PDA

View Full Version : The Hijacked Commission



Qtec
11-14-2010, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation’s long-run fiscal problems. It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.</span>

My misgivings increased as we got a better feel for the views of the commission’s co-chairmen. It soon became clear that Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman, had a very Republican-sounding small-government agenda. Meanwhile, Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman, revealed the kind of honest broker he is by sending an abusive e-mail to the executive director of the National Older Women’s League in which he described Social Security as being “like a milk cow with 310 million tits.”

We’ve known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.

Start with the declaration of “Our Guiding Principles and Values.” Among them is, “Cap revenue at or below 21% of G.D.P.” This is a guiding principle? And why is a commission charged with finding every possible route to a balanced budget setting an upper (but not lower) limit on revenue?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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?</span>

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — <span style='font-size: 17pt'>tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class.</span> 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, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.</span>

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, <span style='font-size: 23pt'>but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans.</span> And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

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, for a number of reasons — including the point that <u>working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.</u>

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>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.</span> 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. </div></div>

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman)

Q

see also,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Erskine Bowles, Morgan Stanley, and the Deficit Commission
Print
Thursday, 11 November 2010 05:08
AddThis

The deficit report put out by the commission's co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles,<span style='font-size: 17pt'> had one striking omission. It does not includes plans for a Wall Street speculation tax or any other tax on the financial industry.</span>

This omission is <u>striking </u>because <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the co-chairs made a big point of saying that they looked everywhere to save money and/or raise revenue.</span> As Senator Simpson said: <u>"We have harpooned every whale in the ocean - and some minnows."</u> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>Wall Street is one whale that appears to have dodged the harpoon. </span></div></div>

LWW
11-14-2010, 04:47 AM
When will you learn.

You simply cannot tax a corporation.

Whenever you try to, it becomes an expense just like a phone bill and is passed onto the population either through higher prices to the end user or lower dividends to stockholders ... which are now virtually every US citizen with any net worth at all ... or by cheapening the produce the end consumer receives.

Your failed Marxist ideology is what got us into this morass ... and abandoning them are our only path to salvation.

LWW

Qtec
11-14-2010, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">which are now virtually every US citizen with any net worth at all </div></div>

How many people is that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You simply cannot tax a corporation. </div></div>

There is a huge amount of tax on tobacco but people still buy cigarettes.

We are talking above a tax on gambling here.

Wall St is paying out 144 Billion in bonus's this year, they can afford it.




Q

LWW
11-14-2010, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There is a huge amount of tax on tobacco but people still buy cigarettes.

Q</div></div>

And who pays this increased tax? Did the tobacco companies absorb it and keep the price the same?

Or. did they pass the cost along to the end consumer?

Thanks for agreeing with me.

As to the WS bonus situation ... what is really happening is the taxpayer is subsidizing WS with money the regime keeps piumping into the investment houses and into propping up the markets with the latest QE2 induced dead cat bounce.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-14-2010, 05:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation’s long-run fiscal problems. It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.</span>

My misgivings increased as we got a better feel for the views of the commission’s co-chairmen. It soon became clear that Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman, had a very Republican-sounding small-government agenda. Meanwhile, Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman, revealed the kind of honest broker he is by sending an abusive e-mail to the executive director of the National Older Women’s League in which he described Social Security as being “like a milk cow with 310 million tits.”

We’ve known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.

Start with the declaration of “Our Guiding Principles and Values.” Among them is, “Cap revenue at or below 21% of G.D.P.” This is a guiding principle? And why is a commission charged with finding every possible route to a balanced budget setting an upper (but not lower) limit on revenue?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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?</span>

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — <span style='font-size: 17pt'>tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class.</span> 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, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.</span>

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, <span style='font-size: 23pt'>but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans.</span> And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

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, for a number of reasons — including the point that <u>working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.</u>

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>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.</span> 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. </div></div>

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman)

Q

see also,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Erskine Bowles, Morgan Stanley, and the Deficit Commission
Print
Thursday, 11 November 2010 05:08
AddThis

The deficit report put out by the commission's co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles,<span style='font-size: 17pt'> had one striking omission. It does not includes plans for a Wall Street speculation tax or any other tax on the financial industry.</span>

This omission is <u>striking </u>because <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the co-chairs made a big point of saying that they looked everywhere to save money and/or raise revenue.</span> As Senator Simpson said: <u>"We have harpooned every whale in the ocean - and some minnows."</u> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>Wall Street is one whale that appears to have dodged the harpoon. </span></div></div> </div></div>


I am relieved that this commission is dead in the water....

Just another crock....the only progress was the admission that we need single payer, and it does highlight the fact that the Health Care Bill, reduces the deficit, but would be far more effective had Democratics told Repubs to go take a flying....

The only good thing about the election is that we got rid of most of the DINOS, Democratics, In Name Only, who screwed everything up for the Party...the "conservative" Democratics, who were owned by Oil, and pharmaceuticals.

That was surely a bright spot for me! Just shows the dangers inherent in having to bear the burden of corrupted DINO's from the flyover states, who must appeal to the religious bubba vote...and keep their corporate pigs lined up for their next campaign.

Frankly I see our Party now, as being far stronger and more effective, with those DINOs gone, although two more need to go as well. Perhaps, the next election will do the trick!

Meanwhile, Obama annd the Dems, need to block every damaging Republican policy which has already proven out to be a failure.

Ending the tax cuts for the wealthy is the first step, and if they don't insist on doing that, they can just hang it up, the Democratic base will not support the administration, or the Democratic party...IMO.

It's obvious, as well, the Dems are missing out on a great opportunity to merge with the Green Party. Let the Republicans keep the religious right, and merge with the environmentalists.

If they did that, nothing could beat them...it was the only reason why the Repigs won Obama's old seat, the Green Party split the vote.

G.

sack316
11-14-2010, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

There is a huge amount of tax on tobacco but people still buy cigarettes.
</div></div>

You cite a perfect example to prove LWW's point here.

Sack

LWW
11-14-2010, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

There is a huge amount of tax on tobacco but people still buy cigarettes.
</div></div>

You cite a perfect example to prove LWW's point here.

Sack </div></div>

That's why he went silent.

Again.

Snoopy, Foghorn, Gee, and Woofie all bury their collectivist heads in the sand whenever crimethink (Non party approved thought.) is practiced in their presence.

This allows them to backslap each other over how ignorant they are about what they all now to be true.

Orwell was a prophet.

LWW

Sev
11-14-2010, 06:52 PM
I think my list is far better than the commission suggestions.

Qtec
11-14-2010, 08:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's why he went silent.

Again.
</div></div>


Some of us still have to work Dorothy. We do not all live in the land of Oz.

Q

LWW
11-15-2010, 02:59 AM
You do realize that in your lame attempt to discredit my position, you verified it.

LWW