House Republicans kick sand line. Draws another line in the sand over 'fiscal cliff' - Polidicks

[quote]4:41PM EST December 3. 2012 - WASHINGTON — House Republicans sent a counterproposal to avert the "fiscal cliff" to the White House today outlining a $4.6 trillion deficit reduction proposal without raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. The proposal is based on a framework outlined last year by former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, who co-chaired President Obama's debt commission, and included an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare benefits. Republicans did not offer specific language on raising the age in their proposal today, but Bowles has publicly supported raising the age to 67. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, also discussed raising the Medicare age to 67 over a 50 year period during their unsuccessful 2011 talks on deficit reduction. "What we're putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way," Boehner told reporters. The GOP offer is in response to a White House plan presented to congressional leaders last week by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner which was dismissed by GOP leaders who said its $1.6 trillion request for new tax revenues without comparable spending cuts or entitlement reforms was an unserious proposal. Today Boehner called it a "la-la land offer." MORE: 'Fiscal cliff' talks likely to last all month (at least) The House plan is likewise all but certain to be greeted by opposition from the White House and Senate Democrats, who maintain that until there is an agreement to raise tax rates on the wealthiest of Americans, there is no path forward to avert the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year when George W. Bush-era tax rates expire and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years is triggered. "What the president believes is that you cannot mathematically achieve the kinds of revenue that are necessary for that balanced approach through any other means. So rates have to rise. And the Republicans need to acknowledge ... that's the only way to get from here to there," White House spokesman Jay Carney said at today's briefing. [b]The House Republicans' proposal was short on specifics but calls for $800 billion in new revenue achieved through closing loopholes and capping deductions; $900 billion in health care and other mandatory spending cuts; $300 billion in spending cuts for discretionary spending, which includes social programs such as food stamps; and $200 billion gained by changing the way the government calculates cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and Medicare.[/b] The GOP plan achieves enough in deficit reduction to turn off the $1.2 trillion automatic spending cuts at the end of the year to resolve that component of the "fiscal cliff," two senior GOP congressional aides said. They spoke anonymously because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the details of the proposal. The GOP plan does not include any proposal on how to raise the debt ceiling, which is another non-starter for the White House which wants to use the fiscal cliff negotiations to include an agreement to raise the debt ceiling in February when the U.S. is expected to hit its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit. The president wants to avoid another debt limit fight with congressional Republicans that rattled Wall Street in 2011. Boehner will attend a holiday reception at the White House tonight. Asked if he would discuss his proposal with the president he quipped: "I might run in to him."[/quote] [url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/03/gop-cliff-counteroffer/1743307/]Sandy[/url]

Ugh, there's one thing worse than capitalist conservative degenerates; capitalist conservative degenerates that just don't fucking back down. Someone needs to castrate these wild dogs and make them more compromising towards the Democratic master-party.

Because millionaires need their Ferrari more than the unemployed need food.

And here is a clip of a Republican almost making a passable zinger but then fucking it up [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwJuGZKwExQ[/media] Get it guys? guys, it's just like Obama's plan see guys come on this is funny

Cost cutting on things vital to poor people? [B]OH NO[/B], those poor rich people needs their money. They can only sleep in a bed stuffed full of 100$ bills, 50$ bills give them nightmares. Cut the military, raise taxes for the stinking rich & close loopholes that companies and rich individual uses.

If they run us off of this and into economic disarray, I hope the blame will come down squarely on them. I want the modern GOP to rot and die. It's adamant stance on being anti-intellectual and obstructionist has brought this country nothing but harm.

[QUOTE=Van-man;38692665]Cost cutting on things vital to poor people? [B]OH NO[/B], those poor rich people needs their money. They can only sleep in a bed stuffed full of 100$ bills, 50$ bills give them nightmares. Cut the military, raise taxes for the stinking rich & close loopholes that companies and rich individual uses.[/QUOTE] Cut the military? Are you insane? We're the world police, can't have those communists taking over.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;38692775]Cut the military? Are you insane? We're the world police, can't have those communists taking over.[/QUOTE] It's time America hands in their badge and gun I think. Let someone else piss off the middle east and far east, we've done enough damage already.

[QUOTE=Van-man;38692665]Cost cutting on things vital to poor people? [B]OH NO[/B], those poor rich people needs their money. They can only sleep in a bed stuffed full of 100$ bills, 50$ bills give them nightmares. Cut the military, raise taxes for the stinking rich & close loopholes that companies and rich individual uses.[/QUOTE] Uh we have to cut more than the military to run a surplus and make it so that debt isn't ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of gdp don't want to burst any bubbles but welfare and discretionary take up a bunch of the pie to and nothing should be off the table.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38693213]Uh we have to cut more than the military to run a surplus and make it so that debt isn't ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of gdp don't want to burst any bubbles but welfare and discretionary take up a bunch of the pie to and nothing should be off the table.[/QUOTE] While true, they should also be among the last things that get cut. We can nix the TSA entirely, that'd save a decent chunk. We can throttle back DHS as well...oh, and massively chopping politician salaries as well. I'm thinking they work for $15/hour. They need to know first-hand what it's like to live on that sort of budget seeing as their choices affect people on that budget the most, yet nearly none of them do.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;38692456]The House Republicans' proposal was short on specifics but calls for $800 billion in new revenue achieved through closing loopholes and capping deductions; [b]$900 billion[/b] in health care and other mandatory spending cuts; [b]$300 billion[/b] in spending cuts for discretionary spending, which includes social programs such as food stamps; and [b]$200 billion[/b] gained by changing the way the government calculates cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and Medicare. [/QUOTE] Holy crap. Did anyone tell the Republican party exactly how much money they're trying to cut?

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38693213]Uh we have to cut more than the military to run a surplus and make it so that debt isn't ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of gdp don't want to burst any bubbles but welfare and discretionary take up a bunch of the pie to and nothing should be off the table.[/QUOTE] The only reason we need welfare really is because the rich fucks that run all these monstrously rich companies cut every single job they can or ship them off to China.

[QUOTE=ironman17;38692598]Ugh, there's one thing worse than capitalist conservative degenerates; capitalist conservative degenerates that just don't fucking back down. Someone needs to castrate these wild dogs and make them more compromising towards the Democratic master-party.[/QUOTE] I will do the honors.

Would it be bad to say the US should go ahead with a command type economy, nix capitalism, and have the government hold the means of production, and then hold the wealth?

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;38695089]Would it be bad to say the US should go ahead with a command type economy, nix capitalism, and have the government hold the means of production, and then hold the wealth?[/QUOTE] Yeah, it would kind of suck. Capitalism is actually pretty neat because it automatically adjusts for supply and demand. It's not with out it's faults though, that's why there should be a mix of public and private industry. Keynesian economics are neat! It's the main reason why Germany is once again the most powerful economic force in Europe! (Other than the Greek Economic Crisis, amirite?)

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;38695089]Would it be bad to say the US should go ahead with a command type economy, nix capitalism, and have the government hold the means of production, and then hold the wealth?[/QUOTE] that wouldnt work out that well at all. workers should hold the means of production, not government, and not capitalists.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38695345]workers should hold the means of production, not government, and not capitalists.[/QUOTE] Well that's gibberish. If you mean all workers, speaking in the collective public-ownership sense, you're talking about the government. If you mean single workers, speaking in the private-ownership sense, you're talking about capitalists. Neither is some unique spooky thing abstracted from "workers".

So, you've proposed Romney's platform of math that doesn't work. Way to go.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38695544]Well that's gibberish. If you mean all workers, speaking in the collective public-ownership sense, you're talking about the government. If you mean single workers, speaking in the private-ownership sense, you're talking about capitalists. Neither is some unique spooky thing abstracted from "workers".[/QUOTE] no not really im talking about workers not the government and not capitalists. government and capitalists are both removed from the workers.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38695562]im talking about workers not the government and not capitalists. government and capitalists are both removed from the workers.[/QUOTE] No, they're not. Do you know what the definition of a capitalist is? Do you know what the economic definition of capital is? [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] You need to bring up Investopedia or whatever and spend five minutes thinking about what you posted.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38696047]No, they're not. Do you know what the definition of a capitalist is? Do you know what the economic definition of capital is? [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] You need to bring up Investopedia or whatever and spend five minutes thinking about what you posted.[/QUOTE] why would i get my information from a propaganda source? [editline]4th December 2012[/editline] a capitalist doesnt have to work. that's the whole point of capitalism where a small group of people dont have to work because they own capital and can exchange that capital for the labor of people without access to capital.

I'd love to be the Mayor of the Capital of Pussyvania then.

[QUOTE=TestECull;38693259]While true, they should also be among the last things that get cut. We can nix the TSA entirely, that'd save a decent chunk. We can throttle back DHS as well...oh, and massively chopping politician salaries as well. I'm thinking they work for $15/hour. They need to know first-hand what it's like to live on that sort of budget seeing as their choices affect people on that budget the most, yet nearly none of them do.[/QUOTE] I can't tell how serious you are but no matter what you think of them their level of work warrants a lot more compensation than $15/hour. You realize a bunch of them would be making a killing in other industries if they didn't give all their time governing right? All of those things are still a drop in the bucket. Social Security, Medicaid, and Defense are a priority. You're not going to eliminate any of them so we might as well bite the bullet and restructure (as long as it doesn't involve voucher systems). [QUOTE=Forumaster;38693285]The only reason we need welfare really is because the rich fucks that run all these monstrously rich companies cut every single job they can or ship them off to China.[/QUOTE] We need welfare to guarantee every American citizen gets by, the rest is on them, and it's a lot. Shipping jobs to China killing jobs here is a myth.