02-11-2013 10:45 AM
If you don't have revenue... how do you expect bills to get paid?
House Sequester Deal: GOP Insists On No Revenue Increases
Democrats and Republicans appeared no closer to any sort of agreement on sequestration on Sunday, with the former insisting that any upcoming deal include an increase in revenue, and the latter insisting on spending cuts alone. One crack in party unity, however, appeared when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appeared open to possibly raising revenue.
"The president accepted no spending cuts back in the fiscal cliff deal 45 days ago. So you get no spending cuts back then, then you’re going to get no revenue now," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in an interview with ABC's "This Week." He argued that House Republicans will stand firm against any revenue increases.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), however, said Democrats expect revenue increases to equal spending cuts, arguing that sequestration "was designed as a budget threat, not a budget strategy."
"What the president is proposing for the rest of this year, at least, is that we deal with the sequester the same [way] we have the first two months: evenly split between revenue and cuts," said Durbin. "I think that's a sensible approach. It's consistent with Simpson-Bowles, which many Republicans say should be our standard, and it doesn't really impose a tax burden on middle-income families."
On "Fox News Sunday," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pointed to oil subsidies as a place where the federal government could find additional revenue.
"We have made the cut in terms of agriculture subsidies -- tens of billions of dollars in cuts there -- and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidies for Big Oil," said Pelosi, when asked by host Chris Wallace why Congress couldn't find more in cuts to avoid the sequester. "Why should we lower Pell Grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for Big Oil?"
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the oil industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks in 2011. The three largest oil companies made a combined profit of $80 billion that year. Last year, Republicans blocked a Democratic attempt to end some $20 billion in subsidies to oil companies.
Lawmakers are looking to avoid a series of automatic deep spending cuts due to kick in March 1 unless Congress comes up with an $85-billion replacement plan. As Durbin pointed out, the plan was never to have the sequestration cuts go into effect; it was a mechanism designed to put a fire under lawmakers to come up with an alternative.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) attempted to lay the blame for the situation at the door of the White House, saying on "Meet the Press," "The president, he's the one that proposed the sequester in the first place."
When asked by host David Gregory about the possibility of raising revenue, Cantor grew frustrated. "The problem is every time you turn around, the answer is to raise taxes," Cantor replied. "[The president] just got his tax hike on the wealthy. And you can't in this town every three months raise taxes. Again, every time, that's his response."
McCain, however, argued that Republicans deserve an equal amount of the responsibility. "Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the new cliff, and I'll take responsibility for it for the Republicans," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday. "But we've got to avoid it. We've got to stop it."
"Would I look at some revenue-closers? Maybe so," said McCain, sounding slightly more conciliatory than his House GOP counterparts. "But we already just raised taxes. Why do we have to raise taxes again?"
The Budget Control Act created the concept of sequestration in 2011. On "This Week," Cole argued that Obama was responsible for that deal, but, as Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) pointed out, Republicans also voted for the legislation.
"Well, Tom, the problem with saying this is the president’s idea is that you voted for the Budget Control Act. I voted against it," Ellison said. "We wouldn’t have ever been talking about the Budget Control Act but for your party refused to negotiate on the debt ceiling, something that has been routinely increased as the country needed it. You used that occasion in August 2011 to basically say, 'We are going to default on the country’s obligations or you’re going to give us dramatic spending cuts.' That’s how we got to the Budget Control Act."
Senate Democrats plan to introduce a bill next week to postpone the sequester-related cuts until December. That bill would cut the deficit by $120 billion over 10 years. Approximately $55 billion would come from revenue hikes and a slightly larger amount would come from spending cuts.
02-11-2013 10:51 AM
Cantor can say what he wants but he is only tying the noose around his neck when everybody but the TEAbaggers and their owner Norquist oppose him.
02-11-2013 10:53 AM
The GOP is hell-bent on self destruction... I think they will be as surprised in November 2014 as they were in November 2012.
Which should give anyone with a brain the cold sweats...imagine Obama, in his last 2 years, with a Dem controlled House and Senate and a bad attitude.
02-11-2013 10:57 AM
newbie chick wrote:Cantor can say what he wants but he is only tying the noose around his neck when everybody but the TEAbaggers and their owner Norquist oppose him.
Could it be that the GOP has decided to go full out, double down on the teabagger agenda, knowing full well that the American voter has soured on that agenda? The end motivation being to purge the Republican Party of teabaggers and the Norquist thumbscrew? It could be like a poison pill they are taking to discredit the tea movement, to take the GOP back from the fringe to the mainstream.
Really though, I don't think they smart enough to come up with that type of plan. It's an interesting concept though.
02-11-2013 11:21 AM
Gee, Obama already got his tax hikes on over 70% of Americans on 1/1/13. What else does he want?
Lolz @ "revenues", Tax rasies =/= revenues dipshits.
02-11-2013 11:36 AM
02-11-2013 11:54 AM
nedezero1 wrote:Gee, Obama already got his tax hikes on over 70% of Americans on 1/1/13. What else does he want?
Lolz @ "revenues", Tax raises =/= revenues dipshits.
Are you trying to be stupid are is this the best argument that you could concoct?
January 1st was the end of the employee social security holiday but it does not bring in any additional tax revenue.
02-11-2013 12:05 PM
newbie chick wrote:
nedezero1 wrote:Gee, Obama already got his tax hikes on over 70% of Americans on 1/1/13. What else does he want?
Lolz @ "revenues", Tax raises =/= revenues dipshits.
Are you trying to be stupid are is this the best argument that you could concoct?
January 1st was the end of the employee social security holiday but it does not bring in any additional tax revenue.
There's a reason the GOP hates education: they don't want to learn math.
02-11-2013 01:31 PM
gspointer wrote:
Ned you are wrong. The repubs have not compromised 1 bit. The dems have compromised endlessly on the budget deal. They have offered to cut spending all the time, their only request is a slight tax increase on 1% of Americans that wont pay their fair share.
No, the democrats have refused to cut spending. They are willing to cut spending in particular places like the military, but there is nothing on the table to decrease overall spending. Nothing to say "we will spend one dollar less than last year". Nothing.
Not good enough.
As for raising taxes on the rich, that is not a solution so forget it.
02-11-2013 06:44 PM
newbie chick wrote:
nedezero1 wrote:Gee, Obama already got his tax hikes on over 70% of Americans on 1/1/13. What else does he want?
Lolz @ "revenues", Tax raises =/= revenues dipshits.
Are you trying to be stupid are is this the best argument that you could concoct?
January 1st was the end of the employee social security holiday but it does not bring in any additional tax revenue.
Good god you're dumb and illiterate..
In general, manipulating tax rates have zero effect on revenue.
02-11-2013 06:54 PM
02-11-2013 07:00 PM
02-11-2013 07:24 PM
02-11-2013 07:29 PM
mauser wrote:
Moon: Plenty of revenue already exists. They simply need to set priorities and realize that they have to reduce spending to a level not exceeding revenue.
You might as well say it in Farsi.
02-11-2013 07:30 PM
mauser wrote:
Kav: No worse than the false prosperity of endless debt.
Yeah but it's okay 'cuz Bush did it too and Obama's black and if you don't agree with him you're racist and stuff....
02-11-2013 07:38 PM
nedezero1 wrote:
mauser wrote:
Kav: No worse than the false prosperity of endless debt.
Yeah but it's okay 'cuz Bush did it too and Obama's black and if you don't agree with him you're racist and stuff....
Don't forget the ol' "teabaggers are going to be voted out because they are insane" bullshit.
These idiots really don't get the idea that the tea party is about getting the economy in order. They simply do not understand why people would want the government to spend less than it brings in. No more tax increases because that doesnt address the fundamental problem.
But they just don't get it. Sometimes I really truly believe they are mentally incompetent.
02-11-2013 07:51 PM
Ed wrote:
nedezero1 wrote:
mauser wrote:
Kav: No worse than the false prosperity of endless debt.
Yeah but it's okay 'cuz Bush did it too and Obama's black and if you don't agree with him you're racist and stuff....
Don't forget the ol' "teabaggers are going to be voted out because they are insane" bullshit.
These idiots really don't get the idea that the tea party is about getting the economy in order. They simply do not understand why people would want the government to spend less than it brings in. No more tax increases because that doesnt address the fundamental problem.But they just don't get it. Sometimes I really truly believe they are mentally incompetent.
Of course they are.
02-11-2013 08:01 PM
kav wrote:
Let the previously agreed upon sequestration cuts occur. People can then see the results of austerity up close and pesonal and decide if they like it.
the GOP will cave.
02-11-2013 08:19 PM - edited 02-11-2013 08:20 PM
Ed wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Ned you are wrong. The repubs have not compromised 1 bit. The dems have compromised endlessly on the budget deal. They have offered to cut spending all the time, their only request is a slight tax increase on 1% of Americans that wont pay their fair share.No, the democrats have refused to cut spending. They are willing to cut spending in particular places like the military, but there is nothing on the table to decrease overall spending. Nothing to say "we will spend one dollar less than last year". Nothing.
Not good enough.
As for raising taxes on the rich, that is not a solution so forget it.
Holy fucking LOL.
"The Democrats are too specific with their spending cuts! I want some vague from them to show me they are serious!"
02-11-2013 09:28 PM
pink freud wrote:
Ed wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Ned you are wrong. The repubs have not compromised 1 bit. The dems have compromised endlessly on the budget deal. They have offered to cut spending all the time, their only request is a slight tax increase on 1% of Americans that wont pay their fair share.No, the democrats have refused to cut spending. They are willing to cut spending in particular places like the military, but there is nothing on the table to decrease overall spending. Nothing to say "we will spend one dollar less than last year". Nothing.
Not good enough.
As for raising taxes on the rich, that is not a solution so forget it.
Holy fucking LOL.
"The Democrats are too specific with their spending cuts! I want some vague from them to show me they are serious!"
That was Romney's whole economic plan - vague BS. It was in reality another version of voodoo economics.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC