Deficit reduction panel releases debt proposal plan

Well, still running a deficit in 2015; so it kind of sort of is going nowhere. That's probably unavoidable with 9% unemployment; and there are some pretty good test balloons in there, but a multi-year plan to still run a deficit is a wee bit depressing.

 

Here's mine:

-raise taxes for everyone across the board

-reduce spending in the government itself, i.e. lower wages (except for the police), reduce benefits and retiree pensions.

-levy VATs to any products with 60 percent parts manufactured abroad, this will cause a Tariff war with China, but they will hurt more than we will

-get rid of NAFTA

-get rid of the war on drugs by decriminalizing, zoned restricted and taxing them

-reduce the military and have half our carriers groups in "ready mode" around the world key places but with only a skeleton crew. reduce foreign aid

-raise the min age for social security but have certain benefits to start at 65, like food, utilities and rent subsidies for a certain income level

-limit the monetary part of welfare to 2 years (with an option to extend to 2 more years if they go to vocational school) but allow food stamps to continue

-provide "corporate welfare" to companies that meet a revenue vs number of employee ratio, and give them priority for government contracts. The ratio should be determined by experts according to the economic climate. Of course, a company can choose to do whatever it wants, it just won't get preferred status.

-I'm not sure what to do about health care. I lean towards having a single buyer system and reducing the overall quality to European levels. Reduce the admin cost to 5% like Taiwan. Any additional quality in coverage can be bought privately. For example, if a Cadillac plans cost 4 dollars while the public plan cost 2 dollars, private insurance only have to cover 2 dollars.


I don't make that much, but I'm willing to suffer a little until the debt is under somewhat manageable.

 

Better not raise gas tax. That is a very hard tax on the lower class.

 

I'm for all of these except for the one on tax deduction on mortgages. We want to make home ownership easier and more affordable.

 

Needs moar cutz.

 

Removiing the Child Care tax break would raise my taxes by $4500 a year

 

Why should home ownership be easier and more affordable? Why should the government be subsidizing someone's mortgage but not my rent?

 

White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week's electoral defeat.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

 

A multiyear plan is going to be necessary given the size of the deficit and where the economy is at. A sudden shock to the system would likely be disastrous. That said I agree that it is depressing and what is more problematic with a multi-year, or more importantly a multi-Congress, plan is the willingness of later Congresses and Admin.'s to stick with the plan. I mean we had a surplus in 1999 but rather than stick with those policies the next Admin. and Congress came in and passed a big ass tax cut.

Anyway this plan is probably DOA in Congress.

 

****ING BULL**** - the r****ds are running the place again. This is SUCH bull****!

p.s. this should probably have its own thread.

 

Lost my vote.

 

Bush I lost because he raised taxes. Obama lost because he... lowered taxes?

The deficit is a red herring.

 

Why? What do you suggest they do?

They could refuse to sign off on extending the tax cuts, but then when they expire the middle class will get hit with higher taxes. That's not good.

They could continue trying to separate middle and upper class tax cuts, but the Republicans that now control the House would never sign off on that. That's not good.

Or they could acquiesce and temporarily extend them for everyone which the Republicans will agree to and can get done. The middle class taxes don't go up (relative to where they are now, I suppose). Of course, this doesn't help the deficit. That's not good.

I can't really criticize the administration for having to choose 1 of 3 bad options. I'd prefer just ending them and letting my taxes go up, personally, but I don't mind keeping the lower taxes either.

 

Congrats, Tea Party, the richest 2% (that you'll never be!) get to keep their gobs of money (that they'll never need!) and the deficit remains just as high as ever (which you never really cared about!).

 

Not the child care tax credit by itself. The absolute maximum is $2,100(35% of $6,000). Losing all tax breaks for your children could very easily cost you $4,500, but if they are talking about child care only, it won't be that much.

 

The are subsidizing your rent. If it cost more for your landlord to purchase the home, he/she will pass those costs to you.

By giving you a tax break on interest, it is in effect reducing the cost of capital which increases capital investment.

 

I agree.

 

Let them expire. If the republicans refuse to compromise, be sure to make it clear they chose that path. Pretty simple actually. Heck, congress should have played that card before the elections. That they didn't is either a sign of gross incompetence or intentional subversion.

 

~$3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.