Market Currents
The GOP says the White House is demanding $1.6T in tax increases up front as part of any budget...
-
Thursday, November 29, 2012, 5:06 PM ETThe GOP says the White House is demanding $1.6T in tax increases up front as part of any budget deal, reports the WSJ. The White House also wants the payroll tax credit to continue and a "permanent" increase in the debt limit.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 28 comments:
There are NO leaders in Washington. Just short-sighted, looking out for themselves egomaniacs and their enablers and the "special interests" (from every imaginable corner of spending).
Whatever happened to "temporarily raising the deficit"?
Why wasn't that ENOUGH?
Isn't the government PIE *large enough* already?
Won't SOMEONE find some efficiencies within EXISTING spending, versus demanding MORE TO SPEND?
The answers are simple: NO.
And there is NO accountability, either. Nothing.
Too simple?
Unfortunately I think we know what the Democrats want to do and this "proposal" is right in line.
1.6 Trillion in new taxes and THEN we'll start talking?
What this is really about is our freedoms and liberties. Our government is far far too large. No individual could come close to knowing what all the different agencies and departments are supposedly doing. And these government agencies/departments have increasing power to tell Americans what to do and even take what we have. More tax dollars just means even more bureaucrats which means less and less freedom and liberty.
It is mind-numbing that the President doesn't simply make a common sense proposal to restore some fiscal sanity. Something like raising the retirement age for Medicare/SS, Cleaning up the disability rolls, further reducing defense spending, and pick some department/agencies to consolidate. In return propose the Clinton tax rates for high earners and capital gains, limit mortgage deductions to homes under 500k and no second homes, get rid of some corporate loopholes and a promise from Republicans that tax reform will take place in 2013 and the code will remain progressive.
What's so difficult about that? He can go to his supporters and point out Obamacare remains. SS benefits and Medicare benefits aren't changed and he's socking to to the "rich". Republicans could go where with that proposal??? They'd cave and agree.
What this shows is how pathetic our "leaders" in Washington really are. Our process drives away those with true leadership and we are left with those that put up with the process out of their own personal interests. Boehner, Obama, Reid - seriously? Thats the USA's best?
A deal should take about 1 hour to put together. Unfortunately that about how long it should take to balance the budget EVERY year and we've seen how that doesn't happen.
I'm at the point where going over this cliff is fine with me. I'll choose freedom and liberty over all else. In fact, lets then set up the next cliff for next year's raising the debt ceiling - only have this one with 2 Trillion in government cuts.... if we have enough of these we might inadvertently start restoring liberty across the land!!
And lets set up the $2 Trillion spending cut cliff for July 1st!
Conservatives convince themselves of lies and then are surprised when the rest of us don't believe them.
Clinton has to share credit with Gingrich and the "right-wing" Republicans that forced him to scale back some government and keep spending increases to a minimum.
Bush is no conservative IMO and I'd compare his presidency to Carter in terms of poor leadership. Bush's mistake was twofold. One - he picked very poor people to surround himself with. They led him into Iraq and then convinced him it would be easy. Disaster. Two - He NEVER asked the American public to sacrifice for the coming military action post 9/11. That is something that still upsets me to this day and it was a total abdication of leadership.
So in comparing Clinton - Bush your actually comparing real conservatives in Congress with Clinton - to a Big Government lover in Bush (and lets face it a poor leader).
In terms of Carter/Reagan. Lets look at how Reagan spent money and the outcome - ie he ramped up military spending and directly confronted the USSR. I think that turned out pretty well. He and the Dems in Congress did manage to reform SS to extend the program for a few decades. He gave Volker the cover to attack inflation - and that worked out pretty well. Out of kindness I won't go through the disasterous Carter years and merely summarize that you can't name a single successful thing he did outside of Camp David and getting the Egyptians and Israelis to stop killing each other.
What I can guarantee you is that if I - myself - was magically in charge we would have a balanced budget next year. Government bureaucrats would be pulling in 30% less. They would pay far more for their health care and pensions and if they don't like it - tough - quit. There would be fewer agencies - consolidation would take place and headcount reductions would be rampant. We would close a large percentage of our overseas military bases and spend at least 1/3 less within 3 years - and we'd buy less military hardware - pay to keep developing but buy far fewer. And the retirement age for SS and Medicare would increase. And we'd fix the tax code - zero deductions with a three tiered flat tax to keep it progressive. And we'd clean out the disability rolls - its become an early retirement program and is a joke.
And thats the easy stuff - after that I'd spend the rest of my time attacking health care and education.