Super Committe Fails

[Bronco Yoda]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/21/politics/super-committee/?hpt=ibu_c1

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama and congressional leaders traded blame Monday for the failure of the congressional "super committee" to forge a deficit reduction deal, but they also called for Congress to work out an agreement before painful automatic budget cuts take place in 2013....

[Bronco Yoda]

When push came to shove it turned into one big Tax cutting committee for the super rich. Not only did the Repubs not want to RAISE any additional revenue from some of the wealthiest people in the world...they actually wanted to give them an additional tax cut.

According to Sen. John Kerry on CNN, the Dem had 1.3 Trillion in cuts on the table. In turn the Dems wanted 1.3 Trillion in revenue. It's been said that we really need 2 Trillion.

Of course the Repubs said no that's too much for the rich. They tried 1 Trillion...nope. Then they asked for 900B...600B.

250 Billion was too much.

It came down to the Repubs demanded the tax cut for the ultra wealthy to be made permanent..... protected.... Period!

And the Loophole tax reform was a sham. The Dems offered up but were shot down.


Of course this isn't going to be a surprise to anyone here. The writing was on the wall from the start.

[sirhcyennek81]

Considering it was designed to fail...


:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It came down to the Repubs demanded the tax cut for the ultra wealthy to be made permanent..... protected.... Period!
Not only that but Republicans offered up as part of their plan to raise taxes on Middle income Americans as their solution to our deficit. Amazing!

---------------------------------------------------------------
GOP tax plan targets itemized deductions (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-tax-plan-targets-itemized-deductions-080710390.html)

APBy STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | AP – Thu, Nov 17, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — A GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade would limit deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal. Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid.

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. Taxpayers who already take the standard deduction instead of itemizing — about two-thirds of filers — could see tax cuts. The one-third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions might find themselves paying more.

The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates in between would be reduced as well.

A GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300. Some Republicans say the plan offers a potential breakthrough in deficit-reduction talks that have stalled over GOP opposition to tax hikes and Democrats' objection to cuts in benefit programs without significant revenue increases.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, spoke of it favorably, but his party's majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, has declined to endorse it. Several GOP presidential hopefuls also have criticized if for offering to increase taxes.

Democrats, meanwhile, have panned the plan, saying it would cut taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class and generate less revenue than advertised.

CONT...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

A history lesson that a lot of Republicans have conveniently "forgotten"...

--------------------------------------------
Did Bush Tax Cuts Foreshadow Committee's Failure? (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/22/142641756/did-bush-tax-cuts-foreshadow-supercommittes-failure?ft=1&f=1001)

by Andrea Seabrook

Lawmakers have spent much of this year struggling to reach a deal that could get budget deficits under control. But the problem has been developing for at least a decade.

Young voters might not be familiar with the government of the year 2000 — at least not by its balance sheet. The economy: booming. Tax revenue: rolling in. Expenses for war: none. And to top it off, there was a $200 billion surplus.

"We had Allen Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed, openly fretting that we would pay down all of our debt, and that could lead to terrible economic consequences," said Norm Ornstein of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

But a lot happened in the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency. He said his first order of business was giving back the surplus by cutting taxes. Then came the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the war in Afghanistan and a spike in government spending on domestic security.

In 2002, the economy slid into a recession so President Bush and Congress supported another tax cut — this one to stimulate spending by businesses. By the end of that year, the surplus was gone and the government began running up the credit card.

In President Bush's State of the Union address, in early 2003, he warned of rising unemployment and he outlined his plan to get people working:

"Jobs are created when the economy grows, the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest, and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place."

By this time, though, some lawmakers had begun to worry. The centerpiece of this tax cut was a reduction in capital gains taxes, and a lower rate for investment income — both targeting wealthier Americans.

Democrats, lead by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it reckless.

"It is fiscally irresponsible, it does not create jobs, it is not fair and the voters will know about that," Pelosi said.

Congress was already spending more money than it was taking in. Cutting taxes again would make that worse.

Analyst Norm Ornstein says fiscal hawks didn't like it. "You had not just Democrats, but a lot of independent observers saying 'hey, look, this is a huge drain on revenues.' And guess what? It was a huge drain on revenues."

The Bush administration appeared to be on the brink of invading Iraq — a second war to fund.

That made Republican Sen. John McCain uneasy: "Let us wait until we have succeeded in Iraq, and until we have some idea of what percentage of the cost of the aftermath of those hostilities we will have to bear."

Support for it in the Senate was so weak, Republican leaders had to use an arcane budget process to push it through. But that meant the cuts had to have a lower price tag — so the Bush administration made the cuts sunset – in other words, they would expire later in the decade. It appeared as though the cuts would cost the Treasury some $350 billion.

But if they were to be extended, says analyst Ornstein, "Every economic forecast from the Congressional Budget Office on down showed that it would lead to a bleeding of federal revenues, and immense deficits larger than anything we had ever seen."

And if there was any doubt about Republican plans for the cuts, President Bush made them clear in his next State of the Union Address: "What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away — for the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Republicans are still working on that. In recent years, deep recession, stimulus spending and ongoing war have made America's budget outlook much, much worse. All the while, those tax cuts have been extended.

They have become the biggest stumbling block in lawmakers' attempt to fix the long-term budget problem. Republicans want to make them permanent while Democrats want to finally let some, or all of them, sunset.

[Rohirrim]

The Democrats need to bypass the Republicans in Congress and just negotiate with their Right Wing fuhrer, Grover Norquist. The repugs are too gutless to wipe their own asses without Grover's permission.

[alkemical]

Motion is not direction.

The Con is On!

[Bronx33]

And of course obama blames everything on the republicans its almost like the dems weren't even there barry is one sad president i have never seen any president use the people like this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And of course obama blames everything on the republicans its almost like the dems weren't even there barry is one sad president i have never seen any president use the people like this.

Being a radical Right Winger, I suppose you can only see in one direction which explains the above statement.

And it didn't matter that Democrats were part of the committee or not as we know now because Republicans refuse to rescind the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy under any circumstances.

[Bronco Yoda]

And of course obama blames everything on the republicans its almost like the dems weren't even there barry is one sad president i have never seen any president use the people like this.

So what you're saying is you don't really understand what's going on but you're stuck with one party line come hell or high water huh?

[Bronx33]

So what you're saying is you don't really understand what's going on but you're stuck with one party line come hell or high water huh?


no but appears you have things all figured out like barry does.

[barryr]

With a poor economy, the dullards still want to raise taxes and anyone with a mental defect would still believe a tax on the rich would not funnel down to everyone else. Yeah, the government needs more money to do what? Get us farther in debt? More money to banks and corporations to give to CEO's who will offer more bad mortgages and outsource even more jobs? Gee, thanks.

[Odysseus]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/309565-super-committee-failure-is-the-u-s-political-system-broken

http://seekingalpha.com/article/309575-a-terrible-realization-is-dawning-for-investors

[Smiling Assassin27]

Dems and Repubs had no intention of reaching an agreement, plain and simple. This was just a show, and it should be perfectly obvious.

I read this yesterday and it perfectly encapsulated this farce:

Those who can do. Those who can’t form a supercommittee. Those who can’t produce a majority vote in a supercommittee sequester. Those who can’t even sequester are telling the world something profound about American inertia.

[Tombstone RJ]

BO is a superidiot. so there!

[Odysseus]

BO is a superidiot. so there!

If that is true then G.W.Bush has to be a zombie...a really stupid zombie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

[Odysseus]

Bush was an idiot! Wait. That could a partisan view. Hmmm. Let me take another look.

Is George W. Bush One of Our Ten Greatest Presidents?
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2011/02/27/is-george-w-bush-one-of-our-ten-greatest-presidents/

The second factor is whether subsequent events will make Bush’s presidency look more positive. What might those events be? It seems to me that the lynchpin is what happens in Iraq. If it becomes a functioning democracy (preferably one that pumps huge quantities of oil!), against a backdrop of a Mideast region where democracy movements have broken out all over, it will inevitably raise the question – a not uncontroversial one, to be sure – regarding whether and to what extent Bush’s policies can be said to have contributed to this development.

We are far too close to Bush’s presidency, and events far too fluid, to make this assessment now, of course (although I fully expect partisans to immediately jump on me for even suggesting he might be credited with influencing reform in the Mideast!) But I don’t find it far fetched to believe several decades from now Bush’s historical ranking may well improve, much as Reagan’s and Eisenhower’s have. His ranking will also depend in large part on judgments regarding the War on Terror and the relative blame/credit he gets for 9-11 and for keeping the nation safe from attack in the post-9-11 years. That judgment too will depend on events occurring after Bush has left office.

In the meantime, let the debate begin!

In other words when you are talking down a sitting President you are essentially making yourself look like an asshole. You don't know historically how George Bush will ultimately fair how the **** are you some kind of expert on Obama? ?

[Tombstone RJ]

I know BO is a joke because I can think for myself. He's a joke. He sucks. Oh, and I didn't like Bush Jr. either.

I want RP, the rest are questionable at best, and BO is absolutely corrupt at the core. He's from chicago politics and even if half the stuff I read about him before the election is true--just half the stuff--then he is no better than your basic third world political criminal who manipulates the system in order to bring it down.

[Odysseus]

I know BO is a joke because I can think for myself. He's a joke. He sucks. Oh, and I didn't like Bush Jr. either.

I want RP, the rest are questionable at best, and BO is absolutely corrupt at the core. He's from chicago politics and even if half the stuff I read about him before the election is true--just half the stuff--then he is no better than your basic third world political criminal who manipulates the system in order to bring it down.

I remember you not liking Bush. Obama has had some seriously harsh politics to deal with. The more I learn about what his choices were the more I respect him despite critical failings that seem inconsequential to larger discussion.

RP is marginal. I don't think he has a good plan to really get things on track. He is essentially wants to take control of a whore house and preach abstinence. Just say no to spending! I don't think we have the political will. We cannot accomplish the most simple government changes much less the irrational sweeping large scale Austrian strategy.

I am curious about him and would like to know more about who he is and what he is going to DO. His videos are convincing because people have no answer for him. That doesn't make him correct.