In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.
The White House said on Sunday it would this week propose radical reforms to public spending, an attempt to regain the initiative after a last-minute deal on Friday to avoid a federal government shutdown.
David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Barack Obama, the president, would propose “significant debt reduction”, including looking at the federal Medicare and social security programmes, traditionally regarded as sacrosanct. “Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at,” Mr Plouffe said on Sunday, although he added that spending on investment and education would be protected whenever possible.
Goddamnit, you said you weren't going to cut Social Security. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you just want to make your base as depressed as possible?
Swinging me from Romney to himself would be twice as valuable to Obama as you turning out.
Well let's hope that works out for him.
From what I've seen, independents largely vote by dartboard. Or coin flip. Or "whoever said they'd give me sloppy blowjobs last." Up to the very last moment before they pull the lever.
I mean, I guess you can piss on people who've actually demonstrated a willingness to cast actual votes for you in favor of maybe sorta convincing a bored housewife in Ohio that you're not actually a closet Muslim socialist. It's one option.
EDIT: And I'll vote for the standard "fuck all y'all" candidate. I'll vote Nader. Aw yeah.
Not if for every one of you he switches over >2 of us stay home because we think he is pulling some repugnant shit.
Do you really think that'll happen though? Have a good long look at the Republican primary field. Against how many of them would you honestly stay home? Heck, I expect you will berate anyone who openly considers staying home come October 2012.
Do you really think that'll happen though? Have a good long look at the Republican primary field. Against how many of them would you honestly stay home? Heck, I expect you will berate anyone who openly considers staying home come October 2012.
My current military enlistment ends less than a year after whoever wins takes office.
Which makes me much more comfortable with the idea than you might think.
But I'll agree that we can't stay home. We need to make sure we show up and cast votes for the farther left candidate, so they can't think "ZOMG TRIANGULATE HARDER."
He wants to appeal to moderates and independents like me. After all, for whom else are you gonna vote?
I hate the fact that making large cuts in medicare, medicaid, and social security is now considered the moderate position. Maintaining things as they are is apparently a far left position.
In recent days, administration officials have expressed interest in the work of a bipartisan group of senators, known as the Gang of Six, who are meeting to develop a strategy for implementing the fiscal commission’s recommendations.
People familiar with those meetings said National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling spoke with members of the group last week to discuss the deliberations. The group is close to an agreement and may announce one as soon as next week.
“The White House is eager to attach themselves to this,” one source said.
He wants to appeal to moderates and independents like me. After all, for whom else are you gonna vote?
Except every poll shows people are heavily against cutting any of those things. I mean, cutting Medicare was what the GOP spent a year riling people up about.
It seems odd that he would propose these things that he knows are so unpopular. I mean, even if you believe that some of it is necessary, wouldn't it make more sense to let the Republicans propose it and take the political fallout? I mean, half of the health care debate was Republicans screaming that Obama was trying to kill Medicare, and now he's taking the initiative to prove them correct?
It seems odd that he would propose these things that he knows are so unpopular. I mean, even if you believe that some of it is necessary, wouldn't it make more sense to let the Republicans propose it and take the political fallout? I mean, half of the health care debate was Republicans screaming that Obama was trying to kill Medicare, and now he's taking the initiative to prove them correct?
Bait and switch?
Let people figure out what they think about this (I mean, they really can't know - the Republicans just spent a few months screaming about debt, deficit and Real Cuts and Hard Choices(TM)), then announce whatever he's going to announce and have it not be as bad as imagined.
I don't know. Without the specifics, it's hard to say whether or not his plan is reasonable. It just strikes me as yet another instance where the Republicans come to the table with a wishlist and the Democrats come with a reasonable compromise. No matter how hard you negotiate from that position, the end result is always going to be to the right of that compromise. You have a reasonable mix of cuts and taxes you want to see? Great! Start to the left of that, because you should be smart enough to know that whatever you propose, you're moving right.
When the Republican proposal is Ryan's budget, Obama needs to put forward something pretty damn progressive for the compromise to even approach something reasonable.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
Swinging me from Romney to himself would be twice as valuable to Obama as you turning out.
Not if for every one of you he switches over >2 of us stay home because we think he is pulling some repugnant shit.
But that's highly unlikely to be the case. Especially since whoever wins the Republican primary is going to have needed to say some (more) repugnant shit to get the nod.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
Well, it's not nearly as bad as the Ryan plan, or that other republican plan that someone linked to earlier. It does have some progressive stuff in it, like increasing cap on social security taxes, and I think it would make income taxes a little more progressive. However, the plan also increases the social security retirement age while decreasing benefits, puts a cap on medicaid/medicare, and fires 200,000 federal employees.
What I hate most about it is that it tries to present cutting social security and medicare/medicaid as a moderate, reasonable option. Once that happens- even a small cut- the cat's out of the bag, and we'll be negotiating with republicans on how much to cut from those programs in every single future budget.
It seems odd that he would propose these things that he knows are so unpopular. I mean, even if you believe that some of it is necessary, wouldn't it make more sense to let the Republicans propose it and take the political fallout? I mean, half of the health care debate was Republicans screaming that Obama was trying to kill Medicare, and now he's taking the initiative to prove them correct?
Because the name of the disease going round DC these days is "The government must be cut for the good of everyone and that's what the voters want". They've got a bad case of "Deficit Hawk".
There's a vast difference between what can be argued to be needed and what the public wants and what people in the DC bubble think is getting "serious" about the economy. These 3 things are not related.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
Yes, it's Regressive:
Jon Chait takes another look at Bowles-Simpson, this time with numbers from the Tax Policy Center, and is disillusioned. As I surmised, it redistributes income upward: the bottom 80 percent of families would pay higher taxes than they did in the Clinton years, while the top 20 percent — and especially the top 5 percent — would pay less; not what you’d call shared sacrifice.
The only twist here is that the ultra-rich, the top 0.1 percent, who get a lot of their income from dividends and capital gains, would be hit by having these gains taxed as ordinary income. Even so, they would face a smaller tax increase than the bottom 60 percent.
This wasn’t the plan we’ve been looking for; on taxes, what on earth were they thinking?
Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.
Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?
The answer is no [...] the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.
Still, can’t we say that for all its flaws, the Bowles-Simpson proposal is a serious effort to tackle the nation’s long-run fiscal problem? No, we can’t.
It’s true that the PowerPoint contains nice-looking charts showing deficits falling and debt levels stabilizing. But it becomes clear, once you spend a little time trying to figure out what’s going on, that the main driver of those pretty charts is the assumption that the rate of growth in health-care costs will slow dramatically. And how is this to be achieved? By “establishing a process to regularly evaluate cost growth” and taking “additional steps as needed.” What does that mean? I have no idea.
The major point, to stray from the specific point to get the general thrust of the issue, is this:
Matters become clearer once you reach the section on tax reform. The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.
So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.
Or, more simply, the Simpson/Bowle plan is a pile of typical "deficit hawk" bullshit that's more about slashing down social services and the government and lowering taxes then actually lowering the deficit.
Oh right, bonus stupidity: Ryan had basically handed the Democrats the votes of everyone over 50 for various reasons, and then Obama was like "eh... no."
But he'll get enc0re and Sully's vote!
Sullivan has once again flipped his position and is returning to blowing the President. God bless him.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
Well, it's not nearly as bad as the Ryan plan, or that other republican plan that someone linked to earlier. It does have some progressive stuff in it, like increasing cap on social security taxes, and I think it would make income taxes a little more progressive. However, the plan also increases the social security retirement age while decreasing benefits, puts a cap on medicaid/medicare, and fires 200,000 federal employees.
What I hate most about it is that it tries to present cutting social security and medicare/medicaid as a moderate, reasonable option. Once that happens- even a small cut- the cat's out of the bag, and we'll be negotiating with republicans on how much to cut from those programs in every single future budget.
I don't really have a problem with increasing the social security age and decreasing benefits on a progressive basis (that is, high lifetime earners get a smaller SS check.) I also don't really have a problem with capping Medicare payouts at something reasonable.
Removing the mortgage deduction straight-up is kind of stupid, but I could see removing it for vacation homes and such.
Removing the mortgage deduction straight-up is kind of stupid, but I could see removing it for vacation homes and such.
Personally, I don't think it is.
I think the mortgage deduction is kind of retarded.
Yeah, I'm no longer convinced that there's necessarily much benefit in encouraging homeownership. You know, all things considered.
In those communities where there might be some real benefit to it, rather than simply a handout to the middle class, homes are generally inexpensive enough that there's little benefit of the home mortgage deduction over the standard deduction.
However, I'm willing to take the middle road and say that it should absolutely be on a main residence only (fuck your "second home") and should probably be capped at about $15K or $20K of interest (which would equate to a mortgage in the...$250K to $300K ballpark?).
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
Well, it's not nearly as bad as the Ryan plan, or that other republican plan that someone linked to earlier. It does have some progressive stuff in it, like increasing cap on social security taxes, and I think it would make income taxes a little more progressive. However, the plan also increases the social security retirement age while decreasing benefits, puts a cap on medicaid/medicare, and fires 200,000 federal employees.
What I hate most about it is that it tries to present cutting social security and medicare/medicaid as a moderate, reasonable option. Once that happens- even a small cut- the cat's out of the bag, and we'll be negotiating with republicans on how much to cut from those programs in every single future budget.
I don't really have a problem with increasing the social security age and decreasing benefits on a progressive basis (that is, high lifetime earners get a smaller SS check.) I also don't really have a problem with capping Medicare payouts at something reasonable.
Removing the mortgage deduction straight-up is kind of stupid, but I could see removing it for vacation homes and such.
As noted, the lifespan gains have only been seen for the rich, so increasing the age is a fairly regressive action.
As noted, the lifespan gains have only been seen for the rich, so increasing the age is a fairly regressive action.
1): I don't entirely believe that, honestly.
2): Better access to healthcare will allow those gains to spread.
3): Even if neither of those happen, it's an absurdly small price to pay for removing the SS cap and cutting the payouts to higher earners.
As noted, the lifespan gains have only been seen for the rich, so increasing the age is a fairly regressive action.
1): I don't entirely believe that, honestly.
2): Better access to healthcare will allow those gains to spread.
3): Even if neither of those happen, it's an absurdly small price to pay for removing the SS cap and cutting the payouts to higher earners.
So basically, "nanana, I can't hear you". You can "not believe" it all you want, it's true. The life expectancy of the people who actually need SS has barely moved.
Plus, all the other stuff I posted above. It's tax regressive, impact regressive and all that shit.
There's nothing in there really. It's slash SS on the people who need it most, transfer wealth upwards and the rest is the typical "and then magic happens" that you see from these kind of documents where they say what should happen but not how.
It was supposed to be a finished document and it doesn't even work as a starting point. It's a bunch of ideas designed to prop up tax cuts, a few other things and then vague allusions about "the you should lower costs from this ... somehow".
Removing the mortgage deduction straight-up is kind of stupid, but I could see removing it for vacation homes and such.
Personally, I don't think it is.
I think the mortgage deduction is kind of retarded.
Yeah, I'm no longer convinced that there's necessarily much benefit in encouraging homeownership. You know, all things considered.
In those communities where there might be some real benefit to it, rather than simply a handout to the middle class, homes are generally inexpensive enough that there's little benefit of the home mortgage deduction over the standard deduction.
However, I'm willing to take the middle road and say that it should absolutely be on a main residence only (fuck your "second home") and should probably be capped at about $15K or $20K of interest (which would equate to a mortgage in the...$250K to $300K ballpark?).
Well, there's certainly issues with the way it's currently framed (ie - why does it apply to a second house?!!?), but encouraging home ownership isn't a terrible thing afaik. Neither the crash nor the bubble were caused by the government encouraging home ownership with tax breaks.
Posts
Maybe the actual communist candidate.
Not if for every one of you he switches over >2 of us stay home because we think he is pulling some repugnant shit.
Well let's hope that works out for him.
From what I've seen, independents largely vote by dartboard. Or coin flip. Or "whoever said they'd give me sloppy blowjobs last." Up to the very last moment before they pull the lever.
I mean, I guess you can piss on people who've actually demonstrated a willingness to cast actual votes for you in favor of maybe sorta convincing a bored housewife in Ohio that you're not actually a closet Muslim socialist. It's one option.
EDIT: And I'll vote for the standard "fuck all y'all" candidate. I'll vote Nader. Aw yeah.
My current military enlistment ends less than a year after whoever wins takes office.
Which makes me much more comfortable with the idea than you might think.
But I'll agree that we can't stay home. We need to make sure we show up and cast votes for the farther left candidate, so they can't think "ZOMG TRIANGULATE HARDER."
I hate the fact that making large cuts in medicare, medicaid, and social security is now considered the moderate position. Maintaining things as they are is apparently a far left position.
You'd vote for Romney? Like ... seriously?
So you aren't actually serious about economics or government finance.
Except every poll shows people are heavily against cutting any of those things. I mean, cutting Medicare was what the GOP spent a year riling people up about.
Bait and switch?
Let people figure out what they think about this (I mean, they really can't know - the Republicans just spent a few months screaming about debt, deficit and Real Cuts and Hard Choices(TM)), then announce whatever he's going to announce and have it not be as bad as imagined.
When the Republican proposal is Ryan's budget, Obama needs to put forward something pretty damn progressive for the compromise to even approach something reasonable.
Can someone please explain to me what is so terribly regressive about Simpson/Bowles?
Because I read the (summary of the) plan when it came out and I didn't really see it.
But that's highly unlikely to be the case. Especially since whoever wins the Republican primary is going to have needed to say some (more) repugnant shit to get the nod.
What I hate most about it is that it tries to present cutting social security and medicare/medicaid as a moderate, reasonable option. Once that happens- even a small cut- the cat's out of the bag, and we'll be negotiating with republicans on how much to cut from those programs in every single future budget.
Huh? Care to elaborate?
Because the name of the disease going round DC these days is "The government must be cut for the good of everyone and that's what the voters want". They've got a bad case of "Deficit Hawk".
There's a vast difference between what can be argued to be needed and what the public wants and what people in the DC bubble think is getting "serious" about the economy. These 3 things are not related.
And everyone will come on here and blame the voters and not the Democrats for being absolutely clueless as to what their voters want
Yes, it's Regressive: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/yep-its-regressive/
Some more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp
The major point, to stray from the specific point to get the general thrust of the issue, is this:
Or, more simply, the Simpson/Bowle plan is a pile of typical "deficit hawk" bullshit that's more about slashing down social services and the government and lowering taxes then actually lowering the deficit.
But he'll get enc0re and Sully's vote!
Sullivan has once again flipped his position and is returning to blowing the President. God bless him.
I don't really have a problem with increasing the social security age and decreasing benefits on a progressive basis (that is, high lifetime earners get a smaller SS check.) I also don't really have a problem with capping Medicare payouts at something reasonable.
Removing the mortgage deduction straight-up is kind of stupid, but I could see removing it for vacation homes and such.
However, cuts to those programs are among the least popular policy prescriptions I've ever seen polled.
I think the mortgage deduction is kind of retarded.
Yeah, I'm no longer convinced that there's necessarily much benefit in encouraging homeownership. You know, all things considered.
In those communities where there might be some real benefit to it, rather than simply a handout to the middle class, homes are generally inexpensive enough that there's little benefit of the home mortgage deduction over the standard deduction.
However, I'm willing to take the middle road and say that it should absolutely be on a main residence only (fuck your "second home") and should probably be capped at about $15K or $20K of interest (which would equate to a mortgage in the...$250K to $300K ballpark?).
As noted, the lifespan gains have only been seen for the rich, so increasing the age is a fairly regressive action.
1): I don't entirely believe that, honestly.
2): Better access to healthcare will allow those gains to spread.
3): Even if neither of those happen, it's an absurdly small price to pay for removing the SS cap and cutting the payouts to higher earners.
So basically, "nanana, I can't hear you". You can "not believe" it all you want, it's true. The life expectancy of the people who actually need SS has barely moved.
Plus, all the other stuff I posted above. It's tax regressive, impact regressive and all that shit.
I hardly think Simpson/Bowles is perfect but I think it's a decent, relatively moderate first draft.
When Erskine Bowles is the liberal...
There's nothing in there really. It's slash SS on the people who need it most, transfer wealth upwards and the rest is the typical "and then magic happens" that you see from these kind of documents where they say what should happen but not how.
It was supposed to be a finished document and it doesn't even work as a starting point. It's a bunch of ideas designed to prop up tax cuts, a few other things and then vague allusions about "the you should lower costs from this ... somehow".
Well, there's certainly issues with the way it's currently framed (ie - why does it apply to a second house?!!?), but encouraging home ownership isn't a terrible thing afaik. Neither the crash nor the bubble were caused by the government encouraging home ownership with tax breaks.