Archive for Monday, August 22, 2011

GOP may OK tax increase Obama hopes to block

August 22, 2011

Advertisement

— News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.

GOP long-term goal

There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

“It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn,” says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, “but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.” The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.

At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don’t recognize because they don’t read, or don’t understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

Obama’s stance

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama’s request to reduce the workers’ share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers’ rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. “There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend,” he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker’s wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it’s renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, “no matter how well-intended,” will push the deficit higher, making the panel’s task that much harder, Camp’s office said.

Debate about the issue

But Republican lawmakers haven’t always worried about tax cuts increasing the deficit. They led the fight to extend the life of a much bigger tax break: the major 2001 income tax reduction enacted under Bush. It was scheduled to expire at the start of this year. Obama campaigned on a pledge to end the tax break only for the richest Americans, but solid GOP opposition forced him to back down.

Many Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes but largely silent on what it would mean to let the payroll tax break expire.

Republicans cite key differences between the two “temporary” taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it’s better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.

“We don’t need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., “has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy,” said spokesman Brad Dayspring.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers.

Wait-and-see approaches

Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks.

Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.

Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he “would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side” to spur job growth, his campaign said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans will fall under increasing pressure to extend the payroll tax cut. If they refuse, he said in a recent speech, “we’re going to end up in a position where we’re going to raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans the day they go to work.”

Comments

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Of course the GOP wants to keep taxing the "little guy". Those 47% who are sooooo oppressive to the wealthy just can't be allowed to continue being such big meanies. That just doesn't jibe with the Republican "up is down" universe.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Dear Leader's found a tax hike he doesn't like? Inconceivable!

jonas_opines 3 years, 8 months ago

You might take a thought on either putting in more thought before posting, or perhaps putting more thought in about where you decide to post.

Because you just sound like a fool here, snap, after the last two years of your posts. Perhaps that is your goal.

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

"Dear Leader"

Translation:

Blacks should know their place and stay there.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 8 months ago

And the same goes for you poor people, or "consumers" as you are affectionately called these days, too.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

So Republicans are hypocrites. Whoodathunkit? But hypocrisy is required to carry out class warfare.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 8 months ago

Class warfare might look something like this: One class of people imposing it's will upon another. "the rich" (one class) say we're broke, so "the poor" (another class) "must" (the imposition) "pay" (what is being imposed). Yup. Class Warfare.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

Class warfare has been going on in the USA for 30 years...the problem is, nobody ever told the poor and middle classes.

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Crazy_Larry: "Class warfare has been going on in the USA for 30 years"

No. Class warfare has been going on much longer than that. The progressive movement of the 1890s was the middle class response to oppression by the robber barons.

The New Deal was the victory of the middle class and the poor over the wealthy. The result was the single largest increase in the wealth of a nation in human history.

Now some of the rich want to go back to the good old days of the robber barons. We need to wake up and not let that happen.

Centerville 3 years, 8 months ago

We need to decide whether Social Security is to be a welfare plan or a supplemental retirement plan. If we opt for the latter, then payouts should continue to be commensurate with contributions. Lower contributions - lower payout. Simple.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Wow, according to the yearly statement I used to get (before I actually started drawing SS), it detailed my contributions and what my expected payout would be based on my contributions. Just when did that change?

Carol Bowen 3 years, 8 months ago

Payout is the average of 35 years of annual income. That includes years with zero income. Payout already is commensurate with contributions.

jonas_opines 3 years, 8 months ago

Your distribution of blame is strikingly one-sided and your memory seems to stop in January of 2009. Explain how that makes you any different than those whose distribution of blame is one-side and stopped paying attention after December of 2008.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

What about the spending orgy BushCo. implemented? Doubling the national debt in 8 years was no easy feat and should not be overlooked as a source of our demise.

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

Abolish the income tax. Pass the FairTax.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

A truly graduated income tax is the only "fair tax" in an economic system that is unfair, by design.

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Woo hoo! Lets go back to the 1880s when children worked in factories, the elderly starved in the streets, railroad and oil monopolies fixed prices across the board!

While we are at it, go back to the gold standard! Why, gold could go to $10,000/ounce!

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

This article isn't about the income tax, tbaker. It's about FICA and Social Security contributions. Which is one of the things I find puzzling about the Republican objection to it; employers won't be and haven't been paying anymore in contributions than what they already are and have been all along. So why do they object?

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

a. I'm not a republican CAIT. b. Calling them contributions is merely using a warm and fuzzy label. FICA and Social Security are taxes, plain and simple. A contribution is voluntary. If you fail to pay FICA and Social Security, men with guns will come and force you to. c. Check out the FairTax. It replaces ALL taxes on income - including FICA and Social Security.

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

And why is taxing consumption any more "fair" than taxing income?

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

Why is that more fair?

It's just different, as far as I can tell.

People who earn less pay less now in income taxes as well.

And some get income tax rebates.

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

Jafs - That is an EXCELLENT question. Here is some cut and paste from fairtax.org. I encourage you to keep reading. This is not a conservative or liberal idea.

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces. [1] The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan. [2] Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case. [3] Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10. [4] The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be. [4] Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place. [4] The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted. [4] By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent. [4] Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system. [5] Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively. [6] Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax. [7] Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20. [8] On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base. [9]
The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent. [10]

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

Those are interesting numbers, but there seem to be quite a few assumptions in them.

For example, it assumes that a broader base with lower rates is fairer than another system.

It assumes that there will be a corresponding increase in consumption if people have more income.

It assumes more charitable giving.

And, sales taxes are widely understood to be regressive, not progressive, so the claim that this would be a more progressive tax is odd.

For me, the question remains - on what basis is taxing consumption a "fairer" idea than taxing income?

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

Rather than parse each of your statements - which are all thoughtful and important - please go to the site and read the research. Each of the statements has a citation number in [ ] behind it. Those hyperlink to the resarch. The FairTax is hands-down the most researched tax idea out there. Over $20M has been spent on this work. Every economic idea in the world is based on theory and assumption; the FairTax is no different. This is peer-reviewed, scholarly work though. I encourage you to study the idea.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

NABE-- National Association for Business Economics.

So it was a survey of one particular set of economists, and a group that is probably more business/corporate oriented than economists in general.

Just saying.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

Yeah, no stuff Sherlock Holmes... We spend more on defense than the rest of the world COMBINED! Spending problem, indeed.

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

rockchalk1977 - "Social Security disability on verge of insolvency."

Maybe wage earners should pay social security taxes on their entire check.

Right now the rich only pay on the first $106,800 of income. After that, no Social Security taxes are paid.

The rest of us pay on 100% of our income, why shouldn't they?

Centerville 3 years, 8 months ago

Just like the feds stuck the Post Office with an unsupportable pension obligation, so the feds have stuck Social Security Retirement with an unsupportable disability benefit system that has become the next stop after unemployment compensation runs out.

It's the insane spending that is tucked into otherwise worthwhile endeavors. Very clever. Designed for collapse.

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

Wow!

Now when the president tries to trim government spending, he gets criticized for that as well.

There's just nothing he could do to please some people.

Aren't you guys the same ones who are always complaining about government spending and overpaid government employees?

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Well ya know, if Obama came out in support of breathing the GOP would suffocate themselves in protest.

jonas_opines 3 years, 8 months ago

Party over everything! All that matters is the party!

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Rather telling that the picture with the article shows someone with a shopping bag from Gucci. if the fact that some hedge fund trader can't spend 2 grand on a handbag is "lack of consumer confidence" this country is in bigger trouble than a lot of people think.

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

Can you explain how his cutting government spending, which is something the right is always calling for, gets criticism rather than praise from you?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

There's no pleasing the sockpuppets around here who're paid to frequent web-sites such as this in order to push their owner's points of view.

Centerville 3 years, 8 months ago

5% off this year's spending is a good start. No one is complaining about that. Let's just see if the Executive Office submits such a thing...and who draws the straw to tell Moochelle.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

"Moochelle"? That really is a cheap shot. Should I call Brownback's wife "HairyMary"? Oh wait, was that the recess bell? I think it's time to go in. (So what is Beck calling Obama's kids these days?)

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

I used to think the Republican Party was smart, but then they started giving us Presidential candidates like Bush, Palin, Backmann, Perry, McCain...

Whatever happened to all the smart guys.

Look at Liimbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Rove,

Not a one with a college degree.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Gates was an entrepreneur who hit it big, not a politician or a "hate" media host. Enough said.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

Really? Then why do they all belong to AFTRA? (A little fact they all forgot to mention back when Scott Walker was union busting.)

tomatogrower 3 years, 8 months ago

They produce nothing. Gates produces and he spreads his wealth.

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

I think it is time to close down Congress and start over with a completely new group and a completely different attitude.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

The best thing that could happen to this country would be for all the politicians to gather in Washington DC then have it simultaneously obliterated by a nuclear bomb along with Wall Street.

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Not so much. I think the financial system would tank and it is likely the states would go to war. The value of the dollar would effectively go to zero, wiping out the savings of the entire nation.

That said, if it was a limited nuclear strike and we stood together as a unified people - invaded the culprit and drove their army into the sea, it might be a good thing.

WWII effectively ended the great depression and sewed the seeds of the greates period of growth and prosperity the world has ever seen.

I miss the greatest generation. Where are the Dole's, Nixon's, Regan's? All gone. What we are left with is a pile of squabbling spoiled children. The Baby Boomers are ruining our nation.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

Seriously? Nixon & Reagan? Two of the biggest scumbag politicians this country has ever seen.

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Notice how all the usual Republican party supporters are completely -- and I mean completely! -- avoiding the specifics of this story.

Republicans are appearing to be in favor of allowing a tax cut to expire that would have the greatest impact on the middle and working classes. Why would this possibly be a good thing if the same isn't true for the wealthy? Instead of answering this, we get people calling Michelle Obama degrading names and the typical hysteria. Sad.

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Their corporate masters at FOX News haven't told them to be mad about this, so they aren't.

It is nice having a 24/7 propaganda machine that drives the national media focus. You can blur over the stuff you don't want to highlight and only the very, very few folks who read the news regularly will know about it.

usnsnp 3 years, 8 months ago

All tax exemptions and subsidies should be looked at. Each should be judged on their merits and not on how much the people or buisness donate to the politicians. As for free speach, there is nothing wrong with it, except when you only tell the part that favors you or you call people names because they do not agree with you. Has anybody head the saying, lying by obmision in the legal system you can go to jail for doing this. Free speach also means being responsible for what you say, and if someone catches you in a mistake, owning up to it not calling people names.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

So was any phone hacking involved in these stories? :P

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

rockchalk, what does this have to do with this board? Are you saying that anything you say is okay because a Democrat somewhere said something ugly? Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

And more importanly, what does any of this have to do with Republicans wanting to end tax breaks for middle and working class Americans? Why are you not arguing either for the merits of such a move, or recognizing that this would be in conflict with Republican rhetoric?

Richard Heckler 3 years, 8 months ago

Most all elected officials do not know how to grow an economy which is evident in the no new industry, no new jobs and no new economic growth policy the repubs represent.

KILL the Bush tax cuts across the board completely.

The repub zero economic growth and crime spree background looks something like this:

Ahh yes the lovely repub history that repub candidates never discuss yet repeats itself no matter what which does include Nixon's Watergate and Reagan/Bush secret weapons deal working with Iran as a partner can we say Iran Contra.

Introducing the colorful RINO Plaftorm Written In Stone:

The RINO party has a long history of economic destruction and crime to include Iran-Contra and Watergate. Like or not a consistent and disturbing pattern has developed by their choosing.

STOP electing RINO’s ! My My father in law left the RINO party because he is a fiscal conservative republican with at least 50 years under his belt. Evermore stunning he is working with the democrat party in Pennsylvania.

After spending so so many decades in Washington D.C on tax dollar payrolls RINO’s are sure they learned all they needed to know about OUR money and founding reckless economies. RINO’s have much reckless economics experience under their belts that they never quit sharing.

Introducing the RINO Plaftorm Written In Stone:

  1. TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros sells out state governments http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

  2. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion) http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  3. Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers under Bush/Cheney sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$$ trillions and millions of jobs. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  4. ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

Tax cuts which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs.

  1. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

  • Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

  • Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

You've only posted this twice so far today? Are you finally getting tired of seeing this set of links over and over and over on this award-winning website, merrill?

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 8 months ago

This gets funnier by the day. Do it again again merrill! :D

George Lippencott 3 years, 8 months ago

Now let me understand this

The SS trust fund full of boinds and not dollars. We see a massive impact on the general fund to pay back the bonds. Now we want to continue a policy of not paying into the fund the legal contribution so the pay back will be even larger. And somehow the Tea party is a problem??

Sounds to me like the Repubs have it right. Pay what is owed into SS. The Dem seem to want to move more of the costs of SS to the general fund (where most of it will be soon) so that the progressive tax system (except for the rich) will absolve the bottom half of the population of contributing to SS in full measure? More wealth redistribution from the middle to the so called "poor".

Endless Democratic mantra "tax the rich" but when the rubber meets the road they tax the middle. Wow!

afred 3 years, 8 months ago

"Now we want to continue a policy of not paying into the fund the legal contribution so the pay back will be even larger."

Which is why Dems also want to see a more progressive tax structure on the wealthy that contributes to the general fund. The Repubs oppose this. The Repubs do not have it right.

"the progressive tax system (except for the rich) will absolve the bottom half of the population of contributing to SS in full measure"

Democrat agenda is all about eliminating the "(except for the rich)" exception.

"More wealth redistribution from the middle to the so called 'poor'."

Why are the poor "so called"?

"Endless Democratic mantra 'tax the rich' but when the rubber meets the road they tax the middle."

Again, the Dem agenda is greater tax relief for those who need it the most, and elimination of tax relief for those who don't need it at all.

If there is rubber meeting the road anywhere, it is the rubber soles of the right wing of the GOP dragging their feet as they refuse.... refuse.... refuse... refuse.... refuse... refuse.... refuse... (annoying isn't it?)... to allow Democrats and moderate Republicans to work together and make sensible changes to the tax structure in an effort to craft a more equitable system.

George Lippencott 3 years, 8 months ago

Afred said Again, the Dem agenda is greater tax relief for those who need it the most, and elimination of tax relief for those who don't need it at all.

Moderate Responds: Wow, as I said. Tax the middle and give to the so called "poor". They are so called because they are not poor by definition but by Democratic party mantra. Who needs it the most - half the population not paying FITW ??? Who does not need it - people between $55K and $250K already paying close to 40% of their income as taxes???

afred 3 years, 8 months ago

None of the right wingers on here will acknowledge the GOP hypocrisy because the cognitive dissonance would melt their hive brain.

This could cause a chain reaction, travelling up their umbilical cords to Faux News headquarters and cause a complete and total meltdown of the right wing media machine.

Without an ubiquitous megaphone perpetuating the right wing ideology through a constant stream of slanted half truths and outright propaganda, the inflated echo chambers that house a significant population of gullible U.S. citizens would very likely collapse.

Forced to find their own voice, they would inevitably start voting for policies that actually benefit themselves, rather than the billionaire "business friendly" benefactors that have been supporting and enabling their NeoCon addiction for the last 40 years.

And then, of course, said billionaire benefactors would likely have their taxes raised, and would thus make fewer billions than they currently are.

Let me repeat that. Fewer. Billions.

Could you imagine?!?! This would be a tragedy of epic proportions. Tragic times 10 to the 10th power (i.e. times 10 Billion).

And that is why none of the right wingers on here will acknowledge the GOP hypocrisy.

nschwerm 3 years, 8 months ago

The ol' reverse psychology trick. Well played Obama.

George Lippencott 3 years, 8 months ago

I support taxing the rich and agree with you that such a revenue increase should be on the table. So should the standard deduction.

When the Dems put a package a kin to what Mr Ryan did then we can negotiate. Now I don't agree with Mr. Ryan but there is no other option except "tax the rich" whatever thta means. If it is the 3.5% increase Mr. Obama touts it will raise $70B per year. We need close to a trillion to stop the dept from growing!!!!!!

I see a Democratic party avoidance of the pain that needs to be addressed by throwing rocks at the republicans. How about we trade bigger cuts in Democratic Party Entitlement Programs for tax increases, Maybe we can put AmeircaCorp (SP) on the table? How about never ending welfare. How about SSI for people not really handicapped. I can go on.

Your argumnet is very one sided and is a repeat of talking points that are growing older by the day. How about the argumne that we are taxed at the lowest level since 1950 - a canard if I ever saw one.

Compromise starts with agreed upon facts.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 8 months ago

Let's add bottomless welfare for defense contractors and reckless handouts to oppressive foreign regimes to the list, please.

Also, the federal government should be able to negotiate pricing for prescription drugs with drug manufacturers, please.

How about we end the subsidy of oil and gas exploration.

Let's end pensions for military employees.

George Lippencott 3 years, 8 months ago

Agree with you. Is your proposal to reneg on agreements made with past military employees or just with those in the future. The Obama administration is considering a change yo that retirement system to some thing a kin to a 401K

ljwhirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Why would the Democrats make additional sacrifices for the poor and middle class when the wealthy have yet to make a single meaningful sacrifice to save our economy in this time of trouble.

Have you noticed that American Corporations (our wealthiest "people") are sitting on huge piles of cash? They could be using this to hire people and put America back to work, but instead they are sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone else to fix the problem.

If they won't help us to fix the economy and provide for the common welfare, we should simply tax the funds, then take them and use them to put people back to work. A modern day CCC project.

This is one of the ways we got out of the great depression. The other way was through massive government borrowing and the hiring of 10,000,000 Americans to serve in the war effort.

I'd rather we borrow to build the infrastructure of tomorrow, than ammunition, bombs, warplanes, etc. The infrastructure will pay back for generations.

The problem with the economy is that the stimulus was too small, but I don't have to say that, we are all going to find out the hard way as the US slips further and further into the second great correction. See you in 10 years when we are in this same (or worse) place.

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

This one is odd.

Republicans arguing to allow this tax cut to expire, but calling for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts is very contradictory.

At the same time, given the problems with SS, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to have less going into the system.

That will just make the problems with SS worse over time, not more sustainable.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.