Newt Gingrich on super committee: ‘Told you so’

He called their bluff. Grover owns the pubs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Poor Mitt, the republicans refuse to pay for military spending and if they can’t consider raising taxes then their official favorite portion of the budget gets cut. Newt told you that he has poisened the well of bipartisianship long ago and nothing will bring it back.

• Link
• Report this comment

I hope the President puts a laser focus on the GrandObstructionistParty for their failure to accept the need for adequate revenue. Ten years of unfunded expenditures including two unfunded wars cannot be ‘cut’ into balance.
It also allows an opportunity to ‘out’ a certain self-important hostage taker in the ‘tax pledge’ department and show the American Voters may be smarter than a two bit huckster with a bogus contract (newt are you listening too?).

• Link
• Report this comment

Okay, so it seems all of you want to raise taxes? So…based on the fact that spending is at historic levels are we to just raise taxes every time the govt needs it? Because revenues are not that far off from pre-great depression levels. Based on that logic the govt just continues to take until we have nothing left.

Where does it stop? Or does it matter as long as you’re able to create your govt utopia? Anyone without an agenda can see this is a spending problem, not a revenue one. You could seize all of the top 1%’s assets and it would only run our govt 6 months at current spending levels. So the only real reason to seize more money from people that have either earned/inherited it is because of wealth envy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good call oldtimer, that would be the GOP ticket I wanted to see all along.I believe it to be a slam dunk. Have you noticed how they have been real nice to each other, unlike with the other candidates?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you translate Romney’s comments, they read “he has refused to make the rich his number one priority”.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t see how you can fault one branch of government for another branch’s shortcomings.

• Link
• Report this comment

oldtimer, time to get some ginkgo biloba…..

• Link
• Report this comment

This president ran for office on transparency and leadership, so far this president has forced health care plan down our throats, created deficits that have reached 1/5 of the worlds output (per BBC), and lectured the right about civility and at the same time describe the right as financial mongers. As Newt stated, the president should have been transparent about the debt reduction process and went through legislative channels and showed leadership for the good of the country, not his political agenda. So much of this president’s decisions and actions have been enacted through executive order that has under minded the legislative process that our representatives (us) have input on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Blue Moon,
Where were you when the last president got a tax cut through the republican controlled congress based on projected surpluses that were already fictional without triggers to protect the deficit? Where were you when a second round of red ink tax cuts were passes, along with a war of choice, after the 2002 midterms just because the GOP won an election? How much of the current red ink the budget is bleeding is from that coalition of tax cuts and increased spending our first MBA president delivered with gems like Medicare prescription drug benefit?
Republicans gave away their moral authority as deficit hawks in their desire to destroy our economy to prove the New Deal and Great Society are bad. If Newt is the answer I truly fear what the question was…

• Link
• Report this comment

Grover was on “60 Minutes” patting himself on the back so much that I think he broke his arm. He was grinning because he is winning. He has the Repubs in the palm of his hands and they will never cross him, because if they do, he said he will take them out of office. Who gave this man all of his power? He said the voters gave him the authority to do what he does, and at the end of the interview he had a big smile on his face. If taxes for the richest 1% are not raised, the whole country will go down in dust, and it doesn’t matter to him at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

I like put the poor kids to work and the protesters should all just get a job.

• Link
• Report this comment

“you are also correct, but good luck presenting you facts to this crowd! They all want to raise taxes, even thought that will not help, none of them talk about cutting spending.”

This crowd and about 75% of the American public. It’s the Republicans that are out of touch and will get crushed on this issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

ABO, anybody but Obama…..a total disaster.

The on-the-job training is not working, and its very clear.

Flaws are aplenty, but enough with the current train wreck.

• Link
• Report this comment

When you mention raising taxes, you make it sound like taxes will be raised on everyone, which is not true. Evidently this affects you, or you would state it correctly. Raising taxes on rich people, not middle class or poor. If you make less than a million dollars per year, your taxes will remain the same. Grover Norquist, who owns the Republican party, said he wants to take us back to pre-Medicare, and Social Security levels of spending. That would be back to the 40’s. This would be ok if prices for gas, groceries, cars clothes and other things would also go back to that level. I bought a brand new car in 1973 for $3000.00. Can I do that now? “NO”

• Link
• Report this comment

IMPEACH NORQUIST !!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I blame the D. C. GOP’ers for swallowing Grover Norquist’s Pledge, be damned, hell or high water. Like Steve Kroft said to him last night on “60 Minutes”….”You have the GOP by the short-hairs.”

• Link
• Report this comment

honested
November 21st, 2011
8:25 am

“I hope the President puts a laser focus on the GrandObstructionistParty for their failure to accept the need for adequate revenue. Ten years of unfunded expenditures including two unfunded wars cannot be ‘cut’ into balance.”

Wake up my friend, the premise that a raise in taxes is going to do anything to alleviate
the fiscal crisis we are in today is not only false but foolish. There does not exist, as you
so eloquently put it, “adequate revenue” to pull the economy out of the dumper. The nations
spending already equals the GNP so there’s nowhere else to go. The ten years of “unfunded ” expenditures, including two unfunded wars” is blatantly false also. The last budget out of
Washington was in 2008, and it did provide, A DEFENSE BUDGET. If your selective recollection will allow you to so, recall that it is your President that wants to cut funding to these two funded wars.

• Link
• Report this comment

LOl..Clem you have a crooked gov”t taking care of it now…Son name one thing just one that the govt has run correctly?

• Link
• Report this comment

All of you idiots that want to raise taxes, send the IRS a check I am sure they will take it..just leave mine alone!

• Link
• Report this comment

@BlueMoon – go back to pre-depression spending levels? Sure! Great idea! Pre Social Security, Medicare, FDA, aircraft carriers, troops in 100 countries, space program, CDC, NIH, civil rights, federal highway system, DARPA, SEC, FCC. I’m sure that’ll work out great. None of that stuff is really productive, is it?

• Link
• Report this comment

A few facts for the factually challanged:

The US already has a more progressive tax code than France or Germany. In the US 41% of all tax revenue is income taxes. (It’s 29% in Germany & 21% in France). In the US 45% of all taxes are paid by the richest 10%. (It’s 31% in Germany & 28% in France). Seems pretty progressive to me. (BTW – US Tax Code is 16,000 pages [and attendent Rules & Regulations increase that to 72,000+ pages] – France; about 1900 pages). See the problem here?

• Link
• Report this comment

“first again”

Dude, that is so 1999. Time to stop trying to be cool on the interwebz.

• Link
• Report this comment

clem
November 21st, 2011
8:51 am

newt to unviel new social security program….

here’s a typical response:

Newt said: “This gives Americans ownership over their retirement­…”

No it doesn’t, it gives Wall Street ownership over our retirement­.

Clem, going through life as a uninformed dumb a$$ must be fun for you. You would rather trust congress with your money. ROTFLAMO at the idiot Clem.

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA 1999
November 21st, 2011
9:50 am

“First of all, God Bless the Munson family. Larry, thank you for all of the memories, you will be missed.”

Amen from an old Yellowjacket.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t think the Republicans ever really cared about these cuts. It’s the “starve the beast” mentality. Frankly, I don’t care about the cuts either, glad to see them, they were necessary and this way both sides can blame the other side. But if Newt thinks he’s a genius for predicting Congress would yet again act like two-year olds, well, I guess we’re all geniuses…

• Link
• Report this comment

Shine – You should learn to read. I never suggested reducing taxes to zero. I simply stated (factually) that every prior income tax reduction has resulted in increased revenue. To suggest that means taxes should be reduced to zero is moronic. Clearly, there is a “sweet spot” for tax rates that provides adequate revenue without proving to be burdensome to the producers. My point remains that we have plenty of revenue to run this country very effectively. Our elected officials need to learn to spend less.

• Link
• Report this comment

gt/mit…i can agree on munson, my dad tech grad, child a uga grad; i’ll never forget the jacksonville, tennessee et al calls….hope they do something meaningful

however:
”
Wake up my friend, the premise that a raise in taxes is going to do anything to alleviate
the fiscal crisis we are in today is not only false but foolish.”

even the bowles simpson had revenues increases, some rates up others down, but more revenues and i trust their expertise more than yours..

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

The joke is on the American public. When are we going to wake up and stop trusting our politicians! They are only interested in one thing- being re elected. How many people would keep their jobs if they failed so miserably as our entire congress has done. They can’t make a deal- What a joke. People need to wake up and quit taking sides. All politicians are only interested in the power that they have and their interest in keeping it. If you want things to change, quit re electing the lifers in Washington. They get life time benefits, don’t participate in Social Security, can inside trade, live the life of of the rich, and claim they are doing it for their constituents.The American public is being taken to the cleaners by both parties.

• Link
• Report this comment

Set up a debt fund. Allow businesses and individuals to make a contribution to that fund, designed to pay the debt down, and make the contributions tax deductible. Fund must be for one purpose only…. cannot be touched for any other expenditure except paying debt down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks to “z” for making the right’s priorities crystal clear:

“just leave mine alone!”

• Link
• Report this comment

After years of tax cuts everyone can see the results to our economy yet some people are still crying out for the need for tax cuts.
Wake up, companies and business owners are not hiring more employees with their tax savings, they are pocketing the money, hence our high unemployment rate. If these companies actually hired US workers, then the tax base would be expanded but since they do not want to then the only other option is to increase taxes on the 1% and corporations. You can not have your cake and eat it to. It is so hypocritical of people who want to maintain their government handout of SSI and Medicare/caid but think the money to pay for these programs should not come from our tax base.
Cut Defense also!

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama 2012 – With our president’s “laser focus” on creating jobs, how is it that more Americans aren’t working? As you accurately stated, an increase in employment would result in a larger tax base and thus increased revenue.

• Link
• Report this comment

In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”

And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.

In 2008′s “Real Change,” he wrote, “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.”

In 2005′s “Winning the Future,” he expanded on the idea in more detail: “You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”

“People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance,” he continued. “Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible.”

• Link
• Report this comment

GT/MIT:

At least we can agree on Munson. I might add I thought Bill Curry got a raw deal at ‘Bama. I agree in cutting spending and going after fraud — which mainly occurs at the local and state level in the implementation of government programs. However, I will reference this article from Forbes — that damn, leftist financial newspaper.

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains
By Robert Lenzner | Forbes – 22 hrs ago

Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US– and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want to even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.
Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
It’s crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.
The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20%– raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms– the most “rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent.”
Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that “Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed– and volatile– source of household income,” according to Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.
No wonder the super wealthy plutocrats obtained the largest share of national income– 25% of the nation’s wealth- greater than any other industrial nation in the the period of 1979 to 2005. Make no mistake; after unemployment– this disparity between the 1%– 3 million– or the 0.1%– the 300,000– and the other 312 million citizens of the U.S. has become the major theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement– and an important national debate.
I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that ” We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class– or ultimately face increased social unrest.

• Link
• Report this comment

Conservative scribe George Will ridiculed Newt Gingrich as a “rental politician” on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday, scoffing at the idea that the Republican Party’s self-described “big ideas” candidate is employable as a historian:

Gingrich’s is an amazingly efficient candidacy, in that it embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington. He’s the classic rental politician. People think his problem is his colorful personal life. He’s gonna hope people concentrate on that, rather than on, for example, ethanol. Al Gore has recanted ethanol. Not Newt Gingrich, who has served the ethanol lobby. Industrial policy of the sort that got us Solyndra – he’s all for it. Freddie Mac, he says, hired him as a “historian.” He’s not a historian. Hire Sean Wilentz, hire Gordon Wood if you want a historian.

Mediaite has the video here. Will’s undisguised scorn is a good illustration of why Gingrich, even as he makes a bid for the affections of rank-and-file anti-Romney voters, is unlikely to win over much of anti-Romney conservative upper crust. As much as there’s still a demand for an impressive, thoughtful conservative in the race who can lead the party to Romney’s right, most of the political elites who know Gingrich best were convinced a long time ago that he isn’t that guy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68801.html#ixzz1eM69afSC

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s sad that Mr. Romney isn’t familiar with how our government works. It’s Congress’ job to legislate, not the President’s. Maybe someone should send him a copy of the Constitution. The Executive branch cannot do the Legislative Branch’s job. Period.

Blaming the President for Congress’ failure to do their job = EPIC FAIL.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here we all with another EPIC FAIL on the hands of this country and where is Obama? Asia! Nice work!

• Link
• Report this comment

Real – It’s not Obama’s job to legislate…it’s Congress’ job.

Also, he’s not a babysitter. Apparently, you think he is, and that means that you have no confidence in the Republican House.

Furthermore, he’s not in Asia…he returned yesterday. Do a little research and you won’t look so silly next time

• Link
• Report this comment

From 1940-80 the wealthiest Americans paid between 70% and 90% in income taxes
and that’s how we built…the American Dream. Between 1940-80 we fought and paid for WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, we built our US Interstate Expressway system, Roads, Electrical Grid, Telephone, our main Bridges and Tunnels; we Made every Car we Drove and we wore just the Clothes we Sewed and WE WENT TO THE MOON SIX TIMES-AND WE PAID FOR IT ALL!
http://thedixiedove.com/

• Link
• Report this comment

Good point Dixie. The America of the past is gone. Now the rich are just getting richer and the middle class are getting smaller…when people realize what we have become it will be too late.

The Republican’s in the country have played the middle class. The middle class are the pawns of the wealthy…and they think they’re not.

Welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth….the funny thing is that the middle class is getting smaller under Obama’s watch. It is getting worse. This guy has to go.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry, duty calls……………

• Link
• Report this comment

Dixie: “From 1940-80 the wealthiest Americans paid between 70% and 90% in income taxes
and that’s how we built…the American Dream. ”
Mostly? That’s how we created thousands of millionaires in congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dixie Dove – The only problem with your 11:06 post is that NONE of the items you enumerated were actually paid for. Please go to treasury.gov and point out which year between 1940-1980 (the time period you are so proud of) our national debt did not increase. The accomplishments of EVERY year you spoke of were paid for with money we didn’t have. Do some research and you will find Lyndon Johnson used the sacred Social Security “trust fund” to offset the staggering cost of the Viet Nam war. To suggest all of the wars and accomplishments between 1940 and 1980 were “paid for” courtesy of high tax rates illustrates the depth of your ignorance of both history and economics.

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA 1999 – Haha!! Under Obama’s watch? Are you joking? Do you really think he caused this much damage in 3 YEARS? WOW…you are being played my friend. The facts indicate otherwise.

Look at the national debt….the overwhelming majority can be attributed to THREE Presidents (Reagan-who tripled it, Bush I, and Bush II). Obama stopped the bleeding. Anyone who knows anything, will tell you it’s impossible to fix things in such a short amount of time. The stimulus got our GDP growth rate back in the positive, and he hasn’t raised taxes ONCE.

Your assertion is completely unrealistic.

• Link
• Report this comment

The year has changed but the game plan has not changed. In the 20th century the term communist and communism was thrown on anyone who attempted to open the eyes to the masses. In the 21st century it is not socialist/socialism. Whenever you have a system where ONE PERSON (the CEO of United Healthcare) can have a ONE YEAR compensation package of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, yet have layoffs for their employees because of “cost cutting” and increased premiums to “make a profit”, then the system is broken. Then he gets fired and sent off with a parachute in the hundreds of millions.
Wake up people!
Bill McGuire walked away from United Healthcare with a $1.6 BILLION package in 2006 :http://www.startribune.com/business/11093081.html

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth…”much damage in 3 YEARS?” You said it not me.

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA 1999 – Precisely, I said he could NOT have done that much damage in 3 years. I’m glad you agree.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth….the fact that he HAS done that much damage is what amazes me. And you guys still support him?

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth – I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the spending habits of Reagan/Bush/Bush. You failed to mention Clinton but that’s ok. You then stated that Obama has “stopped the bleeding”. Please sir, tell us what Obama has done other than INCREASE government spending by more than 30%. If his “stimulus” had worked as you suggest, we wouldn’t have 20% un/under-employment. The purpose of the stimulus package was supposed to be getting people back to work. If it worked, why are we having to extend unemployment benefits?

• Link
• Report this comment

Observer – corporate profits are higher than ever, and the fact that they aren’t hiring isn’t on the President. It’s Congress’ job to legislate incentives for businesses to hire, and they have failed the people in that respect. The stimulus had many intentions, and nothing’s perfect, but at least it did create a positive direction for this country (i.e., the GDP growth rate).

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth….let me ask you this…why should a corporation hire new people if they dont need the staff to function at a growing level? That is just idiotic.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth…actually nope it was not. It was downgraded because Obama promised to veto the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan presented by the republicans. Meanwhile Obama NEVER presented a plan of his own. Leadership what?

“Unemployment is low”???? WHAT!?!?!?!?!

There is no comparison between the OWS group and the Tea Party. Nice try but that will not work.

• Link
• Report this comment

Observer….Amen, see they refuse to look at the facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

“ignorance is bliss” – never has there been a truer statement for some people.

• Link
• Report this comment

the stimulus was not big enough because they did not realize the depth of the problem….we lost 17 trillion in wealth…..compounded by 50t worldwide…

let me ask you current business folks….what would you do if your customer base lost 20% of their income and your product was discretionary or a staple?.

• Link
• Report this comment

President Bush- not President Obama- enacted TARP and signed the Bank bailout into law towards the end of his presidency. And yet a large percentage of Americans believe that Obama is responsible, according to the latest Pew survey:

Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama.

How are so many people misinformed about the TARP “bailout”? It’s not just Fox-watching Republicans (who are often grossly misinformed by the channel) but Democrats as well. Doesn’t anybody check their facts anymore? Or do people just choose the facts that support the narrative they want to believe? Bush bailed out the banks and fueled the greatest Recession in generations. Why blame it all on the guy trying to clean up his mess?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/bush–not-obama–enacted_b_678682.html
The Democrats may have held Congress but this was just as much a GOP backed plan.
91 GOP Reps and 172 Dems voted Yes, so unlike in today’s environment where the GOP nearly 100% opposes anything President Obama sends down, there once was a time when they worked together.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-681

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama 2012,

D=Proof that nut getrich’s insistence on NAFTA was a terrible idea for Americans.

Now that ‘free trade’ has failed, it is time to move immediately to FAIR TRADE before we reach a point where nothing is manufactured here but military hardware.

Two decades of testing ‘Chicago School’ economic theory only to prove it’s failure should be enough.
The function of our government and our society is not to be guinea pigs for ‘modern serfdom’.

• Link
• Report this comment

The congress is going to move on with a debt reduction deal, hopefully before the deadline tomorrow. Want to bet Obama will not pass it.

• Link
• Report this comment

honested…..we shall see.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bootnewt

November 21st, 2011
9:23 am
I blame the D. C. GOP’ers for swallowing Grover Norquist’s Pledge, be damned, hell or high water. Like Steve Kroft said to him last night on “60 Minutes”….”You have the GOP by the short-hairs.”

You seem to not understand that a great deal of these GOP would not have made it through the primaries in their own district without such a pledge. Most conservatives believe in less government and less taxes and we want to hold our elected representatives accountable for the promises they make.

• Link
• Report this comment

so please explain why prices are rising generally?

• Link
• Report this comment

Clem prices are rising because of inflation…that and China’s manipulation of their currency which is making the dollar significantly weaker.

Well, that and corporate greed.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

more food for thought

• Link
• Report this comment

clem,

Why should we as Americans surrender the only effort in the last generation to free ourselves from the parasitic infection known as ‘for profit health insurance’ to gain the vague support of the delusional?

• Link
• Report this comment

just seeing if they can do something more meaningful than declaring pizza a vegetable

• Link
• Report this comment

It is time to OCCUPY NORQUIST. Break the alliance of the greedy and the gullible. The republican rank and file cannot be stupid enough to allow Grover Norquist and his wealthy enablers to control their party.

• Link
• Report this comment

after watching nerdquest on 60 minutes i’d bet 60% of americans would vote him off the island

• Link
• Report this comment

honested, we need to bend the health care cost curve…if we bend it, not just flat line it, then we can have massive impact on projected deficits…

guess i need to be clearer, as population grows the health costs in absolute dollars will go up, we need to bend it on per capita basis…..

• Link
• Report this comment

clem

November 21st, 2011
3:48 pm
td, if in the budget deficit deal they would offer to cancel obamacare in return for raising revenues (some rate hikes, others down, but net revenue growth) could you buy some of that?

Republicans raised taxes twice in the last 30 years for promised spending cuts in the future. Those cuts have never materialised. It is time to cut the spending first this time and have proposed revenue enhancements in the future. I think most conservatives would say if have major spending cuts in programs (non defense) for at least 2 years then they would consider revenue increases.

Name one program (non-defense) that the Dems have actually cut in the past 30 years? BTW: The USSC will take care of Obamacare next June.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cindy

November 21st, 2011
4:11 pm

Did you know that you could take 100% of the income earned by the top 1% last year and not balance our current budget? Now tell me we do not have a spending problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

td, you are probably right on ussc (5-4);

good articles on repubs and dems:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

they need to lock in both (revenues and real cuts incl cap on defense) now

• Link
• Report this comment

td said, “Did you know that you could take 100% of the income earned by the top 1% last year and not balance our current budget? Now tell me we do not have a spending problem.”

Statistics like this prove nothing about our spending. It’s a distraction from the real issue.

We do have a spending problem, but it’s mainly because of the two pointless wars we are fighting and our insistance of policing the world. We also have a revenue problem, because we are paying the lowest taxes in 60+ years. Cuts in spending alone is not a remedy that anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject would support.

Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and SS aren’t the problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

“local attorney, thanks for input, but do you really think that matters to them unless it upsets the whole applecart for the corporatcracy?”

Yes, it matters. The flood of appeals and new law suits would be too much to risk.

• Link
• Report this comment

local, part of me says good, but really the law as i understand it will do little to get our health costs in line with other pressing issues.

speaking of which, what is happening market wise on attorney fees and costs…up, down sideways….

how bout doctors?

just curious

• Link
• Report this comment

I can’t speak for how doctor’s businesses are doing these days, but I have heard from some friends that the HC Law will negatively effect them, but who really knows until it’s fully implemented…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Ok, what did the two wars actually cost us? $1 trillion? What is out debt today $15 trillion. The two wars did not cause the problem. Numbers do not lie.”

You’re right, and I never said the two wars were responsible for the entire national debt. But the overwhelming majority of our debt can be attributed to THREE administrations –Reagan, Bush, and Bush II. Upwards of 13 TRILLION is attributed to those 3 administrations alone!

Republicans have proven they spend WAY MORE than the Democrats ever have…you’re right the numbers do not lie. Spending only matters now because a black democrat is in office. When W was in office, Cheney was quoted as saying, “The deficit doesn’t matter or mean anything.” It’s a political tool. Nothing more. That’s the truth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, the two wars have cost us over $1T THUS FAR….in case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t over. Not to mention the multiplier effects in the economy from our country being at war.

The direct cost of war isn’t the only cost.

• Link
• Report this comment

td wrote: “The progressive courts have said that the clause means the Federal government can control commerce in the US. My personal opinion is that the progressive courts has overstepped its boundaries and the current court will bring this swing back into a more traditional constitutional meaning.”

You should review your case law. The conservative courts have set the presedents. The Commerce Clause is meant to regulate anything that effects interstate commerce. The Health Care industry is 1/6 of our entire economy, so it doesn’t take an economist to understand it is within their control. The mandatory requirement is the only issue, and past case law has stated that individual liberties are not entirely protected from the Federal government’s regulatory powers.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Truth

November 21st, 2011
5:16 pm

Dick Chaney was wrong. Our debt is almost at 100% of our GDP right now. Look at what is happening to Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy right now. You can not be a viable nation when your debt is much more than 100% of GDP. You can not also ask one segment of the population (rich) to pay all of the bills for the rest of society.

What we really need is a discussion in this society about what the role of government should be? What are the primary roles and what are the secondary roles? What can we afford to do and what can we not afford to do?

• Link
• Report this comment

td – We are in agreement. I think Cheney was dead wrong, as I think that spending cuts alone is NOT a viable remedy. Also, corporate tax loopholes need to close.

• Link
• Report this comment

Local Attorney

November 21st, 2011
5:22 pm

The 11th court of appeals decision went into a great deal of detail (by some Dem appointees) and I think the 5 conservative members of the SCOTUS will follow its ruling pretty closely.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

• Link
• Report this comment

“good to have folks like you, local attny, contribute instead of listening to the opinions (well intentioned) of me and td all the time”

I appreciate the sentiment, but it’s opinions of the citizens that make the difference. After all, you all make up the juries that make the ultimate decisions we fight for. The integrity of the judicial system is only as strong as those who particpate in it…lawyers just hope to preserve the law…not determine it.

• Link
• Report this comment

November 21st, 2011
5:28 pm

td wrote: “I can agree that we should cut loopholes out. We should flatten the tax rates and everyone should have pay something (even if it is $1). I also think that everyone should pay something for government medical insurance. Why do we have individuals making 235% of the poverty level not paying a anything for a premium and zero co-pays? Everyone should pay something here also.”

Everyone does pay something…for example, the payroll tax. The Federal Income tax has loopholes for those who make significantly less or not enough for their conditions. That may be what you are referring to, but some can’t afford to pay anything. They literally live by every penny. I am a trial attorney that has worked with the lowest poverty level in Atlanta, and I can speak to this first-hand. The opportunities afforded to some, simply aren’t available to those in very low-income neighborhoods.

As for the medical insurance contribution, I agree. However, there would have to be a public option in order to justify it. We are THE only industrialized nation in the world without a public option in terms of health care. In my opinion, a public option would lower the overall cost of health care in this country, because it would force everyone to contribute (if it was implemented properly)…and eventually, it would lower the overall health concerns of our citizens because it would mean there is more medical treatment…and thereby, lower the overall health care costs in this country. However, this is just a theory, but it does seem logical.

Again, I am not a politician, or an economist. I don’t claim to have any answers. I am a trial attorney, and I don’t have all the answers. I just try to view the world objectively, and explain situations that are subjective, subjectively…especially, when it’s needed. I fight for the rights of those who cannot fight themselves, but I don’t claim to know what’s best for everyone. I don’t know what’s best for everyone…and neither does anyone else.

• Link
• Report this comment

clem – “i don’t have all the answers either, but the wealth disparity is growing and going to be a very serious problem one of these days”

I agree. The inequality of our class of citizens is growing. The rich are only getting richer, and unfortunately, it’s at the expense of the middle and lower classes. It is becoming a very serious problem…which could escalate into more than a voice one day.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] beginning that the super committee was “a truly dumb idea,” and now he gets to say, “Told you so.” The panel’s failure is “good for America,” Gingrich said on Monday, because [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

“Interesting, would you care to elaborate on how you think “the rich” are perpetrating this injustice on the poor and down trodden?”

Corporate greed, deregulations, and tax loopholes. The deregulations, and corporate tax loopholes are hurting the middle class. Deregulations have allowed banking institutions to purposefully bet against failed investments/mortgages that they acquire, and make BILLIONS from it. It’s fraud, and when they are caught, they pay a small fine that doesn’t come close to the profits they made from it. Furthermore, the top 1% are allowed to pay a lower tax rate for capital gains, which is income, but they don’t pay the same income tax as someone making $75k/year. Corporations such as GE made BILLIONS in profits and paid ZERO taxes. These problems shift the burden to the middle and lower class. How do you think the disparity between the rich and the dwindling middle class has increased to such an astronomical level? It’s not because they are working harder…it’s because the system is meant to benefit them at the expense of the middle class.

• Link
• Report this comment