PDA

View Full Version : Dems offer Obama honorable path to surrender ...



LWW
07-23-2011, 05:28 AM
IMHO there actually is the opportunity to hammer out a deal from some of the key points within THIS (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/a_pro_growth_plan_from_the_gang_of_six):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>A Pro-Growth Plan from the Gang of Six</span></u>
A Commentary By Lawrence Kudlow
Thursday, July 21, 2011

There are a lot of known unknowns about the new "Gang of Six" budget proposal. But conservatives should hold back from trashing it. Why? <span style='font-size: 11pt'>There's a large, pro-growth tax-reform piece in the plan that would lower tax rates across the board. This is a stunning reversal of the Obama Democrats' soak-the-rich, class-warfare campaign.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The best part of the Gang of Six plan is a reduction in the top personal tax rate from 35 percent to a range of 23 percent to 29 percent.</span> <span style="color: #3366FF">ATTENTION SNOOPY ... THAT MEANS THAT DEAR LEADER ENDORSES TAX CUTS FOR THE EEEVILLL RICH!</span> For businesses, the rate would drop in the same manner. And the corporate tax would be territorial rather than global, thereby avoiding the double tax on foreign earnings of U.S. companies. Finally, the plan would abolish the $1.7 trillion alternative minimum tax. <span style="color: #3366FF">ATTENTION SNOOPY ... THAT'S ANOTHER TAX CUT FOR THE EEEVILLL RICH!</span> That's huge . It's another pro-growth tax reform.

In a more perfect world, the Congressional Budget Office would score the pro-growth incentives of lower marginal tax rates in terms of a tax-revenue increase. That's the history stretching back to JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush circa 2003.

And right now, the Gang of Six package is the first real pro-growth tax reform of all the debt-ceiling plans. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>It acknowledges the need for a growth element in order to solve our budget bankruptcy and limit spending, deficits and debt. It would boost the economy and broaden the base (by reforming or limiting numerous deductions). As a result, more income would be taxed at lower rates in a rising economy, throwing off a hell of a lot more revenues than we're getting today. Rising revenues from lower tax rates are a good thing.</span> <span style="color: #3366FF">ATTENTION OBAMATRONS ... THAT MEANS DEAR LEADER ENDORSES TAX CUTS AS BENEFICIAL TO BOTH ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GUBMINT REVENUE GROWTH, IOW DEAR LEADER ACKNOWLEDGES FINALLY THAT BUSH/REAGAN WERE RIGHT ON TAXES.</span>

Now, there are glitches in this plan that cannot be overlooked. The biggest is the harsher treatment of capital gains. In a CNBC interview on Tuesday, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told me that the investment tax rate would rise to 20 percent from 15 percent. This is a black mark. It's anti-growth. <span style="color: #3366FF">ATTENTION O-CULTISTS ... THIS MEANS THAT DEAR LEADER ENDORSES RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.</span> Coburn, however, also told me that the tax treatment of IRAs and 401(k)s would not change in this plan. That's good.

Additional problems, however, are raised by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. He notes first of all that the Gang of Six plan claims to increase revenues by $1.2 trillion relative to a "plausible baseline." He also notes that the plan claims to provide $1.5 trillion in tax relief relative to the CBO March baseline. That's important. But Ryan then reminds us that the CBO baseline assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which would increase revenues by a static $3.5 trillion.

So Ryan concludes that there's a $2 trillion revenue increase. And he notes that this number could jump by another $800 billion from Obamacare taxes, which would increase revenues by $2.8 trillion.

OK, this is tricky business. It's a baseline-matching game. But let's not get hung up on that right now. Let's flesh out the details. Let's see how the crony-capitalism deductions and loopholes will be treated.

So I'm not prepared to trash the Gang of Six plan. I am impressed by the lower marginal tax rates and tax simplification it contains. These are decidedly pro-growth measures. And we need growth .

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>If the economy were functioning decently, revenues as a share of gross domestic product would move back toward 18 percent or more. And that would be a good place to balance the budget with spending restraints.</span>

I get the uncertainty of the Senate Finance Committee regarding Social Security, health care and tax reform. I get that. But Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., runs the House Ways and Means Committee, and he's not going to let Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., destroy the economy.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the Gang of Six plan, there are a lot of planned spending cuts across the board for all the Cabinet departments. There is spending-cap enforcement. And, importantly, the plan would repeal the CLASS Act, an Obamacare entitlement for long-term health care insurance that would exponentially elevate future federal spending. This would mark the first step toward undoing Obamacare.</span> <span style="color: #3366FF">ATTENTION OBAMANATION ... THIS MEANS DEAR LEADER ENDORSES A PLAN WHICH DE FACTO ADMITS OBAMACARE IS A MISTAKE AND WILL LIKELY LEAD TO IT'S FULL REPEAL.</span>


But -- and I acknowledge this weakness -- the health care savings look inadequate and murky. And the Social Security reform is completely unknown. The cut-and-cap Paul Ryan budget, which would reduce spending by $110 billion in 2012, or $6 trillion over 10 years, looks a lot more powerful than the Gang of Six proposal. Ditto for the Ryan domestic discretionary budget cut of $76 billion in 2012, which stretches out to $1.8 trillion in 10 years. And of course, I acknowledge that two-to-one or three-to-one formulas for spending cuts and tax increases have always broken down in the past. You get the taxes but not the lower spending.

Nonetheless, with all the known unknowns and maybe some additional unknown unknowns, I still think it's time to give the Gang of Six plan a chance. </div></div>

This is a truly humiliating attempt for dear leader to negotiate what is close to an unconditional surrender.

It is very similar to Lee's surrender being made palatable by the CSA not turning their arms directly over to Grant's forces, but instead being allowed to leave them in a pile and walk away.

We can only hope the republicans in the house have the courage to continue their fixed bayonet stance.

Soflasnapper
07-23-2011, 12:20 PM
I guess it's true that IF Obama endorsed this, then those claims would be true.

As he has not, none of your commentary claims are actually true, except prospectively, in a conditional way.

As a matter of fact, since at least some of that analysis would be correct if it took place, those are among the very REASONS that O will not endorse the GOS plan.

Qtec
07-24-2011, 12:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it's true that IF Obama endorsed this, then those claims would be true.

As he has not, none of your commentary claims are actually true, except prospectively, in a conditional way.

As a matter of fact, since at least some of that analysis would be correct if it took place, those are among the very REASONS that O will not endorse the GOS plan.

</div></div>

Exactly.

Q

Qtec
07-24-2011, 12:05 AM
Whatever plan Obama goes for is irrelevant, it still must be passed by the Senate Democratics.
The 'Gang of Six' proposal will go the same way as the stupid CCB bill - <u>that just died an inevitable death in the Senate</u>.

The unions and progressives would never go for 10% tax cut for the rich.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AFL-CIO Slams ‘Gang of Six’ Proposal For ‘Goring’ The Poor </div></div>
link (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/afl-cio-slams-gang-of-six-proposal.php)



Q

LWW
07-24-2011, 03:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><s>I guess it's true that IF Obama endorsed this, then those claims would be true.

As he has not, none of your commentary claims are actually true, except prospectively, in a conditional way.

As a matter of fact, since at least some of that analysis would be correct if it took place, those are among the very REASONS that O will not endorse the GOS plan.</s>

</div></div>

TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ... I MUST IGNORE REALITY ...</div></div>

Meanwhile, as reported by the reich wing MSNBC: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807163/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/obama-endorses-gang-six-deficit-plan/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Barack Obama gave his endorsement Tuesday to a deficit reduction plan offered by a bipartisan group of six senators, urging congressional leaders to use that blueprint as the basis for a bill that he can sign into law before the Aug. 2 debt limit deadline.

He acknowledged that his backing of the “Gang of Six” proposal “doesn’t get us out of the House of Representatives" and "doesn’t get us out of the Senate” and cautioned “there are still going to be a lot of difficult negotiations” before the plan could be approved.

Obama's backing seemed to be a potential breakthrough. </div></div>

Next ridiculous and shameless defense of dear leader?

LWW
07-24-2011, 03:15 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">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it's true that IF Obama endorsed this, then those claims would be true.

As he has not, none of your commentary claims are actually true, except prospectively, in a conditional way.

As a matter of fact, since at least some of that analysis would be correct if it took place, those are among the very REASONS that O will not endorse the GOS plan.

</div></div>

Exactly.

Q </div></div>


Don't you feel silly now?

What's that?

Since dear leader endorsed it, you realized you were for lowered tax rates the entire time?

Qtec
07-24-2011, 03:33 AM
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>pathetic.</span>

Look it up on wiki and it links straight to this post.

Thanks for showing EVERYBODY that you have no integrity, no ethics and no honour.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Don't you feel silly now?

What's that?

Since dear leader endorsed it, you realized you were for lowered tax rates the entire time?

Exactly.

Q </div></div>

Are those YOUR words or mine?

If they are your words, why make it seem that those are my words?


Shame on you.

Q.....

LWW
07-24-2011, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>pathetic.</span>

Look it up on wiki and it links straight to this post.


Q.....




</div></div>

Then why don't you provide such link?

What's that?

You made it up?

Imagine that.

Qtec
07-24-2011, 03:45 AM
Are those YOUR words or mine?

If they are your words, why make it seem that those are my words?


Shame on you.

Q.....

LWW
07-24-2011, 03:46 AM
Seek help brother ... while there's still time.

Soflasnapper
07-24-2011, 12:43 PM
Endorsing it as a framework or blueprint does not mean endorsing it in its entirety. Nor do I take a cable talker's summary as a definitive take on what was said. Beyond that, there is a fair amount of posturing in these negotiations, so it would be unwise to take anything said in public to be the true position of anybody.

As we've just seen, the $800 billion in revenue enhancements semi-agreed to just became a request for $1,200 billion, essentially overnight without warning.

If the POTUS positions are protean, or as Boehner says, like a bowl of jello, how exactly do we know any of this is so until it transpires? And has it transpired yet?

Sev
07-25-2011, 04:23 PM
Gang of six plan sent to the gallows.

LWW
07-26-2011, 02:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>pathetic.</span>

Look it up on wiki and it links straight to this post.


Q.....




</div></div>

Then why don't you provide such link?

What's that?

You made it up?

Imagine that. </div></div>

I guess you did.

LWW
07-26-2011, 02:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Endorsing it as a framework or blueprint does not mean endorsing it in its entirety. Nor do I take a cable talker's summary as a definitive take on what was said. Beyond that, there is a fair amount of posturing in these negotiations, so it would be unwise to take anything said in public to be the true position of anybody.

As we've just seen, the $800 billion in revenue enhancements semi-agreed to just became a request for $1,200 billion, essentially overnight without warning.

If the POTUS positions are protean, or as Boehner says, like a bowl of jello, how exactly do we know any of this is so until it transpires? And has it transpired yet? </div></div>

So ... dear leader's plan is to have no plan other than to reject the only plan that has passed either house?

Where is the democrook plan then?

Why didn't the prior congress handle this issue last year?

Qtec
07-26-2011, 03:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why didn't the prior congress handle this issue last year? </div></div>

Why did Bush double the Nat Debt?

Why didn't he sign up for Vietnam?

Stop changing the subject. It get very boring.

Q

LWW
07-26-2011, 03:17 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">Why didn't the prior congress handle this issue last year? </div></div>

Why did Bush double the Nat Debt?

Why didn't he sign up for Vietnam?

Stop changing the subject. It get very boring.

Q

</div></div>

1 - He didn't, congress did.

2 - He did, Clinton didn't.

3 - Neither of those is the topic.

4 - Truth is always boring to the bot class such as yourself