get made. This cliff is nothing more than an across the board tax increase and spending cut. Now I may not have a degree in economics but I would say it is reasonable that increasing revenue while decreasing spending would lower the deficit. If they bring the troops home we can save even more money!

[Guest123018-4]

I am all for letting them expire. We all know that the poor do not pay any taxes anyway. It will just hurt the middle class .
The Republicans will be blamed for letting them expire.
The downward spiral will continue.The poor will stay poor and increase in number. The middle class will shrink from the burden of taxes and many will join the ranks of the poor and eventually not pay taxes.
The rich will be less rich but still be pulling the wagon to the greatest extent.
Interest rates will increase for the money you can actually be able to borrow if it is available at all.
The economy will grind to a halt.

In the end, the government will still kick the can down the road. They will continue to spend and spend trying to tax and spend their way out of the depression. We will still be lied to by the government on how bad it really is as the printing presses continue to roll.

[Yssup Rider]

Sky is falling Doggymod! The sky is falling!

[CuteOldGuy]

CBJ7, link?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

CBJ7, link?

not for you sport, youre too thick skulled to understand ... try "the google" Im tired trying to educate idiots.

[Yssup Rider]

and then you can Google "Santorum"

[CuteOldGuy]

Got nothin', as usual.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Got nothin', as usual.

in case you havent noticed, you are the only one that questions my statement. Anyone with a simple civics education knows a budget reconciliation measure cant be filibustered.

except you, a lawyer.




educating a lawyer .. 101

What Budget Reconciliation Is
Budget reconciliation is a process that temporarily modifies the legislative process in the U.S. Senate by eliminating the possibility of a filibuster against a bill. Under the traditional rules of the Senate, debate on bills has no time limit and 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster, thus ending debate on a bill and bringing it to a final vote. When a bill is considered under the rules of budget reconciliation, debate is limited to 20 hours and ending debate requires only a simple 51-vote majority. In the House of Representatives, debate on all bills and amendments is subject to strictly enforced time limits, thus filibusters are not allowed.

Congress created the budget reconciliation process in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as a method of reducing federal spending, reducing the deficit and streamlining the process of considering budget and tax-related legislation. For example, budget reconciliation was used to pass major deficit reduction and tax-cutting legislation under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Denny Crane.