So far Obama's effort to "compromise" with Republicans on averting the fiscal cliff with his "balanced approach" of spending cuts and tax hikes has resulted in a proposal "literally laughed at by Mitch McConnell) of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes in exchange for nothing Also included in his grand bargain, giving himself free reign to raise the debt ceiling at will.

According to his main man in the "negotiations" Timothy Geithner, he's offering tons of spending cuts - by not spending money we weren't going to spend anyway.

Quote:

---

WALLACE: Or they now say because you're not willing to cut spending enough.

GEITHNER: No, but that's not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –

WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?

GEITHNER: No, that's not true. We're — as you know, we're winding down two wars.

WALLACE: I understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It's a budget gimmick, sir.

GEITHNER: No, that's not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers' resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.

And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.

WALLACE: But it was money that wasn't going to be spent anyway, and –

GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.

WALLACE: I understand. But you're not saving — you're not ending the wars for budget purposes. You're ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren't going to be fought. You're not really saving money.

GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –

WALLACE: I mean, it's a budget gimmick, but it's money never intended to spend.

---

So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?

Speaker Bonehead should pass a bill extending the Bush era rates ,and if the Senate Dems don't move the bill ,or the President vetoes it;then they should use the President's argument against him... that he is going allow 98% of the people's tax rates to increase just to get a tax increase on 2% .

We are now hearing from both sides that they are willing to let the so called fiscal cliff happen . I get the feeling that they really don't think it would be as bad as advertised.

Hello Steve:

Quote:

---

So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?

---

Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

excon

---

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothing.

Time you learned to fly, watch the bump when you land

Quote:

---

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothing

---

Hello again, Steve:

Well, it means as much as it can in the middle of negotiations.

Excon

Offer on the table, like it or NOT! Put your offer up its your turn. That's how you negotiate and just criticizing ain't going to cut it. Stop stalling.

Everybody agrees on middle class tax cuts, so pass that, and fight about anything you want later.

"So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending"

I think this depends as to whether you are talking about 'spending cuts' or 'savings'

Two different things

I would argue that Geithner is right in that they are making savings, but he has nothing to offer in terms spending cuts.


Tut

The Dems are ridiculous . They consider reductions in the rate of spending increases a spending cut. They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social Security .

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social Security

---

Personally, I don't believe the fix should be taken off the backs of the beneficiaries.

You believe in a flat tax, don't you? If we charged everybody a flat SS tax, SS would be solvent forever. Instead the rich only pay a very small percentage of their income toward SS, while the poor pay the FULL LOAD.. In fact, the richer they are, the smaller percentage they pay.. Look. Let's make everybody pay the SAME rate. Isn't that fair?

Excon

You forget ,it isn't a tax ,it's a premium. If you tell me that the rich would get proportionate return for their extra $$ then I'd say yeah ,eliminate the maximum. But the left see Social Security Insurance as just another welfare program. That has been the fraud of the plan from the start .
But the Repubics also want means testing... so that should calm your panic that the rich are getting away with something

You meant to say you don't have means testing on SS no wonder they want to tax the rich, no Tom, the rich get protected by aircrft carriers and diplomatic services, the poor have no use of those

Timothy Geithner: U.S. 'Absolutely' Should Get Rid Of Debt Ceiling

Went to the bank yesterday and argued that my spending shouldn't be constrained by limits they place on my credit .

Hello again, tom:

So, the problem we have is ENGLISH, and if you only understood it, you'd be a lefty... Of course your bank won't let you go OVER your SPENDING limit.

But, the debt ceiling isn't about BUYING stuff. It's about PAYING for the stuff we already bought... Now, if you asked your bank whether you should PAY for what you already bought, I'll bet they'd say YES...

excon

No ,what has already been spent is already in the debt .

This is to pay for more spending ;to fund the operations of the government.

Edit . I stand by my bank example. If I'm already extended with legal obligations ,I couldn't go to the bank and demand they extend my credit without conditions.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

This is to pay for more spending. Not for what is already owed.

---

Uhhhh, no.

Excon

See my edit.. I removed that line while you were responding .

In ENGLISH, you don't need to raise the DEBT ceiling unless you're adding more DEBT.

Hello again, wingers:

So, then you DON'T understand what it is? I got it, but don't you think you SHOULD know a little something about it BEFORE you post?? Nahhh, maybe not.

excon

I can't put it any more plain English, ex. Now if Obama would speak to us in plain English instead of code words and political-speak Americans might get it, too. You probably believe Obama when he says he's offering a "balanced approach." Bwa ha ha!!

what Obama has probably realised is this fiscal cliff is rhetorical, that is it is just so much Bullshlt. The economy won't collapse, the job creaters won't spend their money now, so changing the equation isn't going to make a difference, and a little less spending, well you won't see an immediate effect from that either, so the world as we know it will go on, and those who should pay more in one form or another, will

Tell that to all those contractors sweating bullets about the military budget cuts looming after the first of the year.

Hello again,

Republicans believe that UNCERTAINTY is holding back the economy... But, they want to use the debt ceiling debate to "get stuff", and that's going to create some UNCERTAINTY. In fact, that's going to create a LOT of uncertainty.

The last time they did this, our vaunted credit rating was reduced costing us BILLIONS of $$'s. Why would they do that?

excon

Because the President has no intention to rein in spending . So all the tax increases he proposes will do no good .In fact they will be harmful because while he is increasing spending ,revenues will drop as happens every time there is a tax increase .
The President has no intention to do good faith negotiations .That was made clear with his proposal to add stimulus spending increases on the table

The President's 'my way or the higway' approach won't cut it . I don't care how big a margin of victory he had. That doesn't mean squat. It's about time that he seriously negotiate with the House leadership and act like a freakin President .instead of a community organizer with a bull horn .
You want certainty ? I'll give you certainty . The President's plan will extend the capital investment strike and we will go into a double dip recession if he doesn't change his path.

Hello again, tom:

So, cooperation and compromise are out the window, huh? Of course, you blame Obama, but the COUNTRY is blaming the Republicans. 2014 is going to be another landslide. But, I digress. It's clear that there's NO give in tax RATE increases.. But, it's going to happen ANYWAY whether you agree with them or not. That's a WIN for Obama. Once the tax hikes go into effect, all Obama has to do is LOWER them for the middle class. That'll be EASY.

So, it looks like another congress who says NO. We'll take care of that in two years.

excon

Hello again,

I'm a renter. I don't GET the HANDOUT that homeowners do. I'd be happy if they close that loophole. Of course, Steve doesn't think HIS deduction IS a loophole. But, to those who don't get them, EVERY deduction is a loophole.

Would you wingers give that up, or would you rather tax the super duper rich... It's a BIG chunk of change. When it comes to YOUR deductions, somehow, I think you'd rather the rich pay more.. Go ahead, tell me how magnanimous your are.

excon

Your problem, Ex, is the Republican party, hey, most of your politics is run by rich dudes, so they are going to say no to anything that affects them.

Tom the government has contractors so it can lay them off without consequences, so no one said what they do is permanent, they will just have to find cushy jobs elsewhere, just like everyone else

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

---

a tax on wealth, so you are in favour of a new tax, how would you administer such a thing? Tax net worth, what a nightmare, stocks would be valued at zero overnight, the value of property would drop and where do you get the valuations this is based on. No, it would have to be something more simple and less subject to manipulation, a tax on bank balances and bonds, but that is discriminatory since if I hold my wealth in gold? Silver? Jewels, art. The reason it has not been done is it isn't practical. You tax wealth and wealth will leave the country. You want to tax wealth, tax transactions

Buffet is not against paying his share, he is waiting for someone to change the rules which his own class won't do out of self interest, so you want the blowhards to pay their share ask the republicans to go first

Quote:

---

Buffet is not against paying his share

---

. BS .he intentionally takes a minimal salary and then complains he isn't taxed enough . I know how it works . Rich Dems set up the tax code so they can keep their wealth and to prevent any other aspirants to reach their level of wealth,

The rules allow anyone to defer income, when you own the company you don't need to take a salary but you do get income and it is taxable somewhere. You just need to get it together so there aren't different classes of income or taxpayer and then remove all the concessions and loopholes so you have a level playing ground. Do republicans believe in a level playing ground Tom or one rule for the rich and another for the suckers, er, taxpayers .

Your minimum tax was a step in the right direction obviously Buffet recognised and acknowledged that. Stop trying to get a free ride on the back of the suckers, er, taxpayers. Tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you?

I'm a flat tax type of guy .I don't know or care about the particular plans the Repubics come up with . They are part of the problem too.

Quote:

---

tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you?

---

No that is an obscene level of taxation for any income.The real problem is that you and the left here think the government needs that type of confiscation .I say they could provide the constitutional necessary services for much less.

Well Tom what is fair, it has to be enough so the government not only covers its expenses it get out of debt. At the moment it needs to about double to achieve that in any meaningful way. The reality is you have spent your way into the poor house, too many wars, too much pandering to the rich, too much spent on aircraft carriers, etc. You need to take a Greek haircut

Quote:

---

You need to take a Greek haircut

---

fine with me. Start with budget cuts .

A Greek haircut consists of several measures; increased taxation, lower salaries for public servants and parliamentarians, less public servants, lower pensions, higher retirement age, and of course renegotiating the national debt bringing your credit rating to junk status.

You favour one measure like your republican buddies but reality is you need total reform

I'm all for tax reform .It won't happen before the new year. Speaker Bonehead met with the President yesterday. I'm sure in the end he'll cave. Better make sure he has Madame Mimi on board because he won't have the TP coalition. Not after his purge of them this week. Meanwhile Harry Reid and the do nothing Senate plays pocket pool another week.

Down you go, down to the depths and it is only a miserable 5% that is being argued about. Think what you could accomplish if you only agreed about something, you might even be able to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions for real

The US forests and land use has increased our sequestration through a carbon sink . We were well on our way to cleaner air long before Kyoto . Save it for China.
5% here 5% there . There are NEVER concessions from the Dems about spending unless it's about gutting the military. They have this phoney base line budgetting so they can make the absurd claim that a reduction in the rate of spending increase is a cut .
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste

Screw them.. a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let them budge on spending and entitlement reform and then we can talk. OR even better... They want taxes at Clintoon levels... Let them brings spending back to Clintoon levels... that would be a good start .

But not to worry libs. I'm hearing one Republic after another surrender on this.. Rand Paul even floated the idea of voting 'present ' and letting Reid get his way in the Senate on a simple majority vote. Speaker Bonehead has at least shown some spine.

Hello again, tom:

There are SOME in your party who realize that they LOST the election.. Then there are SOME, you for instance, who don't. The ones who realize it, are trying to salvage the election of 2014, where the balance of the Tea Partiers are BOUND to be swept out of office IF they don't start GOVERNING.

I'm not sure sure which position I like better.

excon