O mans chickens come home to roost... -- Anti Obama Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:06:42 11/11/10 Thu
Author: DE
Subject: O mans chickens come home to roost...

or should I say ROAST.....

In order to pay for all that spending that our current president ass hole has done (with little or NO results) the congress proposes putting the burden on the taxpayers directly.

Which is NOT required at all. All ya have to do is delete social welfare and all government assisted public programs taking that money and firing all the employees (adding their salaries to the money pool) and using THAT MONEY to pay off the debts run up by ol President fuck up.

AND ALSO deletion of all excemptions from income tax currently held by the various religions. Its about time that RELIGION fork over some of their vast coffers as well.

Debt panel chairmen’s proposal pleases just about no one
By Zachary Roth
Buzz up!0 votes ShareretweetEmailPrintBy Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Thu Nov 11, 12:36 pm ET
It's been a full day since the two co-chairs of President Obama's bipartisan commission to reduce the national debt released their plan--and early returns indicate that it may rank with "Waterworld" in the annals of unpopular debuts.

First, though, let's be clear on what the proposal -- authored by Erskine Bowles, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton, and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson -- is and is not. The debt commission, which President Obama established by executive order in February, is charged with establishing a framework to curb government spending and bring the federal budget deficit--now some $1.3 trillion, by the estimate of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--back into some sort of long-term balance.

The Bowles-Simpson plan, which would save nearly $4 trillion, calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending, a higher federal gas tax, the elimination of some tax breaks (and a reduction of tax rates on high-earners) and cuts to Social Security.

[Related: China slams America's latest financial move]

But this proposal represents only a basis for negotiation among the commission's 18 members. Only if a final plan gains the support of 14 of those 18 -- something many observers see as unlikely -- will it be submitted to Congress for a vote in December. So we're a long way from any final decisions.

Still, that hasn't stopped a bevy of pundits, analysts, advocates, and lawmakers from weighing in. Ā And just about no one is singing the plan's praises. Below is a breakdown of what they've been saying.

• Democrats and liberals. Democratic leaders and liberal advocacy groups who traditionally back increased government spending have vigorously rejected much of the plan. Nancy Pelosi -- who will still occupy the post of House speaker in December, when a finalized version of the plan might reach the House floor -- slammed the Bowles-Simpson scheme as "simply unacceptable."

"Any final proposal from the commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare," she said in a statement.

[Photo: A look at the National Debt Clock in New York]

Dick Durbin, the Senate Democrats' No. 2 and a member of the commission, sounded a similar note, saying that the proposal is weighted too much toward spending cuts and not enough toward tax increases. Bowles said Wednesday that the ratio is 75 percent spending cuts, 25 percent tax increases.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who is one of the key liberal members of the panel, dismissed the initial proposal as a nonstarter. "I think every member of the commission would agree that this is not the plan," she said.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, agreed, charging that the commission is "dedicated to cutting crucial social programs and reducing corporate and upper-income taxes at the same time."

Liberal pundits have been just as harsh. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones uses a Congressional Budget Office chart to show that Medicare and other health care costs are by far the biggest long-term deficit problem. "The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare," he writes. "That's not serious." Noting that Bowles and Simpson also propose cutting taxes on the rich, Drum concludes: "This document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small."

• The White House. It's also no shock to learn that the Obama administration is adopting a cautious wait-and-see approach as partisan interests begin to knock the plan around. A spokesman said President Obama would wait until the commission had completed its work before commenting. At the same time, the spokesman also noted that the Bowles-Simpson plan was "only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations."

• Republicans and conservatives. Deficit hawks are also greeting the commission's plan with caution--and more than a little skepticism. Three conservative GOP House members who are on the commission -- Dave Camp of Michigan, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Jeb Hensarling of Texas -- released a statement calling the proposal "provocative" but citing "concerns with some of [the] specifics."

GOP Rep. John Boehner of Ohio who's in line to take over as speaker next year, declined to comment on the plan at this stage.

[New pressure: Ireland's financial troubles build]

But Americans for Tax Reform, led by small-government activist Grover Norquist, slammed the proposal, declaring that the commission is "merely an excuse to raise net taxes on the American people."

• Political handicappers. As Washington Post economics blogger Ezra Klein suggests, it's hard to suss out the strategic logic behind the decision by Bowles and Simpson to release a plan without forming any viable commission consensus. The report, Klein writes, "doesn't fulfill its basic purpose, which was demonstrating enough consensus among congressional representatives of both parties to convince the public and the political system that Congress is ready to make these choices. ... The co-chairmen have some interesting policy ideas for how to balance the budget, but as of yet, they've not made any discernible progress on the political deadlock preventing us from balancing the budget. And it's the deadlock, not the policy questions, that they were asked to solve."

So there you have it: The left is boiling mad, the right is mostly noncommittal -- and, in some cases, suspicious-to-angry -- and there's deep skepticism about the panel's chances of ever agreeing on a final plan.

Then again, there was nothing in Obama's executive order suggesting any of this was going to be easy.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]