Gang of Six Debt Ceiling Proposal (merged)

#3
#3
sc110714.gif


varvel.jpg
 
#4
#4
I fully realize that there's a lot to be worked out, but why shouldn't I like what I'm hearing from it so far?
 
#9
#9
The the big drawback to me is how much of it is unwritten and will be "worked out" in the future. Sounds a lot like "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
The the big drawback to me is how much of it is unwritten and will be "worked out" in the future. Sounds a lot like "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
Click to expand...


Which is astoundingly ironic considering that the resolution passed last night has NO detail in it, AT ALL.

The TP is not going to abide the Gang of Six plan because it raises taxes along with making cuts. Although the cuts are 3-1 over any tax increases, the fundamental problem is that you have so many people in the House who have signed off on and locked themselves into the no tax increase pledge.

The proposal for tax code reform and three brackets is an attempt to give them an out. They can go home and say, well, there was going to be an increase but at least this way we have simplified the code and created more confidence, etc.

But in the end I'm not sure that's enough political cover to get enough votes to pass the House.

The barricade right now to coming up with a responsible plan to meaningfully reduce the deficit is the TP, and everybody knows it. I think in the end there will be a short term compromise. But the Dems are going to make their 2012 platform running against Cantor and Ryan.

And I think the GOP establishment is pretty darn worried about that.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
The the big drawback to me is how much of it is unwritten and will be "worked out" in the future. Sounds a lot like "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
Click to expand...

Has there been a plan yet (other than the Back in Black plan) that has any detail to it?

It seems to be the best option presented yet that calls for give and take from both sides. Now, it's entirely possible in the next 48 hours it goes to crap, but as of now I like it.
 
#12
#12
golfballs03 said:
What are the differences between it and the Cut, Cap, & Balance Bill??
Click to expand...

they want to raise taxes between 1-2 trillion. If anything like a typical dem bill, it will probably be in the range of 2-3 trillion in tax hikes.

if obama and Reid likes the plan, then it's bad for America.
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
The the big drawback to me is how much of it is unwritten and will be "worked out" in the future. Sounds a lot like "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
Click to expand...

+1

It is filled with political cowardice, IMO.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Which is astoundingly ironic considering that the resolution passed last night has NO detail in it, AT ALL.

The TP is not going to abide the Gang of Six plan because it raises taxes along with making cuts. Although the cuts are 3-1 over any tax increases, the fundamental problem is that you have so many people in the House who have signed off on and locked themselves into the no tax increase pledge.

The proposal for tax code reform and three brackets is an attempt to give them an out. They can go home and say, well, there was going to be an increase but at least this way we have simplified the code and created more confidence, etc.

But in the end I'm not sure that's enough political cover to get enough votes to pass the House.

The barricade right now to coming up with a responsible plan to meaningfully reduce the deficit is the TP, and everybody knows it. I think in the end there will be a short term compromise. But the Dems are going to make their 2012 platform running against Cantor and Ryan.

And I think the GOP establishment is pretty darn worried about that.
Click to expand...

taking 1-3 trillion dollars from the private economy in this recession is a horrible idea. if you think companies aren't hiring now, wait until their taxes go up.

this gang of 6 is another bunch of rinos going against America's best interest. ( i know dems are apart of it, but it's given they're against America's best interest)
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
The the big drawback to me is how much of it is unwritten and will be "worked out" in the future. Sounds a lot like "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
Click to expand...

how many bills are going to be passed before it is written. how can any of your people on here support this BS. how much pork will slide into this bill?

if they're consistant, this "reduction" will go from 3 trillion to under 2 trillion once the actual # are finished.
 
#16
#16
joevol320 said:
they want to raise taxes between 1-2 trillion. If anything like a typical dem bill, it will probably be in the range of 2-3 trillion in tax hikes.

if obama and Reid likes the plan, then it's bad for America.
Click to expand...

the plan calls for revenue increases; not tax rate increases. On this point I'm fine since the proposal is similar to the Bowles/Simpson one of simplifying the tax code and lowering rates while eliminating loopholes.

IIRC, part of the $1 trillion in additional revenue from the plan is calculated based on economic growth increases; not the result of more taxation.
 
#17
#17
I'll put it this way.

1. It's better than the McConnell plan since it does force some short term cuts.
2. It moves us towards tax reform which is a positive
3. If the changes to entitlement spending actually occur (highly doubtful) it is a step in the right direction.

My main worry is that all the real savings only come about after some Congressional committees hammer out some real plan. They say there are measures to force this happening (targets that require 67 votes to invalidate) but color me skeptical.
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
the plan calls for revenue increases; not tax rate increases. On this point I'm fine since the proposal is similar to the Bowles/Simpson one of simplifying the tax code and lowering rates while eliminating loopholes.

IIRC, part of the $1 trillion in additional revenue from the plan is calculated based on economic growth increases; not the result of more taxation.
Click to expand...

but if the economic growth doesn't increase as estimated, we don't cut the debt.

do you really think libs are going to simplify the tax code?

obama increase our bebt by almost 2 trillion in 2+years in office. yet people are going crazy with the House attempts to cut 3 trillion over a 10 year period.

do you really these cuts will help our economy? this is folley, we're putting a band aid on a severed vein. we're way beyond the point of no return.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
the plan calls for revenue increases; not tax rate increases. On this point I'm fine since the proposal is similar to the Bowles/Simpson one of simplifying the tax code and lowering rates while eliminating loopholes.

IIRC, part of the $1 trillion in additional revenue from the plan is calculated based on economic growth increases; not the result of more taxation.
Click to expand...

I also believe there is a part to cut corporate tax rates as well.

I am interested to see what "loopholes" they attempt to close.

FYI - the reason the tax code is so think now is because of the desire to close "loopholes".
 
#20
#20
I have yet to read the Gang of Six plan (are they reading VN by chance)? Here is a good litmus test:

1. Is military spending being cut by > 25%. Is the War Budget being written into the books at long last?

2. Where does the extra revenue come from? Growth?

3. Is there any changes to the tax code regarding speculation? Are tax havens being eliminated? What loopholes, exactly, are being closed?

4. Are corporate entitlements being cut first? Are corporate taxes being increased or decreased?

If these questions aren't addressed seriously in the GoS plan, then it isn't serious.

Again, the real concern here is the IOUs in the Trust Funds, mismanaged for years by both Dems and Repubs (but certainly accelerated under Repubs), might be called due. This is the real "debt" problem. I'm sure this remains absolutely unmentioned in the GoS plan - another clear indication of its lack of seriousness.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Increased revenue based on growth would obviously be speculative, at best, and would be a way to give the TP what it wants but let Obama and the Dems speak in terms of revenue increases.

It still kicks the can down the road. Just not as far.
 
#22
#22
as i say, we are way beyond the point of no return.

the debt decrease will end up being a drop in the bucket and if/when obama is elected again and majority changes, those cuts will be nil.

we are borrowing 180 million dollars an our hour. no amount of tax increases will cut this to the point that it will help America.
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
It still kicks the can down the road. Just not as far.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. It manages to give everyone an out.

As soon as I saw Saxby Chambliss' name as a sponsor, knew wish washiness would follow.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
tigervol9802 said:
I also believe there is a part to cut corporate tax rates as well.

I am interested to see what "loopholes" they attempt to close.

FYI - the reason the tax code is so think now is because of the desire to close "loopholes".
Click to expand...

Yes - that's my understanding. It is a broadening and flattening of the tax code while eliminating loopholes and things like the AMT.

@LG - I agree the revenue from growth is speculative. At this point that doesn't bother me because I believe the tax code changes will result in better growth than we currently have and is currently baked into future budget protections.

I believe this also takes a hit at Obama care but I can't recall how
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top