Associated Press
President Obama and congressional leaders have about seven weeks until the end of the calendar year, at which point automatic spending cuts, which both parties oppose, will kick in, and all Bush-era tax cuts will expire. Policymakers seem to believe a debt-reduction agreement is still possible to avoid these measures, but it's an uphill climb.
The dirty little secret, though, is plenty of Democrats seem to realize that a deal isn't entirely necessary.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Sunday said Democrats were prepared to allow the expiration of all George W. Bush-era tax rates if Republican lawmakers objected to raising taxes on the wealthiest.
"We can't accept an unfair deal that piles on the middle class and tell them they have to support it. We have to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share," said Murray on ABC"s "This Week."
Murray said one option would be to let the lower rates expire across-the-board and then return to the table next year with new talks on a tax-cut package.
Murray, who's likely to become the new chair of the Senate Budget Committee, specifically said if Republicans fail to compromise, "[W]e will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year. And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this."
Quite right. It's easy to imagine the talks collapsing before New Year's Eve, and then President Obama proposing a new approach with the new Congress, focused on tax cuts for the middle class, and Clinton-era rates for income above $250,000. If it took a few weeks to pass, policymakers have the option of making it retroactive to Jan. 1.
It would get the support of the Democratic Senate, and if House Republicans balk, they'd be responsible for higher middle-class taxes.
Given this, Murray's comments yesterday offer a reminder of why the pressure is on the GOP, and why the White House need not accept a bad deal. One side has leverage, it's not the Republicans.
Leave a Comment:
Republicans must understand that they lost the election, that they have lost whatever "mandate" they may have claimed from 2010. The people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly in favor of a progressive agenda that protects the most vulnerable Americans and restores the basic functions of our government. The GOP is currently in severe demographic crisis and virtually on the path to extinction without a real change in their ideology. This is hardly a position of strength with which to negotiate from. The Tea Party needs to stop their anti-American radicalism and accept reality as it stands. - progressive
Sorry bub, but the triumph of the Gimmee! electorate will end badly leaving a more secular Tea Party to bring back sanity.
LOL...the distance between the tea party and sanity is so great as to be moot.Fail.
Ooooh, Activist, I guess he told you!!
Morning Shooter. So I guess the new tea party meme will be that the 'takers' are going to destroy the good 'ole US of A.
Question for you. Bu$h and the republican majority in both houses of congress ram-rodded 3 trillion dollars through the legislature in 2001 and 2003. All that money to the 'job creators'.
What happened to the jobs? Why did we lose jobs at an scale never before seen in modern history?
Seems to me they're the takers, no?
This kills the GOP.
"Tea party" and "sanity" in the same sentence doesn't make sense. Whatever credibility the tea party had at its inception has been squandered - and then outright crucified - by the lunatic fringe that took over the movement. They're not about fiscal responsibility anymore (if they ever were); they're now synonymous with birthers, rabid anti-choice, and a disgusting brand "I got mine, you're on your own" compassionless selfishness. This isn't about "gimme" politics; this is about bringing back some reasonable compromise and forcing a recognition that a democracy doesn't survive on the backs of the workers who make it possible.
Shooter, I'm confused. How is the Tea Party "secular"? Honest question; not sarcasm. I've gotten the impression the group has been pretty driven by fundamentalist Christians. Please explain, for education's sake. The internet is providing unclear answers, but that could just be because I literally just rolled out of bed and my google-fu is pretty foggy.
As opposed to the Gimme!GOP that wants all that money/freebies/deductions/subsidies for the 1%.
Elbeh, the Tea Party is secular because they *say* it's secular. Never mind the man behind the curtain.
Shooter is still delusional. The tea party has been marginalized because their ideas don't work and are an anathema to most Americans. Along with the right wing talkers on TV, radio, and the internet they keep talking about the "takers" as if there is a large number of people who don't want to work and just want government handouts. The reality is that republicans are the biggest "takers" out there. They want more corporate welfare and they seem to think that they can keep cutting taxes and continue to have all the government services they also love.
In addition, people in red states receive more in government payments than they contribute, while blue states generally pay for it. Republicans didn't only lose the presidential election, but they lost Senate seats that they expected to win, primarily because they ran tea bagger candidates. They also received fewer votes in house seats than democrats and therefore only kept control of the house through the gerrymandering that took place in 2010. The democrats hold all the cards at this time and republicans need to accept it.
If democratic proposals don't work the country can try something else, but it almost certainly won't be tea bag ideas.
Craig, there are two kind of Obama voters half want free stuff, the other half wants to give them free stuff. Neither kind wants to pay for it.
How will this play out? I think Japan is the most likely scenario. Currently they have the most debt of any nation. Their interest payments consume every personal income tax dollar they have and then some.
Now really, do you think that's a sustainable model?
Activist...democrats have to realize they won. now do something!
elbeh, The Tea Party is less about religion than it is about finances and strict reading of the Constitution. Anybody saying something contrary is trying to scare you.
In fact I think the Tea party will be the model for Republicans going forward, less emphasis on social issues, and more on finances. It seems to be working well for Mr Harper of Canada.
Scout what might those be exactly? Have I been missing an opportunity?
Shooter, I would like to know who are the gimmee people??? I keep hearing about how Obama won because he received all the votes from people who keep wanting to get free stuff.
Obama voters do not vote simply for free stuff. Unlike republicans, our voting is not motivated primarily by personal selfishness, we are voting for the common good. Look, Obama won those with college educations and he overwhelmingly won those with advanced degrees (you know lawyers, doctors, professors, scientists and other low life parasites like that). Furthermore, while Romney won the retired, the investors and tied with those not working, Obama won among voters who actually work one or two jobs. Obama carried the ten most educated states (Romney carried 9 of the 10 least educated) and Obama carried 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties. "Free stuff" voter is largely a figment of the republicans imagination.
Shooter, I have been a democrat my entire adult life, which means starting in the early 70s. I have NEVER taken a government handout of any kind and I don't know any of my democratic friends who have. I have worked my entire life for everything I have or have accomplished.
My reason for supporting democrats is NOT to give free stuff to anybody, but to make sure that there is a level playing field. Free market mechanisms work based on certain assumptions including perfectly competitive markets, perfect information and fungibility of goods. Since those factors don't exist in the real world, markets tend to move towards monopolistic status resulting in unfair competition. Government's role in these situations is to make sure that those factors that make markets unfair don't prevent competition and don't allow a concentration of wealth and power in too small a number of individuals or firms. Total lack of government involvement results in boom and bust cycles like commonly happened up until the great depression.
On top of that, it is disingenuous to claim that tea baggers want limited government when they also want to control every woman's reproductive choices and limit the freedoms of gays and lesbians. Those are the definition of big, intrusive government.
It seems to me that people should think about how this discussion is being framed. Even sophisticated analysts like O'Donnell have accepted framing by using the term "fiscal cliff". Recently this error was recognized and the term in favor on O'Donnell and the MSNBC weekend shows was "fiscal curb" or "fiscal slope".
This is better, so that we are not promoting a Thelma and Louise suicidal fidelity to principle and ideology over compromise. This framing legitimizes the framing of the Right that it has been the left who has been unwilling to compromise. It also places the expectation within the electorate that Dems will do what is responsible to avoid what is framed as irreversible descent resulting in death.
It is not even a curb. It is not a slope. There is no real descent at all. It is more like Thelma and Louise simply waited out their opponents, choosing to wait in congested traffic for a light to turn rather than take side streets that would deliver them into the hands of their pursuers. By waiting at the light, there has been time enough for the basis of the opposition to not only evaporate, but be converted into support. It is not failure any more than waiting for a light is failure. The strategy is glorious victory.
Similarly, the deficit reduction framing is nonsense. Chris Hayes on his show on Sunday in the first economics segment, referred to the framing of the discussion using his favorite adjective: He calls it "maddening". The fact is that neither side wants deficit reduction because both understand what the Financial times and the Economist publications have been saying. Real austerity measures at this time will cause a recession just as surely as they did in Europe. The only differences between the GOP and Dem players is whether we do the typical GOP scheme that creates more debt to stimulate the economy to benefit "job creators", or whether we create more debt to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of the middle class with tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
So this is not about deficit reduction in the near term. While it may be about deficit reduction in the long term, the reality is that long term plans have no practical meaning. They are always revised. The only thing that is real is what happens in the budget for the immediate coming year. And everyone agrees that that budget is not about fiscal austerity and deficit reduction.
So the media framing is utter drivel. Utter nonsense.
This is not about cliffs. This is not about deficit reduction.
Interesting statistic from the election: For all the talk about Republicans standing up for the "makers" instead of the "takers" they did a miserable job carrying the states that "make" the federal budget. Only 18 of the 50 states contribute more to the federal budget than they take back, and only ONE voted for Romney - Texas. Every other state he carried relies heavily on government handouts to survive. His biggest supporters were "welfare" states! Add to that the fact that the majority of those states he carried are at or near the very bottom of the nations education rankings and it makes you wonder if "poor and stupid" is the new Republican base.
Fiscal cliff and the sky is falling simply serve as alarmist phrases to put the public into a panic. Congressional Republicans played a game of chicken, and now, at the eleventh hour (surprise!) they emote a deer in the headlights expression.
Well, if you don't want to get hit, then move out of the way.
Benen has just posted a piece summarizing thoughts from Krugman, Klein and Matt Yglesias on the stupidity of continuing to employ Bernanke's metaphor. He used it only to communicate how disastrous austerity measures would be, and used an ominous image in the interests of prodding Congress to action.
Unfortunately, Benen missed the second part of it- the absurdity that Hayes identified of the mass media framing of this as about deficit reduction.
Pooper steps to the free throw line, takes aim, throws, and....
Fails to score once again.
Never understood the Rmoney "makers" and "takers" idea that keeps getting regurgitated by the party of hate. Seems like just another 1960's barely-coded racist lie from Bull - ahem - Pucky Mountain. It also seems like the comments about the famous "47%" failed to foster favor in his fancy to win the presidency. I would keep bringing up the "makers" and "takers" lie. It helps us remember why we didn't elect this idjit, and why we must never, ever elect anyone like him.
I suppose there may be a racist dog-whistle in the 'makers v. takers' thing, but it's origin is in Ayn Rand (I think). The idea is that there is a tiny number of people (the very, very wealthy) who are the only ones who contribute to society, and who must be protected at all costs. Everybody else mooches off of them. It's wealth-based more than it is race-based. In current terms, the 1% are the makers and the 99% are the takers. (In reality, most of the 'makers' are unproductive hoarders of wealth.)
I could not agree with you more MeddlingMonk. I believe the issue of race in this election is just a ruse to keep us from recognizing the real issue, which as you stated was the 1% being the makers trying to keep their wealth and the rest of us taking from them, how do we remedy this situation? Shouldn’t we as consumers be more responsible and proactive as to how and where we spend our money? While having help from the government to level the playing field is necessary, I believe we underestimate our own power to assist in fixing our own issues. I am really interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this because I believe we spend so much time focusing on subgroups and very little time looking at the bigger picture. What would happen to the economy if we as 99 percenters decided to keep as much money as possible in our own communities focusing on small business? Is this the redistribution of wealth they are so afraid of and would this be enough to make a difference? Is this a socialist un-American thought or can we do more to help ourselves regaining our own power and leveling our own playing field instead of waiting on the government?
Sounds good to me, Senator Murray!
Murray is as clueless as anybody in Congress.
The tax rates can't be seperated from the budget cuts and the debt limit. They all come due at the end of the year.
bannedagain - There are words in your sentence, but they make no sense. This is exactly what both sides are scrambling to do.
What @ Jean said.
The tax rates go up to pay down the debt , wow that was hard to figure out huh?
No, she is ONLY talking about the tax rates, go read her stuff.
The Bush Tax Cuts, Sequestration and the Debt Limit are three separate issues. They may be negotiated as a single package, but they are in fact separate issues. Beside, it's possible that she was responding to a question limited to the tax rates.
Frankly, I would be willing to go over the "fiscal cliff" and suffer the awful consequences if it would break the "hold" the Tea Party and the rwn's have on many Americans.
There are just way too many Americans who have lapped up the propaganda and just can't accept what it is that the Republicans have been actually saying. Somebody needs to get through to them. The shock of losing the election when all the propaganda said they were winning apparently wasn't enough! It appears they are still believing the propaganda that said it was a "marketing" failure and not a failure of policy!
If we don't get it through to them soon, we will face the same type of hateful and devisive election we just finished in 2016 with a large portion of Americans believing rwn created "fairy tales".
"Fiscal cliff" is correctly put it quotes: It is a RAMP. The cuts don't happen all at once so the catastrophe has been ginned up by the people who lost, and who have been wrong on fiscal policy all along.
Actually, there WILL be serious consequences and that isn't propaganda. I agree it won't happen "overnight" and that it wil happen over time, but that doesn't negate the seriousness of what will happen.
The loss of the "tax cuts" probably won't do much! But the cuts to the federal budget will mean that unemployment dramatically increases. When you start looking into it you will be surprised about how many businesses "depend" on the federal government for their livelihoods.
So you think Americans would blame a second recession on Republicans?
We disagree my friend, Democrats would lose the Senate in 2014.
Yea, just like we lost the Presidential Election in 2012!!!
When Obama gets on TV and says he is willing to compromise and look at ANY idea, and Boehner gets on and says he's willing to compromise but only if they do it HIS way.....yea, if we go over the fiscal "cliff", I think Americans will know who's responsible!
This could counter-intuitively prove the greatest pork-cutting legislation ever.
oncearepublican has it. McConnell has said as much as well. That they are willing to come to a compromise as long as the President comes to the "center" and agrees that no tax increases are needed. He even said they'll increase revenue without increasing taxes--which, to be significant enough to impact the budget, would mean not just rich corporate jet deductions going away but probably more middle class impacting deductions like mortgage interest as well as their favorite euphemism "growing the tax base" ie. that group of people who make so little income we give it back to help them out.
These phrases might fool those in the bubble, but as we saw last Tuesday while the bubble is strong it's diameter encompasses a minority of the country. It's like cigar smoke. It's only pleasant to the person smoking it and a few connoisseurs--everyone else finds it distasteful and wishes the smoker would leave.
I still find it amazing that Republicans were so shocked by the election results. Granted the Fox gang, Rush and Rove kept coming up with conspiracies and reasons why anything that didn't go along with their agenda was all a giant hoax, but never did I dream they actually believed that crap!
Amazing, and also more than a little scary!
So Banned , the gop scream for the last 30 years , "we must make gov smaller" , so when we cut down on gov and gov spending , and it effects the economy , you are saying the voters will blame the dems , hilarious
Republicans for the most part vote Republican consistently in the face of overwhelming reason not to.
Why do you think they gained 63 seats in 2010 just two years after the country went into a financial crisis while they were in power?
Easy bannedagain.... They're stupid.
Americans have short memories, and are bombarded by Republican spinners who purvey an "alternate history".
Things were pretty nice during Clinton's reign, what with 4% unemployment and a budget surplus. And tax rates that we can easily return to!
Are we able to return to Clinton's spending levels? How about no wars, or the rise of computing in response to Y2K? How about a President that believes in Americans? No? Then it's easy to predict Clinton rates will have a different effect today than 10 years ago.
You LOST Shooter, that nonsense doesn't play very well any more!
What exactly did you win?
Congratulations, I expect more of the same for the next four years. I'm glad you're happy about that. Conservatives will still be here when you aren't.
ROTFLMAO! Shooter, Shooter, Shooter.
Higher taxes - yep, we DO need to pay for Bush's wars still.
Loss of civil liberties????? Now you are just NUTS! WHO's idea was the Patriot Act???
High unemployment? - Now WHEN did high employment begin the last time?????
Increasing poverty???? - Now WHEN did the rich start getting richer and the poor start getting poorer? I GUARANTEE it wasn't during a Democrat's presidency!!! Hint look at what Reagan and Bush did for the 1%!!
And a President......WOW, such a load of BS - must have taken you an hour to crap that one out!!!
Thank you...someone with common sense. Where do these people live? Under a rock?
Fear not, for we all know this one undeniable truth:
REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS WRONG ALL THE TIME.
Shooter can continue spewing is nonsense, and we can all find solace in the fact that his 'predictions' are that of fantasy.
Citizen, that is exactly the attitude that make it easy for the conservatives to lose hope for the future. Yes I was wrong about Romney winning, I had no idea that the Gimmee! culture in America was so strong.
OK, fine. You guys are in charge, and I will concentrate on escaping from you and yours, rather than building anything for the future. meanwhile I will have a very good time pushing the limits of your philosophy to their ridiculous conclusions.
Exhibit one will be noting that if people were sent a check for what we spend on poverty, it would eliminate poverty...unlike your insistence on supporting bureaucrats. why do you hate poor people?
Yes, the adults are back in charge Shooter. History has repeated itself once again. The Republicans screw up, Democrats get voted in to clean up their mess.
Shooter the majority of "takers" are the elderly and children and the working poor and veterans.Try checking your facts.
And to repeat: Red states get more money from the Fed gov--Shooter you haven't responded to that.
Even better, the majority of the people taking are located deep in the rural South where Romney won. It's not really the urban Dems who are bleeding the country dry.
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=14#anchor
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
We hear so much about cuts to social programs but what about corporate
subsidies (big oil, the banks, etc?) Does anyone know if that is part of the
discussion, too? I've not heard it.
Molly what you have been told are big subsidies is actually a business wide accounting practice of expensing depreciation. There are no "special" subsidies, nobody actually gives big oil and big banking, money as a special subsidy.
Every corporation in America expenses depreciation, it isn't special.
More BS from Shooter - do you know ANYTHING?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Heh. From your cite. The biggest subsidies are...
In other words,
1. Companies didn't pay double income tax for money made overseas
2. Grants for solar, wind, etc. projects
3. Actual expenses spent on finding and extracting.
Thanks for the confirmation of my point.
And how does what I posted confirm:
Depreciation?????? ROTFLMAO!!!
Good god, people; Learn to fu king win! You don't play around with it. You choke the living shhit out of it. You let it die!
We won. KILL it! The energy isn't to be kept on fighting the battles of the last war. The energy now is to take it to the next obstacle: the party that will hesitate to do what you voted for it to do. Put your energy in that.
IGNORE THE REST.
Shooter242 seems to think it's necessary to subsidize the "Actual expenses spent on finding and extracting" the product that has made those corporations record breaking PROFITS each year. How many years have those mega corporations been in business? It's not like they're startups that need a boost to get up and running so why the crutch? Oh poor them having to spend money to find their product so they can make incredible amounts of money.
Here is an example of what the gop call being taxed twice , romney makes $100 million off of shutting down a company and moving it to china , he even pays thos taxes at a lower rate than everyone else , then he makes another $100 million over the next year from that same company , so the gop then say , " taxing that $100 million in new income is being taxed twice "..it is pure snake oil
Well, also, we get to pay his moving expense. They actually physically moved Sensata, lock-stock-and- barrel, to China. Those costs are a business write-off.
Let em see if I have this straight... Democrats will raise taxes on the entire country, then turn around and offer legislation to return to half the country not paying income taxes? And expects the House to pass it?
That's delusional. Especially when you consider that Democrats will see a yearly revenue increase of $250B or so for new spending. Greed will out.
Only one here that is delusional is you Shooter (no surprise there!). Unless you have an IQ less than 50 you know what you said is false. Yet you keep pumping it!!
Hey Shooter, YOU LOST, the people of this country REJECTED your propaganda, just as we are AGAIN rejecting it now.
Um Shooter, it was your GOP buddies that voted 12 years ago to have the tax cuts expire. They are the one's responsible for this mess. They just wanted to blame someone else for raising taxes, so they pushed them off into the future. Typical GOP.
No. Republicans voted for the tax cuts to expire ten years ago. These are now the Obama tax cuts, and will be the Obama tax hikes.
Shooter, I would love to sit and point out all your silliness all day, but unfortunately, I have a life - so here's a song that describes what you are doing pretty accurately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKn6h2x5IcY
Enjoy!! Change Kathy to Republican for the next song!
So Shooter's argument is that Republicans raised taxes 10 years ago?
I'm confused...
HE'S BACK!!! Blanks is back....must have licked his wounds then went back to the drawing board to come up with some more lies and nonsensical thinking.
Of course Repubs voted for the tax cuts to expire, when they proposed them. By having them expire they could fudge the numbers and cover up what it was.....a giveaway to the richest that added trillions to the deficit. They just figured they would keep extending them and someday make them permanent because they would be running the country. Too bad. You lost. No let's get back to helping the middle class recover from the long term Republican policies that have nearly killed us.
Clif, allow me. In Clinton's last year the stock market collapsed bringing on a recession, which was exacerbated by 9/11. Bush proposed temporary tax cuts to overcome that recession.
The tax cuts automatically expired 2010. Obama wanted to extend the Bush cuts for the under $250k incomes, but the House said it was all or nothing. So Obama went for extending all the tax cuts for two years.
We are now at the second deadline, and we are in the same political environment. All or nothing. So it seems the Democrats will let the tax cuts expire for everyone, and try to get a tax cut for the under $250k incomes by the House.
I'm saying it won't get through. All the tax hike will remain.
Now, idiots like Rim above think the tax cuts were mainly for the rich, but as it turns out they affect the non-rich more. The lowest tier will see their taxes go up 7% (includes the payroll cut expiration). That's 70% more than what they are paying now.
I predict major consternation in Democrat ranks when working folk see much diminished paychecks.
" Bush proposed temporary tax cuts to overcome that recession."
That's a lie. Bush proposed "temporary" tax cuts because we had a surplus rather than a deficit, and he felt that it was more important to give it back to the people whose money it was (his words) rather than pay down the debt.
So you're either deliberately lying or you've been lied to and not bothered to look into the truth. It was the second time he pushed for more tax cuts that he claimed it was in response to a recession.
Shooter--what "the people" don't get (or buy!) is that an individual or a corporation who thinks they will gross $10 m if they do "X" will not do "X" if they will only net $8 m l instead of $9 m because of a tax increase.
No, I expect House republicans to act like the asses they are and then get their clocks cleaned in 2014. Leave it to conservatives to double down on a losing strategy. Memo to conservatives: voters are tired of your @!$%#.
Dear god though, Mr Obama does NOT need to 'compromise' like the last time and give up on programs for the poor to seem 'bipartisan'.
If there is a compromise again, and if Mr. Obama 'gives in' to the Republicans again, I can pretty much guarantee that the 2014 elections will be a windfall for the Replublicans once again as dis-spirited Democrats stay home.
Obama needs to fight for us now and stop compromising Democratic principals.
According to the CRS, Obama spent a trillion dollars on poverty programs last year. Enough to send a check for $10,000 to every household in America. And you think that's not enough?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/
Even this ridiculous report doesn't claim Obama spent that.
You're just outright lying shooter. Last I checked, Obama doesn't have power over the 50 state governments, which accounted for 25% of the spending you're complaining about.
Here's the REAL federal budget:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
You know, we actually spend quite a bit of money on assistance for the poor, so why do you feel the need to lie about it and inflate it?
Blanks has so little understanding of how things work, it truly amazes me. Of course Obama spent a trillion dollars on poverty programs last year. I wonder why?
Were you visiting another planet or something? Did you miss the fact that the Republican policies and the rich bankers crashed the economy a few years ago? Americans lost 40% of their wealth when Bush got done with us and naturally those who were living on the edge....fell over. Good, hardworking Americans ended up homeless, on food stamps and desperate for help.
Blanks would like us to kick all those struggling Americans to the curb because they are moochers, so we can make sure people like Mitt Romney and Sheldon Adleson continue to party.
Sorry boys, you have a problem with the Congressional Research Service, not me.
Take it up with them.
"Sorry boys, you have a problem with the Congressional Research Service, not me."
According to the link you offered, it's actually a Republican analysis being used to add $300 billion in state spending to a list of federal spending, and then falsely claim that it's money being spent by the federal government.
So, I guess you're also on board with the CRS report showing that tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing to help the economy? Good to know.
If you bother to read the actual CRS report, you'll see that cost increases mainly come from health-driven costs, not food stamps or unemployment. Programs including CHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid took the majority of the funding by a large margin (see pg CRS-4). In fact, the total cost for Health Services (339,496M) as a class is just under 10M higher than the cost for Social Security, Housing, Cash Aid, and Food Programs (329,215M) when they're all added together.
Health reform (yep, Obamacare) has been a long time coming, and it hasn't fully come into effect. One reason for the reform is to control costs so that government spending on healthcare for the for the poor can can be kept in check. In addition, making preventative care available for those with low income should help lower longterm costs for health care provided by the government.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110366590/Spending-for-Federal-Benefits-and-Services-for-People-With-Low-Income-FY08-FY11
It's important to understand what you're referring to when you talk about "programs for the poor" - not all are handouts (in fact, most aren't), and some can't help but increase in cost over time. Health costs have grown dramatically over the last decade in the U.S., and that will, of course, be reflected in government budgeting.
The teapubs lost when they claimed they were all about jobs in 2010 and did nothing to create any.
Oh, yea! They showed everyone with a brain EXACTLY what THEY were all about!!!
I have said all along that we should go over the cliff and then go back to the drawing board with a new tax package. The Bush package, the foundation of our current tax policy, is deeply flawed. A do over would go a long way to make the entire code fairer for all including Shooter.
As to sequestration, that is a promise the congress made to itself. It breaks promises it made to itself all the time. Let's make a deal. We start with the DOD and spread out from there.
I hope that rather than back down on his stated "line in the sand" Obama opts to let us simply drop. Sooner or later it's going to happen. The tax breaks are artificial, and rather than providing further extension to higher wage earner breaks, I believe it would be better for us to feel the blow now as a result of Obama standing behind a campaign promise. Those who back him do understand that the GOP will not go quietly, and that they're going to continue to question his authority.
Except Republicans have already shown they're willing to bankrupt our country if they don't get their way.... and they'll have that opportunity in February when it becomes necessary to raise the debt ceiling again.
You can't play a game of chicken with a suicide bomber. You just have to find a sturdy wall to hide behind.
You can play chicken with chicken hawks, though.
Next Election America will bring back our TRINITY of HOPE & LEADERSHIP:
Obama, Reed & Pelosi
If the republicans take us off the cliff, we win back the House and we can finally bring about the final changes we need in order to make our Country the best in the WORLD!
Bill Black alleges that privatizing Social Security is part of the "Grand Bargain." He states that Dems have a group called The Third Way which is so advocating. Is this true?
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm kind of loving Shooter's posts right now. One of my Facebook 'friends' commented that 'people' should stop gloating about the election. I'm just not quite ready to do that yet. Shooter: you lost. Your deluded Tea Party buddies lost. America is evolving. It will not be overrun by Marxists. Affordable health care for all will not bring about economic and social collapse. But hold on to your delusions if you wish because if you do, the voters will hand you your butt in an even more dramatic way in 2014. Enjoy.
I'm one of those people who *will* cross the street to avoid crazy, and therefore have "shooter" blocked...
What are the Presidents options , under these circumstances, to just declare a state of emergency and say this is the way it will be. We can't afford another recession because of political game playing.
No, we can't afford another recession, but the Republicans plan for cutting spending without any additional revenue (i.e. tax increases) will cause exactly that. Ask Europe how austerity worked out for them.
The best solution to the problem is more jobs. The Jobs Act, which has sat in Congress for over a year, is a very good start. It fixes infrastructure, which is in desperate need of repair, and it is paid for by a number of changes to the tax code: treat carried interest as regular income instead of capital gains; limit the itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans; halt subsidies to oil and gas companies (who don't really need them), and eliminate the deduction for jet owners.
Interesting application of Presidential emergency powers, no?
I do wonder why no one has more aggressively questioned the conflict of interest that signing Norquist's Tax Pledge presents in opposition to the Congressional Oath of Office. Perhaps the POTUS should instruct the SCOTUS to investigate the legality of people serving in office after signing an oath that precludes them from taking an action that is a standard part of legislation? Not only that, they've done so at the direction of an entity other than the government allowing that entity to supersede the government.
Shooter the GOP crap goes all the way back to where Rockefeller got the richest men in America to buy the presidential race and elect McKinley.The GOP has always been about keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor. There has never been a time in history when Trickel Down economics worked as the GOP states. And America has sent a clear message that we are tired of the GOP trying to sell us a lemon.The rich are not the majority they are the 1% and America has shown that The 1 % can no longer act like spoiled brats and buy their way into a presidency that helps them stay the 1%.The 99 have risen. WE are the majority and we will level the playing field for all.
And then McKinley got shot and his veep became President--the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. --interesting irony
Why is the troll shooter back to spread his lies here? You lost boy. Shut your yap.
LOL, Let him yack, we all need a good laugh.
Let the tax-cuts expire.. How long can this go on? How long do "hard-working
Amercians*(oh, that's right, that douche-bag didn't win!!) Americans expect a free ride? Till the end of time if you let them!! Somebody has to be the grown-up here and it sure the Hell isn't going to be the Shooter242. You know, maybe once a road/bridge/highway or two is fixed and actually paid for, maybe THAT will stimulate the economy! Duh..We already went off the "fiscal cliff" when Bush started the "tax-cuts" (and two wars which are still on the National Mastercard), I can't be the only one who sees this..
Has anyone heard about the new republican strategy to bankrupt Obamacare by refusing to set up the required state healthcare exchanges??? I got wind of it but only a brief explanation and was interested if anyone knew more...
If the States refuse to set up the exchanges, the Federal Government will step in and do it for them........
Yeah, it seems like a pretty funny solution. They don't want Obamacare, so they'll ignore the law and force the federal government to come in and impose healthcare, the very thing they're claiming is the reason they don't want Obamacare.
Ok. They were saying that if the 30 republican governors refuse to do it, then it will bankrupt and fail Obamacare on day one...AND THIS SHOULD BE THEIR STRATEGY...SMH
LMAO...i swear these republicans love to embelish everything. As i listened to Eric Erickson on the radio(now mind you he is a "respected" radio host here in GA), he literally said this was the golden ticket to defeating Obamacare!! I was skeptical as i listened, but still a little worried this might actually work...and yet again, these smart idiots put their foot in their mouth...SMH
It's more about them thinking they could win and kill it than thinking they can just drive it out of business. The governors who are choosing to let the feds run their exchange are the ones who really stuck their heads in the sand and didn't put anything into place for getting the PPACA up and running. They'll take the fall if the exchanges work elsewhere but fail in their states. If they leave it up to the feds, they can blame the feds. That actually may work better for the program overall, because the recalcitrant states will at least have consistent problems to deal with if their all running the same way. It will mean easier fixes for the exchanges.
Time to take Shooter 242's own advice:
"Ignore trollish responders,"
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
June 11 2012.
@ the Activist: The best post-election statement I have heard thus far!
Let me try a sample poll--all those in favor of letting the automatic cuts take place before caving in to the right say aye. They should be proud to do so anyway since it was their plan to begin with!
There is no reason why the Democrats have to compromise with the Republicans who refuse to raise tax rates on the rich while cutting much needed programs and services. Obama was reelected with a mandate that clearly rejects the failed policies of the Republican party. What the House GOP is proposing is to simply cut deductions and loopholes not to lower tax rates for the wealthy. This is what Romney and Ryan proposed and that was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. Now, Obama has to stand his ground and know that we've got his back on this one.
it seems to me the takers are those who want a tax cut and still haven't hired a soul.
why would we lower romney's taxes - he's hardly a job creator. in fact, he joked about being unemployed. giving him lower taxes wouldn't help anyone but him and he doesn't need the help.
and what is this crap about free stuff? it's not free...it's the taxes i pay coming back to me at a time when i need them to come back. not because i'm lazy but because i lost my job when the 'makers' decided to move their company overseas.
these are not new taxes being proposed the bush cuts were supposed to be temporary and the time for them to expire has long passed. so it seems the takers are those that want to go back on the deal and keep their cuts and let other folks pay for it because it wasn't paid for in the first place.
now make the deal to have them go up on the wealthiest and when the economy recovers more and we get more people working, we'll see the wealthier get richer still and they won't mind it so much.
And I think we do have to distinguish between those who get rich by creating jobs and those who just move money around, gamble with the stock market, and do what Romney did to make his millions.
I don't think Boehner had these people in mind when he suggested reforming the tax code. Did you John?
Nobody gets rich 'creating jobs'. Jobs are created by economic activity. Capital is required to start a business, but if it doesn't fill a need or if the economy is too weak to sustain demand, then there will be no jobs.
but its so much FUN watching re-pubs deflate, making loud gassy noises...(gloat gloat snicker gloat)
Let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire AND pass the American Jobs ACT. Bye bye Grover, hello Patty!