Tag Archives: cut spending

Pres. Obama more than happy to work with GOP if they agree to higher tax on the wealthy

Posted on by

Cut spending and bring in new revenue. It’s called balance, Republicans. It’s called doing two things at once to bring about a reduction in the deficit faster. From The Ticket:

President Barack Obama said in an interview partly broadcast Sunday that he would be “more than happy to work with the Republicans” to trim the swelling national debt — as long as they drop their opposition to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. “You can’t reduce the deficit unless you take a balanced approach that says, ‘We’ve got to make government leaner and more efficient,’” the president told CBS’s Scott Pelley. “But we’ve also got to ask people –like me or Gov. Romney, who have done better than anybody else over the course of the last decade, and whose taxes are just about lower than they’ve been in the last 50 years – to do a little bit more.” Obama said he would be willing to make “some adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid that would strengthen the programs.” “The way to do that is to keep health care costs low. It’s not to ‘voucherize’ programs so that suddenly seniors are the ones who are finding their expenses much higher.”

I’m glad one political party in this country doesn’t pretend that giving the wealthy more tax cuts somehow (magically) reduces debt. Letting the wealthy have more tax cuts gives them more available income they can offshore into foreign bank accounts and gives America less money to pay off its debt. Why does this even need to be said? Because yesterday Romney said “I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers:“

Romney’s plan, in reality, would provide the very richest Americans a $264,000 tax break. It also maintains current tax rates on investments that are otherwise set to expire at the end of the year, and it eliminates the estate tax, paid by only the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans.

Does that work out to a tax reduction for the rich in your mind? It does for everyone who’s based in reality.

Romney is apparently arguing that he will raise enough revenue through the elimination of tax loopholes that benefit the rich to totally offset the tax cut he provides them, though an analysis from the Tax Policy Center found that to be a mathematical impossibility.

Like his tax returns, which loopholes Romney plans to eliminate remain a closely guarded secret until after the election.

Yes, it really is the Bush tax cuts. Yes, that has contributed to the deficit and income inequality in America.

Posted on by

But the teaparty tells us, “NO COMPROMISE!!” They have been instructed to cut spending without increasing taxes on their donors and corporate masters. How do you negotiate with terrorists?

From Maddow Blog:

President Obama made his case to the American people Monday night, explaining why we’re so much in the red:

In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

At the heart of all that is the set of Bush tax cuts, including tax cuts for the wealthy, that were billed as temporary but have proved politically difficult to get rid of. Below, the New York Times chart James Fallows says should be included in every discussion of the debt ceiling.

While we’re talking about expiring the tax cuts for the wealthy, don’t forget these facts about the wealthiest 1% vs. the rest of us:

I hope those teabaggers who are riding around on their government-paid electric scooters are really listening to what their chosen leaders are saying and are aware of these facts:

“The top 1 percent now gets almost a quarter of the nation’s total income — a larger share than at any time since the 1920s. The top 1 percent have also received about 40 percent of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts.” — Robert Reich

“Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years. That’s wage repression.” — Bill Moyers

Here’s another chart for you:

MOTHER JONES: Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most Americans. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.

What do the teabaggers imagine they’re leaving to their children and grandchildren, again, if their reps in Congress crash the economy next week and the wealthy are never again required to pay their fair share of revenue? Idiots.

The GOP’s newest budget plan: cut services to the poor and elderly, don’t touch the wealthy

Posted on by

“The president and I do not agree on his view that the government needs more revenues through taxes on job creators.” —- John Boehner, July 11, 2011

Smacking Into the Debt Ceiling: the Day-by-Day Consequences

“Remember when the United States was so politically paralyzed that it risked its credit rating and international credibility by refusing to hike the debt ceiling?”

So how do the Republicans and John Boehner want to save money? Brian Beutler reports on a secret memo left behind at the White House on Monday:

Though the memo lacks key details about many of the cuts, it contains enough to show where, exactly, Republicans hope to achieve savings. Its largest single source of savings — $100 billion worth — comes from what the memo terms “Medicaid FMAP Reform,” or matching funds to state governments for providing Medicaid services.

It calls for up to $53 billion in savings from instituting new cost-sharing protocols for so-called Medigap policies — supplemental insurance sold to Medicare beneficiaries to cover the cost of services not covered, or partially covered by Medicare. Specifically, it would institute a $530 out-of-pocket premium for certain Medigap plans. It also calls for over $80 billion in additional cost-shifting for home health coverage, and for medical and prescription drug coverage.

More information when we get it, but for now, read the memo here.

Of course it would be silly to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthy. There are just too many services that can be cut before we have to resort to such cruelty.

Teaparty-Republican spending cuts: immunizations

Posted on by

I’m not surprised.

I would assume that GOP leaders would defend these cuts with the same line they always use: “We’re broke.” But we’re not, and if Republicans believe we can afford tax cuts and wars, but not immunizations for low-income children, that’s pretty twisted. — Steve Benen

Swear to God, I’m beginning to think the Teaparty-GOP wants only two classes of people: 1) the wealthy and 2) everyone else. And “everyone else” will shuffle from alley to soup kitchen — a charity soup kitchen of course — with soot and rat feces on their hands and faces, teeth missing, calling to those with shoes, “G’day, Guv’nah! Spare a sixpence?”

April 8. That’s when we find out if Dems give in to this H.R.1 bullshit or not.

http://underthemountainbunker.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/59229_159662920710857_100000014512324_523417_2593139_n2.jpg?w=473&h=382

Cut spending but extend tax cuts. REALLY, GOP-Teaparty?

Posted on by

Where? On what?

One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers comments:

Meaningful cuts to one of:

1.) Social Security
2.) Medicare
3.) Defense

Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

And Robert Reich has a good idea about extending those Bush tax cuts:

Expect the President to be under more pressure to give in to Republican demands that the Bush tax cut be extended to everyone — not just the bottom 98 percent but also the the top 2 percent, earning over $250K.

He should respond by offering this olive branch: Extend the Bush tax cuts to the bottom 99 percent — to families earning less than half a million dollars.

But not to the top 1 percent.

The top 1 percent now gets almost a quarter of the nation’s total income — a larger share than at any time since the 1920s. The top 1 percent have also received about 40 percent of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts.

The “Not for the Top 1 Percent” olive branch will draw a clear line in the sand. If Republicans won’t accept the offer, let them threaten to raise everyone else’s taxes in order to get a sweet deal for their patrons at the very top.

I have a feeling the new GOP-Teaparty Congress would prefer to rearrange chairs on the Titanic while extending tax cuts for the top 1%.

Here’s Kentucky’s new Teaparty senator:

brooklynmutt:

“We all work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people.  So, just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone.” – Senator-elect Rand Paul, standing up for the little guy.

Poor rich people!